Mujabad123 wrote:
IQ wise, they seem pretty much comparable. In handling, the Sony seems “better”(?). AF on the Sony looks a bit slow and not really necessary for macro. Don’t think it’s necessary for slide copying either. I can try the Sony, but it’s difficult to find a copy of the Voigtlander where I live. I would probably have to order it through the internet. More hassle.
I’ll keep thinking.
I’m not sure what size copy work you are doing, but the Sigma 70mm Art is an excellent macro alternative to the CV and Sony. I sold the Sigma to get the CV and if I didn’t need the longer focal length for what I was doing, I May not have sold the Sigma.
Thank you for your advice.
I would like to do 1:1 macro of flowers/insects/abstracts/etc. (preferably mostly handheld), and digitizing my 35mm framed slides (have too many that I haven’t seen in years). Might do a few 35mm B/W and colour film as well. Copy stand/light plate together with a 1:1 macro lens on my A7RIV should work for this.
I also like to have a larger working distance than a 50mm macro can provide (I’ve tried such a macro lens years ago and the working distance was unworkable for me).
If I may ask, why did you need a longer focal length?
The minimum lens working distance of the VC110mm is 7 inches. The Sony 90mm is slightly less than 5 inches. The Sigma 70mm Art is slightly less than 3 inches which is a reason I sold mine. I did some more tests today with both the Voigtlander and the Sony. The VC photos just have that added sparkle or perhaps due to a contrast difference. But my hit rate with the Sony is much better and it’s more of a pleasure to use be it in af or even manual focus.
I have also been looking at closeup lens Nisi set up for my Sony 100-400mm G but then my working distance shrinks from 3 feet to 10-12 inches. Also I have to shoot in that range only. Brought back memories of why I hated closeup filters.
I’m keeping both for the time being.
Thnxs Guitarcmf. More pleasure and a higher hit rate. That’s ofcourse important. So also af is really usefull in 1:1 shooting(?). Why more pleasure? Maybe that extra sparkle/contrast can be added in post? I thought that in mf the Voigtlander would be “easier” (longer focus throw?), and af is not very usefull in macro. I guess I’m wrong then.
On what camera do you use these lenses?
I use an A7r4. By more fun I mean you don’t have to work as hard. Yes autofocus works at 1:1 and yes it misses a lots but at lot less than moving back and forth trying to bring into focus manually. Of course I’m talking hand held and a good amount of the time with a flash. Yes, if you have the luxury of the use of a tripod with an almost necessarily dead critter then manual focus is the preferred way with any of them. The convenience of how the Sony can be shifted into manual is ingenious. The Voigtlander manual focus is fantastic, you hold that lens and it exudes quality. It makes the Sony look and feel like a budget lens.lol. It’s optical quality is sharp edge to edge even wide open. But I find myself having to focus through the viewfinder using the magnifier aid of my camera in order to do good. And when you are chasing a bee or other critter that becomes a lot of work and very hard to do. You have split seconds before it moves on to another flower etc. In this scenario autofocus increases your chances or perhaps your only chance.
I like walking thru the woods handholding my rig and snapping away. Much of the time I’m holding the camera at arms length using the monitor as my aim sight. Autofocus is a godsend for that methodology and probably 3x the hit rate to using a macro on manual focus. I have been one day taking only the VC110, the next the Sony 90mm and finally the 100-400 in a rotation.
I come home with more good pix with the Sony.....meaning focus wise. I am though in my sixties and it’s around 95 degrees and high humidity here in Florida and anything more effortless is a lot more fun for me. My Sony 100-400 gets me down to 1:3 and let’s me get butterflies a lot easier, and always using autofocus. I actually could make do with my zoom only except for lots of things that you NEED to get close to physically or greater magnification. You really need both.
In summary the end result can be indistinguishable with all these macro lenses it’s just how you got there and how OCD your personality is.
If you want the absolute best quality photo And a precision crafted lens get the VC110........but you will have to work a little harder but when you nail it you know you have the absolute best image possible.
If want an almost absolute best quality just about indistinguishable from above but with the additional focus aid of autofocus helping you come home with a greater number of in-focus photos to pick from get the Sony.
If you are on a budget get the Sigma 70mm Art which in my tests it’s better than the Sony on edge to edge sharpness if you can work around the 3 inch lens working distance. Everyone denigrates its autofocus motor but at least it does autofocus fairly well.
Guitarcmf wrote:
I use an A7r4. By more fun I mean you don’t have to work as hard. Yes autofocus works at 1:1 and yes it misses a lots but at lot less than moving back and forth trying to bring into focus manually. Of course I’m talking hand held and a good amount of the time with a flash. Yes, if you have the luxury of the use of a tripod with an almost necessarily dead critter then manual focus is the preferred way with any of them. The convenience of how the Sony can be shifted into manual is ingenious. The Voigtlander manual focus is fantastic, you hold that lens and it exudes quality. It makes the Sony look and feel like a budget lens.lol. It’s optical quality is sharp edge to edge even wide open. But I find myself having to focus through the viewfinder using the magnifier aid of my camera in order to do good. And when you are chasing a bee or other critter that becomes a lot of work and very hard to do. You have split seconds before it moves on to another flower etc. In this scenario autofocus increases your chances or perhaps your only chance.
I like walking thru the woods handholding my rig and snapping away. Much of the time I’m holding the camera at arms length using the monitor as my aim sight. Autofocus is a godsend for that methodology and probably 3x the hit rate to using a macro on manual focus. I have been one day taking only the VC110, the next the Sony 90mm and finally the 100-400 in a rotation.
I come home with more good pix with the Sony.....meaning focus wise. I am though in my sixties and it’s around 95 degrees and high humidity here in Florida and anything more effortless is a lot more fun for me. My Sony 100-400 gets me down to 1:3 and let’s me get butterflies a lot easier, and always using autofocus. I actually could make do with my zoom only except for lots of things that you NEED to get close to physically or greater magnification. You really need both.
In summary the end result can be indistinguishable with all these macro lenses it’s just how you got there and how OCD your personality is.
If you want the absolute best quality photo And a precision crafted lens get the VC110........but you will have to work a little harder but when you nail it you know you have the absolute best image possible.
If want an almost absolute best quality just about indistinguishable from above but with the additional focus aid of autofocus helping you come home with a greater number of in-focus photos to pick from get the Sony.
If you are on a budget get the Sigma 70mm Art which in my tests it’s better than the Sony on edge to edge sharpness if you can work around the 3 inch lens working distance. Everyone denigrates its autofocus motor but at least it does autofocus fairly well.
Thnxs Guitarcmf and bjornthun. Still keep going back and forth between Voigtlander an Sony. But “more easy” and “more keepers” are important to me. Especially when IQ is “about indistinguishable “ from the Voigtlander. Buying both lenses is not an option. Too much to carry, too much money and I just start with macro photography (insects/nature/structures...and digitalizing many of my slides). I like quality and (almost) perfection in things I buy (I can imagine the Voigtlander has such high build quality. That would probably be my first choice, for that reason. But then...if it gets frustrating to work with...maybe then I should follow more rational reasoning).
One more question...does AF-C (tracking) work in 1:1? Experiences?
Mujabad- 70mm is nice for medium format slides however for 35mm you are going to get to MFD before you fill half of the frame with your slide, so you will waste a lot of MP. The CV will not have that issue.
For other uses, the poster above who talked about working distance summed it up pretty well. Very dedicated macro photographers might have all three lenses (maybe swapping the 70mm for a 55mm). Shorter focal lengths are good for product photography and longer ones are better for insects and other small things that scare easily if you get too close.
Yes the CV feels wonderful in your hand but if you new to macro the 90mm might be your best choice. It’s a good middle ground and while the importance of AF is debatable (using your distance limiter is a good start), a lot of these questions you’ll answer for yourself once you get started. You can absolutely use either lens for something other than macro.
For the above-mentioned macro lenses, the hierarchy is as follows:
I had a Sony 90, a Sigma 70 Art x 2, a Laowa 100 x 2 and a VC 110.
The Sony 90 is less sharp on a 1: 1 scale than the VC 110, the VC in the distance is very sharp, the sharpest of all. The Sigma is sharper than the Sony in macro and distance, but less sharp than the VC 110. Laowa in macro is second to none. In the distance, it is at the level of Sigma.
Sony was the least sharp overall, maybe it's a copy, I don't know. For the macro, I would choose the Laowa 100, for distances it would be the VC 110 and then the Sigma.
As a universal lens, I would choose the VC 110. From a distance it is sharper than anything I tested.
If you want to play a little more extreme macro, I suggest Laowa 25 macro. A phenomenal and cheap lens. You only need to select the appropriate copy. I chose from three.
Thnxs Corposant and Besar. Mixed reports everywhere😊. To be expected ofcourse . I don’t think I’ll use a macro for anything else than macro. Don’t like no communication with camera, but maybe that’s not a problem for macro. There seems to be significant copy variation (especially with the 90mm Sony). Ease of use/sharpness are important. I’ll have to think again (but maybe not be too hesitant)
If your main application is to be macro, I sincerely recommend the Laowa 100 f / 2.8. It doesn't have the same contrast and colors as the VC 110, but that's not a problem, it can be improved in post-production.
You have a 2: 1 mapping too.
I chose from two copies. The difference was slight, but it was.
How is your experience with the absence of any communication with the camera body (A7RIV in my case)? What about ease of use in 1:1? Handheld ?
2:1 sounds nice, but with the A7RIV I can also crop a lot.
Seems to me that the 60mp sensor in my camera can be much more critical to slight movement and getting razor sharp images, than cameras with less mp.
