Arty73 wrote:
Perhaps the 110 apo is not the most suitable lens for making portraits, but I am curious how that would turn out instead of a more common 85mm 1.4
Can't find much about it on the internet, is there someone dedicated with portraits and the 110 apo?
Manual focus and no OSS, limited to f/2.5, why bother with it for portraits? The only advantages I could see for its APOidness would be in the forensics "portraiture" field. Plus there you don't need AF and OSS, the subjects use to be very still.
vdo1 wrote:
Manual focus and no OSS, limited to f/2.5, why bother with it for portraits? The only advantages I could see for its APOidness would be in the forensics "portraiture" field. Plus there you don't need AF and OSS, the subjects use to be very still.
vdo1 wrote:
Manual focus and no OSS, limited to f/2.5, why bother with it for portraits? The only advantages I could see for its APOidness would be in the forensics "portraiture" field. Plus there you don't need AF and OSS, the subjects use to be very still.
In studio with strobes and something like a Zeiss Planar 100mm f/2 was historically popular for portraits. You don't really need AF or OS.
Arty73 wrote:
Perhaps the 110 apo is not the most suitable lens for making portraits, but I am curious how that would turn out instead of a more common 85mm 1.4
Can't find much about it on the internet, is there someone dedicated with portraits and the 110 apo?
It would be awesome, for the most part. You would get the great image quality & rendering for portraits too.
The big issue is focusing, even if you are very comfortable with MF, the macro nature of the lens means that the focus range you would use in portraiture has a very short focus throw on the focus ring, so it would be doubly difficult, still doable, but not ideal ^
In my opinion a hobbyist, who is very good at manual focusing could happily make do with the 110 apo as their only medium telephoto lens, but it's not for everyone.
vdo1 wrote:
and no OSS, limited to f/2.5, why bother with it for portraits? The only advantages I could see for its APOidness would be in the forensics "portraiture" field. Plus there you don't need AF and OSS, the subjects use to be very still.
Personally I think f2.5 is fast enough for most portraiture work at that focal length, too fast for some. APO means it would have very little longitudinal CA, how is that not an advantage for portraiture, or anything shot wide open really? OSS is hardly a must. IBIS still works okay on my russian 135mm lens and that has no electronic contacts + longer focal length..
Sinasina wrote:
It would be awesome, for the most part. You would get the great image quality & rendering for portraits too.
The big issue is focusing, even if you are very comfortable with MF, the macro nature of the lens means that the focus range you would use in portraiture has a very short focus throw on the focus ring, so it would be doubly difficult, still doable, but not ideal ^
In my opinion a hobbyist, who is very good at manual focusing could happily make do with the 110 apo as their only medium telephoto lens, but it's not for everyone.
Personally I think f2.5 is fast enough for most portraiture work at that focal length, too fast for some. APO means it would have very little longitudinal CA, how is that not an advantage for portraiture, or anything shot wide open really? OSS is hardly a must. IBIS still works okay on my russian 135mm lens and that has no electronic contacts + longer focal length.....Show more →
The GM 135 has very low CA too, plus all the other goodies. And so does the Batis 135mm if max aperture 2.8 is ok with you. I've heard Eye AF is a blast with them.
Arty73 wrote:
Perhaps the 110 apo is not the most suitable lens for making portraits, but I am curious how that would turn out instead of a more common 85mm 1.4
Makes an ideal FL for tighter portraits and apo correction avoids fringing on speculars (catchlights, jewelry). I shoot such portraits at f/5.6. The defocus color correction is astounding which is why I want to acquire this C/V even though I own plenty of primes near this FL. As noted, manual focus is the main drawback for portrait use.
They chose well moving from 125mm to 110mm, some might agree. For portraits it splits the modern trend to long (135mm) and traditional (85-90mm), and yes even street portraits are often full of annoying speculars, jewellery, reflections etc. Not much lens extension at 2-3m. I really like how the APOs pick up reflections, so clean. And a lot of 'casts' turn out to be the lens's ability to depict reflections. It's fascinating how much content is added by our regular lenses.
Hi, can anybody share your experience between this lens and Zeiss 135mm F2 APO (classical ZF.2)? I am looking Manual focus prime around 135mm on A7R3. I read some reviews but still couldn't decide. I have 50mm APO and used Zeiss 50mm Macro before. Here are what I summarize:
I don't shoot macro.
Mainly for landscape and portrait.
Prefer 135mm over 110mm.
Used price are about same here in US.
110mm about 300g lighter than Zeiss with adapter.
So from image quality, color, rendering, bokeh, characters, and sharpness points of view, which would you recommend?
jjcpa wrote:
Hi, can anybody share your experience between this lens and Zeiss 135mm F2 APO (classical ZF.2)? I am looking Manual focus prime around 135mm on A7R3. I read some reviews but still couldn't decide. I have 50mm APO and used Zeiss 50mm Macro before. Here are what I summarize:
I don't shoot macro.
Mainly for landscape and portrait.
Prefer 135mm over 110mm.
Used price are about same here in US.
110mm about 300g lighter than Zeiss with adapter.
So from image quality, color, rendering, bokeh, characters, and sharpness points of view, which would you recommend?
Thanks for the detailed explanation for the "superiority" of the 90mm 2.8 G, I was starting to play with the idea of ditching the AF for the better corrected lens, but your words make me stop with that and get back to the 90mm path.
I'm quite intrested in this lens. I have CV 15 4.5, CV21 3.5, CV 40 1.2 and Zeiss 35 f2.8 for AF shots. I had Samyang 75 1.8, it was a really nice lens but I didn't like the cheap plastic feel. I'm considering a replacement for portrait and landscape work. Primary I lay eye on Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN, it's an almost perfect lens, but the same time "boring". I like the MF, build quality with Voigtlander lenses. Is it recommended for portrait shooting? I don't do any professional work, only hobby. How hard to nail focus compared to 40 1.2?
Lukacs wrote:
I'm quite intrested in this lens. I have CV 15 4.5, CV21 3.5, CV 40 1.2 and Zeiss 35 f2.8 for AF shots. I had Samyang 75 1.8, it was a really nice lens but I didn't like the cheap plastic feel. I'm considering a replacement for portrait and landscape work. Primary I lay eye on Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN, it's an almost perfect lens, but the same time "boring". I like the MF, build quality with Voigtlander lenses. Is it recommended for portrait shooting? I don't do any professional work, only hobby. How hard to nail focus compared to 40 1.2? ...Show more →
I have 22 of the top lenses made, 12mm to the 400 GM & 600GM and everything in between and CV 110 is one of my absolute favorites and most used.
Ironically I rarely think about using it for portraits and use my 85 GM, 50 GM and 135 GM for portraits and used to use the 70-200 GM but sold it a year ago and have a GM II coming now for portraits. I am sure it would be good because it renders so well and the colors and sharpness are off the charts.
I use it for close ups tights shots i.e. a window display, flowers, and stuff I need a 100ish FL for. But the lens is one of Voightlanders best.
