Phillip Reeve wrote:
As far as technical perfection is concerned the CV65, CV 110 and Batis 135 currently are the very best lenses you can buy in E-mount. So will results be better in a technical sense? No. But they would rather different since the 110 is almost twice the focal length.
I can see that I might sell the CV 65 now that I own the 110 since it saw relatively little use after I got the CV 40 and 21/40/110 makes a nice landscape set when weight isn‘t a major concern.
Yea I loved the CV 65 but it was just to close to 85 and really did not get much use. In the gapping scenarios like
15,21,28,50,85 or 90 . Or the other popular gap which is 18,24,35,75 or 85 , 135 it really does not fit in there either. Now having a 15,21,40,75 currently a 110 would gap well. But I’m not big on macro myself but I can certainly see the 110 more in the bag than a 65.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Still have trouble seeing the SLR Sigmas as real E-mount lenses since they are so massive.
I thought about the 85 since it was on sale yesterday but I agree it just too big for our mirrorless system. For that kind of weight and bulk. I see there 135 1.8 as more valuable in there line to Sony users. Personally if I was going for there 85 I would rather just go for there 105 since at least it has a lens foot.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Still have trouble seeing the SLR Sigmas as real E-mount lenses since they are so massive.
I agree .. I have two a7r3 and a A9 .. I always go out with two bodies and I can not put much weight and size in my outputs .. I sold the 40 hp to maintain the 65 hp 21 loxia 18 batis 10 and 12 hp ... with the 24 gm are okay ... I could also be in place on the focal length of 100 mm having 125 cv with ef and the 100mm elmarit apo macro with attack r ... but I need full compatibility for E mount with magnification .. I know that my choice will fall on 110 cv .. I love sharpness even at long distances like the one that gives you the 65cv .... of course that have the autofocus and always an advantage ... but you can not have all
Phillip only you know how to go 110 cv and 90 macro sony having tried both
Nice samples Phillip!
The CV 110/2.5's rendering reminds me of what I get with the CV 65/2 except for more blur on the distant background. They seem to have similar transition zone, color and contrast.
If your copy is well centered, could you please confirm something for me? I'm seeing noticeble field curvature at infinity and just want to confirm if you see that with your copy as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Nice samples Phillip!
The CV 110/2.5's rendering reminds me of what I get with the CV 65/2 except for more blur on the distant background. They seem to sharp similar transition zone color and contrast as well.
If your copy is well centered, could you please confirm something for me? I'm seeing noticeble field curvature at infinity and just want to confirm if you see that with your copy as well.
Sure but will take until the weekend.
Fred Miranda wrote:
For landscapes, it would be hard to beat the CV 110/2.5. I believe the Batis 135/2.8 is the only native at similar FL that comes the closest. The 110mm is way better than my ZM 85 and I would think even the Loxia 85. (I will test them when the weather cooperates)
I have not tested the FE 90/2.8 at macro distance but the 110mm will give you a longer FL (longer working distance), helicoid MF, zero LoCA and perhaps is capable of more resolution across the field. (Not sure about the latter)
I just ordered another FE 90/2.8G and hopefully it will be a decent copy for some comparisons....Show more →
Good luck! The G90 is the FE lens of which I had most trouble getting a decent copy! Went through three...
Hmm here's a piece of justification: get rid of L85 and replace with CV110.
L85 is great, but I so rarely use it. I use ZM for hiking, and B85 for when I need moderate speed or AF. So the conditions for using L85 are rare. CV110 gives different FL, and macro.
I think I’m going to invoke my rights not to read this thread anymore as it may seriously incriminate me with my wife. Slight change of the 5th amendment to suite my needs.
Dec 11, 2018 at 06:57 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
DavidBM wrote:
Hmm here's a piece of justification: get rid of L85 and replace with CV110.
L85 is great, but I so rarely use it. I use ZM for hiking, and B85 for when I need moderate speed or AF. So the conditions for using L85 are rare. CV110 gives different FL, and macro.
That is a lovely piece of rationalization. Not that there is anything wrong with that .
Steve Spencer wrote:
That is a lovely piece of rationalization. Not that there is anything wrong with that .
Yea why I’m not reading anymore . I can come up with justification really easily here. I have the Leica 75. And a 110 is a perfect gap lens for my MF kit.
I think it's worthwhile to have a set of APO lenses. If I don't hate the whole Batis design, I would have gotten the 135. But no way I would pass on these CV APO. These are even better constructed than the old SL series.
DavidBM wrote:
Hmm here's a piece of justification: get rid of L85 and replace with CV110.
L85 is great, but I so rarely use it. I use ZM for hiking, and B85 for when I need moderate speed or AF. So the conditions for using L85 are rare. CV110 gives different FL, and macro.
I just tested the L85 at infinity and the 110 is only marginally better because of the lack of any fringing. There is also a slight field curvature on the 110 which is not the case with the Loxia.
The Loxia only weighs 574g (without caps) making the CV 110/2.5 almost 200g heavier.
You can't go wrong with either one if you want very detailed landscapes. (Both optimum at f/4 but also excellent from wide open)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just tested the L85 at infinity and the 110 is only marginally better because of the lack of any fringing. There is also a slight field curvature on the 110 which is not the case with the Loxia.
The Loxia only weighs 574g (without caps) making the CV 110/2.5 almost 200g heavier.
You can't go wrong with either one if you want very detailed landscapes. (Both optimum at f/4 but also excellent from wide open)
Fred, did you find out where the real infinity is on that Loxia 85?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Nice samples Phillip!
The CV 110/2.5's rendering reminds me of what I get with the CV 65/2 except for more blur on the distant background. They seem to have similar transition zone, color and contrast.
If your copy is well centered, could you please confirm something for me? I'm seeing noticeble field curvature at infinity and just want to confirm if you see that with your copy as well.
Fred,
I am not Phillip, but I just returned from doing a preliminary infinity test. I can post some crops if desired, but I did not see any significant field curvature at infinity. I did two different tests. On one, I focused on center and then I did the same scene refocusing in the midfield. A second test was one for centering. I focused first on a distant building top in one corner then tried all four. Then, I did the same test but focused on center and then ran through the four corners. In each case, I saw no significant difference even wide open. Looking at 4:1 magnification, I could see some difference depending upon where I looked, but as I only did each test once and light was failing, I chock up any slight difference to variation in focus. With these caveats, I am happy to post crops if you would like.
My overall impression is that I have a well centered copy and that the quality at infinity is terrific. I only had time for a very quick test, but tried the Batis 135/2.8, the Zeiss 100-300, and the Sony GM 100/2.8 (Tf.6) STF. The Batis and Voigtlander were very close and ahead of both the Zeiss and Sony though the Sony was surprisingly closs in sharpness but less well corrected for CA.
), but I like having options.
.