Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really pleased with it too. If you zoom in on specular highlights, they are far from perfect, but in most situations I quite like the rendering, and in general, transitions are pretty smooth...just some outlining on highlights. In other ways, the lens is brilliant. Tack sharp across the frame from wide open, excellent CA control (as you'd expect), though you can see a little purple fringing in some scenarios, but it's minor. That awesome Voigtlander contrast profile. The aperture iris is interesting too - some funky star shapes at some apertures, perfectly circular at f/2, f/2.8 and f/5.6, and straight bladed at f/11 for good sunstars. ...Show more →
Great to hear that. I do like 40mm/1.2 but, I have not figured out its characteristics yet. From f1.2 to 3.2 it is predictable with sweet rendering. Not razor sharp but good. From f4 and down for landscape shots, it isn’t always giving me the sharpness I expect from lenses these days. It could be the CP filter, but I have tried two different filters (BW and Nikon) with same challenge. So, it maybe my focusing (zooming in and focus, but may need to open up to f5.6 to focus then close down to the particular f stop) that need adjusting to the lens peculiarities, thinking about the field curvature reported in 40/1.2 thread. Or, it could be a bad copy. I need to do some analysis, not my favorite, but may be needed.
Regarding the specular light. I find that to be one weakness of 40/1.2 as well. Even with CPL, it tends to blow out rather quickly, so needing to adjust exposure setting with that in mind. It could be the character of some of the Voigtlander lenses? I don’t have enough experience to say one or the other.
The rendering of 35 Apo makes me wonder I might give it a try, but I also don’t want too many lenses in too close range. (35 and 40)
akul wrote:
Great to hear that. I do like 40mm/1.2 but, I have not figured out its characteristics yet. From f1.2 to 3.2 it is predictable with sweet rendering. Not razor sharp but good. From f4 and down for landscape shots, it isn’t always giving me the sharpness I expect from lenses these days. It could be the CP filter, but I have tried two different filters (BW and Nikon) with same challenge. So, it maybe my focusing (zooming in and focus, but may need to open up to f5.6 to focus then close down to the particular f stop) that need adjusting to the lens peculiarities, thinking about the field curvature reported in 40/1.2 thread. Or, it could be a bad copy. I need to do some analysis, not my favorite, but may be needed.
Regarding the specular light. I find that to be one weakness of 40/1.2 as well. Even with CPL, it tends to blow out rather quickly, so needing to adjust exposure setting with that in mind. It could be the character of some of the Voigtlander lenses? I don’t have enough experience to say one or the other.
The rendering of 35 Apo makes me wonder I might give it a try, but I also don’t want too many lenses in too close range. (35 and 40)
I've owned the 40/1.2 before on Sony, and I loved that lens. Surprised to hear you say it isn't all that sharp stopped down, as my copy was very good beyond f/2.8 (and good at wide apertures).
In any case, the 40/1.2 and 35/2 APO are very different lenses. The 40/1.2 is sort of a more modernized classic look, with some spherical aberration at wide apertures and emphasizing rendering over pure optical prowess. The 35 APO is an extremely highly corrected lens, and as such is very sharp across the whole frame right from f/2 (mine is essentially perfect over about 90% of the frame, with just a small amount of softening towards the corners at f/2 where sharpness is only very good, instead of bitingly sharp), and is impeccable down a stop or two. Very good CA control (though a tiny bit of purple fringing in some situations). The 40/1.2 definitely has creamier bokeh, and the 35/2 can get rough in some areas, but as you noted, overall, I think it renders very nicely.
Jman13 wrote:
A couple more with the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar:
akul wrote:
Love the rendering of these! With 35APO, I was expecting a bit harsher bokeh and abrupt focus transition, but from I can see, it isn’t bad at all while you get the phenomenal ’as if I am there’ clear rendition. Impressive.
Luka
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really pleased with it too. If you zoom in on specular highlights, they are far from perfect, but in most situations I quite like the rendering, and in general, transitions are pretty smooth...just some outlining on highlights. In other ways, the lens is brilliant. Tack sharp across the frame from wide open, excellent CA control (as you'd expect), though you can see a little purple fringing in some scenarios, but it's minor. That awesome Voigtlander contrast profile. The aperture iris is interesting too - some funky star shapes at some apertures, perfectly circular at f/2, f/2.8 and f/5.6, and straight bladed at f/11 for good sunstars. ...Show more →
I think it really depends, especially the light quality in the scene. When this lens first became available, initial real-world examples generally had quite harsh rendering, particularly when the subject was not overly close and focus transition was through more challenging background terrain. Jordan's examples seem to deftly avoid this and look like an entirely different lens, compared to my initial impressions about it.
rscheffler wrote:
I think it really depends, especially the light quality in the scene. When this lens first became available, initial real-world examples generally had quite harsh rendering, particularly when the subject was not overly close and focus transition was through more challenging background terrain. Jordan's examples seem to deftly avoid this and look like an entirely different lens, compared to my initial impressions about it.
There also seem to have been some minor changes with regards to the Z mount version. It's sharper than the M-mount version, for instance, and I think they've ground the asphericals a little cleaner than the initial batch. To be clear, it can still definitely get busy in the background, especially if you are pixel peeping specular highlights, but the overall impression to the bokeh is quite positive for me in most situations.
Jman13 wrote:
A couple more with the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar:
akul wrote:
Love the rendering of these! With 35APO, I was expecting a bit harsher bokeh and abrupt focus transition, but from I can see, it isn’t bad at all while you get the phenomenal ’as if I am there’ clear rendition. Impressive.
Luka
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really pleased with it too. If you zoom in on specular highlights, they are far from perfect, but in most situations I quite like the rendering, and in general, transitions are pretty smooth...just some outlining on highlights. In other ways, the lens is brilliant. Tack sharp across the frame from wide open, excellent CA control (as you'd expect), though you can see a little purple fringing in some scenarios, but it's minor. That awesome Voigtlander contrast profile. The aperture iris is interesting too - some funky star shapes at some apertures, perfectly circular at f/2, f/2.8 and f/5.6, and straight bladed at f/11 for good sunstars. ...Show more → rscheffler wrote:
I think it really depends, especially the light quality in the scene. When this lens first became available, initial real-world examples generally had quite harsh rendering, particularly when the subject was not overly close and focus transition was through more challenging background terrain. Jordan's examples seem to deftly avoid this and look like an entirely different lens, compared to my initial impressions about it.
Jman13 wrote:
There also seem to have been some minor changes with regards to the Z mount version. It's sharper than the M-mount version, for instance, and I think they've ground the asphericals a little cleaner than the initial batch. To be clear, it can still definitely get busy in the background, especially if you are pixel peeping specular highlights, but the overall impression to the bokeh is quite positive for me in most situations.
Interesting. The MTFs for the FE and Z 35 APO definitely show slightly stronger performance than the M version but the block diagrams for all three are the same (I guess whatever differences there are, aren't show there). The 50/2 APO is definitely a different optical formula between the Sony FE/Nikon Z and Leica M versions. According to the MTF, the FE/Z version is slightly sharper but the M version gets one more of the perfectly round aperture openings at f/5.6.
Jman13 wrote:
I've owned the 40/1.2 before on Sony, and I loved that lens. Surprised to hear you say it isn't all that sharp stopped down, as my copy was very good beyond f/2.8 (and good at wide apertures).
In any case, the 40/1.2 and 35/2 APO are very different lenses. The 40/1.2 is sort of a more modernized classic look, with some spherical aberration at wide apertures and emphasizing rendering over pure optical prowess. The 35 APO is an extremely highly corrected lens, and as such is very sharp across the whole frame right from f/2 (mine is essentially perfect over about 90% of the frame, with just a small amount of softening towards the corners at f/2 where sharpness is only very good, instead of bitingly sharp), and is impeccable down a stop or two. Very good CA control (though a tiny bit of purple fringing in some situations). The 40/1.2 definitely has creamier bokeh, and the 35/2 can get rough in some areas, but as you noted, overall, I think it renders very nicely. ...Show more →
I probably shouldn't say it is not that all that sharp. It is just not predictable, or relyable. It looks sort of ok on the screen or EVF when shot, but on computer, some seem to lack the acuity and I can't quite feel confident with this lens for the results when shooting close down. I get more constant result from 24-70/f4 S and 35/f1.8S, so something is not right. I still am thinking / hoping it is the operator error, and I just need to figure out its characteristics.
Interesting. The MTFs for the FE and Z 35 APO definitely show slightly stronger performance than the M version but the block diagrams for all three are the same (I guess whatever differences there are, aren't show there). The 50/2 APO is definitely a different optical formula between the Sony FE/Nikon Z and Leica M versions. According to the MTF, the FE/Z version is slightly sharper but the M version gets one more of the perfectly round aperture openings at f/5.6.
That is a very interesting information. The two are basically the same design but clearly different in detail. Both shows larger concave element at the last indicating effort of parallel entry to the censor. Only distinctive difference is the distance of the distance between the two sets of meniscus.I wonder that may contribute to the round aperture opening at f/5.6.
Jman13 wrote:
Surprised to hear you say it isn't all that sharp stopped down, as my copy was very good beyond f/2.8 (and good at wide apertures).
I wanted to update on this one. I have been trying to recreate the 'softness' issue I had with some of my images shot with Nokton stopped down, but I have not been able to recreate. So, at this point I am mostly convinced it was a focusing error, or vibration caused by wind. I don't want to leave wrong impression on Nokton's performance or QA/QC. It is not the lens. Lens seem fine, which is a relief. I really hate to go through exchanging or repair.
So, I picked up the Laowa 9mm f/5.6. I've shot with the Voigtlander 10mm, which is already insane, and this Laowa is noticeably wider. Despite 7Artisans recently coming out with a 9mm as well, it seems that is actually a 9.5mm, while this is actually an 8.9mm, as it is also wider than that lens, per Bastian's testing at Phillip Reeve.
First, I wanted to show the field of view difference. I took a shot of the Union Station Arch here in Columbus, and on this side of the street, to fit it in frame, you usually have to have an ultra-wide at 14-16mm and angle up to fit it in. No such troubles here. I took the 9mm, then mounted my 14-24mm f/2.8 and took shots at 14mm, 16mm, 20 and 24mm, and overlaid them to compare field of view. Below is the result - as you can see, it almost makes an already extremely wide 14mm look pedestrian.
