I've just tested the CV 75/1.5 Nokton on the Leica M240 and see the exact same field curvature characteristic and shape as I saw on the Sony. The FC is wavy and noticeable. Center and extreme corners are very sharp though. It's a characteristic of the lens and perhaps what allows it to be so compact for a f/1.5 telephoto.
There were reports saying it was flat field on the Leica's thinner sensor but I do not see it...at least not at infinity and mid-distance.
In my view, it's another lens that can be used for both systems. I'm using: CV 12/5.6, CV 21/3.5, CV 35/1.2 III, CV 50/3.5 and CV 75/1.5 on both Sony and Leica.
Close IQ for M and E means less chance of an E mount lens, maybe. It ticks all my boxes, and yet I've come and gone on it several times. But only the spectre of a similar focal length APO-Lanthar holds me back now. I feel the 75/1.5 is much better as a whole than the sum of its parts.
The romantic colour is wonderful in this one. It marries the low element count transparency with Cosina's glass technology so well. Asked which three CV lenses he liked best, Cosina's designer said:
“It's difficult to choose only three, but m43's 25mm F0.95 has no bias in each element and can read the flow of light straightforwardly. VM's 75mm F1.5 is also simple. It’s beautiful, of course. I think this APO-Lanthar 50mm F2 is also pretty beautiful (laughs)”
"We have..many products..while working on themes that are difficult to quantify, such as “taste of lens depiction” and “beautiful bokeh”.
Apr 24, 2020 at 11:39 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
LBJ2 wrote:
So glad you got your own copy of the CV 75/1.5...again. I was almost starting to feel guilty
Regarding the noticeable FC with this lens on your M240, please post example when you can. I believe the M240 and M10 share the same sensor so curious as why some reported no FC with this lens on the M10. Also, and since I know my copy is perfectly centered ( thank you Fred) what's an easy way for me to test FC for myself, anything I can do in the house or do I need take a picture of a flat field structure at a greater distance outside? I hate to mention it but I have a big red brick wall I can use as a test subject.
How about infinity focus with your CV 75/1.5 compared to the CV 35/1.2 III?
Either way, an awful lot to like about the CV75/1.5 as has been mentioned.
I am pretty sure the M240 and the M10 do not share the same sensor even though both have 24 MP. They don't share the same DR according to Bill Claff's measurements at photons for photos:
Still I wouldn't expect the cover glass to be too different between the two cameras. If anything I would expect the M10 to have slightly thicker cover glass. That has been the trend from M8 to M9 to M240.
Notice in Bastian's M10 addition to the review at phillipreeve.net, he still sees a midzone dip even on the M10 just that it isn't as extreme.
From looking at the photos there I would say the lens has a similar look on both the Sony and the Leica, and I see only very small differences close up or at portrait distances. In that review where the lens is compared on a Sony A7r II vs. the M10, the lens seems to do a bit better on the Leica than the Sony at infinity focus, but Fred's comparisons are on the higher resolution A7r IV downscaled to 24MP. I suspect that the higher resolution camera basically makes up for the small advantage of the lens on the M10 where the thinner cover glass helps performance. So, I don't think the team at phillipreeve.net and Fred are really seeing anything different. The lens has a similar look and character on both Sony and Leica. The lens performs very similar on both cameras at close focus and portrait distances. The lens is designed for the thinner cover glass, however, and you can see a bit better performance on the Leica at infinity focus, but that advantage is off set if you use the high resolution A7r IV and downscale such that even at infinity focus when comparing the lens on the 24MP M10 to the 61MP 7r IV downscaled the results look pretty close.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am pretty sure the M240 and the M10 do not share the same sensor even though both have 24 MP. They don't share the same DR according to Bill Claff's measurements at photons for photos:
Still I wouldn't expect the cover glass to be too different between the two cameras. If anything I would expect the M10 to have slightly thicker cover glass. That has been the trend from M8 to M9 to M240.
Notice in Bastian's M10 addition to the review at phillipreeve.net, he still sees a midzone dip even on the M10 just that it isn't as extreme.
From looking at the photos there I would say the lens has a similar look on both the Sony and the Leica, and I see only very small differences close up or at portrait differences. In that review where the lens is compared on a Sony A7r II vs. the M10, the lens seems to do a bit better on the Leica than the Sony at infinity focus, but Fred's comparisons are on the higher resolution A7r IV downscaled to 24MP. I suspect that the higher resolution camera basically makes up for the small advantage of the lens on the M10 where the thinner cover glass helps performance. So, I don't think the team at phillipreeve.net and Fred are really seeing anything different. The lens has a similar look and character on both Sony and Leica. The lens performs very similar on both cameras at close focus and portrait differences. The lens is designed for the thinner cover glass, however, and you can see a bit better performance on the Leica at infinity focus, but that advantage is off set if you use the high resolution A7r IV and downscale such that even at infinity focus when comparing the lens on the 24MP M10 to the 61MP 7r IV downscaled the results look pretty close....Show more →
Thank you Steve.
I pulled my original comment to go back and check the details about the M240/M10 sensors. I am not sure Leica would change the sensor stack thickness between M240/M10 cameras, but I'm still looking for any data one way or the other.
Bastian's detailed report answers many of my questions. I have both the R4 and M10 but not too enthusiastic to attempt anything close to what he has presented. Thank you Bastian.
I'm read reports that the M10's sensor is not that much better than the M240's. It has 'native' ISO 100 but there seems to be a loss of highlight detail when using ISO 100 instead of ISO 200. (which is default for the M240).
On the M240, ISO 100 is a "pull" ISO and perhaps the same goes for the M10 regardless of the official specifications.
Leica has released a firmware update which removed ISO 100 from their "Auto ISO" range and some believe that's the reason. http://www.slack.co.uk/m10-and-blown-highlights.html
So, both M10 and M240 seem to have base ISO close to ISO 200 where they perform better in regards to DR.
It's likely the M10's sensor is still slightly superior but perhaps not the extend the specifications let us to believe. Sensor test sites give the high ISO advantage to the M10 but there are also reports that micro-contrast and fine detail are lost when using M10's high ISO settings, fomenting speculation that there is a more aggressive noise reduction baked to the DNG file. I saw some side by side comparisons at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 showing this but could not find the source right now.
Personally, I've never tested the M10 and M240 side by side but don't consider either one outstanding, especially compared to Sony's full frame sensors. It's more in line with Canon sensors which is not that bad.
Apr 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm read reports that the M10's sensor is not that much better than the M240's. It has 'native' ISO 100 but there seems to be a loss of highlight detail when using ISO 100 instead of ISO 200. (which is default for the M240).
On the M240, ISO 100 is a "pull" ISO and perhaps the same goes for the M10 regardless of the official specifications.
Leica has released a firmware update which removed ISO 100 from their "Auto ISO" range and many believe that's the reason. http://www.slack.co.uk/m10-and-blown-highlights.html
So, both M10 and M240 seem to have base ISO close to ISO 200 where they perform better in regards to DR.
It's likely the M10's sensor is still slightly superior but perhaps not the extend the specifications let us to believe. Sensor test sites give the high ISO advantage to the M10 but there are also reports that micro-contrast and fine detail is lost when using M10's high ISO settings fomenting speculation that there is a more aggressive noise reduction baked to the DNG file. I saw some side by side comparisons at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 showing this but could not find the source right now,
Personally, I've never tested the M10 and M240 side by side but don't consider either one outstanding especially compared to Sony's full frame sensors. It's more in line with Canon sensors which is not that bad. ...Show more →
First, I agree that the M10 is very similar to the Canon 5DIV and Canon R sensors in performance. The ISO by DR graphs from Bill Claff's site are in the first image below.
Second, as you suggest the Sony A7 III, the Nikon Z6, and the Panasonic S1 all have 24MP sensor that do a bit better. The main advantages of these sensor is that they have an Aptina dual gain conversion which helps at high ISO and they have a bit better low ISO performance too. The Sony here is a bit better than even the Nikon and Panasonic. You can see this comparison in the second image below.
Third, the M240 is clearly a bit behind and behind the M10 and Canon 5DIV and R and more behind than those sensors are behind the Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic. The M240 is a little more than half a stop behind in DR at base ISO, and almost a stop (.82 of a stop) behind in DR at ISO 3200. There is also zero evidence in Bill's data of any artificial noise reduction until very high ISO for the M10 and that shows up clearly in these tests with a jump in DR when it is implemented and Bill notes that on a number of cameras and even some of these at really high ISOs. The M10 does show artificial noise reduction but not until ISO 25600.
Steve,
I'm seen those tests and find them crucial when comparing sensors. There is also real world experiences from shooters which I also find very relevant. What I shared on my post above is from user comparisons - so take it with a grain of salt.
Since I never tested these cameras side by side, I don't have a final opinion on it. My overall impression is that the Leica 24 MP sensor (M240 or M10) is behind the competition but still very capable as I'm seeing in my own images. I don't get blown highlights or noisy shadows when exposing correctly. It reminds of shooting with a Canon sensor where nailing the correct exposure is crucial and there is visible banding when recovering shadows more than 2 stops. Horizontal banding is present on M240 files when pushing the shadows at high ISO and perhaps that's the main advantage of the M10 and what makes the sensor test sites give it a better overall performance. Again, I don't know for sure.
There is speculation that Leica M's new 47MP sensor will be borrowed from the Leica Q2 but even that one won't break any records.
FWIW I haven't found any real world side by side posts where there was much to talk about regarding comparing output between the two sensors in M240 and M10. Personally I don't know the M240.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Steve,
I'm seen those tests and find them crucial when comparing sensors. There is also real world experiences form shooters which I also find very relevant. What I shared on my post above is from user comparisons - so take it with a grain of salt.
Since I never tested these cameras side by side, I don't have a final opinion on it. My overall impression is that Leica's 24 MP sensor (either from M240 or M10) are behind the competition but still very capable as I'm seeing in my own images. I don't get blown highlights or noisy shadows when exposing correctly. It reminds of shooting with a Canon sensor where nailing the correct exposure is crucial and there is visible banding when recovering shadows more than 2 stops.
There is speculation that Leica M's new 47MP sensor will be borrowed from the Leica Q2 but even that one won't break any records....Show more →
Having had the M10 let me just add a couple of thoughts. First, the blown highlights at ISO 100 are pretty straightforward. ISO 100 on the M10 is really a pulled ISO 160 (which is still better than the pulled ISO 200 of the M240). As Bill Claff's data shows, however, you do get more DR by going with ISO 100 than ISO 200. In practice what makes sense and what I always did with the M10 was when I used ISO 100 I always used exposure compensation by 2/3rds of a stop (or was it half a stop I don't remember) to protect the highlights. That way you get the little bit of extra DR, without getting blown highlights. It also means when you are using Auto ISO you don't want it to select ISO 100 (because when it does you want to add exposure compensation). So in practice the ISO 100 is a good thing, you just have to realize what it is and work around it. I would have prefer they just used ISO 160 and not pulled it to ISO 100, but it is what it is and the work around is pretty easy. Speaking of work arounds, with a real base ISO of 160 and a 1/4000 max shutter speed and fast lenses, I always kept an ND filter for each of my fast lenses with my M10 kit. It bright light, if you want to shoot at even f/2 the ND filter is pretty much needed, so that is another work around you have to be ready for.
Second, I found my high ISO shots with the M10 to be very good. Quite decent high ISO performance really. Not quite up to the Sony A7r II I was using at the time, but not far off either. I saw nothing to indicate built in noise reduction. There was very nice detail and I even found pulling up the shadows worked very well--much much better than my old 5D II--but again not quite as good as a Sony sensor. Still I found the sensor on the M10 to be quite decent and although it wasn't the top performance I got with my Sony it was close enough that for some types of shooting (travel and street) I pretty much always wanted the Leica M10 over the Sony.
My gripe with these studio comparisons: they use high ISO values, but there is still plenty of light to amplify.
Most of us that use high ISO - except for those shooting sports in a well lit stadium to get faster shutter speeds -
do so in areas where there is less light to begin with and performance can be significantly different here.
I also haven't compared M240 and M10, but I gather the sensor design may be quite a bit different,
as e.g. the older Voigtlander ultrawides show significantly worse color cast on the M240 from
what I have found out.
Flickr now has a decent collection as well. CA is very hard to find, much harder than the beautiful fall-off and presence at the focal plane. The consensus seems to be emerging of a older rendering lens wide open that changes up to a more modern and surprisingly strong rendering from f2.8 onwards, with (modern CV) high saturation in midtones. 1-3m optimal but 5-7m also very good (and as Fred shows, longer distances when needed). Very high 3D and 'snap'. $899 at BH at present, $100 off.
Ashwin Rao's post was one of a few that inspired me to become vey interested to try the Leica M10, my first Leica camera. Ever hear of the Palouse? It's on my list.
LBJ2 wrote:
Ashwin Rao's post was one of a few that inspired me to become vey interested to try the Leica M10, my first Leica camera. Ever hear of the Palouse? It's on my list.
LBJ2 wrote:
Ashwin Rao's post was one of a few that inspired me to become vey interested to try the Leica M10, my first Leica camera. Ever hear of the Palouse? It's on my list.
This lens (and your and Fred's talking about Leica M cameras) has had me thinking of getting an M10 again. I had an M10 and a nice set of Leica lenses that was unfortunately stolen. I couldn't replace it right away, but I am thinking I might be able to do so before long. What Voigtlander (and to some extent 7 Artisans) has provided in the last couple of years is a whole set of fast lenses for Leica M that are relatively low in price. Look what our option include for fast M mount lenses:
All of these lenses (except the 7 Artisans 75) are reasonably small and all can be had for under $1,000. The Voigtlander lenses are all really high quality and the 7 Artisans lenses (if not quite up to the Voigtlander lenses) are surprisingly good with decent bokeh and incredibly cheap. In my mind these lenses really change the game for getting a Leica system. You can now setup a 4 lens Leica system with lenses that are no more expensive (and maybe even a bit less expensive) than a similar system for mirrorless.
In addition to these fast lenses there are also cheap new slower lenses and Zeiss ZM and even in some case Leica M lenses have dropped in price enough to allow lots of options. Here is an even longer list of sub $1,000 lenses (ZM and Leica M are used prices):
Voigtlander 10 f/5.6
Voigtlander 12 f/5.6 III
Voigtlander 15 f/4.5 III
Zeiss ZM 18 f/4
Zeiss ZM 21 f/2.8
Voigtlander 21 f/3.5
Zeiss ZM 25 f/2.8
Zeiss ZM 28 f/2.8
Voigtlander 35 f/1.7
Voigtlander 35 f/2
Leica M 35 f/2.5 (you have to shop carefully to get this under $1,000)
Zeiss ZM 50 f/1.5
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2
Leica M 50 f/2.5
Voigtlander 50 f/3.5 (and we can hope for a Voigtlander 50 f/2 APO for not much more than $1,000)
Leica M 75 f/2.5
Zeiss ZM 85 f/4
Leica M 90 f/2 E55 non-AA (you have to shop carefully but this can be found for less than $1,000)
Leica M 90 f/2.5
Leica M 90 f/2.8 (latest model with built in hood, you have to shop a bit carefully but this can be found for less than $1,000)
Voigtlander 90 f/3.5 APO (this is a screw mount not Leica M model)
Leica M 135 f/4 (latest 46mm threads model with built-in hood)
I think all of these are at least reasonably good performers.
Surprisingly you can now even get these really nice Leica M lenses for less than $2,000 a piece as well (all prices used)
Leica M 18 f/3.8 SEM
Leica M 21 f/3.4 SEM
Leica M 24 f/3.8 Asph
Leica M 28 f/2.8 Asph
Leica M 35 f/2.4 Asph
Leica M 50 f/2 (Pre-AA; last version before AA)
Leica M 50 f/2.4
Leica M 75 f/2.4
Leica M 90 f/2 AA
Leica M 90 f/2.4
Leica M 135 f/3.4 APO
So, I am seeing that you can put together a really nice kit for Leica M without the lenses breaking the bank. The camera of course will be expensive, but it is unique and there is no competition so that price has to be incurred but if you like shooting a rangefinder, then there are not many options.
Steve Spencer wrote:
This lens (and your and Fred's talking about Leica M cameras) has had me thinking of getting an M10 again. I had an M10 and a nice set of Leica lenses that was unfortunately stolen. I couldn't replace it right away, but I am thinking I might be able to do so before long. What Voigtlander (and to some extent 7 Artisans) has provided in the last couple of years is a whole set of fast lenses for Leica M that are relatively low in price. Look what our option include for fast M mount lenses:
All of these lenses (except the 7 Artisans 75) are reasonably small and all can be had for under $1,000. The Voigtlander lenses are all really high quality and the 7 Artisans lenses (if not quite up to the Voigtlander lenses) are surprisingly good with decent bokeh and incredibly cheap. In my mind these lenses really change the game for getting a Leica system. You can now setup a 4 lens Leica system with lenses that are no more expensive (and maybe even a bit less expensive) than a similar system for mirrorless.
In addition to these fast lenses there are also cheap new slower lenses and Zeiss ZM and even in some case Leica M lenses have dropped in price enough to allow lots of options. Here is an even longer list of sub $1,000 lenses (ZM and Leica M are used prices):
Voigtlander 10 f/5.6
Voigtlander 12 f/5.6 III
Voigtlander 15 f/4.5 III
Zeiss ZM 18 f/4
Voigtlander 21 f/3.5
Zeiss ZM 25 f/2.8
Zeiss ZM 28 f/2.8
Voigtlander 35 f/1.7
Voigtlander 35 f/2
Leica M 35 f/2.5 (you have to shop carefully to get this under $1,000)
Zeiss ZM 50 f/1.5
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2
Leica M 50 f/2.5
Voigtlander 50 f/3.5 (and we can hope for a Voigtlander 50 f/2 APO for not much more than $1,000)
Leica M 75 f/2.5
Zeiss ZM 85 f/4
Leica M 90 f/2 E55 non-AA (you have to shop carefully but this can be found for less than $1,000)
Leica M 90 f/2.5
Leica M 90 f/2.8 (latest model with built in hood, you have to shop a bit carefully but this can be found for less than $1,000)
Voigtlander 90 f/3.5 APO (this is a screw mount not Leica M model)
Leica M 135 f/4 (latest 46mm threads model with built-in hood)
I think all of these are at least reasonably good performers.
Surprisingly you can now even get these really nice Leica M lenses for less than $2,000 a piece as well (all prices used)
Leica M 18 f/3.8 SEM
Leica M 21 f/3.4 SEM
Leica M 24 f/3.8 Asph
Leica M 28 f/2.8 Asph
Leica M 35 f/2.4 Asph
Leica M 50 f/2 (Pre-AA; last version before AA)
Leica M 50 f/2.4
Leica M 75 f/2.4
Leica M 90 f/2 AA
Leica M 135 f/3.4 APO
So, I am seeing that you can put together a really nice kit for Leica M without the lenses breaking the bank. The camera of course will be expensive, but it is unique and there is no competition so that price has to be incurred but if you like shooting a rangefinder, then there are not many options.
Sorry to hear the terrible news about your M10 Steve. What a nightmare!
If you do decide to jump back in I am sure you'll be able to find a good deal on an M10 new or used. The lens list you posted does look very interesting. A lot of M glass out there at various price levels, plenty to keep it very interesting. More to come from Voigtlander I am sure too.
Steve Spencer wrote:
This lens (and your and Fred's talking about Leica M cameras) has had me thinking of getting an M10 again. I had an M10 and a nice set of Leica lenses that was unfortunately stolen. I couldn't replace it right away, but I am thinking I might be able to do so before long. What Voigtlander (and to some extent 7 Artisans) has provided in the last couple of years is a whole set of fast lenses for Leica M that are relatively low in price. Look what our option include for fast M mount lenses:
All of these lenses (except the 7 Artisans 75) are reasonably small and all can be had for under $1,000. The Voigtlander lenses are all really high quality and the 7 Artisans lenses (if not quite up to the Voigtlander lenses) are surprisingly good with decent bokeh and incredibly cheap. In my mind these lenses really change the game for getting a Leica system. You can now setup a 4 lens Leica system with lenses that are no more expensive (and maybe even a bit less expensive) than a similar system for mirrorless.
In addition to these fast lenses there are also cheap new slower lenses and Zeiss ZM and even in some case Leica M lenses have dropped in price enough to allow lots of options. Here is an even longer list of sub $1,000 lenses (ZM and Leica M are used prices):
Voigtlander 10 f/5.6
Voigtlander 12 f/5.6 III
Voigtlander 15 f/4.5 III
Zeiss ZM 18 f/4
Voigtlander 21 f/3.5
Zeiss ZM 25 f/2.8
Zeiss ZM 28 f/2.8
Voigtlander 35 f/1.7
Voigtlander 35 f/2
Leica M 35 f/2.5 (you have to shop carefully to get this under $1,000)
Zeiss ZM 50 f/1.5
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2
Leica M 50 f/2.5
Voigtlander 50 f/3.5 (and we can hope for a Voigtlander 50 f/2 APO for not much more than $1,000)
Leica M 75 f/2.5
Zeiss ZM 85 f/4
Leica M 90 f/2 E55 non-AA (you have to shop carefully but this can be found for less than $1,000)
Leica M 90 f/2.5
Leica M 90 f/2.8 (latest model with built in hood, you have to shop a bit carefully but this can be found for less than $1,000)
Voigtlander 90 f/3.5 APO (this is a screw mount not Leica M model)
Leica M 135 f/4 (latest 46mm threads model with built-in hood)
I think all of these are at least reasonably good performers.
Surprisingly you can now even get these really nice Leica M lenses for less than $2,000 a piece as well (all prices used)
Leica M 18 f/3.8 SEM
Leica M 21 f/3.4 SEM
Leica M 24 f/3.8 Asph
Leica M 28 f/2.8 Asph
Leica M 35 f/2.4 Asph
Leica M 50 f/2 (Pre-AA; last version before AA)
Leica M 50 f/2.4
Leica M 75 f/2.4
Leica M 90 f/2 AA
Leica M 135 f/3.4 APO
So, I am seeing that you can put together a really nice kit for Leica M without the lenses breaking the bank. The camera of course will be expensive, but it is unique and there is no competition so that price has to be incurred but if you like shooting a rangefinder, then there are not many options.
Great list and some good thoughts. I might add the ZM 21 2.8 on the sub 1k list. That lens seems to have wonderful rendering and strong technical IQ.
Anyone care to speculate on why Leica just doesn't buy Sony sensors like others? Price doesn't seem to be a concern for their products, and they are billed as premium. Maybe the Leica demo is less inclined to care, but I don't think that's true.
I can't believe getting sensors on the same level as the E/Z/S lines wouldn't help.
