Steve Spencer wrote:
I haven't tried the 35 f/1.7, but it does look like an excellent lens and it is certainly a lens I am considering for my small lens kit. It really needs a front filter, however, on a mirrorless camera to deal with the sensor induced field curvature, and I would like to avoid that if possible.
If you look at the actual lens diagrams you will see the new 35 f/2 ultron is nothing like the design of the classic 8 element Leica summicron. The Leica is a very symmetrical double gauss design, but the new CV ultron is definitely not symmetrical and not really double gauss. It is a very modern design whereas the Leica is very classic. Really nothing a like other than that they have the same number of elements. I don't think this CV 75 f/1.5 is that close to the Madler 75 summilux either. Both have seven element but the Leica only has five groups whereas the CV has six and the Leica has four element in back and the CV has four elements in front. The Leica is a lot more symmetrical as well.
I do agree that the Leica 28 summilux is a fantastic lens, but it does have some CA wide open that doesn't go away until F/2.8, and has a mid zone dip in resolution that doesn't go away until f/5.6. Still I loved the lens when I owned it. I think, however, there is lots of room for a CV 28 f/1.4 that is nearly as good and a lot cheaper. Personally, I would rather see, however, a smaller and yet still high performing CV 28 f/1.8 or f/2....Show more →
I agree it’s not the same optical design, but the 75 looks pretty close. It has an aspherical element towards the mount, which is a common design for their latest aspherical lenses (Sony and Sigma too). Also another element sandwiched in the front. But it does seem pretty close, much more similar than the Leica 75 APO M, or Summarit.
As CV I hear is a pet project for Cosinas owner, it seems he does want to do his take on these old Leica gems. I didn’t realize the 35/3 Ultron Vintage was not reminiscent in design of the 8 element Summicron. I guess the 35 Ultron’s only real similarity is the silhouette (shape) and size. Though it’s labelled “vintage”, it seems this just by the color/shape of the lens.
I haven’t seen a worrisome midzone dip with the 28 Lux. Nothing like the 35 Lux or 50 Lux. It’s actually a much better performer than the 35 Lux. The CA is the fatal flaw though. I have to Lightroom that away commonly. Worth it for me though. Especially with the center sharpness wide open and pretty smooth bokeh and transition (to me, better than then Q2 and almost on par with my a7r3/Sigma 28 Art rig). I posted a bokeh comparison a while ago among those 3 (and the Loxia 25 just for kicks). I don’t use the 28 Summilux for landscapes though, just environmental portraits and family shots. For landscapes I’d grab the Sony and throw on the 24Gm or Loxia 25. The 28/2.8 Elmarit II is a solid performer tho for landscapes, definitely less of a dip and less vignetting than the 28 Lux.
I’d be interested though in a refresh of the CV 28/2 Ultron. hopefully they release something fast though,!he markets wide open —pun intended.
I think it will fit in nicely between the CV40 and CV110
At the moment I have the CV65/2 and ZM85/4 I see it as a better portrait lens than the 65, will have to see if it can match the 85 for landscapes,
I ordered a new adapter. My right corner looked a touch soft. I'll retest Big Bronco next week. I have a feeling it's the adapter. Got a metabones to try
GMPhotography wrote:
I ordered a new adapter. My right corner looked a touch soft. I'll retest Big Bronco next week. I have a feeling it's the adapter. Got a metabones to try
I've had great luck with Voigtlander's own M to E adapters.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've had great luck with Voigtlander's own M to E adapters.
Yea. Had one at one time should have kept it. I’ll get it Monday and rerun BB. If you look at the Raws you can see it in top right corner. But it’s hard to square that building with a long lens to. It could be me
GMPhotography wrote:
Mine might be here as soon as tomorrow . Just got a note from Stephan thanking me.
Cant recommend CameraQuest enough. Ultimately they keep this forum abreast of all things Voigtlander as Fred gets loaners to test and i just buy everything CV.
They are always my source for Voitlanders. Looking forward to your review.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Zeiss should start a new E-mount line without restricting the filter size to 52mm. Why not high IQ faster lenses? It's working for Voigtlander.
Entirely agree. I’d like Zeiss to not make them overly heavy or bulky like the Loxia and Batis line. Keep them CV size.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Entirely agree. I’d like Zeiss to not make them overly heavy or bulky like the Loxia and Batis line. Keep them CV size.
I’d suggest that fast but CV-sized (i.e. not overly heavy or bulky) is the antithesis of Zeiss’s current philosophy of lens design. Not only are they now imprisoned by that belief system but they are not sufficiently nimble nor do they have the resources to implement such a radical shift within a reasonable timeframe.
genji wrote:
I’d suggest that fast but CV-sized (i.e. not overly heavy or bulky) is the antithesis of Zeiss’s current philosophy of lens design. Not only are they now imprisoned by that belief system but they are not sufficiently nimble nor do they have the resources to implement such a radical shift within a reasonable timeframe.
I agree on the first point on lens design. But Zeiss did recently release the ZM 35 1.4, which is large by m-mount standards but small overall and especially for how well corrected it is. And the ZM line is still in production even if most of the lenses are a gen behind. They just need updating.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I agree on the first point on lens design. But Zeiss did recently release the ZM 35 1.4, which is large by m-mount standards but small overall and especially for how well corrected it is. And the ZM line is still in production even if most of the lenses are a gen behind. They just need updating.
Either way, I sadly don’t think Zeiss cares.
Hardly recently! The ZM 35/1.4 was officially announced at Photokina in September 2014, for release later that year. So no new or updated ZM lenses in the past five years. I have seven ZM lenses including the 35/1.4 but the only way Zeiss could redeem themselves with me is to release a Distagon ZM 28/1.4, which they’ll never do because Voigtlander will beat them to it with a Nokton 28/1.4.
genji wrote:
Hardly recently! The ZM 35/1.4 was officially announced at Photokina in September 2014, for release later that year. So no new or updated ZM lenses in the past five years. I have seven ZM lenses including the 35/1.4 but the only way Zeiss could redeem themselves with me is to release a Distagon ZM 28/1.4, which they’ll never do because Voigtlander will beat them to it with a Nokton 28/1.4.
Just chatted with David and Bastian and we were actually wondering if Zeiss still has a photo department. Last Loxia was 18 months ago. Batis 40 was anything but a successful release and it seems likely to me that it was developed by Tamron.
Aug 18, 2019 at 08:07 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Just chatted with David and Bastian and we were actually wondering if Zeiss still has a photo department. Last Loxia was 18 months ago. Batis 40 was anything but a successful release and it seems likely to me that it was developed by Tamron.
Well, they did come out with the Otus 100 last year that is a very high performing lens, which you would expect. What I am not sure at all about, however, is whether they are doing any separate development of stills lenses at Zeiss itself, and that may have been true for a long time. As I understand it from David, the Loxia lenses were developed for industrial purposes first and simply modified for stills. The Milvus and Otus lenses one could make a case were developed for video and modified for stills. As you say, it seems the Batis lenses were developed by Tamron. You really have to go back to the ZM 35 and the Otus 55 (and maybe the Otus 85), to find lenses that look like they were developed by Zeiss primarily for stills. I wonder if in the last 5 years they have decided that they will develop lenses for stills only when they are taking up designs that have been developed for other purposes. And this maybe why Cosina has gone all in with their development of their Voigtlander lenses. They may have known that Zeiss isn't going to be offering really any new lenses and they thought they would fill the gap. If so, they have done so very nicely.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, they did come out with the Otus 100 last year that is a very high performing lens, which you would expect. What I am not sure at all about, however, is whether they are doing any separate development of stills lenses at Zeiss itself, and that may have been true for a long time. As I understand it from David, the Loxia lenses were developed for industrial purposes first and simply modified for stills. The Milvus and Otus lenses one could make a case were developed for video and modified for stills. As you say, it seems the Batis lenses were developed by Tamron. You really have to go back to the ZM 35 and the Otus 55 (and maybe the Otus 85), to find lenses that look like they were developed by Zeiss primarily for stills. I wonder if in the last 5 years they have decided that they will develop lenses for stills only when they are taking up designs that have been developed for other purposes. And this maybe why Cosina has gone all in with their development of their Voigtlander lenses. They may have known that Zeiss isn't going to be offering really any new lenses and they thought they would fill the gap. If so, they have done so very nicely....Show more →
With the ongoing collapse in camera sales, it's not a surprise that some companies are not devoting resources to a market that is imploding.
Aug 18, 2019 at 09:12 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rattymouse wrote:
With the ongoing collapse in camera sales, it's not a surprise that some companies are not devoting resources to a market that is imploding.
It may not be a surprise that some companies are devoting less resources to the photography market, but it is a surprise to me that Zeiss would be doing so, if they indeed are for a couple of reasons. First, Zeiss is one of the oldest photography companies. It is what has put them on the map and they have stuck to the business through all kinds of ups and downs over the years. Second, they target the high end of the market which has not imploded nearly as much as the low end of the market.
For these reasons I don't think Zeiss will get totally out of the photography business, but I do think they have already focussed more on video and other optical endeavors and photography is more of an afterthought.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It may not be a surprise that some companies are devoting less resources to the photography market, but it is a surprise to me that Zeiss would be doing so, if they indeed are for a couple of reasons. First, Zeiss is one of the oldest photography companies. It is what has put them on the map and they have stuck to the business through all kinds of ups and downs over the years. Second, they target the high end of the market which has not imploded nearly as much as the low end of the market.
For these reasons I don't think Zeiss will get totally out of the photography business, but I do think they have already focussed more on video and other optical endeavors and photography is more of an afterthought....Show more →
Hi Steve,
I am sorry, but I may differ with you. What really put Zeiss on the map originally was their Microscopes. Even Ernst Leitz worked for Zeiss for Microscopes. Both companies went on from there. Ernst Leitz of course founded Leitz that origninally made Leitz Microscopes and then Cameras. Both companies made cameras and lenses.
