grahamgibson wrote:
If you desire f1.2 or f1.4, this 50 APO won't scratch that itch--go for the Nokton and you won't regret it. I use my CV40 at f1.2 and f1.4 all the time. Takes a bit of practice, but I have plenty of in-focus images of my 4-year old, so you know it's possible
Absolutely why I am keeping both my 1.2's and waiting for the 50/2 . I love both Nokton's but I don't love them as landscape lenses. They look good at f8 but they don't have the amazing contrast of the Loxia 21 or 16-35GM.
I know there’s interest for a wide like a 28 2.0 or a 35 2.0 APO, but I think a 21 or 18 would be of more interest. Like an 18 2.4 APO or 20 2.4 APO. Seems like landscapes are a perfect application for this type of lens and design.
twentysevenone wrote:
Absolutely why I am keeping both my 1.2's and waiting for the 50/2 . I love both Nokton's but I don't love them as landscape lenses. They look good at f8 but they don't have the amazing contrast of the Loxia 21 or 16-35GM.
The wider you go, the more challenging it is to keep it APO?
Sorry for the rhyming....
Arguably there is still a huge hole in the 28mm and 35mm area. We already have two CV lenses at 21, and the Loxia 21. For 24mm'ish we have the Loxia 25. What do we have at 28 and 35, in terms of a native manual focus lens? The Loxia 35? Seems like you could sell a lot of 28mm or 35mm APOs if it's out of the same design philosophy of the 50/2.
-Tim
Justin Stone wrote:
I know there’s interest for a wide like a 28 2.0 or a 35 2.0 APO, but I think a 21 or 18 would be of more interest. Like an 18 2.4 or 20 2.4. Seems like landscapes are a perfect application for this type of lens and design.
Justin Stone wrote:
I know there’s interest for a wide like a 28 2.0 or a 35 2.0 APO, but I think a 21 or 18 would be of more interest. Like an 18 2.4 APO or 20 2.4 APO. Seems like landscapes are a perfect application for this type of lens and design.
I think there are a decent amount of 21,24mm and a lot of 35mm options
A 28mm APO, would make a lot of sense and gap well with 50mm and possibly 90/100mm , imo
Could crop 28mm to 35ish rather easily too
Dec 16, 2019 at 04:24 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
tsdevine wrote:
The wider you go, the more challenging it is to keep it APO?
Sorry for the rhyming....
Arguably there is still a huge hole in the 28mm and 35mm area. We already have two CV lenses at 21, and the Loxia 21. For 24mm'ish we have the Loxia 25. What do we have at 28 and 35, in terms of a native manual focus lens? The Loxia 35? Seems like you could sell a lot of 28mm or 35mm APOs if it's out of the same design philosophy of the 50/2.
-Tim
I very much agree here. I actually have my doubts about how possible even a 35 f/2 APO would be if it is going to be at all small. Notice that nobody, AFAIK, has made such a lens. Not Leica--their 35 f/2 Asph is anything but APO--not Voigtlander; not Zeiss. Making such a lens would be a very ambitious project. Making such a lens or a 28 or especially a 21 or 18 would be a hugely demanding project, IMO.
I think the lens we are much more likely to see is an 85 or 90 APO. Leica has made a 90 APO for over 20 years. Voigtlander used to make a slower 90 APO. Zeiss has an 85 APO (even it is huge). I think it would just be a whole lot easier to make an 85 or 90 APO than even a 35 APO and especially a 21 or 18 APO. Voigtlander could also look at modifying their 65 f/2 APO to make the focal length longer, again this seems like it would be a lot easier than starting from scratch with a wider lens.
Personally, I would be happy with a 18 f/3.5 that was small and reasonably well corrected, the current pair of 21mm lenses that are both excellent, a nice small, sharp, and well corrected but not APO 28 and 35. To me that would be enough to keep me happy.
tsdevine wrote:
The wider you go, the more challenging it is to keep it APO?
Sorry for the rhyming....
Arguably there is still a huge hole in the 28mm and 35mm area. We already have two CV lenses at 21, and the Loxia 21. For 24mm'ish we have the Loxia 25. What do we have at 28 and 35, in terms of a native manual focus lens? The Loxia 35? Seems like you could sell a lot of 28mm or 35mm APOs if it's out of the same design philosophy of the 50/2.
-Tim
I'm not sure how true this is. Historically, with photographic lenses (the story is different with microscope objectives) the issue has been that the longer the lens, the worse the axial CA in terms of being really obvious and messing up the image. Earlier 2.8/200 class lenses are often just horrible to use because of axial CA. So efforts were made to make them APO. Wider lenses had less obvious issues (though of course they had issues) so there was less perceived market for higher levels of correction to fix issues which were harder to see (in part because the halos are less magnified).
Now I'm not saying that it isn't maybe a little harder to correct wide lenses (the Apo-Distagon 28mm Otus has ever so slightly less good correction than the longer Otuses) but I think mainly it's that no big effort has been made: if there's a market for a 28 or 35 Apo (Apo-Skopar perhaps, as Lanthars have always been normal to tele?) I'm guessing it can be done; even if f2.4 is needed to keep it compact.
Don’t really disagree....hence my suggestion that 28 and 35 would be a good area to attack. The person I was replying to was suggesting they should go even wider.
Maybe it will be a 90.....who knows. But I’m more skeptical that the next APO-Lanthar will be wider than 28.
-Tim
DavidBM wrote:
I'm not sure how true this is. Historically, with photographic lenses (the story is different with microscope objectives) the issue has been that the longer the lens, the worse the axial CA in terms of being really obvious and messing up the image. Earlier 2.8/200 class lenses are often just horrible to use because of axial CA. So efforts were made to make them APO. Wider lenses had less obvious issues (though of course they had issues) so there was less perceived market for higher levels of correction to fix issues which were harder to see (in part because the halos are less magnified).
Now I'm not saying that it isn't maybe a little harder to correct wide lenses (the Apo-Distagon 28mm Otus has ever so slightly less good correction than the longer Otuses) but I think mainly it's that no big effort has been made: if there's a market for a 28 or 35 Apo (Apo-Skopar perhaps, as Lanthars have always been normal to tele?) I'm guessing it can be done; even if f2.4 is needed to keep it compact....Show more →
Nice walk about Fred. Fantastic lens to shoot a spectacular day for the middle of December. Lovely images even with rather mundane subjects. We are blessed. No way we should take these kinds of things for granted.
I am a bit concerned though Fred. It seems your lens may be stuck on f/2...........
1bwana1 wrote:
Nice walk about Fred. Fantastic lens to shoot a spectacular day for the middle of December. Lovely images even with rather mundane subjects. We are blessed. No way we should take these kinds of things for granted.
I am a bit concerned though Fred. It seems your lens may be stuck on f/2...........
Hey, I have one sample at f/4!
As you can see from the images, I'm really trying to make the lens show CA, flare and harsh bokeh but I was unable to do it.
On the tram track image for example, there is no CA and no flare (sun right above the frame).
I'm pretty sure the 50/1.2's rendering is smoother at wide apertures since it's under-corrected for spherical aberration by design but I am really liking the 50/2 APO's neutral rendering and high resolution look. Rendering seems smoother than the CV 65/2's. Definitely better flare resistance.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hey, I have one sample at f/4!
As you can see from the images, I'm really trying to make the lens show CA, flare and harsh bokeh but I was unable to do it.
On the tram track image for example, there is no CA and no flare (sun right above the frame).
I'm pretty sure the 50/1.2's rendering is smoother at wide apertures since it's under-corrected for spherical aberration by design but I am really liking the 50/2 APO's neutral rendering and high resolution look. Rendering seems smoother than the CV 65/2's. Definitely better flare resistance.
I think 2.8 is worth further exploring. It’s where CV chose to have a round aperture too. Maybe there’s some magic there.
I agree with @vdo1 that f/2.8 might be a sweet spot, and I'm particularly interested to know if the defocus color fringing clears. What Fred and DPR call axial color is usually defocus color fringing—which is arguably even worse than LCA (axial color) for real-world images like fountains. In the definition of longitudinal chromatic aberration by Carl Zeiss, the correction is complete if the on-plane image is free of color artifacts. That is an acceptable definition for microscopy where these performance goals and terminology were introduced: everything is in focus on a slide.
twentysevenone wrote:
Your samples are killing me Fred, I hope mine will look as good on a mere A7III. Anyone know what time Adorama sends shipping confirmations?
rico wrote:
I agree with @vdo1@ that f/2.8 might be a sweet spot, and I'm particularly interested to know if the defocus color fringing clears. What Fred and DPR call axial color is usually defocus color fringing—which is arguably even worse than LCA (axial color) for real-world images like fountains. In the definition of longitudinal chromatic aberration by Carl Zeiss, the correction is complete if the on-plane image is free of color artifacts. That is an acceptable definition for microscopy where these performance goals and terminology were introduced: everything is in focus on a slide.
I posted some pics on page 11, most if not all were at f2.8 i think
Lens focuses and looks good at 2.8, kind of felt natural for me
One benefit of f/2.8 will be round specular highlights at center and off-axis due to lower optical vignetting. There will be a slight bump in resolution as well.
If it's that sharp in the extreme corners wide open it likely has very well controlled coma one would think.
Hopefully the stars are out at Fred's house tonight. I know they aren't even close to being visible here is Seattle, though the Seattle waterfront at night from a distance would be a good coma test.
So lens is as good as was being hyped and looks amazing. I’m still torn on this or the 65 even though the 50 performs a bit better, the 65 is still excellent and the ability to focus so close nis enticing. I tend to do floral portraits not human portraits. I do like how compact the 50mm is however.
I may need to toss a coin and have a best of 51 to decide.
