I do not have (not going to buy one either) the CV 65/2 but with 26mm extension tubes (unfortunately, I could only find the old E ones, these have extreme corner vignetting), it goes to nearly 1:2 mag. At f/5.6.
realVivek wrote:
I do not have (not going to buy one either) the CV 65/2 but with 26mm extension tubes (unfortunately, I could only find the old E ones, these have extreme corner vignetting), it goes to nearly 1:2 mag. At f/5.6.
Thanks. I will check it again. That means that with two sets (52mm extension) it goes over 1x (severe corner clipping with the old E tubes)!while still looking amazingly sharp!
BTW, reversed (needs a lot of extension) it isn’t all that great.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Actually you only need a 16mm extension tube to achieve 1:2 magnification. (Already matching the CV 65/2 mag.)
With a 26mm the lens will be at: 0.68x.
realVivek wrote:
Thanks. I will check it again. That means that with two sets (52mm extension) it goes over 1x (severe corner clipping with the old E tubes)!while still looking amazingly sharp!
BTW, reversed (needs a lot of extension) it isn’t all that great.
I found it to be very good at f/2.8 with the 16mm extension tube for a 1:2 macro magnification. Definitely not close to the 65/2 APO's macro performance at 1:2 though.
Here is a quick sample with the 16mm extension tube at MFD:
'mixed feelings'. The number of users is too small just yet. Those that bought one (and got one) mostly knew what they were getting and why they were buying in. No lens is perfect for everyone and as time passes and new lenses appear, Cosina's design compromises may be seen in a different light by those with different priorities and tastes. Some literally don't see what it brings over the competition.
It's an edge-of-market lens by design, being small and manual focus, just enough IC coverage. Some won't like the lack of lens speed, the lemon disks, ring rotation direction, unfamiliar ergo. Purists will fault the last few percent of correction it lacks. Some will wonder what the fuss is about and buy in for the wrong reasons and back away.
Never forget: we live in an era where powerful commercial interests are working hard to persuade and sell mainstream photographers on everything this lens is not: studio-oriented optics that are very large, very heavy, very fast, very expensive, have rapid AF, need very large filters, that are prohibitively difficult to carry far and shoot the normal world and normal people with. Intimidating lenses that are not pleasurable to use for many forms of traditional photography, but are somehow deemed 'necessary'.
philip_pj wrote:
'mixed feelings'. The number of users is too small just yet. Those that bought one (and got one) mostly knew what they were getting and why they were buying in. No lens is perfect for everyone and as time passes and new lenses appear, Cosina's design compromises may be seen in a different light by those with different priorities and tastes. Some literally don't see what it brings over the competition.
It's an edge-of-market lens by design, being small and manual focus, just enough IC coverage. Some won't like the lack of lens speed, the lemon disks, ring rotation direction, unfamiliar ergo. Purists will fault the last few percent of correction it lacks. Some will wonder what the fuss is about and buy in for the wrong reasons and back away.
Never forget: we live in an era where powerful commercial interests are working hard to persuade and sell mainstream photographers on everything this lens is not: studio-oriented optics that are very large, very heavy, very fast, very expensive, have rapid AF, need very large filters, that are prohibitively difficult to carry far and shoot the normal world and normal people with. Intimidating lenses that are not pleasurable to use for many forms of traditional photography, but are somehow deemed 'necessary'. ...Show more →
Not sure what you are talking about. If there are any exterior forces at work to persuade someone to buy a lens they come from here
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Not sure what you are talking about. If there are any exterior forces at work to persuade someone to buy a lens they come from here
Today was my first day with the lens, it truly renders colours and contrats with a beautiful and unique way. The Voigtlander apo in general are so good you hardly need post processing, yes that good. Difficult to make the picture better in post if its not for adjusting some exposure or lighten some shadows. Even a bit underexposed they look great. As soon as I can I will post some pictures. With my mobile only and need to work out if i can do this with lightroom mobile. Best.
Dgoullet wrote:
Today was my first day with the lens, it truly renders colours and contrats with a beautiful and unique way. The Voigtlander apo in general are so good you hardly need post processing, yes that good. Difficult to make the picture better in post if its not for adjusting some exposure or lighten some shadows. Even a bit underexposed they look great. As soon as I can I will post some pictures. With my mobile only and need to work out if i can do this with lightroom mobile. Best.
The colors remind me of another system that uses similarly sized lenses
Lenses like these are a revelation. I remember feeling the same way about the Sony 35 2.8 and the Sony 55 1.8.
Both with serious compromises, but both so small and light that you just wanted to use them a lot despite the compromises.
This optic is that small and light but it doesn’t have the same compromises optically. The only compromises you listed and manual focus, which in my book can be a blessing because it forces a different, potentially more deliberative method.
What it does is make me want more. I’d really like a 28mm f2.0 APO to go with it. And I’m more convinced that the 110 even with some wavy FC would be a banger lens for my shooting style.
Quite pleased this lens exists.
philip_pj wrote:
'mixed feelings'. The number of users is too small just yet. Those that bought one (and got one) mostly knew what they were getting and why they were buying in. No lens is perfect for everyone and as time passes and new lenses appear, Cosina's design compromises may be seen in a different light by those with different priorities and tastes. Some literally don't see what it brings over the competition.
It's an edge-of-market lens by design, being small and manual focus, just enough IC coverage. Some won't like the lack of lens speed, the lemon disks, ring rotation direction, unfamiliar ergo. Purists will fault the last few percent of correction it lacks. Some will wonder what the fuss is about and buy in for the wrong reasons and back away.
Never forget: we live in an era where powerful commercial interests are working hard to persuade and sell mainstream photographers on everything this lens is not: studio-oriented optics that are very large, very heavy, very fast, very expensive, have rapid AF, need very large filters, that are prohibitively difficult to carry far and shoot the normal world and normal people with. Intimidating lenses that are not pleasurable to use for many forms of traditional photography, but are somehow deemed 'necessary'. ...Show more →
It answers a lot of questions, Justin. Come late January, people will see more of what it brings to the table. I am trying to work through what it cannot do - that I want from it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I found it to be very good at f/2.8 with the 16mm extension tube for a 1:2 macro magnification. Definitely not close to the 65/2 APO's macro performance at 1:2 though.
Here is a quick sample with the 16mm extension tube at MFD:
How about the Marumi close-up filters +3 and/or +5
Kildras wrote:
I love my 40 1.2 and honestly thinking a 50mm just to have a "spare".
I am absolutely stuck between the 50 1.2 and this 50apo, I have no idea if my a7iii would really showcase the 50apo advantage.
You'd definitely see a difference between the 50/1.2 and the 50/2 APO. I very recently got the 110/2.5 and while its optical greatness doesn't stand out as much as with higher resolution cameras, I can still see improvements over the Sigma 135/1.8 - which is a benchmark lens by itself.
