nhsonyshooter wrote:
I'm hoping for a 35mm APO as well. The 50 APO is tempting for the smaller size and sunstars, but in the end I can't give up the Eye AF and the 1.4 of the Zeiss. Currently I have nothing in the 35mm range other than the 24gm in crop. So a 35 APO would be great
Yes, give us a 35/2 APO as the Zeiss Lox 35/2 is disappointing optically, especially for the asking price.
It's an interesting situation with this APO lens as the test case.
Normally you would say that further similar lenses depend on the market success of the base lens being referred to - this APO-Lanthar. However, there is every likelihood it might remain as an unheralded fringe product, and Cosina might be left scratching their heads at how few customers like these unique high quality APO lenses.
Then, realising that what they have done is not appreciated or rewarded in the mainstream market, they would most likely return to the familiar niche of the M mount, where their lenses are at least familiar and well-respected by serious reviewers. And attend to their other business interests. They don't need us.
As much as it would be great for Cosina to succeed, can Voigtländer survive in a market of very good quality mid-cost AF lenses that so dominate peoples' attention? We'll soon know, but the prospects are not too bright, as shown in this thread.
philip_pj wrote:
It's an interesting situation with this APO lens as the test case.
Normally you would say that further similar lenses depend on the market success of the base lens being referred to - this APO-Lanthar. However, there is every likelihood it might remain as an unheralded fringe product, and Cosina might be left scratching their heads at how few customers like these unique high quality APO lenses.
Then, realising that what they have done is not appreciated or rewarded in the mainstream market, they would most likely return to the familiar niche of the M mount, where their lenses are at least familiar and well-respected by serious reviewers. And attend to their other business interests. They don't need us.
As much as it would be great for Cosina to succeed, can Voigtländer survive in a market of very good quality mid-cost AF lenses that so dominate peoples' attention? We'll soon know, but the prospects are not too bright, as shown in this thread....Show more →
philip_pj wrote:
It's an interesting situation with this APO lens as the test case.
Normally you would say that further similar lenses depend on the market success of the base lens being referred to - this APO-Lanthar. However, there is every likelihood it might remain as an unheralded fringe product, and Cosina might be left scratching their heads at how few customers like these unique high quality APO lenses.
Then, realising that what they have done is not appreciated or rewarded in the mainstream market, they would most likely return to the familiar niche of the M mount, where their lenses are at least familiar and well-respected by serious reviewers. And attend to their other business interests. They don't need us.
As much as it would be great for Cosina to succeed, can Voigtländer survive in a market of very good quality mid-cost AF lenses that so dominate peoples' attention? We'll soon know, but the prospects are not too bright, as shown in this thread....Show more →
Personally I think Voigtlander would have been smarter to release a 35mm APO first. They just released the 50 1.2 not that long ago. Not saying they shouldn't make the 50 APO at all, just think a 35 would have sold better first. Then later roll out the 50.
It would be interesting to know whether more 50 or 35mm prime lenses are sold. It’s not intuitive to me (obviously) that 35 is a more popular focal length.
philip_pj wrote:
It's an interesting situation with this APO lens as the test case.
Normally you would say that further similar lenses depend on the market success of the base lens being referred to - this APO-Lanthar. However, there is every likelihood it might remain as an unheralded fringe product, and Cosina might be left scratching their heads at how few customers like these unique high quality APO lenses.
Then, realising that what they have done is not appreciated or rewarded in the mainstream market, they would most likely return to the familiar niche of the M mount, where their lenses are at least familiar and well-respected by serious reviewers. And attend to their other business interests. They don't need us.
As much as it would be great for Cosina to succeed, can Voigtländer survive in a market of very good quality mid-cost AF lenses that so dominate peoples' attention? We'll soon know, but the prospects are not too bright, as shown in this thread....Show more →
The 2/65 and 1.2/40 were both huge hits in terms of sales. The other E lenses did well, with only the 110 causing Cosina to scratch their heads about surprisingly low sales (I fear that may mean that our hopes of a new compact 4/180 may be therefore dashed - they may think the lesson is that MF tele lenses don't sell).
DavidBM wrote:
The 2/65 and 1.2/40 were both huge hits in terms of sales. The other E lenses did well, with only the 110 causing Cosina to scratch their heads about surprisingly low sales (I fear that may mean that our hopes of a new compact 4/180 may be therefore dashed - they may think the lesson is that MF tele lenses don't sell).
I have and love the CV 110. It is the highest resolving lens that I have ever used. That said, it’s such a hard focal length to work into a kit. Most photographers who are likely to consider the CV 110 already have an 85/90mm lens and likely have a 135mm lens. The 110mm focal length just seems redundant and forced when added to a typical kit. The macro is welcome and excellent, but so is Sony’s 90 macro. The CV 110 is a fantastic lens, but so are many lenses in the short telephoto range and the CV 110 is a bit late to the party.
smpetty wrote:
I have and love the CV 110. It is the highest resolving lens that I have ever used. That said, it’s such a hard focal length to work into a kit. Most photographers who are likely to consider the CV 110 already have an 85/90mm lens and likely have a 135mm lens. The 110mm focal length just seems redundant and forced when added to a typical kit. The macro is welcome and excellent, but so is Sony’s 90 macro. The CV 110 is a fantastic lens with a relatively small demand.
Maybe, but then most photographers looking to buy relatively niche MF stuff already have all the standard focal lengths covered. So that would be true whatever FL they made it.
110 is a bit ususual, but really it's not significantly different from 100: and historically 100 has been maybe even more common (at least on SLRs or DSLRS) than 85-90 as a choice of shortish tele. So if someone doesn't have a short tele, then they might be as likely to choose 110 as 90; and if they do have one then it wouldn't make things easier if the new CV was exactly the same FL as their existing one!
So two possibilities. One is that it's just a bit heavy: the number of people buying true macro lenses for macro use is not that high, and the reality is that a helicoid based life size macro, while haptically better for macro than an IF AF lens, is a lot heavier - and maybe people find this lens too heavy for a general purpose short tele (to get a sense of how a 2.4/100 non macro would compare with the macro first compare the AL 2/65 macro with the new 2/50 - and then realise that the 2/65 is only 1:2 whereas the 110 is 1:1 so it could be way smaller!)
The other possibility is that a lot of Sony *manual focus* users have "rangefinder sensibilities" where 90 is about as long as they want to go, and although 110 is not much longer, it's outside their comfort zone.
I think the big thing with the 110 is that that mid-telephoto macro lens is a spot where most Sony macro photographers who need a lens in that range already had the Sony 90mm f/2.8. Couple that with the Sony 90 being outstanding optically, internally focusing, good, linear manual focus for an AF lens (with the AF/MF clutch), and pretty quick and accurate autofocus...while being cheaper. It's a tough sell. Because it's AF, it doubles very well for general purpose work, portraiture and event shooting, while lacking essentially nothing optically, very, very few people are willing to sell their 90s for the CV 110.
DavidBM wrote:
The 2/65 and 1.2/40 were both huge hits in terms of sales. The other E lenses did well, with only the 110 causing Cosina to scratch their heads about surprisingly low sales (I fear that may mean that our hopes of a new compact 4/180 may be therefore dashed - they may think the lesson is that MF tele lenses don't sell).
The fact that they never had any kind of sale or discount here didn't help with their sales either. I was looking for it this Christmas season but nothing. Nada. Full price. Jingle all the way....
DavidBM wrote:
So two possibilities. One is that it's just a bit heavy: the number of people buying true macro lenses for macro use is not that high, and the reality is that a helicoid based life size macro, while haptically better for macro than an IF AF lens, is a lot heavier - and maybe people find this lens too heavy for a general purpose short tele (to get a sense of how a 2.4/100 non macro would compare with the macro first compare the AL 2/65 macro with the new 2/50 - and then realise that the 2/65 is only 1:2 whereas the 110 is 1:1 so it could be way smaller!)
The other possibility is that a lot of Sony *manual focus* users have "rangefinder sensibilities" where 90 is about as long as they want to go, and although 110 is not much longer, it's outside their comfort zone. ...Show more →
This is basically what led me to sell the 110 (twice). I don't want/need a 1:1 macro so the added size and fiddly non-macro focusing became cumbersome.
I reflect the "rangefinder sensibilities" comment too, but not regarding focal length. It's more a size/weight issue for me. I'd actually prefer it a bit longer. Something that I could use as a 70-200 replacement; a general walk-around tele. I doubt there is much of a market for that though, and I'd be happy with a 100ish mm in the same style as the 50 APO.
It would be interesting to know whether more 50 or 35mm prime lenses are sold. It’s not intuitive to me (obviously) that 35 is a more popular focal length.
Who said the 35mm is more popular? I just think from a business stand point it is an odd decision to release 2 50mm lenses in the same calendar year that's all. MF is a niche market to begin with. Instead of releasing the "vintage" 35 1.4 which no one really wants today. They could have sold a ton more 35mm f2 APO lenses.
rps_23 wrote:
This is basically what led me to sell the 110 (twice). I don't want/need a 1:1 macro so the added size and fiddly non-macro focusing became cumbersome.
I reflect the "rangefinder sensibilities" comment too, but not regarding focal length. It's more a size/weight issue for me. I'd actually prefer it a bit longer. Something that I could use as a 70-200 replacement; a general walk-around tele. I doubt there is much of a market for that though, and I'd be happy with a 100ish mm in the same style as the 50 APO.
You probably made the right choice. If I didn’t want it for macro reasons, I wouldn’t have it, despite its optical excellence at other distances.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I just think from a business stand point it is an odd decision to release 2 50mm lenses in the same calendar year that's all.
I think it’s interesting that you see it this way. Although both 50’s, I see them as different enough to be not very competitive with each other. Personally, I’m not interested in one of them and couldn’t wait to get my hands on the other. This is despite the fact that I have at least three other lenses in that focal length (but not for long).
I’ll add that straight aperture blades on the 110mm were a strange choice. I’m biased since I don’t like the sun stars they produce in the first place, but it’s much harder to look past edged bokeh balls on a longer lens.
Dec 28, 2019 at 11:13 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Yep, ditto. I was really excited when I heard they were putting out a 110mm, because I've sort of been nagging for something in the >80mm range that's native to Sony. The first pic of it I saw, I knew it was a no-go. My "rangefinder sensibilities" 90mm lenses have been the G90, and the Elmar C 90/4, so that's about the size I'd want to see. Finally bit the bullet on an M-Hexanon 90/2.8 last week, which seems to do just about perfectly on Sony, so the urgency is no longer there.
BTW, always good to see shots of Philly. If I weren't being held hostage in West Philly by a 4 year old 24/7, I'd say we should meet up around Rittenhouse and bring all our lenses to swap some time.
rps_23 wrote:
This is basically what led me to sell the 110 (twice). I don't want/need a 1:1 macro so the added size and fiddly non-macro focusing became cumbersome.
I reflect the "rangefinder sensibilities" comment too, but not regarding focal length. It's more a size/weight issue for me. I'd actually prefer it a bit longer. Something that I could use as a 70-200 replacement; a general walk-around tele. I doubt there is much of a market for that though, and I'd be happy with a 100ish mm in the same style as the 50 APO.
