And APO doesn't mean that a lens is perfectly corrected for any CA. To quote Wikipedia: "Apochromatic lenses are designed to bring three wavelengths (typically red, green, and blue) into focus in the same plane. The residual color error (secondary spectrum) can be up to an order of magnitude less than for an achromatic lens of equivalent aperture and focal length."
And yes, there are longer or slower lenses better corrected but also the Otus 55 and Leica AA50 are not perfectly corrected for CA. So the AL50's performance is among the best in class and significantly better than most.
More important to me though is if CA has an effect on my images and here I have to answer with no. Yes, if you search for it you see traces of CA in some images but unless you are really sensitive to CA I can't see how you could take issue with such an performance: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49326500061_125a924309_o.jpg
(Another 100% crop from the image above)
The AL 65 image look pretty much perfect to me, even the crop.
And you still seem to look at the 100% crop of the 50/2 in the waterfall image. As stated before, the color shift is most noticable when looking at the image globally. I can even see it if I watch it on my phone screen.
I have spend some time today to take some comparison shots against the 40/1.2
For most of them, I shoot 40mm @F1.2 and @F2 while the 50APO @F2 to show the difference in bokeh and what the extra stop of a difference actually looks like.
Some I shoot at higher F stops to show the sharpness comparison which you may use for landscapes etc.
Unfortunately I only noticed the dust/hair on the right corner in some shots, and some spots in the CV40.
But I left it as these are imported into C1 and export with default sharperning for your reference.
Kildras wrote:
I have spend some time today to take some comparison shots against the 40/1.2
For most of them, I shoot 40mm @F1.2@ and @F2 while the 50APO @F2 to show the difference in bokeh and what the extra stop of a difference actually looks like.
Some I shoot at higher F stops to show the sharpness comparison which you may use for landscapes etc.
Unfortunately I only noticed the dust/hair on the right corner in some shots, and some spots in the CV40.
But I left it as these are imported into C1 and export with default sharperning for your reference.
Thanks for the comparison!
Looks like the 40/1.2 @F2 is still a bit behind the 50/2 AL, even though the latter doesn't look great either in some of the photos:
Aside from color correction, I see a noticeable difference in color and the overall look of the images produced by these lenses.
Kildras wrote:
I have spend some time today to take some comparison shots against the 40/1.2
For most of them, I shoot 40mm @F1.2@@ and @F2 while the 50APO @F2 to show the difference in bokeh and what the extra stop of a difference actually looks like.
Some I shoot at higher F stops to show the sharpness comparison which you may use for landscapes etc.
Unfortunately I only noticed the dust/hair on the right corner in some shots, and some spots in the CV40.
But I left it as these are imported into C1 and export with default sharperning for your reference.
Kildras wrote:
I have spend some time today to take some comparison shots against the 40/1.2
For most of them, I shoot 40mm @F1.2@ and @F2 while the 50APO @F2 to show the difference in bokeh and what the extra stop of a difference actually looks like.
Some I shoot at higher F stops to show the sharpness comparison which you may use for landscapes etc.
Unfortunately I only noticed the dust/hair on the right corner in some shots, and some spots in the CV40.
But I left it as these are imported into C1 and export with default sharperning for your reference.
I have to admit, the latest images of the branches against the sky is really tempering my desire for this lens.
I already have the Loxia 50 which is a great landscape lens at f/8, where I use it. I already have the CV 65 for true APO performance. If the CV 50 were perfectly APO wide open I'd go ahead and pick it up, as a more compact APO walkaround, but at this point I'll just use the 65 for those use cases and deal with the size / weight.
Not too lessen your resolve not to buy the lens 🙂 but in practical use I seldom see any of the issues demonstrated in this thread. And I use the lens a lot, mostly wide open in a variety of scenarios. As I stated before the correction of this lens is on par with the Loxia 85 which is darn good in itself (not APO but not far off).
lightskyland wrote:
I have to admit, the latest images of the branches against the sky is really tempering my desire for this lens.
I already have the Loxia 50 which is a great landscape lens at f/8, where I use it. I already have the CV 65 for true APO performance. If the CV 50 were perfectly APO wide open I'd go ahead and pick it up, as a more compact APO walkaround, but at this point I'll just use the 65 for those use cases and deal with the size / weight.
A couple of weeks ago I reported receiving a mildly but definitely crook 50mm AL. Thanks to walknorth and rji2goleez I was able to secure a second copy out of Stephen Gandy's second tranche, serial number about 350 higher than my first from Adorama, and it's fine.
Some more from the morning walk. This lens is so sharp that I'm afraid to touch it.
BTW, these downsized images don't really do the originals justice. They are kind of breathtaking in their high res glory. You can zoom in to 1:1 and they remain sharp as a tack. Contrast is high. Rendering is very nice.
I think I have a new favorite lens. Thanks to all of you at FM for enabling me, especially you Fred.
Ft. Funston coast looking South
Ft. Funston coast looking North
Funston beach
Funston looking North. SF Richmond District and Mt. Tamalpais in distance
As much as I never thought I would do it, I now carry two 50s in my bag. The Sony 50 1.4 ZA for moving subjects and shallow DOF portraiture and the CV 50 APO for everything else.
IME, the 50/2 uses more of the tonal range, as a histo comparison should confirm. Bokeh is less abstracted, more linear, credible. AWB is often cool but accurate, the lens creates images that respond well to artistic input. Files are generally easy to work.
Delicate colours in the upper tone range retain saturation very well, and low tone colour is very expressive, consistent. So in a nutshell: tonal control (clean neutrals), gorgeous soft skies, deep coloration, top class fine detail, unruffled bokeh - in a 50mm angle of view and DOF. A fine documentary lens with character that does not shout its sharpness. The lens gets out of the way of the image, an APO trait. We care a lot about f2-f2.8 but f8 -f11 is very effective for many images. I don't see many being sold, once bought and used.
Would be good to see a more formal and controlled fall-off comparo by aperture against ZA 50/1.4; CV 50/1.2 at focal distances of 1m-2m-3m by f2-f2.8.
Just uploaded many full resolution images to flickr: Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO Lanthar sample gallery. Their viewer has become really good, so you can see images in high quality and get to 100% with just one click.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Just uploaded many full resolution images to flickr: Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO Lanthar sample gallery. Their viewer has become really good, so you can see images in high quality and get to 100% with just one click.
Thanks for the full-res samples, nice photos!
I checked them for CA and as expected, it is definitely visible in some of the photos (even in one shot at F8 I see some green tint). However, it is in general pretty well controlled. Not APO level in my opinion but that seems to be debatable.
I think we have long established, that CA correction isn't perfect. As with any other 50mm I know of. Though I would be interested in a direct comparison against 65AL, Otus 55 or AA50. And again: APO doesn't mean that there is no CA, just that it is better corrected. Which it is.
The question anyone has to answer for oneself is if one takes issue with the small amount of CA present. To me it is a no issue but obviously you see that different and I hope that the samples can help some to come to a conclusion.
Are people sure that the CA pointed out with tree branches is caused by the lens, as opposed to the sensor, electronics, and/or a limitation of the Bayer filter/algorithm or a combination of the sensor and these other possible factors?
Are people sure that the CA pointed out with tree branches is caused by the lens, as opposed to the sensor, electronics, and/or a limitation of the Bayer filter/algorithm or a combination of the sensor and these other possible factors?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think we have long established, that CA correction isn't perfect. As with any other 50mm I know of. Though I would be interested in a direct comparison against 65AL, Otus 55 or AA50. And again: APO doesn't mean that there is no CA, just that it is better corrected. Which it is.
The question anyone has to answer for oneself is if one takes issue with the small amount of CA present. To me it is a no issue but obviously you see that different and I hope that the samples can help some to come to a conclusion.
I agree, a direct comparison to the AL 65 would be very helpful for me to make a decision. I am still undecided between the two.
As you guessed right, I am allergic to CA, that is also why I don't own a Zeiss lens (most of them suffer from severe CA).
(most of them suffer from severe CA).