lunar module wrote:
That's a beautiful image to my eye. Crispy sharp where it matters without being clinical. Beautiful tonality. Lovely bokeh. Very nice. Thx.
Thank you, very kind of you!
---------------------------------------------
philip_pj wrote:
thanks for the explain re the fountain.
kind to the skin, p38 #17 - I was not expecting that in this lens, to be honest. I thought it would get by pretty well with people, but now I'm looking forward to coercing some more subjects into having their pictures taken. Great clarity, in fact that's the best word to me for it all - clarity.
Correct.
As you would have noticed, even with a low res EVF as in the A7rII, the images “pop”.
I can do that. But, in reality, I do turn the corrections off. Especially with the Zony 55/1.8, there are color shift issues with the corrections on.
chiron wrote:
It would be very interesting to see these images with all correction ON in C1 since that is the way the lenses will usually be used.The images with the corrections on will indicate the practical color differences in use.
realVivek wrote:
I can do that. But, in reality, I do turn the corrections off. Especially with the Zony 55/1.8, there are color shift issues with the corrections on.
If you're willing to go to the trouble, I think it would be informative to see what happens--good or bad--with the corrections on!
lunar module wrote:
Gads. With all due respect, I really don't understand why so much attention is being paid to the presence of a limited amount of LoCA in this lens, especially considering all of its other superb qualities. Seems like a bit of perseveration is going on here.
There is zero question that it has some LoCA. I think my fountain shots in bright direct backlit sunlight proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. So does the shot of the waterfall. These findings are unambiguous. The other fountain shots don't really show any LoCA because the lighting is flat and there is no backlighting. But this is helpful too, because it shows that to generate visible LoCA the conditions have to be fairly extreme. And even in extreme conditions the degree of LoCA is limited. The shots that show a bit of LoCA on small tree branches are real, but the severity of the finding is minimal and, IMHO, irrelevant. You have to go looking for it at 1:1 or larger to see it.
I don't own any of the other APO Lanthar lenses so I don't know how the 50 APO compares to the 65 or 110, but I can say that it is vastly better than most of my other non APO lenses. Heck, I see pretty obvious LoCA on my Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 with minimal provocation.
But I would argue that all of this is more or less irrelevant. If you want a lens that has zero LoCA, this isn't it. If you want a lens that has extremely low levels of LoCA which is only visible in extreme conditions and is more or less stellar in every other respect, you owe it to yourself to check this lens out. It is quite special. Don't let the fixation on LoCA in this thread frighten you away.
This lens is small, light, a joy to shoot with and makes beautiful, crispy sharp yet remarkably subtle images. I can more or less guarantee that you will be impressed.
There is a history of APO lenses not being particularly APO so if you label a product as such you can be sure that folks are going to test your claim.
If lenses were marketed as "RAPO" (Relatively APO) there would be less discussion.
I understand. But the reality is that this lens has excellent control of CA.
Where do you draw the line between APO and "RAPO"? Seems completely subjective to me.
I don't think Voigtlander/Cosina are trying to pull a fast one on the consuming public by calling this lens an APO. It seems to me that some are challenging the APO label just because they like to challenge claims, as you say. It's almost like waving a red flag at a bull. Is there a single APO lens in existence that has zero CA?
Jan 10, 2020 at 09:56 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
There is a history of APO lenses not being particularly APO so if you label a product as such you can be sure that folks are going to test your claim.
If lenses were marketed as "RAPO" (Relatively APO) there would be less discussion.
Part of the problem is that people don't understand what APO actually means. People think it means total absence of CA, which just isn't what APO means. A lens can technically meet the definition of APO and still show CA in some situations. It is true, however, that manufacturers in the past have labelled lenses as APO that do not meet the technical definition. What we should keep in mind is that testing for CA is not the same as testing for whether as lens is APO. It would take some pretty technical testing to actually test for whether a lens is APO, and taking shots of a water fountain or a ruler certainly is not that. Still the test for CA are probably more important for really using the lens, so I think those are the important ones to do. We just shouldn't expect that an APO lens is going to show absolutely no CA, and when a lens does show CA we shouldn't say, "Wo, that lens isn't really APO." It might not be but that test doesn't tell us that. We should expect an APO lens to have less CA, but the amount of CA is important for us to know and we shouldn't expect zero.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Part of the problem is that people don't understand what APO actually means. People think it means total absence of CA, which just isn't what APO means. A lens can technically meet the definition of APO and still show CA in some situations. It is true, however, that manufacturers in the past have labelled lenses as APO that do not meet the technical definition. What we should keep in mind is that testing for CA is not the same as testing for whether as lens is APO. It would take some pretty technical testing to actually test for whether a lens is APO, and taking shots of a water fountain or a ruler certainly is not that. Still the test for CA are probably more important for really using the lens, so I think those are the important ones to do. We just shouldn't expect that an APO lens is going to show absolutely no CA, and when a lens does show CA we shouldn't say, "Wo, that lens isn't really APO." It might not be but that test doesn't tell us that. We should expect an APO lens to have less CA, but the amount of CA is important for us to know and we shouldn't expect zero....Show more →
I agree with your statement.
And why do people think APO = no CA? Because most review sites suggest that, plus manufacturers seem to claim it, too.
From the Cosina homepage:
"Inheriting the apochromatic optical design, the lens is highly corrected to eliminate optical aberrations including longitudinal chromatic aberration."
They talk about elimination (= absence of CA), which is just nonsense and poor marketing.
[edit] On the German Voigtlander site, the claim is more accurate:
"Durch die apochromatische Korrektur (die Korrektur auf drei, nicht nur zwei Farben), symbolisiert durch die drei farbigen Schrägstriche auf dem Objektiv, werden chromatische Aberrationen nahezu vollständig vermieden."
keepcoding wrote:
I agree with your statement.
And why do people think APO = no CA? Because most review sites suggest that, plus manufacturers seem to claim it, too.
From the Cosina homepage:
"Inheriting the apochromatic optical design, the lens is highly corrected to eliminate optical aberrations including longitudinal chromatic aberration."
They talk about elimination (= absence of CA), which is just nonsense and poor marketing.
[edit] On the German Voigtlander site, the claim is more accurate:
"Durch die apochromatische Korrektur (die Korrektur auf drei, nicht nur zwei Farben), symbolisiert durch die drei farbigen Schrägstriche auf dem Objektiv, werden chromatische Aberrationen nahezu vollständig vermieden."
Since the German and Japanese marketing language is different (I don't speak German so I will trust your interpretation), perhaps the Japanese statement, which is definitely somewhat hyperbolic, could be more a reflection of imprecise translation from Japanese to English than overt "marketing BS". All that would have been required to make the Japanese version accurate would have been to replace the word "eliminate" with "minimize". I can see a non native English speaker not fully appreciating the rather significant difference between those two words.
Anyway, who in the world actually takes marketing speak at face value in the first place? No manufacturer in the world is going to put out a lens well corrected for CA and then say that it is "really good, but not quite perfect". Every product is subjected to review by independent outsiders once it is released into the wild, and those sources are the ones we look to for "truth". And even these reviewers are guilty of hyperbole every now and then.
I don't have the sense that Cosina/Voigtlander is anywhere near the top of the "marketing BS" heap in this regard. They seem like a good, solid, respectable company building top quality products for what seems to be a shrinking niche market. My inclination is to encourage them, not criticise them.
The last few posts made me curious, so I looked at Leica's page for their 50 Cron APO. Here's what they say:
"The apochromatic correction of the lens minimizes chromatic aberration to ensure natural rendition of every detail."
But in any event, it feels to me like some forum readers who for whatever reason don't want to buy the CV 50 APO are looking for some kind of rationale to justify their decision not to purchase, when none is needed whatsoever.
Next someone is going to tell me that Cosina isn't German, it's not exactly a 50mm lens, from a light transmission perspective it's not exactly f/2, oh....and it doesn't have Lanthanum in it. (Does it? Do we really know for sure?) This thread has become somewhat tedious on this topic. It's not perfect, and we can argue to what degree of perfectness it has to be. But at some point, we collectively have to let this go. Neither side is going to convince the other.
Let's look at it on the whole and help people judge for themselves. Through the various samples people have posted, as well as first hand experience, hopefully there is enough to let people judge the whole APO'ishness or non-APO'ishness this lends exhibits. (Assuming we even could agree on what APO means.) I think this lens has a lot to offer, unfortunately absolute perfection isn't on the list.
Jeff Kott wrote:
The last few posts made me curious, so I looked at Leica's page for their 50 Cron APO. Here's what they say:
"The apochromatic correction of the lens minimizes chromatic aberration to ensure natural rendition of every detail."
But in any event, it feels to me like some forum readers who for whatever reason don't want to buy the CV 50 APO are looking for some kind of rationale to justify their decision not to purchase, when none is needed whatsoever.
Maybe just tired of hearing the "No CA", perfect lens, ... hype.
pdmphoto wrote:
Maybe just tired of hearing the "No CA", perfect lens, ... hype.
Exactly. "APO" is the principal selling argument. Otherwise it's a manual focus, 50mm, f/2 lens. When was it last time that you had wet dreams about a MF 50/2? So obviously the "APO" thing will get scrutinized to death..... Hold on, it ain't over yet.....
vdo1 wrote:
Exactly. "APO" is the principal selling argument. Otherwise it's a manual focus, 50mm, f/2 lens. When was it last time that you had wet dreams about a MF 50/2? So obviously the "APO" thing will get scrutinized to death..... Hold on, it ain't over yet.....
Well, this one is also stupid sharp, too. That's something everyone talks about a small, highly corrected lens with a moderately fast aperture rather than a huge, faster lens with more aberrations.
Me? I'd love one, but I'm also happy with what I have.
Jan 10, 2020 at 02:18 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
Exactly. "APO" is the principal selling argument. Otherwise it's a manual focus, 50mm, f/2 lens. When was it last time that you had wet dreams about a MF 50/2? So obviously the "APO" thing will get scrutinized to death..... Hold on, it ain't over yet.....
I think this is nonsense for a bunch of reasons. The primary selling feature of this lens for a lot of us is that it is compact and high performing. Some of us actually prefer manual focus as well. There is a whole history of Leica selling 50 f/2 lenses that many people have been excited about for decades. When the Sony mirrorless cameras first came out one of the very first lenses available was a 50 f/2 manual focus lens from Zeiss. I don't think such a lens is inherently boring in the least. Heck, Leica currently sell a 50 f/2 (and yeah it is APO) for over $6,000 new. And even among their typical sky high prices this lens is very high priced. And yeah, I had that lens and it was the best lens I have ever had (I would still have it but alas it was stolen and I couldn't afford to replace it). So, I don't see anything boring about a 50 f/2 manual lens and yeah I do very much like minimized CA, so APO lenses are great but I have had a bunch of those lenses so I don't expect zero CA on those lenses either.
pdmphoto wrote:
Maybe just tired of hearing the "No CA", perfect lens, ... hype.
I'm just curious where you're reading that the CV 50/2 APO has "No CA" and that is a "perfect lens"?
The review I posted last month mentions that although the CV 50/2 APO is a top 50mm lens in terms of CA correction, it was not as good as the other APO-Lanthar E-mount longer lenses.
On my "Final Thoughts", I actually had longitudinal CA in both Pros and Cons:
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think this is nonsense for a bunch of reasons. The primary selling feature of this lens for a lot of us is that it is compact and high performing. Some of us actually prefer manual focus as well. There is a whole history of Leica selling 50 f/2 lenses that many people have been excited about for decades. When the Sony mirrorless cameras first came out one of the very first lenses available was a 50 f/2 manual focus lens from Zeiss. I don't think such a lens is inherently boring in the least. Heck, Leica currently sell a 50 f/2 (and yeah it is APO) for over $6,000 new. And even among their typical sky high prices this lens is very high priced. And yeah, I had that lens and it was the best lens I have ever had (I would still have it but alas it was stolen and I couldn't afford to replace it). So, I don't see anything boring about a 50 f/2 manual lens and yeah I do very much like minimized CA, so APO lenses are great but I have had a bunch of those lenses so I don't expect zero CA on those lenses either....Show more →
Can you quantify that "lot of us" in terms of market share?
Jan 10, 2020 at 02:54 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
Can you quantify that "lot of us" in terms of market share?
Nope, not in terms of marketing share, but you are making your comments on a forum here at FM and you were talking about the discussion here on this thread and why it was scrutinized to death. I am pretty sure that lots of us in this discussion means at least 20 people and perhaps as many as 50 people. So your silly statement suggesting that hardly anyone would be excited about a 50mm f/2 manual lenses is ignoring that a good number of people reading this thread and commenting on this thread are indeed excited about just that sort of lens.
