There is enough market share for CV to produce a number of lenses that run the gamut of more classical rendering, to more modern (and hybrids in between.) They are all manual focus to my knowledge.
If CV is doing well, enough to continue to invest in the Sony E mount line, shouldn't it be okay to discuss CV lenses here? Even if they weren't doing well (I really don't know how well they are doing),it still is okay to discuss here right? Is the implication this should be in the ALT forum only? I mean there are a few suppliers, other than CV, of manual focus E mount lenses.
I can understand those who like the idea of the lens, who have bought it and are sharing (both likes and dislikes.) I can understand those who are somewhat interested, but have doubts or concerns. I can understand those that took a look and felt it wasn't for them and are disinterested. But the questioning about the market share of manual focus lenses almost sounds like more than disinterest. What does the market share of manual focus users have to do with the qualities of this lens?
If it is truly just disinterest.....why so much interest?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Is there a 50mm lens better corrected for color aberration (LaCA, LoCA) than the new Voigtlander 50/2?
The Voigtlander Heliar 50/3.5 is pretty good, although I don't know if it is better than the 50/2 APO. I'd love to see a shootout between them. I have the Heliar but am considering buying the 50/2 just because I hate the haptics of the Heliar (I only shoot it with TAP).
Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
Your reading skills are failing you. I was actually saying that a *plain* MF 50/2 with no salient feature (such as "APO") would not raise much interest. I still stand by my affirmation - that it was the APO promise, not the rest of the package that was the main attraction here.
As for the 20-50 figure. They came here in this thread to watch an "APO" lens not a plain one. Also you have to put that figure in a context. As in a percentage of the total market. Otherwise it means nothing.
Has anyone directly compared bokeh between the Voigtlander 50/2 APO and the Sony 1.8/55? I ask because there are obvious differences between the lenses, mainly CA as detailed in previous pages, but most of the sample images I see from the Voigtlander seem to have similar bokeh to the Sony.
The bokeh is not specifically harsh but it's not quite smooth either (this always depends on distance, subject etc), unlike the Sigma 45/2.8 which seems to be the exemplar for smooth bokeh despite its slow-ish max aperture. I've yet to see any pics from the voigtlander that really win me over, just because of the rendering/bokeh.
JohnJ wrote:
Has anyone directly compared bokeh between the Voigtlander 50/2 APO and the Sony 1.8/55? I ask because there are obvious differences between the lenses, mainly CA as detailed in previous pages, but most of the sample images I see from the Voigtlander seem to have similar bokeh to the Sony.
.
Just because this gets repeated does not make it true. I have both and I disagree that they are similar. The AL 50/2 is also quite sharp compared to the Zony.
After 40 pages, I'm kind of through with legalese argumentation re APO claims. Don't trust them or like them or hate on their terminology, or absolutely need perfection - don't buy in.
No need to belabour the point page after page after page, in what should be a broad-based review and image thread. There are plenty of people wanting the lens you might have bought, for the sum total of its virtues.
realVivek wrote:
Just because this gets repeated does not make it true. I have both and I disagree that they are similar. The AL 50/2 is also quite sharp compared to the Zony.
I'm not sure what you are referring to being repeated, I'm only commenting on my own opinion of the images I've seen posted in this thread, and they seem quite similar. I don't have a problem with the sony 1.8/55s bokeh, its bokeh is fine IMHO but it can look a 'tad' harsh at times and that's what I'm seeing with the Voigtlander and that's the reason they look similar to me (that's all I'm referring to).
It would be interesting to see a direct bokeh comparison between the two lenses with identical images. BOth lenses are sharp, no point quibbling about that.
Jan 10, 2020 at 04:43 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
Your reading skills are failing you. I was actually saying that a *plain* MF 50/2 with no salient feature (such as "APO") would not raise much interest. I still stand by my affirmation - that it was the APO promise, not the rest of the package that was the main attraction here.
As for the 20-50 figure. They came here in this thread to watch an "APO" lens not a plain one. Also you have to put that figure in a context. As in a percentage of the total market. Otherwise it means nothing.
No my reading skills did not fail me, and we simply disagree. I think you are wrong about APO being the big feature with this lens. The big feature is that it is compact and yet very high performance and APO is not the big feature and certainly not the only one. The lens is sharp across the whole field (i.e., flat field) from wide apertures. The lens has a floating element so performs very well even close up. The lens has very low distortion natively. The lens has very low coma. The lens has quite nice bokeh. And very importantly the lens is small and compact. Sure that the lens has quite good control of color aberrations is nice too, but it certainly is not the only reason that people are interested in the lens as you portray. My view is you are just wrong about that and what is behind people on this forum interest in this lens is all about, but hey let's just agree to disagree about that because I doubt very much I will change your mind.
Jan 10, 2020 at 04:54 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
JohnJ wrote:
I'm not sure what you are referring to being repeated, I'm only commenting on my own opinion of the images I've seen posted in this thread, and they seem quite similar. I don't have a problem with the sony 1.8/55s bokeh, its bokeh is fine IMHO but it can look a 'tad' harsh at times and that's what I'm seeing with the Voigtlander and that's the reason they look similar to me (that's all I'm referring to).
It would be interesting to see a direct bokeh comparison between the two lenses with identical images. BOth lenses are sharp, no point quibbling about that....Show more →
I think there are three specific ways the bokeh on the CV 50 f/2 APO is better than the bokeh on the FE 55 f/1.8. First and most obviously the bokeh on the FE 55 f/1.8 (and I had that lens for over 2 years) has quite a bit of bokeh fringing up through f/4. Second, the out of focus highlight on the FE 55 f/1.8 often have pretty visible onion rings, and third, especially at f/2.8 the CV 50 f/2 APO has those perfectly round out of focus highlights from the unique aperture of the lens. For a quite a few images these advantages of the 50 f/2 APO might not make a big difference, but I think for quite a few images they will as well.
Point me to an example of what you'd like to see, I'll dry to shoot something over the weekend. It's supposed to be warm, goopy, and soggy this weekend.....but I'll see what I can do.
And yes, I'll may sure EFCS is off at or above 1/800th or so.
-Tim
JohnJ wrote:
I'm not sure what you are referring to being repeated, I'm only commenting on my own opinion of the images I've seen posted in this thread, and they seem quite similar. I don't have a problem with the sony 1.8/55s bokeh, its bokeh is fine IMHO but it can look a 'tad' harsh at times and that's what I'm seeing with the Voigtlander and that's the reason they look similar to me (that's all I'm referring to).
It would be interesting to see a direct bokeh comparison between the two lenses with identical images. BOth lenses are sharp, no point quibbling about that....Show more →
Jan 10, 2020 at 05:05 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
Close Focus (eg something like x0.25 mag) would had redeemed that
Why wouldn't you just buy the CV 65 f/2 APO macro if you want higher magnification? One thing about which we can be relatively sure is that shortening the MFD to even .25X magnification is going to make the lens quite a bit bigger and what really differentiates this lens from the fairly similar focal length CV 65 f/2 APO macro is it's size.
Steve Spencer wrote:
...I think you are wrong about APO being the big feature with this lens. The big feature is that it is compact and yet very high performance and APO is not the big feature and certainly not the only one. The lens is sharp across the whole field (i.e., flat field) from wide apertures. The lens has a floating element so performs very well even close up. The lens has very low distortion natively. The lens has very low coma. The lens has quite nice bokeh. And very importantly the lens is small and compact...
+1 I am interested in this lens as a potential replacement for my 50/1.2 as f/2 is enough for me at 50mm and I wouldn't mind an even smaller lens with better performance at MFD and edge to edge sharpness.
For me it comes down to bokeh and I'm leaning towards keeping the 50/1.2 based on these images though I'd like to see more comparisons to the 1.2 Noktons at comparable apertures. I don't give much weight to APO labels. CA control seems better than enough unless you specialize in photographing reflective chrome objects near wide open or something like that.
Steve Spencer wrote:
No my reading skills did not fail me, and we simply disagree. I think you are wrong about APO being the big feature with this lens. The big feature is that it is compact and yet very high performance and APO is not the big feature and certainly not the only one. The lens is sharp across the whole field (i.e., flat field) from wide apertures. The lens has a floating element so performs very well even close up. The lens has very low distortion natively. The lens has very low coma. The lens has quite nice bokeh. And very importantly the lens is small and compact. Sure that the lens has quite good control of color aberrations is nice too, but it certainly is not the only reason that people are interested in the lens as you portray. My view is you are just wrong about that and what is behind people on this forum interest in this lens is all about, but hey let's just agree to disagree about that because I doubt very much I will change your mind....Show more →
"I think you are wrong about APO being the big feature with this lens"
I guess you should let Voigtlander know since the marketing dept got it wrong then on their website
Very first paragraph describing the lens.
"Voigtländer APO-LANTHAR 50mm F2.0 is a high performance manual focus standard lens optimized for the imaging sensors of Sony mirrorless cameras.
Inheriting the apochromatic optical design, the lens is highly corrected to eliminate optical aberrations including longitudinal chromatic aberration."
It has been opined before (pdmphoto?). That is what I was referring to.
As to the “both are sharp”- it depends. Perhaps for infinity shots when stopped down (as illustrated by Fred).
Like Phillip commented, the APO Lanthar has this clarity without looking harsh (that the Zony 55/1.8 does) when it comes to skin tones.
JohnJ wrote:
I'm not sure what you are referring to being repeated, I'm only commenting on my own opinion of the images I've seen posted in this thread, and they seem quite similar. I don't have a problem with the sony 1.8/55s bokeh, its bokeh is fine IMHO but it can look a 'tad' harsh at times and that's what I'm seeing with the Voigtlander and that's the reason they look similar to me (that's all I'm referring to).
It would be interesting to see a direct bokeh comparison between the two lenses with identical images. BOth lenses are sharp, no point quibbling about that....Show more →
Jan 10, 2020 at 05:29 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nhsonyshooter wrote:
"I think you are wrong about APO being the big feature with this lens"
I guess you should let Voigtlander know since the marketing dept got it wrong then on their website
Very first paragraph describing the lens.
"Voigtländer APO-LANTHAR 50mm F2.0 is a high performance manual focus standard lens optimized for the imaging sensors of Sony mirrorless cameras.
Inheriting the apochromatic optical design, the lens is highly corrected to eliminate optical aberrations including longitudinal chromatic aberration."
I think that is pretty irrelevant. It should be clear I was talking about FM and this thread in particular. I am fairly sure that Cosina doesn't market to FM specifically and I doubt it makes much sense for them to do so. So it could be very reasonable for Cosina to heavily market the APO label and that APO is not the big feature for people at FM and on this thread specifically. I don't think I need to tell Cosina anything about their marketing, but that is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion of people's on this forum and this thread interest in the lens.
I mentioned this earlier. They should address this.
May be the lens designer should add another chapter to the APO Lanthar essays?
nhsonyshooter wrote:
"I think you are wrong about APO being the big feature with this lens"
I guess you should let Voigtlander know since the marketing dept got it wrong then on their website
Very first paragraph describing the lens.
"Voigtländer APO-LANTHAR 50mm F2.0 is a high performance manual focus standard lens optimized for the imaging sensors of Sony mirrorless cameras.
Inheriting the apochromatic optical design, the lens is highly corrected to eliminate optical aberrations including longitudinal chromatic aberration."
