Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
Sorry but as nice as the lens is with out the "APO" it's just another 50 and it would not have gotten half the attention it has here.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Sorry but as nice as the lens is with out the "APO" it's just another 50 and it would not have gotten half the attention it has here.
Sorry again we will just have to agree to disagree. My view is that the people on this forum and in this thread in particular are too sophisticated of users to fall for the APO label as the thing drawing their interest. To me it is clear that it was Fred's and Phillip's excellent reviews that documented the lens is very high performance in many different aspects (and CA was not the most striking of these) and yet the lens was small and haptically excellent that drove the interest on this forum and this thread in particular. You are free to disagree but I think you are not recognizing the sophistication of the people on FM and this thread in particular if that is what you think.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Sorry but as nice as the lens is with out the "APO" it's just another 50 and it would not have gotten half the attention it has here.
Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
Because around that focal length I can have both AF and Close Focus with the Sigma Art 70mm? All the way to x1 mag? Plus a more palatable to me diaphragm shape? And, while not advertised as “APO”, the Sigma has very good CA control too?
Why does it have to be CV? Are we in some state of mind where we cannot reason beyond this particular brand?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Sorry again we will just have to agree to disagree. My view is that the people on this forum and in this thread in particular are too sophisticated of users to fall for the APO label as the thing drawing their interest. To me it is clear that it was Fred's and Phillip's excellent reviews that documented the lens is very high performance in many different aspects (and CA was not the most striking of these) and yet the lens was small and haptically excellent that drove the interest on this forum and this thread in particular. You are free to disagree but I think you are not recognizing the sophistication of the people on FM and this thread in particular if that is what you think....Show more →
What do think "APO" is ? It is an extremely "sharp" "very high performance" lens. So if it had CA like 55 and shared the same sharpness as the 55 but it had CV "haptics" and was small this thread would be as long as it is? Really?
nhsonyshooter wrote:
What do think "APO" is ? It is an extremely "sharp" "very high performance" lens. So if it had CA like 55 and shared the same sharpness as the 55 but it had CV "haptics" and was small this thread would be as long as it is? Really?
nhsonyshooter wrote:
What do think "APO" is ? It is an extremely "sharp" "very high performance" lens. So if it had CA like 55 and shared the same sharpness as the 55 but it had CV "haptics" and was small this thread would be as long as it is? Really?
I think APO is what I think Phillip wrote early in the thread. It's better corrected for CA than most other lenses, but that does not mean that CA is non-existent. That's it. Nothing more. If it's not your bag, no worries, move 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. ...Show more → DaveFP wrote:
It looks like a wonderful lens but:
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.
Steve Spencer wrote:
/quote]
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 →
We are all on the page.
I am very aware that there is no such as the perfect APO lens and I wouldn't expect this one to be the exception.
Just stating the obvious:
You call it APO and put special markings on the lens and this first thing everyone will do is run out and test it.
Yes; to the extent that there is a problem it lies with the buyers' expectations.
Looks like a great lens.
I'd might buy it if I didn't have five beautiful MF 50mm lenses (and two AF 50s) that I don't use as often as I should.....
Perseveration. Look it up if you don't already know what it means.
There's some pretty serious perseveratin' going on in this here thread. Maybe we can give it a break.
Here's my summary of this lens:
It's small, light, and fits on the Sony body beautifully. It makes my CV 40 1.2 feel a bit heavy and large in comparison (which I know is kind of silly, but it's true.) It's a pleasure to carry as a walkaround lens for extended periods of time.
Image quality is superb. Clarity is exceptional without being "clinical" or harsh. Tonality is superb. The lens shows great subtlety in its rendering. Artistic, even. Bokeh seems to be very nice, exceptional in some cases and minimally active in a few scenarios. Nothing out of hand, however. Contrast is excellent. Color saturation is excellent. Control of CA and SA is excellent, far better than most lenses of similar quality and price.
If you are someone who values small, light, high performance manual lenses this is definitely one to consider. It's an all around stellar lens for those who value the qualities it brings to the table. And it's a bargain compared to lenses of similar quality from other high end manufacturers.
I think the CV 50/2 E-mount deserves to be called "APO". Under most photography situation, one would struggle to find any hint of color aberration making it the best correction I've seen in a 50mm lens. It will never appeal for those who prefer AF lenses but for the rest of us who enjoy shooting manual on Sony, it's a must have.
Jan 10, 2020 at 07:23 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nhsonyshooter wrote:
What do think "APO" is ? It is an extremely "sharp" "very high performance" lens. So if it had CA like 55 and shared the same sharpness as the 55 but it had CV "haptics" and was small this thread would be as long as it is? Really?
I think APO is defined as have three wavelengths of light that focus exactly on the focus plane. That is what APO really is. It has nothing to do with sharpness or high performance. I have one lens--the Minolta MD 400 f/5.6 APO that has very little CA and I think may well even meet the technical definition of APO, but it isn't really all that sharp. As I wrote earlier both Fred's and Phillip's review made it clear the lens was sharp across the field (i.e., flat field) from wide apertures. That is a good characteristic to have and has nothing to do with being APO. There are many excellent APO lenses that are not flat field (e.g., the CV 110 f/2.5 APO macro). The lens also has very low coma. Again there are many excellent APO lenses that are not low coma (e.g the Zeiss Otus 28 f/1.4 APO). The lens has quite nice bokeh and although APO lenses will have less bokeh fringing than non-APO lenses there is no guarantee, some APO lenses are quite bokeh challenged (e.g., the Leica M 90 f/2 APO). I could go on but your contention that APO means excellent in any category other than correction for CA just doesn't hold water at all. My contention is that the overall excellence of this lens which people on this forum have recognized and not that it was designated as APO is why people here have shown a great interest in this lens.
Perhaps, that is a more appropriate response. scrappydog wrote:
I think APO is what I think Philip wrote early in the thread. It's better corrected for CA than most other lenses, but that does not mean that CA is non-existent. That's it. Nothing more. If it's not your bag, no worries, move on.
Jan 10, 2020 at 07:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
For reference, the non-APO CV 50/1.2 review thread closed after 31 pages. Looks like “f/1.2” is a lesser attraction than “APO”.
And that is a ridiculously simplistic analysis. How wide the aperture opens up and whether the lens is labelled as APO are not the only two differences between these lenses. Size, sharpness, bokeh, flatness of field, close up performance, coma, etc. all differ in these lenses as well. This statement does absolutely nothing to support your contention people here are swayed by APO rather than the other factors.
Very well written, and expressed! Steve Spencer wrote:
I think APO is defined as have three wavelengths of light that focus exactly on the focus plane. That is what APO really is. It has nothing to do with sharpness or high performance. I have one lens--the Minolta MD 400 f/5.6 APO that has very little CA and I think may well even meet the technical definition of APO, but it isn't really all that sharp. As I wrote earlier both Fred's and Phillip's review made it clear the lens was sharp across the field (i.e., flat field) from wide apertures. That is a good characteristic to have and has nothing to do with being APO. There are many excellent APO lenses that are not flat field (e.g., the CV 110 f/2.5 APO macro). The lens also has very low coma. Again there are many excellent APO lenses that are not low coma (e.g the Zeiss Otus 28 f/1.4 APO). The lens has quite nice bokeh and although APO lenses will have less bokeh fringing than non-APO lenses there is no guarantee, some APO lenses are quite bokeh challenged (e.g., the Leica M 90 f/2 APO). I could go on but your contention that APO means excellent in any category other than correction for CA just doesn't hold water at all. My contention is that the overall excellence of this lens which people on this forum have recognized and not that it was designated as APO is why people here have shown a great interest in this lens....Show more →
scrappydog wrote:
I think APO is what I think Philip wrote early in the thread. It's better corrected for CA than most other lenses, but that does not mean that CA is non-existent. That's it. Nothing more. If it's not your bag, no worries, move on.
My point is Steve is saying APO is not the main reason people are interested which is ridiculous because the APO design is what is contributing to the lens being so sharp and free of almost all aberrations. With out that design you have just a good small 50 most likely with newly designed blades. That alone would not have attracted the attention to this lens. Especially with the very nice 50 1.2 which is not much bigger, faster, and renders nicer IMO.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think the CV 50/2 E-mount deserves to be called "APO". Under most photography situation, one would struggle to find any hint of color aberration making it the best correction I've seen in a 50mm lens. It will never appeal for those who prefer AF lenses but for the rest of us who enjoy shooting manual on Sony, it's a must have.
My checking account resents your decision to label this lens a "must have".
