Fred Miranda wrote:
Voigtlander has produced 12 E-mount lenses so far! I own 5 of them.
How about you?
5 here, if you count the 2/50 which I paid for but ships next week!
All the A-Ls plus 1.2/40 and 2.8/40.
Used to own the 10 but rarely used it so @BastianK now has it!
Should probably sell the 2.8/40 but it's kinda cute, and the case to hassle of selling ratio isn't good.
If I didn't have L21, I'd consider the 1.4/21. But I have never wanted a faster 21 and the Lox while not tiny is usefully smaller.
I'd love a remake of the 15, or a something in the 12-14 range, which is the same slow speed, but slightly retrofocus so they can get some correction elements in there and make it state of the art. It'd be (I think) only about 10mm longer for a lot of optical benefit (yeah I know the existing ones are pretty good, and much better than the 10)
The last segment of the CV interviews suggested exactly this. It sounds like quite a piece of work, very hands-on. Exacting tolerances are another reason APO lenses will become more popular. Cosina even uses different grades of helicoid grease to ensure each of the MF lenses in the range has similar feel and damping.
'The APO-Lanthar 50mm F2, which was visited during the manufacturing process, is not simply built as a lens, but is *built while measuring and adjusting the optical axis and lens spacing.*' 'I am confident in the image because I am *adjusting only various items* and shipping only those that have passed strict inspections.' 'I was especially impressed with the work of installing the aperture blades. From an amateur's point of view, this was a speed close to the priesthood (guild).'
And how about this for a true believer:
'I would like you to experience the operating feeling of manual focus. It is not listed in the specs table, and it doesn't appear in the photos, but be sure to touch and move it.' A true aesthetic experience!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Voigtlander has produced 12 E-mount lenses so far! I own 5 of them.
How about you?
Let's see......currently I have 21/1.4, 35/1.4, 65 macro, and 110 macro in E-mount. I used to have the 10, 12, 15, and 40 as well, but sold some due to non-use (sold the 40 when I made the mistake to go to L-mount last summer).
In M-mount, I have the 12 (so that I can get ridiculously close focus with the Voigt helicoid adapter), the 40/1.2 plus 50/1.2 (so that I can also use them on the GFX, where they work very well), and the new 75/1.5 (which disappointingly has dark corners on GFX).
I haven't been able to come up with a good reason to get the 50/2, other than it would be nice to have! I already have multiple others in the 50-55 range...
So what do we think? The 50 1.4 Zony seems like while a chunk of glass it can do more than this little and very good lens. Save maybe f2.8-4 landscapes (for the midfield dip).
Guess I’ll hold tight while the other parts of Fred’s review go live.
I currently have the 65mm and I'm tempted to replace it with the 50mm Apo. Image quality seems very similar between the two. The 50mm is smaller and lighter but the 65mm is macro, almost. The close-up capability of the 65mm comes in handy in some situations, something the 50mm can't do. It's hard for me to justify owning both of them, and giving up the 65mm close focus isn't that easy 😭
Voigtlander 21 3.5 for me, and now the just arrived Voigtlander 50mm apo lanthar to go with my 110mm apo lanthar. I needed a lens set for landscapes that would work with a large set of NiSi nano filters, maximum filter size of 58mm.
ysultan wrote:
I currently have the 65mm and I'm tempted to replace it with the 50mm Apo. Image quality seems very similar between the two. The 50mm is smaller and lighter but the 65mm is macro, almost. The close-up capability of the 65mm comes in handy in some situations, something the 50mm can't do. It's hard for me to justify owning both of them, and giving up the 65mm close focus isn't that easy 😭
I'm having a similar dilemma. I might replace the 65/2 and 50/1.2 with the 50/2 and the 110/2.5. Only problem with that is I love the 50/1.2 too much...
Resolution, Contrast and Color Aberration compared to Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2:
Thumbnail showing area of magnification (Subject distance: 30 feet / 9 meters distance)
1:1 magnification from image above: The CV 40/1.2 @f/2.8 just can't keep up with the CV 50/2 APO off axis. The latter is capable of capturing very fine detail with high contrast.
1:1 magnification from image above: The CV 40/1.2 @f/5.6 improves drastically but still can't compete neck to neck with the new APO-Lanthar.
Thumbnail showing area of magnification (Subject: 30 feet / 9 meters distance)
1:1 magnification from the image above: The CV 50/2 APO shows its strength in color aberration correction. Even at f/2.8, the CV 40/1.2 is not well corrected for CA.
1:1 magnification from the image above: The CV 40/1.2 closes the gap in resolution/contrast and CA correction but still does not close to the CV 50/2 APO.
Dec 13, 2019 at 09:35 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I have the E mount 21 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 65 f/2 APO, and 110 f/2.5 APO, and the M mount 75 f/1.5. All are really nice lenses, but this 50 f/2 APO may end up being my favorite combining most the of imaging capabilities of the other APO Lanthars with a really nice small size.
twentysevenone wrote:
I'm having a similar dilemma. I might replace the 65/2 and 50/1.2 with the 50/2 and the 110/2.5. Only problem with that is I love the 50/1.2 too much...
The CV 40/1.2 and CV 50/2 APO have different design goals. The former is under-corrected for SA and CA but has very smooth rendering. The latter is well corrected for CA while spherical aberration correction is neutral. Different looks for different needs.
If you have the CV 50/1.2 instead, this section applies to this lens as well as the CV 40/1.2 and CV 50/1.2 have similar resolution, contrast and aberration control.
Comparing the CA on the chain for the 50APO and 40/1.2 is not a fair comparison. The 50 shot has a light background behind the chain, while to 40 has a dark background - resulting in higher contrast difference. Even the 50 at f/5.6 is showing CA at the bottom of the frame where the chin is again a dark background. No doubt the 50 has better correction, but lets be fair.
Also, my CV 40 seems to be much sharper than yours in that central area - at least on my A7R2 and A7R3. It is one of the sharpest lenses I have tested for that region. And I have had great copies of the 65 and 110 APO lenses.
I've only managed to keep my first CV true love: the 40/1.2. Only now I have the M version, as I'm shooting 50/50 film and digital. Also just picked up the tiny, lovely M Skopar 35/2.5.
I've had, and have let go of quite a few in between. Loved them all, but I'm a fella of limited means and only like to keep 3 or 4 lenses on the shelf at a time.
The Departed: 21/4 LTM, 21/3.5 E, 25/4 M, 28/2 M, 40/2 M42. Probably forgetting something.
Still on my wishlist: updated E (or at least E-friendly) 25/4, 28/2, 90/2.8 (Apo?) and what the heck, may as well throw in an 18/3.5 while we're at it.
This 50 looks to be a gem, but my dance card is full at the moment, so I'll just experience all the joy vicariously.
