Awesome comparison between the 50 and 65! They look so identical. 😁 Both pretty amazing lenses. I think a 21 and 50/65 would be a nice combo. The 65 is actually $100 off at adorama 😊
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think that close-up lenses are more practical with telephoto lenses. With wide angle and normal lenses, extension tube(s) make more sense as you don't need that much extension to get high magnification.
In the case of a 50mm lens native 0.15x magnification, one would need a very strong 5+ diopter to get to half-life size (1:2) while a short 16mm extension already gets you there. It depends on how strong a lens performs at MFD but in general terms, we should strive for the shortest tube or weaker diopter to achieve the highest IQ for equal magnification.
Thanks Fred; so you are using the Kenko branded ones as well?
Maybe it's just my inability to discern color, but I'm not seeing any substantial magenta shading in any of the shots. I have to believe that whatever you are seeing would easily be corrected via a profile. Also, I didn't spend a lot of time trying to match color in each of these shots.
In any case, I don't see anything here that should scare someone away from the lens.
Hmm really thinking about getting the 50mm instead of the 65 to use more for landscape panoramas. Still the dual purpose of being able to get semi macro shots with the 65 is really a nice plus. This lightweight 50mm would definitely be more appealing to hike around with. Kind of reminds me of the crazy sharpness levels I got with the sigma 40 1.4 which was definitely not fun to take around for landscape shots! Still miss that sigma a lot. This will go really well with my voigtlander 21 nokton 1.4 which I love!
Darn it. After much consideration between the voigtlander 65 f2 and 50 f2 I went with the 50 f2! Just placed order on B&H. They were out of stock on Adorama. Those night city shots totally sold me on it. Well! I have a nice combo now!! 21/1.4 and 50/2. The voigtlander bug bit me!!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I have the Kenko tubes and they get the job done.
Build quality is not perfect but it's flocked and reliable.
Yeah as Fred says they aren’t perfect (every set I have used have annoying rotational play). But rotational play is the least bad kind of error ... it doesn’t affect alignment. And they are better than any others I’ve seen.
DavidBM wrote:
Yeah as Fred says they aren’t perfect (every set I have used have annoying rotational play). But rotational play is the least bad kind of error ... it doesn’t affect alignment. And they are better than any others I’ve seen.
David, are you saying that the rotational play is bad enough that it occurs when you adjust focus or aperture on the lens?
Petegh wrote:
David, are you saying that the rotational play is bad enough that it occurs when you adjust focus or aperture on the lens?
No; just if you twist one tube against another. Doesn’t occur when only using one tube. Really no relevant except for not giving that lovely premium feel. And of course they might have sorted it by now!
DavidBM wrote:
No; just if you twist one tube against another. Doesn’t occur when only using one tube. Really no relevant except for not giving that lovely premium feel. And of course they might have sorted it by now!
The tubes off little extension by themselves, so I taped mine together. That took care of the rotational play.
