As usual a great test!
But how would be the differences on a 24MP Camera like the A73 or the A9? And even on the 42MP A7R3?
Even AF can behave very differently...
The A7R4 will probably be more pronounced in the differences...
It would be a somewhat easier assignment than the 50/2. The general design base exists in the 65/2.
They might think the 75/1.5 is best left as a character lens ('vintage') in the M stable, opening the way for an FE APO portrait/general lens. That VM 75/1.5 is a 350g, low count 7/6, like the Loxia 85/2.4 (7/7) but with one Asph element.
Leica's superb SL 90/2 APO has a very similar design to the 110/2.5 but it uses one Asph surface and probably about the same proportion of APD glass.
CV would be most likely to go with the same 10/8 (one Asph) in a stretched 65/2 - the new SL Leica 90/2 APO is a similar 11/9 but in a heavy barrel with a lot of AF hardware/electronics - it's 700 grams. Even Sony's very good AF 85/1.8 is a 9/8, at 370g with just one APD. Nikon's popular S 85/1.8 is 12/8 with two APD elements. So CV are already half way there, in a sense they have the happy medium.
Once these makers pioneer an idea it makes sense to replicate it across a range, so in CV's case the fancy aperture can be included. I'd guess a moderate-throw 67mm barrel, 430 grams or so, for a 90/2 APO-Lanthar. In the present day they can now fix the one failing in the revered (9/8) 100MP, with APO gained from more (and modern) APD elements (the 100MP has two).
Fred Miranda wrote:
For those who own and know how the Sony 50/1.4 ZA performs.... With both lenses at f/2 (Voigtlander wide open), the new CV 50/2 APO is almost as sharp as the Zony at center. It's the only 50mm I've tested to date that comes close to it. Keep in mind that the 50/1.4 ZA was tested at one stop down which gives it a big advantage.
But that's only at dead center. As soon as we move away from center, the new Voigtlander 50/2 APO is remarkable holding on to detail all the way to the corners. (Similar characteristic to the 65/2 APO)
At the extreme corners, 50/1.4 ZA @f/2 and 50/2 APO are similar (the APO slightly better), but at mid-field, the CV 50/2 performs way better. (the 50/1.4 ZA has a notorious mid-field dip)
It's a little hazy outside and I will wait for a little better light to start posting samples....Show more →
I'm struggling to decide which lens to keep - the CV 50/2 APO or the CV 50/1.2 Nokton. Both are E-Mount and I'll be using the lens on an A7RIII.
The size is a wash - both are compact enough.
From f/1.2 to f/2, the Nokton is alone and, IMO, spectacular.
From f/2 to f/5.6, it seems that the 50/2 APO is hard to beat. This is a much used range for most, me included.
When closed down beyond f/5.6, I would imagine that the lenses are very close to equal. I would frequently use the lens for landscapes and waterfalls, so this range is important to me as well.
It is hard for me to choose the 50/2 APO over the 50/1.2 Nokton. The Nokton gives me a speed range and isolation that the APO can't. The Nokton, in my experience, has been wonderful closed down for landscapes. And I'd bet that the Nokton would do "good enough" in the 50/2 APO's home park from f/2 to f/5.6.
I realize that chromatic aberration will be less with the APO, but it has rarely been a problem for me with the Nokton. I suppose the bokeh balls would be better on the APO, but they aren't so important to me, and of course the APO can't do f/1.2 to f/2.
Am I missing anything in my comparison? They are both incredible lenses, but I can't keep both.
smpetty wrote:
Am I missing anything in my comparison? They are both incredible lenses, but I can't keep both.
What will you see in an actual picture:
a) the completely different look of f/1.2 vs f/2.0.
b) slightly better corner resolution.
Pretty simple question to me.
But hey, if anyone from Europe wants to sell his used 50mm 1.2E because he rather wants the 50mm 2.0: I am looking for one, you know where to find me.
smpetty wrote:
I'm struggling to decide which lens to keep - the CV 50/2 APO or the CV 50/1.2 Nokton. Both are E-Mount and I'll be using the lens on an A7RIII.
The size is a wash - both are compact enough.
From f/1.2 to f/2, the Nokton is alone and, IMO, spectacular.
From f/2 to f/5.6, it seems that the 50/2 APO is hard to beat. This is a much used range for most, me included.
When closed down beyond f/5.6, I would imagine that the lenses are very close to equal. I would frequently use the lens for landscapes and waterfalls, so this range is important to me as well.
It is hard for me to choose the 50/2 APO over the 50/1.2 Nokton. The Nokton gives me a speed range and isolation that the APO can't. The Nokton, in my experience, has been wonderful closed down for landscapes. And I'd bet that the Nokton would do "good enough" in the 50/2 APO's home park from f/2 to f/5.6.
I realize that chromatic aberration will be less with the APO, but it has rarely been a problem for me with the Nokton. I suppose the bokeh balls would be better on the APO, but they aren't so important to me, and of course the APO can't do f/1.2 to f/2.
Am I missing anything in my comparison? They are both incredible lenses, but I can't keep both....Show more →
I have the same dilemma. I really like the 50 f/1.2, but I think I am going to solve the dilemma by keeping both. The new 50 f/2 APO looks like a fantastic outdoor lens and especially when I am carrying stuff a long way. For indoor shooting it will likely work most of the time as well, but I know there are times I will want a wider aperture than f/2, and for at least some of the shots I will want to open up the lens more than the 50 f/2 APO will allow. For me, the only question now is whether I keep the CV 50 f/1.2 or go back to the 40 f/1.2. I might go back to the 40 just to get a little bit more different look as well as having the wider aperture. I do like the 50 f/1.2's performance slightly better than the 40 f/1.2's but with a 50 already I might opt for the 40.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have the same dilemma. I really like the 50 f/1.2, but I think I am going to solve the dilemma by keeping both. The new 50 f/2 APO looks like a fantastic outdoor lens and especially when I am carrying stuff a long way. For indoor shooting it will likely work most of the time as well, but I know there are times I will want a wider aperture than f/2, and for at least some of the shots I will want to open up the lens more than the 50 f/2 APO will allow. For me, the only question now is whether I keep the CV 50 f/1.2 or go back to the 40 f/1.2. I might go back to the 40 just to get a little bit more different look as well as having the wider aperture. I do like the 50 f/1.2's performance slightly better than the 40 f/1.2's but with a 50 already I might opt for the 40....Show more →
The f/1.2 lenses like CV 40/1.2 and CV 50/1.2 really shine in very low light whereas f/2 lenses will cause a loss in resolution/DR when ISO gets too high. So, at the end, the super sharp f/2 lens may not be optimal for all lighting conditions without modifying the lighting. There is also rendering and subject isolation to consider.
Keeping both lenses may sound overkill but imo, one is not better than the other...just designed for different needs.
BastianK wrote:
What will you see in an actual picture:
a) the completely different look of f/1.2 vs f/2.0.
b) slightly better corner resolution.
Pretty simple question to me.
But hey, if anyone from Europe wants to sell his used 50mm 1.2E because he rather wants the 50mm 2.0: I am looking for one, you know where to find me.
I realize that all lenses are compromises. And, of course, everything that I talked about in my post was about "what you will see in an actual picture."
But, for me, it really does come down to a choice between speed (absolute) and corner sharpness (variable).
smpetty wrote:
When closed down beyond f/5.6, I would imagine that the lenses are very close to equal. I would frequently use the lens for landscapes and waterfalls, so this range is important to me as well.
It won't be equal towards the corners at any aperture though (even > f/5.6). Both CV 40/1.2 and 50/1.2 lenses have strong center and mid-field at f/5.6 but the corner areas can't match the CV 50/2 APO's resolution. There is also visible astigmatism and lateral CA for the Noktons.
I've shot landscapes with the Noktons and was happy with IQ on the A7R3. For the A7R4, we have a better choice now.
TakenWild wrote:
The only thing sad about getting the 50/2 APO is that it squeezes out the 65/2 APO. 😭 I’ll miss the 65/2
I am pretty sure I will end up with the 50 f/2 APO and the 65 f/2 APO. The one thing we know the 65 f/2 APO does that the 50 doesn't is 1:2 magnification. We will see what Fred's tests show, but I suspect from what we have seen so far, the 65 f/2 might have a little bit better correction of CA too -- you may get something besides just greater magnification for the bigger size. Still the main reason to get the 65 is the magnification and it pairs very very nicely with the 110 when you want to do close up and macro work.
Personally, even if they make a very nice 85 or 90 f/2 APO, I am keeping the 65 f/2 and the 110 f/2.5 Macros. I would not worry about the overlap at all in a 50, 65, 85, 110 APO Lanthar kit. When I want to shoot closeups it is the 65 & 110 combo, and when I want a smaller more general purpose pair of lenses I would be very happy with the 50 and 85 or 90.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am pretty sure I will end up with the 50 f/2 APO and the 65 f/2 APO. The one thing we know the 65 f/2 APO does that the 50 doesn't is 1:2 magnification. We will see what Fred's tests show, but I suspect from what we have seen so far, the 65 f/2 might have a little bit better correction of CA too -- you may get something besides just greater magnification for the bigger size. Still the main reason to get the 65 is the magnification and it pairs very very nicely with the 110 when you want to do close up and macro work.
Personally, even if they make a very nice 85 or 90 f/2 APO, I am keeping the 65 f/2 and the 110 f/2.5 Macros. I would not worry about the overlap at all in a 50, 65, 85, 110 APO Lanthar kit. When I want to shoot closeups it is the 65 & 110 combo, and when I want a smaller more general purpose pair of lenses I would be very happy with the 50 and 85 or 90....Show more →
Agree 100% - for macro shooters, this is the way to go.
