I figured since there weren't too many examples of this lens used on film, I'd share some images.
The APO-Lanthar makes a lot of sense on film for the following reasons:
1. Vignette is less of an issue (it's still there, but less severe).
2. It will out-resolve most film.
3. Clarity and sparkle are very evident.
4. Distortion is low, so no need for software correction.
The APO-Lanthar is challenging on film because:
1. Plane of focus is so sharp and fall-off is so sudden, that if you miss the point of focus it is very evident...and since you can't chimp, you won't know for a bit.
2. The lens may be a f/2 design but it is measurably 1/3 stop slower than other lenses at f/2 which makes indoor photography more difficult.
Dad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Leica M7, Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar VM, Flic Film Aurora 800.
Brian by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Zeiss Ikon ZM, Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar VM, Kodak T-Max 100, Xtol 1:1
Ross by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Zeiss Ikon ZM, Voigtlander 50mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar, Kodak Portra 400
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Zeiss Ikon ZM, Voigtlander 50mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar VM, Kodak Tri-X 400, Rodinal 1:50
Lisa by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Leica M5, Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar VM, Kodak T-Max 400, Xtol 1:1
_jim_ wrote:
I figured since there weren't too many examples of this lens used on film, I'd share some images.
The APO-Lanthar makes a lot of sense on film for the following reasons:
1. Vignette is less of an issue (it's still there, but less severe).
2. It will out-resolve most film.
3. Clarity and sparkle are very evident.
4. Distortion is low, so no need for software correction.
The APO-Lanthar is challenging on film because:
1. Plane of focus is so sharp and fall-off is so sudden, that if you miss the point of focus it is very evident...and since you can't chimp, you won't know for a bit.
2. The lens may be a f/2 design but it is measurably 1/3 stop slower than other lenses at f/2 which makes indoor photography more difficult.
It’s great to see you shooting with this "perfect" lens on film! The extra detail in your shots really stands out, and as you mentioned, vignetting is hardly an issue on film. Thanks for sharing!
At some stage in the design process to correct lenses, the decision must be made regarding the degree and gradient of focus fall-off from the focal plane. Arri went with fast fall-off because that is what happens as a natural consequence of superb correction, they said, and their preoccupation was with the high proportion of the frame devoted to out of focus content, and they wanted it all to be perfect.
'Good bokeh' is controversial in both cine and stills, even as these fields appear to be drawing closer together in some respects.
It seemed to raise issues like how much of the image space was going to be devoted to plane content and how much was not - a compositional concern that affects stills work very differently than the cine/video medium. It will affect things like preferences for focus distance, and focal length too.
more: as we see, designers have to make decisions about focus fade and DOF characteristics:
"The lens .. is extremely well corrected for spherical aberration, so the *focus roll off is rapid* and the bokeh disks are evenly illuminated. Even at T4, the Signature lens *background is smoother, and the text is less readable*."
"Rather than produce subjects that are sharp against a moderately soft background, we decided that Signature lenses should produce *clear subjects against an exceptionally smooth background*. Our brains are visually attracted to hard edges. By eliminating them, the eye slips naturally back to the point of focus as there is nothing for it to grab on to." "This separation increases the sense of depth in 2D images. It is not an understatement to say that we spent as much time working on the out-of-focus image as on the in-focus image."
-----
As do many of us. I find myself at the other end of the views of Art Adams of ARRI here. Firstly, the trend in stills lenses is unashamedly sharp subjects (think closeups of people in a 35/1.4 at f1.4) with a very smoothed and undifferentiated background (constant levels of blur with distance from the camera/lens), with hard to identify motifs (objects in image space).
It's now being called the 'painted on look'. Art is saying they want a 'clear' but not overly sharp subject, one that will stand out because the background is ultra smooth. (The lack of great sharpness will also be masked by the motion of the cine output.)
The 3D effect, however, is created by image motifs having progressive amounts of blur with increasing distance from the camera/lens, we may call this the 'naturalistic look' because that is what the real world looks like. Which is not to say that sharp enough subjects with well-drawn blur is not attractive, as it certainly is. But we want both of these effects in our lenses. Sources for quotes:
There's actually a trend in animation where the subject is clear and with very little high frequencies and details and the background has more texture. Since cine usually uses reasonable depth of field to leave object context, it's curious to see if a film will use a variant of this look as its quite different and DPs gravitate towards difference.
Back in this thread to see if the 3.5 is a good choice or should just keep the f2 and get the 40 2.8 for the compact. philip_pj wrote:
more: as we see, designers have to make decisions about focus fade and DOF characteristics:
"The lens .. is extremely well corrected for spherical aberration, so the *focus roll off is rapid* and the bokeh disks are evenly illuminated. Even at T4, the Signature lens *background is smoother, and the text is less readable*."
"Rather than produce subjects that are sharp against a moderately soft background, we decided that Signature lenses should produce *clear subjects against an exceptionally smooth background*. Our brains are visually attracted to hard edges. By eliminating them, the eye slips naturally back to the point of focus as there is nothing for it to grab on to." "This separation increases the sense of depth in 2D images. It is not an understatement to say that we spent as much time working on the out-of-focus image as on the in-focus image."
-----
As do many of us. I find myself at the other end of the views of Art Adams of ARRI here. Firstly, the trend in stills lenses is unashamedly sharp subjects (think closeups of people in a 35/1.4 at f1.4) with a very smoothed and undifferentiated background (constant levels of blur with distance from the camera/lens), with hard to identify motifs (objects in image space).
It's now being called the 'painted on look'. Art is saying they want a 'clear' but not overly sharp subject, one that will stand out because the background is ultra smooth. (The lack of great sharpness will also be masked by the motion of the cine output.)
The 3D effect, however, is created by image motifs having progressive amounts of blur with increasing distance from the camera/lens, we may call this the 'naturalistic look' because that is what the real world looks like. Which is not to say that sharp enough subjects with well-drawn blur is not attractive, as it certainly is. But we want both of these effects in our lenses. Sources for quotes:
I get the impression from Art Adams that ARRI is relying on various fixes for the look they went with in their high end lenses, via bolt on elements and even intrusive work inside the lenses to get a look the DoP's want for scenes. All of them are rented, of course.
They are in a broad retreat from their own design imperatives. It seems like it is being pushed along by the small and very good cine cameras (from DJI, Sony FX3, RED, etc.) and light cine lenses like Simera-C, for things like YT music videos, Tik Tok, advertisements, many new age art forms. So there is a lot of cross-over, even from established cine people. A convergence is happening.
From what I can gather, the industry is still making the shift from Super35 to full-frame. It's a time of upheaval and apparently Hollywood is not doing as well as it might be, so that might be the factor leading them to look for more organic rendering. How about them using the Leica WATE for Superman?
The 50/3.5 APO will always be a specialist (and special) lens for obvious reasons but will become another CV's quiet achievers. Choices are us!
Hi, Sorry if this has been already covered, but there are quite a lot of pages to go through on this thread
With the wider diameter with new version of this lens, are there any benefits expected in regards to vignetting or even sharpness? It's already a very sharp lens, so maybe there's not much more that can be improved upon, but vignetting is quite pronounced on the v1 lenses.
Mar 06, 2025 at 07:29 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
dsteiner wrote:
Hi, Sorry if this has been already covered, but there are quite a lot of pages to go through on this thread
With the wider diameter with new version of this lens, are there any benefits expected in regards to vignetting or even sharpness? It's already a very sharp lens, so maybe there's not much more that can be improved upon, but vignetting is quite pronounced on the v1 lenses.
I think the changes for version II are primarily cosmetic and the primary advantage is that they allow the reversing lens hood and I wouldn't count on them improving anything optically. I haven't seen any tests comparing the two versions, however, so maybe there is a slight improvement. I am skeptical about that, however.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the changes for version II are primarily cosmetic and the primary advantage is that they allow the reversing lens hood and I wouldn't count on them improving anything optically. I haven't seen any tests comparing the two versions, however, so maybe there is a slight improvement. I am skeptical about that, however.
Looking at the diagram (or what it may be called, the drawing showing the lens elements) the two versions indeed seem to be identical. But, you never know.
dsteiner wrote:
Hi, Sorry if this has been already covered, but there are quite a lot of pages to go through on this thread
With the wider diameter with new version of this lens, are there any benefits expected in regards to vignetting or even sharpness? It's already a very sharp lens, so maybe there's not much more that can be improved upon, but vignetting is quite pronounced on the v1 lenses.
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the changes for version II are primarily cosmetic and the primary advantage is that they allow the reversing lens hood and I wouldn't count on them improving anything optically. I haven't seen any tests comparing the two versions, however, so maybe there is a slight improvement. I am skeptical about that, however.
---------------------------------------------
Jonas B wrote:
Looking at the diagram (or what it may be called, the drawing showing the lens elements) the two versions indeed seem to be identical. But, you never know.
Just to avoid confusion, version II mentioned here applies only to the Nikon Z mount. According to Cosina, there are no optical changes between version I and version II of the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar lens for this mount.
dsteiner wrote:
Hi, Sorry if this has been already covered, but there are quite a lot of pages to go through on this thread
With the wider diameter with new version of this lens, are there any benefits expected in regards to vignetting or even sharpness? It's already a very sharp lens, so maybe there's not much more that can be improved upon, but vignetting is quite pronounced on the v1 lenses.
I used to view optical vignetting as a major flaw in a lens, and because many Cosina lenses prioritize compactness, they often show this characteristic.. However, my perspective on this has changed over time. While there are still some optical flaws I consider true issues and will likely never overlook, such as color errors caused by axial or lateral CA, I now see optical vignetting differently.
To clarify, I consider axial chromatic aberration a more serious flaw because it affects the entire image and is difficult to correct. On the other hand, lateral CA can be easily fixed in post-processing by aligning the color channels, which does not introduce significant side effects...
Optical vignetting, on the other hand, compresses and distorts specular highlights (bokeh balls) as they move away from the center, creating a 'cats-eye' shape. This can lead to swirly bokeh or changes in how the lens renders OOF areas. Instead of seeing this as a flaw, I now view it as part of the lens's character. My shift in thinking happened after spending more time shooting with vintage lenses, many of which display even stronger optical vignetting, making it a defining part of their signature look..
In the case of the CV 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar, the optical vignetting is noticeable, and the bokeh balls do take on a cat's-eye shape. But rather than considering this a negative, I now see it as a unique aspect of the lens's rendering, adding to its character rather than detracting from its performance.
Thanks Fred! Personally I am not really bothered by the vignetting, I was really only wondering if the new wider diameter of the lens would have any effect on it. The 50mm f2 APO-Lanthar is really a flawless lens.
