architekt wrote:
Leica APO-SUMMICRON-M 35 F/2 ASPH's optical design is particularly difficult to manufacture.
From their optical diagram, the third group from the front is a cemented triplet triplet, which is really difficult to manufacture. Vast majority of modern lens only uses cemented doublet design.
Is a cemented triplet triplet really that difficult to manufacture? How has Sigma done it occasionally without fanfare and with even more steeply curved convex/concave elements involved?
Look at the diagram of the discontinued Sigma 50mm f/1.4:
And the Sigma 28mm f/1.4:
There may be more - I didn't search that intensively.
catacore wrote:
They will want to make sure they don't undermine their own, newly released, APO-Lanthar 50mm f/3.5 lens. Which, in the end, it's (only) 8mm shorter, while being almost two stops slower.
Cosina doesn't think like that. You can't predict what they will or won't do using traditional business logic.
Leica APO-SUMMICRON-M 35 F/2 ASPH's optical design is particularly difficult to manufacture.
From their optical diagram, the third group from the front is a cemented triplet triplet, which is really difficult to manufacture. Vast majority of modern lens only uses cemented doublet design.
I think I saw somewhere that every single piece of glass in Leica APO-SUMMICRON-M 35 F/2 ASPH are specialty glass. glass such as L-LAH85V is only sparingly used in ultra fancy Canon's 24-105 f2.8.
I think if cosine can make a 1/3 smaller 35/2 APO, the price may also be very unaffordable.
I don't expect Cosina to make a copy of the Leica, I'm just saying they need to make it smaller than it is now and focus closer than it does now. They could make it smaller by half of the difference, and that would be great.
Fred Miranda wrote:
For some reason, I don’t shoot with my CV 50/2 APO as much as I thought I would. Maybe it’s just too perfect for me.
However, the stunning images in this thread always convince me to keep mine.
Tempting as it has been I've never wanted to purchase the 50/2 because I already own the 65/2 APO and it is simply an incredible lens. I wish it had as large a following as the 28/35/50 APO's. I think people are missing out on something pretty special.
Al Trujillo wrote:
Tempting as it has been I've never wanted to purchase the 50/2 because I already own the 65/2 APO and it is simply an incredible lens. I wish it had as large a following as the 28/35/50 APO's. I think people are missing out on something pretty special.
I have been paying attention to the 65 APO, but, have no cameras to pair with it. If only Cosina would manufacture the 65 APO in M-mount! I understand, of course, that it would be unlikely to be considered, with Leica M cameras having no 65mm frame lines.
I initially bought this lens used soon after getting the nokton f1.2 50mm. I enjoyed the nokton (my first manual focus lens) so much and was curious about the apo after all the praise. Unfortunately my copy was quite obviously decentered and the top-left of the frame would often be visibly more blurry than the rest of the frame, and you didn't need to zoom in to see it (unless it was at infinity and stopped down a bit further). But you did have to look for it.
I loved the images otherwise - even though I was hesistant to start accumulating lenses of the same focal length at the time and got more use out of the nokton as I would be using it for family and friends more than the walkabout purposes with the apo-lanthar.
I tried again with another used copy more recently. It was perfectly centered, as far as I could tell.
Some time had passed since my first copy and I was using 28mm quite a bit in that time, which I don't think get super sharp like a 50 can.
I felt that it was quite a bit sharper than my first copy from memory, perhaps a little tiny bit to the detriment of the image look - it became a little bit too close to modern clinical but I really liked having the wide open uniformity that I don't get with the nokton at f2, and I love the handling of the apo. Really fun to use. More enjoyable to use for me than the viltrox, which has similar IQ I'd say and at a much cheaper price.
I was excited about having the lens again and initally very happy about the sharpness - I didn't feel like I had the issue with the first where I found it a little difficult to focus in the viewfinder compared to my f1.2 50mm nokton. It wasn't difficult, just more difficult for some reason.
But there was some small undisclosed but obvious fungus in the lens and I didn't want to deal with any of that so it went back the same day I received it.
I gave up with the used copies and took advantage of a black friday sale and a brand new one is on the way.
As long as it's not obviously decentered, and there's no fungus, then even if it's not the sharpest I think I'll be happy with it. If it is a super sharp one, I guess I'll get more familiar with the texture and clarity sliders in lightroom when needed. I want sharp but just before too sharp! I won't put that on the order notes.
I do have that 49mm 1/4 glimmer glass too I guess, never thought to use it with the apo until right now. But I did have it on x100vi.
The 1/4 is extremely subtle, more than the 1/8th for some reason, and that's with two copies of the 1/4 from Tiffen. Mr Leica mentioned the same thing.
Has this lens been made obsolete by the Viltrox Air? The Viltrox has the same sharpness but is lighter, smaller, cheaper and has autofocus. Of course, if you really enjoy manual focus, the Voigtlander will give you a nicer experience... but other than that, does the CV do anything better that justifies the price tag?
It seems that edge to edge sharpness is no longer a premium feature. You can get it in many sub $200 lenses these days.
This statement is rather vague, and given that it doesn't specify what exactly is included in these "almost all areas" and what isn't, it's pretty meaningless for the individual, as they don't know whether the areas relevant to their specific needs are included or not (for example, sunstars would be completely irrelevant to me, and astrophotography doesn't interest me at all). Of course, one could always look at both test reports and try to form their own opinion. But I'd like to remind you of a comment from the Viltrox thread:
jaygould wrote:
Wow, image quality looks great. If you had said these were taken with the CV APO-Lanthar, you would've fooled me.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
This statement is rather vague, and given that it doesn't specify what exactly is included in these "almost all areas" and what isn't, it's pretty meaningless for the individual, as they don't know whether the areas relevant to their specific needs are included or not (for example, sunstars would be completely irrelevant to me, and astrophotography doesn't interest me at all). Of course, one could always look at both test reports and try to form their own opinion. But I'd like to remind you of a comment from the Viltrox thread:
That statement was written by someone that should have used and tested both. I mean, it's an opinion (and therefore subjective) by a rather reputable reviewer.
Based on the tests and photos I've seen, the Viltrox suffers more from flare and produces onion rings in the bokeh.
For sure the Viltrox is a very good lens, but I won't sell sell my 50 Apo to finance the purchase of the 50/2 Air
Ripolini wrote:
That statement was written by someone that should have used and tested both. I mean, it's an opinion (and therefore subjective) by a rather reputable reviewer.
Based on the tests and photos I've seen, the Viltrox suffers more from flare and produces onion rings in the bokeh.
For sure the Viltrox is a very good lens, but I won't sell sell my 50 Apo to finance the purchase of the 50/2 Air
I'm not doubting the statement! I'm just saying that it's not very helpful if it's not explained what is meant by "almost everything".
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I'm not doubting the statement! I'm just saying that it's not very helpful if it's not explained what is meant by "almost everything".
According to the reviewer (Martin), both the Nikkor Z 50/1.8 S and the 50/2 Apo Lanthar are better "in almost every way".
He wrote about the Nikkor Z 50/1.8 S: "This is a top-class lens that is optically superior in almost every way to the tested lens—and it’s 1/3 of a stop faster, too. However, it is slightly larger, weighs twice as much, and costs three times as much as the tested lens. If you’re a Nikon Z user looking for the best lens at this aperture, this is the one to get."
I disagree. The 50 Apo is the best (well, it's f/2, not f/1.8 ...)
I've not shot extensively with the f2 air, nor compared the two but when I got that lens I immediately thought of the apo lanthar.
I picked up the 50 al again mostly because I have fun with it. The experience is more memorable for me.
But it's also fun to have autofocus and bam there's your sharp image, too. And the manual focus isn't even that bad on the viltrox.
If someone did side-by-side stress tests, I don't know what they'd find but unless there's something specific you really care about, I wouldn't worry about it - both are absolutely brilliant lenses, though a bit sharp for people.
For the price difference, if you don't love manual focus, the viltrox is a no brainer.
AL was harder to justify since owning the viltrox but I'm happy to have it.
It was like a 6x price difference with what I paid for each. I could do a bokeh test or something if someone needs it, both are sharp edge to edge wide open.
