Wanted to add some more film examples, as this combination of modern lens and older camera/film has really hit a special place for me. It retains the vintage "look" of film but with fantastic sharpness as you typically only get on digital.
Shot on my Leica MP with Kodak Gold 200, pretty late in the afternoon with fading light.
I've been thinking more and more about film for family/friend photos, night time walkabouts with the lights etc. They liked the well out of focus (and low res) pics I got back from my first roll with the nikon fm2n + 50mmf1.4 in kodak gold 200 more than anything else I've taken with the Sony or Fuji. And they were always complaining when I added any grain in post with those. Regardless there's definitely a place for both.
Such a massive advantage getting the VM versions, not even so much because of size or even TAP but because of dual use with film.
But I also don't want to sell the 50al or 50/40 f1.2s on sony 🤦♂️ It's nice walking around without as much worry, as undoubtedly I would be with an mp. But everyday it looks more and more appealing - well before a digital m. Not so many options on nikon for film lenses, as much as I like the fm2n ... when it's not poking my right eye. 1/4000s vs 1/1000s shutter too, shame.
Got a film holder (essential film holder) and light (jack's white light) coming to give better scans a shot. I'm going to pay for the higher res scans at the local shop on the next roll with portra 400 before they arrive, they didn't even suggest it last time.
Yogifi wrote:
I haven't seen 35mm that sharp yet. It's almost too sharp even for film
Been thinking more and more about film for family/friend photos, night time walkabouts with the lights etc. They liked the well out of focus pics (and low res scans) I got back from my first roll with the fm2n + 50mmf1.4afd in kodak gold 200 more than anything else I've taken with the Sony or Fuji. And they were always complaining when I added any grain in post with those. Regardless there's definitely a place for both.
Such a massive advantage getting the VM versions, not even so much because of size or even TAP but because of dual use with film.
But I also don't want to sell the 50al or 50/40 f1.2s on sony 🤦♂️ It's nice walking around without as much worry, as undoubtedly I would be with an mp. But everyday it looks more and more appealing - even before a digital m for me.
Got a film holder (essential film holder) and light (jack's white light) coming to give better scans a shot. I'm going to pay for the higher res scans at the local shop on the next roll with portra 400 before they arrive, they didn't even suggest it last time....Show more →
I also have a Nikon FM2 and the 50mm f/1.4 AI-S (~2004ish production), it's no slouch but just can't match a modern, well-corrected APO lens. Nikon pics here, also scanned via Coolscan. I think these are mostly ProImage 100 film.
Those look pretty damn good to me too! Most definitely technique difference but I think also the scanner is super impressive.
I should have the next roll in a couple of days at the higher quality and that diy scanning equipment by next month, hopefully will make a difference and maybe I can keep the mp thoughts at bay for a few more years. But you do kind of need multiple film cameras with different iso unless you blaze through those shots and finish the film each time.
Just for fun, a similar scene to the post earlier today comparing the apo vs viltrox bokeh. Not quite as close-up, though it can do it. Pretty sure this is the CV 40 f2 ultron --- I dont like this lens on digital (adapted to Sony, despite being sharp in the plane of focus - it's the out of focus that's unsettling for me, even when it's just slightly off the plane). But hoping it works for film where it seems quite popular (usually for build, size, sharpness):
And a random one with the 50 f1.4. Tthinking about upgrading to the ais over my old afd that I had from the d200 15-20 years ago for the manual focus feel as the manual focus feel is rather awful:
^ chose something easier to focus on with the split-screen. I've picked up a lens diopters correction to make things a bit easier -- this was on the way to do that actually.
Massive difference in iq (among other things) between mine and yours. Yours are actually ridiculously good. I hope I can get close with the dslr scan. Love your photos there actually. It's just so much easier on the eyes, much less in your face than digital and more naturally moody.
Kind of don't want the scans to be toooo good either, the 40mmf2 weakness might be more apparent and I think it's basically the best option around 35mm for size and weight on nikon.
jaygould wrote:
Nice test! The only difference I can spot is focal length (as you pointed out) and the Viltrox picture being a tiny bit warmer.
It's the first two things that I notice too and they're not that big either. The other differences I'm zooming in to ridiculous levels and really looking around the frame ... and they're still very minor, and could be attributed to slight angle (lightweight tripod) / focus point / sunlight differences. At least in that shot - but they are close lenses from what I've seen so far, but again, no extensive comparison.
I think the sun came out a tad more on the viltrox too.
I took a couple more but the lighting difference was massive and the edge sharpness test wasn't good, slight angle change when not at infinity with the lightweight tripod. I retook it with the viltrox to confirm they both do edge-to-edge at f2 impressively, but it's no longer a side-by-side comparison.
Yogifi wrote:
F2 1/1000s with an a7cii
[images]
Viltrox is slightly wider. Hoya mkII protective filter on cv (sorry!), changing sun with clouds.
Thank you for the comparison! As this thread really is about the CV50APO I digress a little now but here is a comparison between the Viltrox 50/2 AIR and the CV 50/1.2 SE, now at shorter distances:
CV50/1.2 at ƒ2 (obviously) to the left and the Viltrox, wide open, to the right. In real world use this has no practical impact. Autofocus may have...
Yogifi wrote:
They liked the well out of focus (and low res) pics I got back from my first roll with the nikon fm2n + 50mmf1.4 in kodak gold 200 more than anything else I've taken with the Sony or Fuji. And they were always complaining when I added any grain in post with those.
I think I like your family.
Well, they also picked the horrible bright white raised "flower" bed you see near the fence in the comparison shots, when I was suggesting stone. I think they regretted it when they saw it at least.
Left the garden with them at that point (having had a rather stressful time with the structure and needing a break). Can see the brilliant progress they've made ... the grass has almost covered the ground by itself since.
Jonas B wrote:
...
CV50/1.2 at ƒ2 (obviously) to the left and the Viltrox, wide open, to the right. In real world use this has no practical impact. Autofocus may have...
When I did side-by-sides with my decentered apo, it was like 2/3rd a stop bokeh difference, between the two apo-lanthar seemed a bit slower. The nokton also looked like it had better separation but I'm not sure if that's because the apo was decentered, I don't think so as that was only top left corner.
The apo felt really good for realism, slower transition to out-of-focus... and the nokton for subjects.
--- But it wasn't a huge difference. You can get cool shots wide open with both, the nokton can get quite surreal sometimes. And the CA was more apparent like it is in your comparison. The bokeh don't see much difference looking side by side there.
I like the apo more for walkabouts and the nokton more for people but you know half of that might be psychological. It is nice to go larger than f2 though.
I usually the use the nokton at f1.6 with single people subjects. Can go larger aperture when theyre a bit further away otherwise up close and wide it's not that nice with the glow for me. My favourite lens so far for the people shots though not by a huge margin, lots of nice ones available. I think part of that was they had this filmic vibe to them, maybe it's the colours I'm not sure. I saw very little difference between the APO-lanthar and Nokton 50 f1.2 in terms of colours, it was like sometimes leaning towards pastel. I suspect the viltrox is a little more modern.
While the differences are slight, if I try to make one more like the other I usually fail and go overboard, but that slight difference in colour, saturation... does impact the vibe .. sometimes. Probably safest to do some colour image profile like nehemiaphoto (forgive the spelling) was doing.
Yogifi wrote:
Well, they also picked the horrible bright white raised "flower" bed you see near the fence in the comparison shots, when I was suggesting stone. I think they regretted it when they saw it at least. Left the garden with them at that point (having had a rather stressful time with the structure and needing a break). Can see the brilliant progress they've made ... the grass has almost covered the ground by itself since
Even the brightest candle flickers sometimes.
Yogifi wrote:
[...]
I like the apo more for walkabouts and the nokton more for people but you know half of that might be psychological. It is nice to go larger than f2 though.
I usually the use the nokton at f1.6 with single people subjects. Can go larger aperture when theyre a bit further away otherwise up close and wide it's not that nice with the glow for me. My favourite lens so far for the people shots though. And I think part of that was they had this filmic vibe to them, maybe it's the colours I'm not sure.
There is a lot about psychologcal involved. I really like a lot about the CV50APO but at the same time I use it only when out with tripod looking for the perfect documtary cityscape shot (or shots, I often stitch). The 50/1.2 is more fun, the Viltrox 50/2 AIR is not fun to use at all but it is AF and it delivers.
Jonas B wrote:
There is a lot about psychologcal involved. I really like a lot about the CV50APO but at the same time I use it only when out with tripod looking for the perfect documtary cityscape shot (or shots, I often stitch). The 50/1.2 is more fun, the Viltrox 50/2 AIR is not fun to use at all but it is AF and it delivers.
Yes, things like price, build quality, and whatever you've heard or read about a lens prior to testing it can definitely influence the way you see the pictures taken with the lens. There's a similar thing in the audio space where if you know a pair of headphones are expensive, you tend to "hear" detail that you don't hear on cheaper headphones. In straight up blind testing however, these differences are never revealed.
jaygould wrote:
Yes, things like price, build quality, and whatever you've heard or read about a lens prior to testing it can definitely influence the way you see the pictures taken with the lens. There's a similar thing in the audio space where if you know a pair of headphones are expensive, you tend to "hear" detail that you don't hear on cheaper headphones. In straight up blind testing however, these differences are never revealed.
I do not hesitate to claim that I am completely free from this.
jaygould wrote:
Yes, things like price, build quality, and whatever you've heard or read about a lens prior to testing it can definitely influence the way you see the pictures taken with the lens. There's a similar thing in the audio space where if you know a pair of headphones are expensive, you tend to "hear" detail that you don't hear on cheaper headphones. In straight up blind testing however, these differences are never revealed.
And you can find people that hear differences between power cords behind your cd player... (I can't )
Jonas B wrote:
CV50/1.2 at ƒ2 (obviously) to the left and the Viltrox, wide open, to the right. In real world use this has no practical impact. Autofocus may have...
The bokeh is actually different ... CV 50/1.2 shows a polygonal character of bright spots in the background with some onion rings, the Viltrox shows round bokeh (obviously; it's w/open!) with slightly more visible onion rings. It would be interesting to see the same scene photographed with the 50/2 Apo Lanthar. I think it would exhibit a more natural bokeh.
Ripolini wrote:
[...]It would be interesting to see the same scene photographed with the 50/2 Apo Lanthar. I think it would exhibit a more natural bokeh.
OK. Here you have images from an earlier thread. It was started in August this year, by yogifi, and about the degree of background blur using different lenses. Here.
First the scene (the distances is the same in my post above):
and then some 50mm lenses, all at ƒ2:
Key:
A= CV50APO (Cosina Voigtländer 50/2 APO)
B= 50i (Sigma 50/2.0 DG DN Contemporary a.k.a. Sigma 50i)
C= OM5020M (Olympus Zuiko OM 50/2.0 Macro for the OM system))
D= CV5012 (Cosina Voigtländer 50/1.2 SE)
Jonas B wrote:
OK. Here you have images from an earlier thread. It was started by yogifi about the degree of background blur using different lenses. Here.
Thank you.
The images by @Yogifi@ confirm that, at f/2, the 50/2 Apo provides a more natural reproduction of bright light sources in the background than CV 50/1.2.
The 50/2 AL has very nice bokeh at f/2.8 too, with perfectly round diaphragm. The 35/2 Apo Lanthar has a perfectly round aperture at f/5.6 too. However, it suffers more from onion rings.
Jonas B wrote:
OK. Here you have images from an earlier thread. It was started in August this year, by yogifi, and about the degree of background blur using different lenses. Here.
A= CV50APO (Cosina Voigtländer 50/2 APO)
B= 50i (Sigma 50/2.0 DG DN Contemporary a.k.a. Sigma 50i)
C= OM5020M (Olympus Zuiko OM 50/2.0 Macro for the OM system))
D= CV5012 (Cosina Voigtländer 50/1.2 SE)
Thanks for the side by side. These comparisons say more than any long write up ever could.
If I put it into words, the Sigma shows the strongest inner structure, the onion ring pattern, and its optical vignetting looks similar to the Olympus which is lower than what I see from the CV 50 APO with its more noticeable cats' eye effect. The Olympus has the cleanest specular highlights, which lines up with it not using aspherical elements, although I am not very familiar with that lens. All three have a modern look with very little outlining, though the Olympus shows a bit more than the others. I do not see any meaningful difference in resolution or contrast with the subject centered. For bokeh roundness, the CV 50mm f/1.2 shows its dodecagon shape since it is stopped to f/2, but you really need to look closely to notice it.
Also, if you want more side by side rendering comparisons, check out the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux ASPH. versus the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 Nokton versus the CV 50/2 APO-Lanthar at different distances here:
jaygould wrote:
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.
About the Viltrox "in the frame centre by f/1.8 and f/2.0 images are of weak quality and they become decent only near f/2.2. From f/2.8 upwards you deal with good levels but even by f/4.0 and f/5.6 image quality doesn't bowl you over".
About the 50 Apo "in the frame centre, at the maximum relative aperture, the Voigtlander gets to a sensational value of 70 lpmm. On stopping down to f/2.8 the lens is able to reach almost 80 lpmm and by f/4.0 its resolution amounts to 81.0 ±0.8 lpmm, a result that ensures it a place on our resolution record list... It's also not all of the praise - also on the edge of the frame the Apo Lanthar is able to keep image quality on a very high level, an exception among full frame lenses designed for mirrorless cameras."
