p.11 #1 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Before Voigtlander jumped into hyper mode with these new lenses, I was using the Voigt 35 1.2 Ver II adapted to my Sony cameras. I was very happy with that lens, my first 1.2 lens. I remember thinking how tiny for a 1.2 lens. Very happy to see this lens now has the new Voigtlander approach and now in Emount too. I need to study exactly what was changed optically between Ver II and Ver III other than Emount and this new SE housing.
With so many begging for small quality optics for Sony Emount, looks like Voigtlander just keeps stepping up and figured out how to make their current already small and fast Emount lenses even smaller! Bravo
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #3 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
GMPhotography wrote:
Thanks Steve. Once things settle down the 35 and a 20/21 travel or retirement kit would be nice.
Yes, I am building a kit that will be the Loxia 21, this CV 35 f/1.2 III, and the CV 65 f/2 Macro. Not sure what I will add after that, but I think these three lenses complement each other well.
I am also thinking about a Loxia 21, Zeiss 28 f/2, CV 50 f/2 APO kit as well. I would love a good 28 for E mount, but we have been waiting for that forever. The 7 Artisans 28 f/1.4 isn't too bad and is fairly small and a good value (if you don't remember I have your old one), but I am looking for a lens with just a little better performance and that is a little smaller. A lens like the new Leica 28 summicron on Leica (it looses too much on a mirrorless). I don't know if we will ever get that lens, however.
p.11 #4 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, I am building a kit that will be the Loxia 21, this CV 35 f/1.2 III, and the CV 65 f/2 Macro. Not sure what I will add after that, but I think these three lenses complement each other well.
I am also thinking about a Loxia 21, Zeiss 28 f/2, CV 50 f/2 APO kit as well. I would love a good 28 for E mount, but we have been waiting for that forever. The 7 Artisans 28 f/1.4 isn't too bad and is fairly small and a good value (if you don't remember I have your old one), but I am looking for a lens with just a little better performance and that is a little smaller. A lens like the new Leica 28 summicron on Leica (it looses too much on a mirrorless). I don't know if we will ever get that lens, however....Show more →
Seems 28mm has fallen out of favor recently with manufacturers giving us new lenses with everything but 28. E.g. Batis 25 or 40 and Loxia 25 or 35 and Voigtlander 35 and 40 🤷🏻♂️
p.11 #5 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you like the CV 40/1.2's character (rendering, resolution, contrast, colors) but prefer 35mm, the CV 35/1.2 III is for you.
Do you think you will be able to post a rendering comparison between the two? I would be interested. Bastian's review seems to suggest the 35 is a slight improvement but it's hard to tell without a direct comparison.
Interesting they kept the number of aperture blades for the CV 40/1.2 SE at 10 instead of 12 which I thought was the new default for Voigtlander lenses.
p.11 #7 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
LBJ2 wrote:
I'm still trying to get over, Fred with a Leica Rangefinder camera Go Fred Go !
---------------------------------------------
GMPhotography wrote:
OMG Fred bought a Leica. I missed all of this. I’m lost on this lens if it’s good or not for our Sony. There talking a E mount
I purchased a minty M240 from the buy and sell board so I can finally test M-mount lenses on it.
So far I have two lenses for it. CV 35/1.2 III and Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM. (Staying away from Leica lenses )
I find it quite surprising that the rangefinder allows me focus with great accuracy with both 35mm lenses wide open for environment portraits. I was not expecting that.
The 35/1.4 ZM in particular is a lens I always loved. From what I can tell, on the Leica thin sensor, it's the only lens that challenges the Sigma 35/1.2 at all distances. For those who tried it on the Sony with a PCX front lens, rendering is quite smooth but not at the same level as the Voigtlander since the Zeiss is better corrected for SA.
@Steve Spencer, the issue with the weird rendering on the Sony towards the corners was due to induced field curvature + optical vignetting. On the Leica, rendering is more even across the frame. (Same for resolution at infinity). For the FE 50/1.4 ZA fans, the 35/1.4 ZM has a very similar look imo. (high resolution/micro-contrast + neutral rendering)
I've compared the CV 35/1.2 III to my CV 40/1.2 E-mount and found the former was even sharper at center. I was hoping for a strong mid-field but found it a bit softer than the 40/1.2 until about f/2-2.8. The Zeiss on the other hand is sharp at all field zones from wide open. Aside from rendering and color error correction, that's the main difference between the two.
Apr 17, 2020 at 11:34 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #8 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
I purchased a minty M240 from the buy and sell board so I can finally test M-mount lenses on it.
So far I have two lenses for it. CV 35/1.2 III and Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM. (Staying away from Leica lenses )
I find it quite surprising that the rangefinder allows me focus with great accuracy with both 35mm lenses wide open for environment portraits. I was not expecting that.
The 35/1.4 ZM in particular is a lens I always loved. From what I can tell, on the Leica thin sensor, it's the only lens that challenges the Sigma 35/1.2 at all distances. For those who tried it on the Sony with a PCX front lens, rendering is quite smooth but not at the same level as the Voigtlander since the Zeiss is better corrected for SA.
@Steve Spencer, the issue with the weird rendering on the Sony towards the corners was due to induced field curvature + optical vignetting. On the Leica, rendering is more even across the frame. (Same for resolution at infinity). For the FE 50/1.4 ZA fans, the 35/1.4 ZM has a very similar look imo. (high resolution/micro-contrast + neutral rendering)
I've compared the CV 35/1.2 III to my CV 40/1.2 E-mount and found the former was even sharper at center. I was hoping for a strong mid-field but found it a bit softer than the 40/1.2 until about f/2-2.8. The Zeiss on the other hand is sharp at all field zones from wide open. Aside from rendering and color error correction, that's the main difference between the two....Show more →
Fred,
The issues of the bokeh in the corners is not just on Sony, which made it worse, but it was noticed first by Ron Scheffler (rscheffler) when he first tested it on his Leica M240, when the lens first came out. I can't find those original posts, but I am pretty sure I am remembering that right. I also saw it on my Leica M10, when I had that camera and the lens. The field curvature was a big deal for Sony, and the weird corners were probably worse on Sony, but the problem was still there, IMO, on Leica as well.
Edit: Here is a summary from one of Ron's early posts on the lens. You will see he mentions some of the bokeh issues even in this early post:
p.11 #9 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
I purchased a minty M240 from the buy and sell board so I can finally test M-mount lenses on it.
So far I have two lenses for it. CV 35/1.2 III and Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM. (Staying away from Leica lenses )
I find it quite surprising that the rangefinder allows me focus with great accuracy with both 35mm lenses wide open for environment portraits. I was not expecting that.
The 35/1.4 ZM in particular is a lens I always loved. From what I can tell, on the Leica thin sensor, it's the only lens that challenges the Sigma 35/1.2 at all distances. For those who tried it on the Sony with a PCX front lens, rendering is quite smooth but not at the same level as the Voigtlander since the Zeiss is better corrected for SA.
@Steve Spencer, the issue with the weird rendering on the Sony towards the corners was due to induced field curvature + optical vignetting. On the Leica, rendering is more even across the frame. (Same for resolution at infinity). For the FE 50/1.4 ZA fans, the 35/1.4 ZM has a very similar look imo. (high resolution/micro-contrast + neutral rendering)
I've compared the CV 35/1.2 III to my CV 40/1.2 E-mount and found the former was even sharper at center. I was hoping for a strong mid-field but found it a bit softer than the 40/1.2 until about f/2-2.8. The Zeiss on the other hand is sharp at all field zones from wide open. Aside from rendering and color error correction, that's the main difference between the two....Show more →
Okay Fred! But please don't tell me you want your Voigtlander VM 75/1.5 Nokton back!
p.11 #10 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
DaveFP wrote:
Can anyone comment on how the rendering of this lens compares to the Mk. II?
The rendering of the new version (III) looks extremely similar to version II in terms of overall contrast and the out of focus areas. Maybe a little less busy?
Other notes:
I'll be curios how version III does on a M240 compared to the thicker sensor of the Sony, especially compared to the ZM35mm f/1.4.
I've tested the CV35 version II vs. the Zeiss on both the OEM sensor stack and a thin sensor stack.
Thin sensor CV35II was nearly as good as the OEM sensor ZM35 at f/1.4 in the center and off axis.
Thin sensor ZM35 was better than any 35mm lens that I've ever used.
p.11 #11 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
MAubrey wrote:
The rendering of the new version (III) looks extremely similar to version II in terms of overall contrast and the out of focus areas. Maybe a little less busy?
Other notes:
I'll be curios how version III does on a M240 compared to the thicker sensor of the Sony, especially compared to the ZM35mm f/1.4.
I've tested the CV35 version II vs. the Zeiss on both the OEM sensor stack and a thin sensor stack.
Thin sensor CV35II was nearly as good as the OEM sensor ZM35 at f/1.4 in the center and off axis.
Thin sensor ZM35 was better than any 35mm lens that I've ever used.
I love how CV has now released 3 versions of the 40 and 50 1.2’s with 2 for e-mount alone and we can’t get Zeiss to even to port their ZM lines, even favorites like the 50 1.5 and 35 1.4.
p.11 #13 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Steve Spencer wrote:
Fred,
The issues of the bokeh in the corners is not just on Sony, which made it worse, but it was noticed first by Ron Scheffler (rscheffler) when he first tested it on his Leica M240, when the lens first came out. I can't find those original posts, but I am pretty sure I am remembering that right. I also saw it on my Leica M10, when I had that camera and the lens. The field curvature was a big deal for Sony, and the weird corners were probably worse on Sony, but the problem was still there, IMO, on Leica as well.
Edit: Here is a summary from one of Ron's early posts on the lens. You will see he mentions some of the bokeh issues even in this early post:
Yes, on the thin sensor, that remaining rendering issue towards the corners is due to optical vignetting which is pretty common with fast + compact wide lenses. At least on the Leica, FC is a non-issue while on the Sony, it makes the corners appear sharper depending on subject distance.
Unfortunately, the Voigtlander Nokton lenses are no different. At the corners the Voigt 35/1.2 III and 35/1.4 ZM are pretty equal rendering wise. The Voigtlander smoothness advantage is only noticeable at center and mid-field.
p.11 #14 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
LBJ2 wrote:
Okay Fred! But please don't tell me you want your Voigtlander VM 75/1.5 Nokton back!
Actually I do! I was thinking on a small 3-set for the Leica: Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM, CV 50/1.2 and CV 75/1.5 but have a feeling that the latter will be more challenging to focus with accuracy without using the EVF. (which I'm trying to avoid)
Apr 17, 2020 at 02:01 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.11 #15 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, on the thin sensor, that remaining rendering issue towards the corners is due to optical vignetting which is pretty common with fast + compact wide lenses. At least on the Leica, FC is a non-issue while on the Sony, it makes the corners appear sharper depending on subject distance.
Unfortunately, the Voigtlander Nokton lenses are no different. At the corners the Voigt 35/1.2 III and 35/1.4 ZM are pretty equal rendering wise. The Voigtlander smoothness advantage is only noticeable at center and mid-field.
I'm not so sure they are equal in the corners, especially the highlights which are not the typical cat's eyes with the 35 ZM f/1.4, but an unusual rhombus shape that I haven't see with any other lens and that is true on the Leica camera as well. As I said, even, on the Leica I never took to the ZM 35 f/1.4 for moderate distance shooting and the bokeh was the main reason, as always, however, YMMV.
p.11 #16 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Steve Spencer wrote:
I'm not so sure they are equal in the corners, especially the highlights which are not the typical cat's eyes with the 35 ZM f/1.4, but an unusual rhombus shape that I haven't see with any other lens and that is true on the Leica camera as well. As I said, even, on the Leica I never took to the ZM 35 f/1.4 for moderate distance shooting and the bokeh was the main reason, as always, however, YMMV.
I will post side by side samples comparing the CV 35/1.2 III vs Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM's resolution at long distance and rendering at close and mid-distance soon. (Leica body)
I've seen the rhombus shape but I think that is due to coma.
So I think there are three distinctive things happening here:
1) Induced field curvature: That happens when using the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM on a Sony (due to thicker filter stack). Not an issue on the Leica. The ill-effect is that when focusing on a mid-distance subject wide open, OOF rendering can show 'in-focus' corners on a Sony without the PCX mod. It's definitely a weird effect. This is not specific to the Zeiss lens and also happens with other fast 35mm lenses designed for the M-mount when used on the Sony.
2) Optical Vignetting: This also affects the corners making rendering harsher than the center and mid-field. It's also responsible for cat-eye bokeh
3) Coma: This has an effect on corner bokeh shape as well. With wide angle lenses, it can make them appear non-oval in a shape of a cone or rhombus as you described.
p.11 #17 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will post side by side samples comparing the CV 35/1.2 III vs Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM's resolution at long distance and rendering at close and mid-distance soon. (Leica body)
I've seen the rhombus shape but I think that is due to coma.
So I think there are three distinctive things happening here:
1) Induced field curvature: That happens when using the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM on a Sony (due to thicker glass). Not an issue on the Leica. The ill-effect is more 'in-focus' corners compared to the center and mid-field when shooting at mid and long distance on the Sony without any PCX mod.
2) Optical Vignetting: This also affects the corners making rendering harsher than the center and mid-field. It's also responsible for cat-eye bokeh
3) Coma: This has an effect on corner bokeh shape as well. With wide angle lenses, it can make them appear non-oval in a shape of a cone or rhombus as you described....Show more →
Do you enjoy the RF experience/way of shooting? Not a loaded question--I picked up a m-mount film RF recently and absolutely love it even if I don't have blazing AF and modern features. From the way people talk about it online and some Leica reviews, you'd like we in the Paleolithic era. I'm on on the fence about picking up a digital RF myself.
Or any one's input is welcome that shoots both mirrorless and RF's.
p.11 #18 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Do you enjoy the RF experience/way of shooting? Not a loaded question--I picked up a m-mount film RF recently and absolutely love it even if I don't have blazing AF and such. From the way people talk about it online and some Leica reviews, you'd like we in the Paleolithic era. I'm on on the fence about picking up a digital RF myself.
I've always loved shooting with manual focus lenses so it's not a big change for me. Even during my Canon days, most of my lenses were manual (TS-E lenses) but I had to rely on live view for accurate focusing. I was curious about rangefinders but since I mainly shoot landscapes, sensor and high MP were always a higher priority for me. I'm very happy with Sony for this type of photography. The bodies are compact, the lenses are outstanding and the price is right.
I decided to try a Leica rangefinder as a second system for three main reasons:
1) I can test lenses designed for the Leica mount on a Leica sensor.
2) I can disconnect from all the modern electronic marvels keeping things simple and exercise creativity. This can also be done with my A7R IV but I am surprised by how much the rangefinder and simplicity of the Leica body can be satisfying to the shooting experience.
3) Pricing of the M240 camera. I'm satisfied with the M240 sensor's DR for non-landscape applications and 24MP is enough for that. At current used prices, it was hard to resist and I think it's definitely worth it.
p.11 #19 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
MAubrey wrote:
The rendering of the new version (III) looks extremely similar to version II in terms of overall contrast and the out of focus areas. Maybe a little less busy?
Other notes:
I'll be curios how version III does on a M240 compared to the thicker sensor of the Sony, especially compared to the ZM35mm f/1.4.
I've tested the CV35 version II vs. the Zeiss on both the OEM sensor stack and a thin sensor stack.
Thin sensor CV35II was nearly as good as the OEM sensor ZM35 at f/1.4 in the center and off axis.
Thin sensor ZM35 was better than any 35mm lens that I've ever used.
p.11 #20 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've always loved shooting with manual focus lenses so it's not a big change for me. Even during my Canon days, most of my lenses were manual (TS-E lenses) but I had to rely on live view for accurate focusing. I was curious about rangefinders but since I mainly shoot landscapes, sensor and high MP were always a higher priority for me. I'm very happy with Sony for this type of photography. The bodies are compact, the lenses are outstanding and the price is right.
I decided to try a Leica rangefinder as a second system for three main reasons:
1) I can test lenses designed for the Leica mount on a Leica sensor.
2) I can disconnect from all the modern electronic marvels keeping things simple and exercise creativity. This can also be done with my A7R IV but I am surprised how much the rangefinder and simplicity of the Leica body can be satisfying to the shooting experience.
3) Pricing of the M240 camera. I've happy with the M240 sensor's DR for non-landscape applications and 24MP is enough for that. At current used prices, it was hard to resist and I think it's definitely worth it....Show more →
Slippery slope Fred! I am myself ensnared and loving it Love my Sonys too, but a whole different kind of tool.
Go Fred Go !
