p.6 #1 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yes, when people say the RX1 Sonnar needs an update, I think it’s a head scratcher. It does have some (very manageable) CA wide open, but I do think that helps the bokeh, and I just don’t want that lens touched at all—it’s really pretty impressive. I’ve been skipping the sigma 35/1.2 because I’m not interested in lenses that large, but from what I’ve seen they stand apart.
And yes, the RX1 and the Pentax 31 Limited are the rare and essentially exact same focal length which is really 32/33 mm. It’s the best focal length in my opinion. 21 mm and 75 mm gets a lot of use for me too.
I don’t know why the front element of the new CV 35 is concave. If I remember correctly the ZM 35 1.4 does this as well.
Anyone know what the purpose is/what a concave front element does optically?...Show more →
If you don't mind f/2 and 900g, SLR Magic has a 32mm APO Microprime Cine Lens (for EF) that's very impressive for the money.
The concave design isn't uncommon. If I'm remembering correctly, even the APSC 35/1.8 OSS has a concave front element. I know we've had discussions about it in the alt forum, since the thoriated FD 35/2 also has a concave front, but Google and I are coming up empty on the search.
p.6 #2 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
bjornthun wrote:
Moving far out on a limb I say;
The front element is a negative lens, which means that it spreads light like a presvription glass for near sighted persons. This means that it contributes to make the lens more retrofocus. The light rays will hit the sensor more straight on than they otherwise would have. This should improve corner performance, maybe make help make the sensor cover induce less field curvature.
Please, someone correct me if I’m wrong.
p.6 #4 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Aside from the concave front element, the optical design is a copy from the 40/1.2 Nokton's.
Perhaps what Voigtlander did is similar to what we do when adding a PCX "front element". That's my theory.
I think you're willfully ignoring the big differences in the shapes of the first aspherical and the third and fourth elements to suit your theory. Well done!
p.6 #5 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
DavidBM wrote:
You say that the 40 does a little better at midfield?
It could be that the induced field curvature on the 35 is visible at midfield, not the corners. That's pretty much how it goes on the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM if I recall...
I didn't do a very precise measurement for the mid-field but if there is any FC there, it's minimal. (just by looking at the focusing ring distance measurement and optimal focus at f/1.2 for all zones)
p.6 #6 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
freaklikeme wrote:
I think you're willfully ignoring the big differences in the shapes of the first aspherical and the third and fourth elements to suit your theory. Well done!
Yes, variation (tweaks) from the same overall formula.
p.6 #7 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, variation (tweaks) from the same overall formula.
Yeah, without a huge spread in the focal length, I guess there wasn't need for much beyond tweaks. I do wish the 35 had gotten the pink element from the 50's design. Of the three, I think that has the nicest balance of sweetness wide open, but with equal omph stopped down.
p.6 #9 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
freaklikeme wrote:
If you don't mind f/2 and 900g, SLR Magic has a 32mm APO Microprime Cine Lens (for EF) that's very impressive for the money.
The concave design isn't uncommon. If I'm remembering correctly, even the APSC 35/1.8 OSS has a concave front element. I know we've had discussions about it in the alt forum, since the thoriated FD 35/2 also has a concave front, but Google and I are coming up empty on the search.
I am curious but won’t actually get it at 900g. Got a review or any first hand impressions?
p.6 #12 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Today we had very pretty nice weather in Tokyo so I did a very long walk with the CV 35/1.2 III on my Sony A9 (with Rayqual adapter) from Ebisu to Azabu Juban to Roppingi Hills to Hiroo and back to Ebisu. Similar to Fred's finding with A7R4, it worked great corner to corner on A9, probably reaching the very best overall results by f5.6, and there's no noticeable field curvature. I also like it that I can shoot it precisely at hard infinity with this adapter for long distance shots and if there are any concerns about reaching infinity perfectly I also have a few thinner adapters that would allow to focus a bit futher. Really enjoying the lens, the size is pretty optimal and handling is perfect.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #13 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am wondering how far CV can implement this formula with tweaking...how about 28 1.2 or 1.4 Nokton in the same vein as the 35/40/50 1.2s
I would love to see that.
The Nokton's we currently have in E mount are:
21 f/1.4; 40 f/1.2; and 50 f/1.2
There are obviously some holes there.
The Nokton's we currently have in VM mount are:
21 f/1.4, 35 f/1.2 III, 40 f/1.2, 50 f/1.2, and 75 f/1.5 (there is a 50 f/1.1 and 50 f/1.5, but I think these are being supplanted by the 50 f/1.2)
There are fewer holes here, but it seems there is room for at least one and probably 2 Nokton between 21 and 35. I would love to see a 28 Nokton (either f/1.2 or f/1.4) and maybe there is room for a 24 or 35 as well. For now, however, I would just be happy with the 35 f/1.2 III and the 75 f/1.5 being offered in E mount. I really hope that happens by the end of the year. Even if these lenses don't get developed for E-mount they do pretty well on the Sony cameras with an adapter for VM mount. Not ideal, but still very good options.
p.6 #14 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would love to see that.
The Nokton's we currently have in E mount are:
21 f/1.4; 40 f/1.2; and 50 f/1.2
There are obviously some holes there.
The Nokton's we currently have in VM mount are:
21 f/1.4, 35 f/1.2 III, 40 f/1.2, 50 f/1.2, and 75 f/1.5 (there is a 50 f/1.1 and 50 f/1.5, but I think these are being supplanted by the 50 f/1.2)
There are fewer holes here, but it seems there is room for at least one and probably 2 Nokton between 21 and 35. I would love to see a 28 Nokton (either f/1.2 or f/1.4) and maybe there is room for a 24 or 35 as well. For now, however, I would just be happy with the 35 f/1.2 III and the 75 f/1.5 being offered in E mount. I really hope that happens by the end of the year. Even if these lenses don't get developed for E-mount they do pretty well on the Sony cameras with an adapter for VM mount. Not ideal, but still very good options....Show more →
I am not too desperate for the 75 1.5 port or the 35 1.2 v.3 (especially given the performance here. I didn't even bother to check, but I trust Fred's and Juha's findings).
I see the a 24 1.2/1.4 as being too close to the 21 1.4, or at least it would make more sense to release a 28mm with the 21/35 gap, lack of decent 28 options, and given that most RF's have 28 frame lines natively so a VM could come out and be ported to e-mount, which CV seems to prefer but perhaps they'd do an e-mount only has they have before a couple times here recently.
p.6 #15 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
freaklikeme wrote:
The concave design isn't uncommon. If I'm remembering correctly, even the APSC 35/1.8 OSS has a concave front element. I know we've had discussions about it in the alt forum, since the thoriated FD 35/2 also has a concave front, but Google and I are coming up empty on the search.
Quite true. The Zeiss ZM 35mm f/1.4 is also concave.
Apr 04, 2020 at 02:50 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #16 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am not too desperate for the 75 1.5 port or the 35 1.2 v.3 (especially given the performance here. I didn't even bother to check, but I trust Fred's and Juha's findings).
I see the a 24 1.2/1.4 as being too close to the 21 1.4, or at least it would make more sense to release a 28mm with the 21/35 gap, lack of decent 28 options, and given that most RF's have 28 frame lines natively so a VM could come out and be ported to e-mount, which CV seems to prefer but perhaps they'd do an e-mount only has they have before a couple times here recently.
...Show more →
I agree with you almost totally. I have the CV 75 f/1.5 in VM mount and it is very nice on mirrorless. I have to admit I wouldn't mind get that last little bit of performance and having contacts for EXIF data with an E mount version, but that would mostly be icing on the cake. It looks like the increase in performance of a E mount 35 f/1.2 (like the VM 35 f/1.2 III) would be an even smaller increase in performance, but I would still take that icing for the cake as well. I think 28 does fit the hole better as well, but of course Leica has 21, 24, 28, and 35 summiluxes, so adding both a 24 and 28 certainly would have a precedent there.
I will be quite surprised if the VM 35 f/1.2 III doesn't come out in an E mount version, but I am less sure about the VM 75 f/1.5. I wouldn't be completely surprised if they went with an 85 or 90 f/2 APO Lanthar and never make the Nokton in that focal length range. My best guess, however, is that we eventually see both a Nokton and an APO Lanthar between 75 and 90, and if it were my choice I would make an 85 f/1.4 Nokton and a 90 f/2 APO Lanthar. Even though it doesn't totally make sense, I would buy both of those.
p.6 #17 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree with you almost totally. I have the CV 75 f/1.5 in VM mount and it is very nice on mirrorless. I have to admit I wouldn't mind get that last little bit of performance and having contacts for EXIF data with an E mount version, but that would mostly be icing on the cake. It looks like the increase in performance of a E mount 35 f/1.2 (like the VM 35 f/1.2 III) would be an even smaller increase in performance, but I would still take that icing for the cake as well. I think 28 does fit the hole better as well, but of course Leica has 21, 24, 28, and 35 summiluxes, so adding both a 24 and 28 certainly would have a precedent there.
I will be quite surprised if the VM 35 f/1.2 III doesn't come out in an E mount version, but I am less sure about the VM 75 f/1.5. I wouldn't be completely surprised if they went with an 85 or 90 f/2 APO Lanthar and never make the Nokton in that focal length range. My best guess, however, is that we eventually see both a Nokton and an APO Lanthar between 75 and 90, and if it were my choice I would make an 85 f/1.4 Nokton and a 90 f/2 APO Lanthar. Even though it doesn't totally make sense, I would buy both of those. ...Show more →
Who knows what CV will and won't port--I still wondering why I don't see my CV 35/2 or 35/1.7 to e-mount.
What is the different between Ultron's, Nokton's and Lanthars optical signatures Steve? Oddly, my CV 35/2 Ultron and CV 35/1.7 Ultron don't really seem so share a similar draw at all like I have come to expect from Zeiss with labeled Sonnar, Tessar, Distagon and Biogons (though this can be sheer marketing at times).
And you'd buy an 85 Nokton and 90 Lanthar even though it wouldn't be necessary? Welcome to FM
p.6 #18 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am curious but won’t actually get it at 900g. Got a review or any first hand impressions?
We couldn't find any reviews when my cohort was looking for a moderate wide and moderate tele, but there's a lot of chatter about their cousins, the Hyperprimes in PL mounts, on the Cine boards (Red and Cine 5D) and the optics appear to be the same between the two body styles. My only experience with it is on the a7sII shooting street interviews for his climate change doc, but what I saw (sweet focus transitions, decent bokeh, very well corrected) makes me want to give it a whirl on a higher resolution body. It and the 85 both do exceptionally well with artificially backlit shots, but the flare with sun would probably put off most stills shooters.
Apr 04, 2020 at 03:45 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #19 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Who knows what CV will and won't port--I still wondering why I don't see my CV 35/2 or 35/1.7 to e-mount.
What is the different between Ultron's, Nokton's and Lanthars optical signatures Steve? Oddly, my CV 35/2 Ultron and CV 35/1.7 Ultron don't really seem so share a similar draw at all like I have come to expect from Zeiss with labeled Sonnar, Tessar, Distagon and Biogons (though this can be sheer marketing at times).
And you'd buy an 85 Nokton and 90 Lanthar even though it wouldn't be necessary? Welcome to FM
Of course nobody knows what CV will or will not port or if they do know they certainly aren't going to tell. As to why the CV 35 f/2 and 35 f/1.7 weren't ported who really knows, but this much is obvious: outside of the APO Lanthars and ultra wide angles, CV has focussed on providing very fast lenses for the Sony E mount. As to the differences between Noktons and Ultrons, Skopars, and Heliars as far as I can tell, it is just max aperture primarily. Nokton seems to mean 1.5 or wider max aperture and Ultron seems to mean between 1.7 or 2.0 max aperture, and Skopar seems to mean 2.5 to 4 max aperture and Helier seems to me very slow (3.5 to 5.6) max aperture. The only exception I can see is the 50 f/3.5 Helier and that of course is still a very slow max aperture for a 50 even if it falls within the range that is usually labelled a Skopar. The APO Lanthars on the other hand have the obvious difference of being APO corrected and the less obvious difference of being very sharp from wide open aperture and with max apertures that are more in line with the ultrons. These obviously have a different design goal. So, I see the labels as a bit of a mix of the way Leica and Zeiss do it. Mostly the labels are similar to Leica in that they indicate max aperture, but the APO Lanthars are distinguished as top level performers with moderate max aperture by that label.
p.6 #20 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
They need to get clear of the notion that APO-Lanthars are heavy macros with one charismatic special 50mm in the mix. With Sigma amping up Sony-specific lens production, the time is right for over 2020-2021.
An 85-90mm APO of the same standard as the 50/2 would bring in fabulous wide open performance for new style landscapes - it is a great focal length for this need, and higher separation at longer distances would add to the mix. It is also the FL zone most blighted by LoCA (IMO), with a thin plane and way less DOF. The new glass is very skin-friendly even at high resolutions.
It would mean the telephoto end is a better mix for them and further the differentiation from their Leica business. It would compete very well with emerging lenses at 105mm.
With a round f2.8 aperture and FLE, that would make more market sense to sit alongside the four existing 85s in the Sony system. And keep one asph surface (a la 65/2). An extended 65/2 might be easier than a revision of the 75/1.5, which (again IMO) is not suitable for Sony in VM form. People will want better, not lower, performance than the M version on an M camera.
So something more like the 90/2 SL Leica (at 11/9) than the (7/6) 75/1.5. I feel an APO would be better value (the 75mm is just $50 less than the very high tech 50/2). Finally, a manual focus 'pure portrait' lens (which the 75/1.5 or similar would be seen as) is a tougher ask for users to focus than an f2 lens of greater utility. Many here would find both attractive (me too), but the market reality is likely to be either-or.
