p.8 #1 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
I would be extremely interested in your findings with it on the R5. I shoot Canon and Leica systems and will eventually end up with a Canon mirrorless, such as the R5, with the intent to also adapt my M lenses to it.
I might have missed it since I stopped following Canon since a while but don't they use one of the thickest sensor stacks in their MLCs which would make it very difficult to adapt rangefinder lenses? Or do you plan to convert the M5 with thin sensor glass conversion at Kolari specifically for rangefinder glass?
p.8 #2 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Just a gentle reminder here if anyone has the MC and the ZM C Sonnar 50/1.5 we would so greatly appreciate a direct comparison, ideally with the rigor and real-life shooting conditions that Fred used throughout the previous pages of this review thread (no brick walls needed).
I am currently torn between the C-Sonnar and the MC. I simply love the pop, the low frequency sharpness and especially the oof highlight rendering of the Sonnar but this new little guy here is offering some lovely pop and micro sharpness. I would be using the chosen one on my M-P (typ240) and a7R3.
p.8 #3 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
In about a week I will get a copy of the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 VM to compare side by side to the 50/1.5 II. (resolution and rendering)
I will also try the Panda version next to the black and decide which one I will keep.
The weight difference is about 50 grams. I've heard the Panda brass style is selling well.
p.8 #4 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
In about a week I will get a copy of the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 VM to compare side by side to the 50/1.5 II. (resolution and rendering)
I will also try the Panda version next to the black and decide which one I will keep.
The weight difference is about 50 grams. I've heard the Panda brass style is selling well.
Hey Fred, quick question, and I apologize if this has been covered before, but how would you compare the rendering & IQ to the 40/1.2 Nokton? (I believe you have that lens in FE mount?) I really, really like the VM 40/1.2, but the focal length falls into a weird spot when used on a Leica. Thinking if the VM 50/1.5 II is similar in performance I could replace both the VM 40/1.2 & ZM 50/2.... 🤔
While they've always been a quality outfit, Voigtlander has certainly upped their game as of late!
p.8 #5 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
pptmstr wrote:
Just a gentle reminder here if anyone has the MC and the ZM C Sonnar 50/1.5 we would so greatly appreciate a direct comparison, ideally with the rigor and real-life shooting conditions that Fred used throughout the previous pages of this review thread (no brick walls needed).
I am currently torn between the C-Sonnar and the MC. I simply love the pop, the low frequency sharpness and especially the oof highlight rendering of the Sonnar but this new little guy here is offering some lovely pop and micro sharpness. I would be using the chosen one on my M-P (typ240) and a7R3....Show more →
I’d love to see the comparison as well, but I honestly won’t be giving up my C-Sonnar any time soon. It’s just too special. This new lens looks nice, and is probably “better” in several ways, but it’s not special to my eye.
p.8 #8 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
retrofocus wrote:
I might have missed it since I stopped following Canon since a while but don't they use one of the thickest sensor stacks in their MLCs which would make it very difficult to adapt rangefinder lenses? Or do you plan to convert the M5 with thin sensor glass conversion at Kolari specifically for rangefinder glass?
Yes. M lenses are adaptable with Canon mirrorless. So far I have CV 35mm f1.2 III, CV 21mm f1.4 and TTArtisan 50mm f0.95.
They are softer at corner for large aperture but very good sharpness if stop down. Some lens showed minor color shift but collectable.
I am using the Close Focus Adapter Converter so I can focus closer with the R5 than my M9. Besides, the large and bright viewfinder in canon R5 helps a lot for focusing compared with the M9.
p.8 #9 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
heheapa wrote:
Yes. M lenses are adaptable with Canon mirrorless. So far I have CV 35mm f1.2 III, CV 21mm f1.4 and TTArtisan 50mm f0.95.
They are softer at corner for large aperture but very good sharpness if stop down. Some lens showed minor color shift but collectable.
I am using the Close Focus Adapter Converter so I can focus closer with the R5 than my M9. Besides, the large and bright viewfinder in canon R5 helps a lot for focusing compared with the M9.
Thanks - sounds similar to when I adapt M lenses to my Sony A7R. Never had an issue at 50 mm and above, but below I needed to be cautious which lens to use and then removing color casts in PP with ultra-wides. I have none of these issue with my M-E 240 which alone makes this camera worthwhile for me.
I also use M lenses with close focus tubes on my A7R which works very well. I won't use my Leica cameras for macro work.
p.8 #10 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
heheapa wrote:
I was actually about to get a 50mm f2 Summicron V4 from the 2nd hand shop here before I saw this new lens launched and review here.
I like the panda color but end up I've picked up the silver MC version in recent here to pair with my M9 Chrome. I will adapt the lens to Canon R5 too. Can't wait for the delivery....
rscheffler wrote:
I would be extremely interested in your findings with it on the R5. I shoot Canon and Leica systems and will eventually end up with a Canon mirrorless, such as the R5, with the intent to also adapt my M lenses to it.
retrofocus wrote:
I might have missed it since I stopped following Canon since a while but don't they use one of the thickest sensor stacks in their MLCs which would make it very difficult to adapt rangefinder lenses? Or do you plan to convert the M5 with thin sensor glass conversion at Kolari specifically for rangefinder glass?
heheapa wrote:
Yes. M lenses are adaptable with Canon mirrorless. So far I have CV 35mm f1.2 III, CV 21mm f1.4 and TTArtisan 50mm f0.95.
They are softer at corner for large aperture but very good sharpness if stop down. Some lens showed minor color shift but collectable.
I am using the Close Focus Adapter Converter so I can focus closer with the R5 than my M9. Besides, the large and bright viewfinder in canon R5 helps a lot for focusing compared with the M9.
This is why I'd like to know more because there are conflicting opinions about this. Like retro, I was under the impression Canon's sensor stack was at least around 2mm, but there have been anecdotal reports of decent performance. But due to Canon's late mirrorless transition, there hasn't yet been much uptake with the cameras among alt lens users and therefore a lack or reliable information.
I am quite invested in the Canon system and would be adding the R5, or similar to update that system. M lens use with it would be incidental, not a primary use scenario. If M lenses perform well, then I might use it more.
p.8 #11 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
This is why I'd like to know more because there are conflicting opinions about this. Like retro, I was under the impression Canon's sensor stack was at least around 2mm, but there have been anecdotal reports of decent performance. But due to Canon's late mirrorless transition, there hasn't yet been much uptake with the cameras among alt lens users and therefore a lack or reliable information.
I am quite invested in the Canon system and would be adding the R5, or similar to update that system. M lens use with it would be incidental, not a primary use scenario. If M lenses perform well, then I might use it more....Show more →
I wish this information was more precise. Sensor coverglass thickness is a crucial information to have when adapting M-lenses and it would be great to know for sure how Canon, Nikon, Leica L mirrorless sensors behave with M-lenses.
I've heard that Laowa is not making their latest ultra wide lenses (9mm and 11mm) available for the Canon RF mount because of severe issues with that sensor.
This latest article by Kolarivision shows the Canon R5/R6 having 1.25mm filter thickness while the Nikon Z series' sensors are 1.1mm thin. For reference Leica's digital sensors have about 0.8mm thickness.
"The reverse side of the sensor/IBIS assembly (Left), and the bare sensor with IR/UV cut filter removed (Right). This filter measures in at 1.25mm thick, significantly thinner than the one in original EOS R which measured 1.6mm. The trend is definitely still towards thinner sensor glass, where the Nikon Z series is still king at 1.1mm thin. This is where the journey ends for a typical sensor modification service. Our primary services here at Kolari Vision are Infrared and Full-Spectrum conversions, and we’re thrilled to extend our support for the R series through the new R6 and R5."
p.8 #12 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
I wish this information was more precise. Sensor coverglass thickness is a crucial information to have when adapting M-lenses and it would be great to know for sure how Canon, Nikon, Leica L mirrorless sensors behave with M-lenses.
I've heard that Laowa is not making their latest ultra wide lenses (9mm and 11mm) available for the Canon RF mount because of severe issues with that sensor.
This latest article by Kolarivision shows the Canon R5/R6 having 1.25mm filter thickness while the Nikon Z series' sensors are 1.1mm thin. For reference Leica's digital sensors have about 0.8mm thickness.
"The reverse side of the sensor/IBIS assembly (Left), and the bare sensor with IR/UV cut filter removed (Right). This filter measures in at 1.25mm thick, significantly thinner than the one in original EOS R which measured 1.6mm. The trend is definitely still towards thinner sensor glass, where the Nikon Z series is still king at 1.1mm thin. This is where the journey ends for a typical sensor modification service. Our primary services here at Kolari Vision are Infrared and Full-Spectrum conversions, and we’re thrilled to extend our support for the R series through the new R6 and R5."
Those issues on Canon might be physical well depth or micro lens angle rather than sensor thickness. In fact the slight peripheral colour shift on those lenses suggests that...
p.8 #13 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Every camera has its own color. So the color shift doesn't actually bother me much as I don't take it for serious product shoot or color critical works. The color I care the most probably for the skin tone and the adaption is actually working well.
My CV 35mm f1.2 III and Canon 35L perform equally fine for me on my Canon R5. Instead, the CV has better sharpness and CA control vs the old 35L. I probably dislike more on how my Leica M9 on the color and the really bad AWB on this old body. The color is more cyan and cool on m9 while it's more magenta and warm on Canon. However, I shoot most in B&W and the color photo are easily tweak for more personalisation with filter.
The adaption make more sense for me is the size and weight of the VM mount lens that I am willing to keep in my everyday sling bag and shoot, especially for the indoor or low light or sometime i need higher resolution.
Nov 15, 2020 at 05:06 AM
samtaha Offline • [X]
p.8 #14 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Came across this thread while researching which 50mm lens to buy for my Leica M7 and on-the-way M4. Really appreciate the high quality content here.
I'm loving everything about this lens EXCEPT the swirly bokeh, which is evident in the 3rd picture. It's not pleasing to my eyes.
The lenses i'm considering are Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5 and Planar 2.0. the TTartisan 50mm 1.4 and now also this Voigtlander, but not sure about that vertigo-inducing bokeh!
p.8 #15 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
The swirly bokeh seems to be more noticeable at certain camera to subject to background distances/ratios. This can be said for a lot of 50s. The problem is generally when the subject is relatively far from the camera with lesser separation from the background. Of course, it's also a tradeoff of the 50/1.5's very compact design. So IMO it's really a matter of deciding what is most important for you. Stopping it down a touch might help in the bokeh department somewhat.
The TTArtisan seems to be somewhat the opposite. There's a decent review of it here, but all on digital. The tradeoff is it's quite large for a 50mm M mount lens and doesn't neatly fit the design/ergonomics philosophy of the M system (that said, Leica also makes some large lenses for the system). Another tradeoff appears to be fairly weak flare resistance.
The ZM50/1.5 being a Sonnar design will have its own style of background rendering character that can be somewhat lively wide open, but should smooth out a stop or so down. It has some focus shift, but whether that will be as noticeable on film, I'm not sure. It's a pretty compact lens. I'm a big fan of Sonnar rendering.
The ZM50/2 is a really good and safe all-rounder. It was my first 50 on digital Leica M. Background bokeh can be a bit pronounced, but shouldn't be too harsh. I don't recall if it ever went swirly, but maybe that means it didn't. It's a bit of a longer, narrower lens than the ZM Sonnar.
IMO it'll boil down to picking the lens that has the most strengths for your intended uses and the learning to live with and/or work around its weaknesses.
p.8 #16 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
The swirly bokeh seems to be more noticeable at certain camera to subject to background distances/ratios. This can be said for a lot of 50s. The problem is generally when the subject is relatively far from the camera with lesser separation from the background. Of course, it's also a tradeoff of the 50/1.5's very compact design. So IMO it's really a matter of deciding what is most important for you. Stopping it down a touch might help in the bokeh department somewhat.
The TTArtisan seems to be somewhat the opposite. There's a decent review of it here, but all on digital. The tradeoff is it's quite large for a 50mm M mount lens and doesn't neatly fit the design/ergonomics philosophy of the M system (that said, Leica also makes some large lenses for the system). Another tradeoff appears to be fairly weak flare resistance.
The ZM50/1.5 being a Sonnar design will have its own style of background rendering character that can be somewhat lively wide open, but should smooth out a stop or so down. It has some focus shift, but whether that will be as noticeable on film, I'm not sure. It's a pretty compact lens. I'm a big fan of Sonnar rendering.
The ZM50/2 is a really good and safe all-rounder. It was my first 50 on digital Leica M. Background bokeh can be a bit pronounced, but shouldn't be too harsh. I don't recall if it ever went swirly, but maybe that means it didn't. It's a bit of a longer, narrower lens than the ZM Sonnar.
IMO it'll boil down to picking the lens that has the most strengths for your intended uses and the learning to live with and/or work around its weaknesses....Show more →
I own several 50 mm lenses in M- and LTM-mounts, and each has their own "life":
Leica 50/2 Summicron, pre-ASPH version: my first 50 mm M-mount lens and the sharpest. Bit boring bokeh though.
Leica 50/2 Summitar LTM: my oldest 50 mm Leica lens, but best for unique vintage circular bokeh effect which I like.
Leica 50/1.5 Summarit LTM: not comparable in contrast with my Summicron, but absolutely fantastic bokeh, love it!
Canon 50/1.4 LTM: sharp in center wide open and pleasing smooth bokeh even at f/2. Depending on distance to subject, also delivers circular bokeh.
p.8 #17 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
You can never have too many 50s!
I think at one time I had around 10, but have scaled back slightly.
Now it's: Leica 50/1.5 Summarit LTM, Nikkor 5cm/1.4 LTM (Sonnar design), Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar, Leica 50/2 Summicron Rigid, Canon 50/1.4 LTM, Zeiss ZM50/2 (primarily kept as a modern back up for when the next lens is away for 'regular servicing' ever 2-3 years), Leica 50 Lux ASPH (my go-to 50), 7Artisans 50/1.1 (another Sonnar design).
The new Voigtlander combines the size of the old 50/1.5s with much more modern performance and I could see it finding use in my collection, likely at the expense of the Lux ASPH and supplant the ZM Planar, which I hardly use now, as the Lux's back up. From the samples here, I think it does some things better than the Lux, but not in the area of LoCA/fringing and to some degree, bokeh, though the Lux can also get funky with insufficient subject-background separation.
p.8 #19 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
Bicyclelad wrote:
Just finished up shooting with this on my M7 and Typ240.
I am now in the process of selling my other 50s (other than a cheap Industar). This thing is more than enough lens for me!
Beautiful series. Thanks for posting. (Added to the first page)
Nov 17, 2020 at 11:46 AM
samtaha Offline • [X]
p.8 #20 · Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II Aspherical Review
rscheffler wrote:
The swirly bokeh seems to be more noticeable at certain camera to subject to background distances/ratios. This can be said for a lot of 50s. The problem is generally when the subject is relatively far from the camera with lesser separation from the background. Of course, it's also a tradeoff of the 50/1.5's very compact design. So IMO it's really a matter of deciding what is most important for you. Stopping it down a touch might help in the bokeh department somewhat.
The TTArtisan seems to be somewhat the opposite. There's a decent review of it here, but all on digital. The tradeoff is it's quite large for a 50mm M mount lens and doesn't neatly fit the design/ergonomics philosophy of the M system (that said, Leica also makes some large lenses for the system). Another tradeoff appears to be fairly weak flare resistance.
The ZM50/1.5 being a Sonnar design will have its own style of background rendering character that can be somewhat lively wide open, but should smooth out a stop or so down. It has some focus shift, but whether that will be as noticeable on film, I'm not sure. It's a pretty compact lens. I'm a big fan of Sonnar rendering.
The ZM50/2 is a really good and safe all-rounder. It was my first 50 on digital Leica M. Background bokeh can be a bit pronounced, but shouldn't be too harsh. I don't recall if it ever went swirly, but maybe that means it didn't. It's a bit of a longer, narrower lens than the ZM Sonnar.
IMO it'll boil down to picking the lens that has the most strengths for your intended uses and the learning to live with and/or work around its weaknesses....Show more →
Great summary of each option. What are your thoughts on the Voigtlander Nokton 1.5 (current version, not II) ?
