6683 wrote:
I want to buy a CV manual focus 35 and was looking at f1.2 SE and now this lens has been announced.
Wondering, what is the appeal of optical perfection in a manual focus 35mm F2 lens?
I can understand a manual focus 35/1.2. You shoot wide open for the look.
I can understand a 35/2 if its an autofocus lens, as the focal length requires that for many applications.
Will this lens be sharper than many 35’s at f5.6 f8 ?
Will you chose this over CV 35 1.2? Please explain to me why?
It just depends on what you want. I do landscapes, I want manual focus, I want corner sharpness and Im willing to sacrifice some speed for it. It's great we live in a time where we have these choices. Ive never shot the CV 35 1.2, but every copy of the 40mm 1.2 copy I tried had problems on at least one corner even at f8. I heard the 35 1.2 and 40 1.2 are very similar lenses. I will probably buy the 40mm later because it's great at what it does. If speed is what you want, go for the 1.2.
padam19 wrote:
I am not sure why they would need to redesign it in any way for two reasons:
- they looked just like this in the past, and people didn't complain much
- extra cost (parallel development with E-mount and possibly other mounts, Leica is only for M-mount), it would defeat the whole purpose of providing the best value for the money
I don't want to belabor my nitpicking because it's really just that. The VM35 APO will be a great lens optically, without doubt. I still feel Cosina didn't give the design of the VM version the proper consideration from the perspective of rangefinder use.
I don't agree with your two points above.
Which lenses looked like this in the past? The VM35/1.2 versions? Those are understandably large in diameter because they're f/1.2. This is an f/2 lens. There's a lot of dead space between the APO's front element and the filter ring. It's also a very long lens (physically) for a 35mm f/2 design. Longer even than the 50/2. No big deal for mirrorless use. Not so great for rangefinder use. Make it narrower and it will at least offset some of the length with slightly less viewfinder blockage.
Regarding the cost of a custom VM design: then charge VM buyers a little more. It will still be a bargain compared to the Leica APO. They could even put marketing spin on the higher price as being 'rangefinder optimized.'
rscheffler wrote:
I don't agree with your two points above.
Which lenses looked like this in the past? The VM35/1.2 versions? Those are understandably large in diameter because they're f/1.2. This is an f/2 lens. There's a lot of dead space between the APO's front element and the filter ring. It's also a very long lens (physically) for a 35mm f/2 design. Longer even than the 50/2. No big deal for mirrorless use. Not so great for rangefinder use. Make it narrower and it will at least offset some of the length with slightly less viewfinder blockage.
Regarding the cost of a custom VM design: then charge VM buyers a little more. It will still be a bargain compared to the Leica APO. They could even put marketing spin on the higher price as being 'rangefinder optimized.'...Show more →
May I suggest to go through this article.
Lens design is not nearly as easy as you might think.
After they had the optical formula , the task was to actually reduce the size to as little as possible while having the necessary space to adjust the elements and still have the floating element focusing system.
So yes, the assumption that they just don't care about the size is wrong.
"Which lenses looked like this in the past?"
Hi Ron, I don't get it myself, but many Leicaphiles pay a pretty big premium for the Black chrome 50 Summilux and APOs, which are a knockoff of the V2 50 Summilux pre-ASPH, as are many CV lenses these days. I find the size and clip on round vented hoods a huge drawback myself.
That is an incorrect reasoning, Tim. Nothing wrong with the Sony cameras. One would get the same results with a Nikon or a Canon camera as well.
tsdevine wrote:
Sony sensor stack allows lower frequency UV light than many other manufacturers, and the CV 50 seems to allow more UV light than some other lenses.
6683 wrote:
All you Lanthar lovers, is it a choice between 35 and 50 for you or will you rather have both?
I am not sure yet. I have the CV 50 f/1.2. I think I will add both the CV 35 f/2 APO and the 50 f/2 APO, but I might just add the 35 f/2 APO. Heck in the end I will probably get all four (CV 35 f/2 APO, 35 f/1.2, 50 f/2 APO, and 50 f/1.2) but I want to think hard before I just buy them all.
Oh, and I have the 65 f/2 APO macro and will very likely keep that as well.
6683 wrote:
All you Lanthar lovers, is it a choice between 35 and 50 for you or will you rather have both?
Nah just the 35 for me. I would rather the 65 than the 50, but I'm hoping CV puts out an 80ish f2 apo macro. I would buy one for myself as a graduation present in about a year. If not, I will probably go with one of their current macros. A 75-90 would be a better fit for my kit though.
My interest in shortest possible DOF has declined a lot lately, and with IBIS I don't need more than f/2. I'm very picky about lens aberrations though, so the 35 APO would surely be of interest if it wasn't for me shooting mostly GFX nowadays. 50 mm OTOH, is probably my least preferred focal length of all times.
I don't really understand the connection between high IQ and AF or MF that someone did though. I personally prefer MF for everything I do, regardless of if I want the lens to be optically perfect or not. Partly because the lenses are always smaller, but also because I don't trust AF, even for static objects. And I also want to do the work. That's half the fun with photography, isn't it?
Makten wrote:
My interest in shortest possible DOF has declined a lot lately, and with IBIS I don't need more than f/2. I'm very picky about lens aberrations though, so the 35 APO would surely be of interest if it wasn't for me shooting mostly GFX nowadays. 50 mm OTOH, is probably my least preferred focal length of all times.
I don't really understand the connection between high IQ and AF or MF that someone did though. I personally prefer MF for everything I do, regardless of if I want the lens to be optically perfect or not. Partly because the lenses are always smaller, but also because I don't trust AF, even for static objects. And I also want to do the work. That's half the fun with photography, isn't it? ...Show more →
Ya I'm not a huge fan of 50's either. Although I did see a video of a landscape photographer who just shoots with a hasselblad and a 50mm equiv. He stitches his images to get more in the scene. I could get on board with that one day.
Do you see any focus shift on the 50mm ApoLanthar. For exact focusing wide open before closing the aperture? Tony Ross wrote:
I have already ordered this one. My decision was based on extensive use of the 50mm f/2 APO Lanthar, which (when focussed carefully) gives me pixel-level sharp images on an A7R4. I can crop a fragment from an image and blow it up.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO's MTF is so amazing even compared to Cosina's best lenses.
It will be difficult to resist this lens.
One thing about those MTFs is that they are infinity MTF. The two macro lenses are probably optimised for 1:10 magnification, though with floating groups that ensure the still excellent performance at infinity and at 1:2.
What that may mean in practice is that the 65 and 110 could perform even better than the 35 and 50 at closer - up to 1.5m? - distances.
I was all set to buy a "mint condition" 35 Contax Distagon. Now I see this it makes me wonder. I have a few Contax adapted to my Sony and love them, but I have a couple of CV's too and I have a hard time deciding which make has the better character. They're both good technically, but I'm lookng for more than that. Probably the microcontrast thing. Any experiences?
