Jonas B wrote:
Thanks you for getting back on this.
I wasn't sure they were taken wide open. I assumed that at first (common FM style when showing what a lens can do, never stop down....) but there was something telling me they could have been stopped down somewhat.
Yes, round aperture openings are fine! Of course, "wide open" nearly always also means a round opening. So f/2 should be OK as well with this lens, no? Anyway, I really like the Cosina/Voigtländer take on the shape of the aperture blades in this case!
However, there is always a "but"!
It is common that the bokeh gets a bit softer/more rounded/easier on the eyes when stopping down a stop or two.
In the last two images we can see, quoting Steve, "some mild outlining and high contrast". I find this disturbing but this is very much down to personal taste. So, what would the same image taken at f/2 look like? Is the "mild outling" the same or is it...let's say "less mild"?
I realize you haven't had the lens for long so maybe no clear reply is possible yet.Have you seen differences in background rendering between f/2 and f/2.8? ...Show more →
I wasn’t aware of the FM norm that to show what a lens can do one should never stop down. Doesn’t this only show what a lens can do wide open? I haven’t seen differences in background rendering between f/2 and f/2.8 because it honestly didn’t occur to me to take any pictures at f/2. But I can easily enough go back to that location this coming Friday and take some comparison pictures at f/2 and f/2.8.
I used to wonder why people did not post early images from such a lens, before I did so. Cosina posted five images for this one on its dedicated page. Two at f2.8, two at f4, one at f5.6. What in the world came over them?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Interesting. I can be a bit of a bokeh snob and I am pleasantly surprised by the bokeh in those images. Maybe that is because I have low expectations. It shows bokeh of what I expect from the better APO lenses, which is bokeh free from obvious defects but high in contrast. I really prefer bokeh that is lower in contrast, but I see part of the price to be paid with an APO lens is that I am not going to get that. I am happy as long as there isn't double outlining, onion rings, axial CA (here APO lens have an advantage), harsh outlining, etc. In Jonathan's shot I see some mild outlining and high contrast, but no other clear nasties, so it look about a good I could expect from an APO lens to me....Show more →
Regretfully the inner structure is not clean enough.
genji wrote:
I wasn’t aware of the FM norm that to show what a lens can do one should never stop down. Doesn’t this only show what a lens can do wide open? I haven’t seen differences in background rendering between f/2 and f/2.8 because it honestly didn’t occur to me to take any pictures at f/2. But I can easily enough go back to that location this coming Friday and take some comparison pictures at f/2 and f/2.8.
I'm sorry, that came out wrong from my side. There is no norm of course. I think all images are welcome, wide open as well as stopped down ones.
I should have written something like this: "I'm so used to see only wide open images...."
I'm not very interested in any norms but I sometimes wish people mantioned what aperture opening images are taken at. In the case of the on-going Sigma thread I even wish peole told us, clearly, what lens was used...
If you have the chance to take some images wide open they are more than welcome. If not that is fins as well - I'm happy for whatever I get.
Cheers!
Mar 29, 2021 at 04:33 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
peter.d.huang wrote:
Regretfully the inner structure is not clean enough.
Do you have some examples in mind that make that point? I honestly have not seen enough to make any judgment and in Jonathan's examples I can't really see any inner structure (I assume you mean of bokeh balls) to evaluate.
Jonas B wrote:
I'm sorry, that came out wrong from my side. There is no norm of course. I think all images are welcome, wide open as well as stopped down ones.
I should have written something like this: "I'm so used to see only wide open images...."
I'm not very interested in any norms but I sometimes wish people mantioned what aperture opening images are taken at. In the case of the on-going Sigma thread I even wish peole told us, clearly, what lens was used...
If you have the chance to take some images wide open they are more than welcome. If not that is fins as well - I'm happy for whatever I get.
Thank you, Jonas, for your gracious reply. In retrospect, given the unreliability of the aperture EXIF produced by M cameras, I should have made it clear that the pictures I posted had been taken at f/2.8 or f/5.6. Actually, I’ve just recalled that I was the first FM member to get a copy of the Nokton VM 75/1.5 and the pictures I posted made with that lens were mostly taken wide open. Why was that? Perhaps because it seemed more natural to me to use a short tele lens wide open; or perhaps because I hadn’t then settled into my f/2.8 and f/5.6 regimen. But, interestingly, that lens has sat unused in the dry cabinet since then because I hate its haptics and I’m no longer fond of shallow depth of field images. If I need a 75mm, then the Summarit-M is both optically excellent and pleasant to use. Ideally CV will release an APO-Lanthar 75mm before too long and I’ll have my 35/50/75 APO dream trio.
I’ll do some wide open APO-Lanthar 35/2 pictures for you later in the week...
genji wrote:
(...)Ideally CV will release an APO-Lanthar 75mm before too long and I’ll have my 35/50/75 APO dream trio.
I’ll do some wide open APO-Lanthar 35/2 pictures for you later in the week...
Hi,
A 35/50/75 APO trio sounds great! For landscapes and architecture and then what not I often find images taken with APO lenses excellent with their clear and crisp colors and hence details.
In my case the 35mm APO would be used for just about everything. I would, of course, appreciate some images with difficult background stuff taken at f/2. Checking this thread and judging by the number of views I'm sure you'll get quite some audience!
philip_pj wrote:
I used to wonder why people did not post early images from such a lens, before I did so. Cosina posted five images for this one on its dedicated page. Two at f2.8, two at f4, one at f5.6. What in the world came over them?
It often look like their intention is to fly under the radar, or maybe they rushed that very important part of the release. But we know they can do it, as they have a very good image gallery on their site arranged by lens. Give these a try:
I'd say they simply wanted to highlight the circular aperture settings here but didn't give the photographer the right instructions, then posted them anyway. They're a weird mob, Cosina.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Do you have some examples in mind that make that point? I honestly have not seen enough to make any judgment and in Jonathan's examples I can't really see any inner structure (I assume you mean of bokeh balls) to evaluate.
Maybe this is a tradeoff for its price point? For Sony users, the new GM is probably more interesting in respect to bokeh. My uses for this lens would see a majority of images stopped down f/5.6-8, so other performance aspects are of higher priority.
Personally, I wouldn't be bothered by the bokeh balls in that shot. I see that as typical of other Voigtlander lenses like the 65 f/2 APO macro. I find the bokeh balls to be relatively clean with that lens and in my use the inner structure to be clean enough for me in well over 99.9% of my images, of course YMMV.
Mar 30, 2021 at 06:21 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nhsonyshooter wrote:
So far with the limited images I'm not seeing why you would pick this up over the 1.2.
I think the major reason for me to pick this lens is the much better control of axial CA and much better out zone performance. I can see that even in the few examples we have seen so far. Now I am talking vs. the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2, not the Sigma 35 f/1.2. The big reason to pick it over the Sigma for me is size, although better control of axial CA and better outer zone performance are probably reasons as well.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
So far with the limited images I'm not seeing why you would pick this up over the 1.2.
I picked up the AL 35/2 as a complement to the Distagon 35/1.4 ZM which, with its floating element system, suits my needs far better than the CV 35/1.2.
I haven't used it much so I can't comment on rendering or bokeh balls, but I do the the Fred Miranda test on most new lenses and both of my CV APOs (50 & 35) are centered and the sharpness at infinity, well into the corners is excellent with the 50 and extraordinary with the 35. And I have SL2 and SL Summicrons for direct comparison. I'm shooting from a mountain road down over the town and can see the University stadium at about 3/4 of a mile away and read the signs and nearly count the seats. I can also see the local power plant 5 miles away in great detail in the very corner. While I never shoot this way with a Leica, I find it truly amazing that they can do this. And yes a Nocton 1.2 is probably a more versatile lens and I will likely use my Summiluxes more than the CV, but we'll see.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the major reason for me to pick this lens is the much better control of axial CA and much better out zone performance. I can see that even in the few examples we have seen so far. Now I am talking vs. the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2, not the Sigma 35 f/1.2. The big reason to pick it over the Sigma for me is size, although better control of axial CA and better outer zone performance are probably reasons as well.
Well my opinion may change as more examples come out. But currently there is nothing I have seen that the 1.2 can't do at this point.
Mar 30, 2021 at 09:09 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Well my opinion may change as more examples come out. But currently there is nothing I have seen that the 1.2 can't do at this point.
Well the five abnormal partial dispersion elements vs. zero for the 35 f/1.2 SE does pretty strongly suggest that 35 f/2 APO is going to handle CA and particularly axial CA better and it isn't much of a stretch to argue that it can do that better than the 35 f/1.2. The samples show remarkably low axial CA and that definitely is not a strength of the 35 f/1.2 SE. Then there is the unique aperture of the 35 f/2 APO. It has round highlights at f/2; f/2.8; and f/5.6 but will still produce excellent sunstars at f/4; f/8, and f/11. Really nice innovations, if you ask me and these are things that are easy to see.
The ZM Distagon 35/1.4 obviates the need for this lens, in my case.
genji wrote:
I picked up the AL 35/2 as a complement to the Distagon 35/1.4 ZM which, with its floating element system, suits my needs far better than the CV 35/1.2.
