@genji's samples were indeed torture tests and not taken under ideal lighting intentionally. This was just as a requested test, to help us learn more about how new CV 35/2 APO draws.
I consider these torture tests important info when considering a lens. Some will like the character and others won't. Either way, it's very informative. It's true that in general, a photographer has the choice of picking the best lighting and background but I find it crucial to know how a lens behave under difference scenarios.
Torture tests are important — even gives insight into character that could be exploited to positive result. I just didn’t see the so-so results as unexpected given the FOV + f/2 aperture + APO designation. I wonder if the new Leica 35 APO-M would have turned in a better rendering.
I'm curious to see how the Sigma 35/2 compares to the 35/2 APO in rendering. The latter has that Zeiss mojo I think. Actually I feel like the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM has similar rendering.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe we can petition Cosina for an apodisation element version.
I see a lot of OOF specular 'donuts' at f/2 & 2.8 and even still some at f/4. It wouldn't be my first choice for background rendering... But this aspect has frequently been a challenge for 35mm lenses at medium focus distances with relatively near backgrounds. Which M mount 35mm lenses handle this better (meaning more Gaussian-like blur)? Maybe the VM35/1.7? The various VM35/1.2s?
IMO I'd be buying the APO for its performance at the plane of focus. Background/foreground rendering would be secondary. That said, it's an integral aspect of the lens's character that needs to be understood. ...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
Honestly aside from high optical vignetting, their best 35mm was the CV 35/1.7 Ultron in terms of smooth transition zone but unfortunately it was discontinued once the CV 35/2 Ultron (version I) was released. The latter has structured rendering (harsher) in comparison. Perhaps they were trying to match the Leica 35/2 cron's look and although rendering is quite similar, the Leica has noticeably lower optical vignetting which means more rounded bokeh off-axis (less swirling).
And that is precisely my conundrum as a very happy VM 35/1.7 user... What optical advantages will the APO provide for my typical uses? TBH, I seem to use the 35/1.7 mostly stopped down to f/5.6-8 for urban and natural landscapes. Could probably use any number of 35s... I'm also still at 24MP. Differences in favor of the APO likely will become more apparent at higher resolutions and with closer evaluation (pixel peeping).
As I've said before, I really don't like the 1.7's ergonomics, upon which the APO improves. But I'm not sure I'll like the APO's larger size (from the perspective of a Leica M user).
The new Ultron version 2 IMO improves ergonomics even more to better align with Leica's designs, and it's a small lens. Maybe I should be looking there instead as a smaller stopped down walk-around option. But yes, its harsh focus transition zone was an initial turn-off I saw in early images from it.
Apr 05, 2021 at 03:43 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rscheffler wrote:
And that is precisely my conundrum as a very happy VM 35/1.7 user... What optical advantages will the APO provide for my typical uses? TBH, I seem to use the 35/1.7 mostly stopped down to f/5.6-8 for urban and natural landscapes. Could probably use any number of 35s... I'm also still at 24MP. Differences in favor of the APO likely will become more apparent at higher resolutions and with closer evaluation (pixel peeping).
As I've said before, I really don't like the 1.7's ergonomics, upon which the APO improves. But I'm not sure I'll like the APO's larger size (from the perspective of a Leica M user).
The new Ultron version 2 IMO improves ergonomics even more to better align with Leica's designs, and it's a small lens. Maybe I should be looking there instead as a smaller stopped down walk-around option. But yes, its harsh focus transition zone was an initial turn-off I saw in early images from it....Show more →
And in Fred's review, I really like the Voigtlander 35 f/2.5. That looks like a great lens for your use as well. If you ever want to sell your 35 f/1.7, let me know. I might well be interested and I live not too far away. Not sure what I am going to do at this focal length. I am considering the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 III, the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO, getting both of those or the f/1.2 plus the f/2.5 but lately have been thinking the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 might be a nice one lens compromise.
Steve Spencer wrote:
And in Fred's review, I really like the Voigtlander 35 f/2.5. That looks like a great lens for your use as well. If you ever want to sell your 35 f/1.7, let me know. I might well be interested and I live not too far away. Not sure what I am going to do at this focal length. I am considering the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 III, the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO, getting both of those or the f/1.2 plus the f/2.5 but lately have been thinking the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 might be a nice one lens compromise.
I did some side by side tests and I found the tiny CV 35/2.5 very similar in resolution/contrast and rendering compared to the Zeiss 35/2.8 and new Ultron 35/2. I tried several copies to make sure and can say with confidence that it is actually sharper than the new 35/2 Ultron when both wide open and similar @f/2.5. It's equal to the Zeiss at f/2.8. Rendering is very similar even at close examination and to my surprise, it's has slight smoother oof corners at mid-distance due to lower FC and OV.
Although very similar to the new Voigt 35/2 Ultron, I prefer the Leica 35/2 asph's rendering as it's a tad lower in contrast and rendering is more uniform across the frame due to its lower optical vignetting. They are ALL a bit rough at transition zone though, except for the CV 35/1.7 and CV 35/1.2 lenses. The 35/1.7 offers the best balance and I consider the best 35mm from Voigt. so far.
I will try the CV 40/1.2 M next. I loved shooting with this lens in E-mount and will try it on the Leica. It brings the 50mm framelines but I think it will be easy to visualized the real FOV since it's more or less a 42-43mm lens.
rscheffler wrote:
And that is precisely my conundrum as a very happy VM 35/1.7 user... What optical advantages will the APO provide for my typical uses? TBH, I seem to use the 35/1.7 mostly stopped down to f/5.6-8 for urban and natural landscapes. Could probably use any number of 35s... I'm also still at 24MP. Differences in favor of the APO likely will become more apparent at higher resolutions and with closer evaluation (pixel peeping).
As I've said before, I really don't like the 1.7's ergonomics, upon which the APO improves. But I'm not sure I'll like the APO's larger size (from the perspective of a Leica M user).
The new Ultron version 2 IMO improves ergonomics even more to better align with Leica's designs, and it's a small lens. Maybe I should be looking there instead as a smaller stopped down walk-around option. But yes, its harsh focus transition zone was an initial turn-off I saw in early images from it....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
If I had every other CV 35, I would still buy the 35 APO again due to the insane resolving power and sharpness to the very corners on the M10-R at f/5.6. It's the ultimate stopped-down 35mm M lens, IMO, and a $7K savings over the Leica version that doesn't perform as well into the corners. Wide open, I'm very happy with the CV 35 APO since I usually like to shoot at close distance. With its 50cm MFD, it's quite versatile for an APO – I would have expected 70cm.
Honesty, though, I can't get the Leica 35 APO out of my head due to its 30cm MFD, which matches my Q's MFD when in non-macro mode. Maybe someday.
Steve Spencer wrote:
And in Fred's review, I really like the Voigtlander 35 f/2.5. That looks like a great lens for your use as well. If you ever want to sell your 35 f/1.7, let me know. I might well be interested and I live not too far away. Not sure what I am going to do at this focal length. I am considering the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 III, the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO, getting both of those or the f/1.2 plus the f/2.5 but lately have been thinking the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 might be a nice one lens compromise.
I have the CV 35 1.2 III and CV 35 APO. I really like both of them, but I will probably never carry both at the same time. The 1.2 will go with me when I only take one lens and am shooting vacation and casual shots. The 35 APO will go with me when I am shooting a 3-lens kit (35/50/75), and I know I'll have opportunities for infinity landscape. If I were forced to choose between them, I would take the 1.2 every time, though, since I have the 50 APO. I find it very difficult to take the 50 APO off the M10-R. Due to the longer focal length's effect on background blur, I think the 50 APO can better take the place of its f/1.2 counterpart than the 35 can. But then again, I don't own the 50 1.2 to be sure
Fred Miranda wrote:
I did some side by side tests and I found the tiny CV 35/2.5 very similar in resolution/contrast and rendering compared to the Zeiss 35/2.8 and new Ultron 35/2. I tried several copies to make sure and can say with confidence that it is actually sharper than the new 35/2 Ultron when both wide open and similar @f/2.5. It's equal to the Zeiss at f/2.8. Rendering is very similar even at close examination and to my surprise, it's has slight smoother oof corners at mid-distance due to lower FC and OV.
Although very similar to the new Voigt 35/2 Ultron, I prefer the Leica 35/2 asph's rendering as it's a tad lower in contrast and rendering is more uniform across the frame due to its lower optical vignetting. They are ALL a bit rough at transition zone though, except for the CV 35/1.7 and CV 35/1.2 lenses. The 35/1.7 offers the best balance and I consider the best 35mm from Voigt. so far.
I will try the CV 40/1.2 M next. I loved shooting with this lens in E-mount and will try it on the Leica. It brings the 50mm frameline but I think it will be easy to visualized the real FOV since it's more or less a 42-43mm lens.....Show more →
And the M version of the 40 1.2 is $150 less than the E version right now at Popflash
If I had every other CV 35, I would still buy the 35 APO again due to the insane resolving power and sharpness to the very corners on the M10-R at f/5.6. It's the ultimate stopped-down 35mm M lens, IMO, and a $7K savings over the Leica version that doesn't perform as well into the corners. Wide open, I'm very happy with the CV 35 APO since I usually like to shoot at close distance. With its 50cm MFD, it's quite versatile for an APO – I would have expected 70cm.
Honesty, though, I can't get the Leica 35 APO out of my head due to its 30cm MFD, which matches my Q's MFD when in non-macro mode. Maybe someday.
I have the CV 35 1.2 III and CV 35 APO. I really like both of them, but I will probably never carry both at the same time. The 1.2 will go with me when I only take one lens and am shooting vacation and casual shots. The 35 APO will go with me when I am shooting a 3-lens kit (35/50/75), and I know I'll have opportunities for infinity landscape. If I were forced to choose between them, I would take the 1.2 every time, though, since I have the 50 APO. I find it very difficult to take the 50 APO off the M10-R. Due to the longer focal length's effect on background blur, I think the 50 APO can better take the place of its f/1.2 counterpart than the 35 can. But then again, I don't own the 50 1.2 to be sure ...Show more →
If you like 50mm, you would love the CV 50/1.2. It's sharper than the 50/2 APO at f/2 (center) and performs well across the field (better than the 35 and 40mm Nokton lenses). IMO, rendering is also more pleasant in comparison.
Hi Steve - thanks for suggesting the CV 35/2.5. I must have totally missed Fred's tests. TBH, I disregarded this lens when I got into Leica M and started with a few Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander lenses back around 10 years ago. At that time I wasn't overly impressed with the Voigtlander lenses I tried and preferred the Zeiss ZM rendering. Maybe I should revisit it. I had the ZM35/2.8 for many years as my primary walk around 35 and was generally happy with it but was somewhat annoyed with its edge color shift tendencies on the M9.
I'll keep you in mind regarding my 35/1.7. TBH, for the price I paid for it, and how well its served me, I'd be reluctant to sell it. I also accidentally scuffed up the front element, to my dismay, so doubt it will be of interest to anyone critical about maximum image quality performance (though I rarely notice any effect from it in images). At a similar time I managed to do the same to my 21 SEM. At least there it was worthwhile sending it to Leica for front element replacement. The price was acceptable relative to its replacement cost (but still not inexpensive - I could have bought a CV21/3.5 instead). I doubt it would be worth the effort for the CV and would be easier just to buy another one secondhand...
highdesertmesa wrote:
If I had every other CV 35, I would still buy the 35 APO again due to the insane resolving power and sharpness to the very corners on the M10-R at f/5.6. It's the ultimate stopped-down 35mm M lens, IMO, and a $7K savings over the Leica version that doesn't perform as well into the corners. Wide open, I'm very happy with the CV 35 APO since I usually like to shoot at close distance. With its 50cm MFD, it's quite versatile for an APO – I would have expected 70cm.
Honesty, though, I can't get the Leica 35 APO out of my head due to its 30cm MFD, which matches my Q's MFD when in non-macro mode. Maybe someday....Show more →
Thanks. I agree this is what makes the APO compelling. It's an across-frame resolution/sharpness powerhouse with likely few M-mount equals, particularly at its price point.
50cm MFD is becoming fairly common with recent CV M-mount wide releases. AFAIK the Leica 35 Cron APO is the only current production Leica M wide to focus closer than 70cm. It would be nice to see Leica design future M lenses with similar capability, particularly wide angle lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you like 50mm, you would love the CV 50/1.2. It's sharper than the 50/2 APO at f/2 (center) and performs well across the field (better than the 35 and 40mm Nokton lenses). IMO, rendering is also more pleasant in comparison.
The images I saw in the main 1.2 thread here do look really nice, on par with the 50 Lux but sharper outside the center at close distance.
That’s pretty incredible if the 1.2 is sharper in the center than the APO. The 50 APO on the M10-R reminds me of the central sharpness of the Q2M or one of the native GF lenses on the GFX 50S/R.
Center close-up 1:1 crop (don’t have the image on my phone right now, or I’d post it directly here):
highdesertmesa wrote:
That’s pretty incredible if the 1.2 is sharper in the center than the APO. The 50 APO on the M10-R reminds me of the central sharpness of the Q2M or one of the native GF lenses on the GFX 50S/R.
I would take the CV 50/1.2 over the Leica 50/1.4 on resolution and rendering. The CV 50/1.5 is the one more comparable to the Lux although not as good at close distance since the latter is equipped with FLE.
I would take the CV 50/1.2 over the Leica 50/1.4 on resolution and rendering. The CV 50/1.5 is the one more comparable to the Lux although not as good at close distance since the latter is equipped with FLE.
Interesting. I wonder if the M-mount versions on an M body show the same difference.
Edit to say: The samples in that thread just got me to order the 50 1.2. This alt gear forum is expensive.
rscheffler wrote:
And that is precisely my conundrum as a very happy VM 35/1.7 user... What optical advantages will the APO provide for my typical uses? TBH, I seem to use the 35/1.7 mostly stopped down to f/5.6-8 for urban and natural landscapes. Could probably use any number of 35s... I'm also still at 24MP. Differences in favor of the APO likely will become more apparent at higher resolutions and with closer evaluation (pixel peeping).
As I've said before, I really don't like the 1.7's ergonomics, upon which the APO improves. But I'm not sure I'll like the APO's larger size (from the perspective of a Leica M user).
The new Ultron version 2 IMO improves ergonomics even more to better align with Leica's designs, and it's a small lens. Maybe I should be looking there instead as a smaller stopped down walk-around option. But yes, its harsh focus transition zone was an initial turn-off I saw in early images from it....Show more →
Ron’s post has reminded me how rarely ergonomics/haptics enter into comparative discussions about lens performance, which are overwhelmingly dominated by concerns about sharpness, rendering, and aberrations. Is it that ergonomics can’t be quantified in the way that these other qualities can and are therefore far more subjective? I could never be a happy VM 35/1.7 user because I had the similarly styled VM 50/1.5, whose harsh serrated focusing ring negated (for me) all its positive qualities. Similarly, after an initial burst of enthusiasm, I soon came to hate the bulbous monstrosity of the VM 75/1.5, despite its optical excellence.
I have both the VM 50/1.2 and a black chrome Lux 50 ASPH. It’s a joy to attach the Leica lens to an M body whereas the CV lens is merely tolerable. Perhaps a 49mm filter thread represents the threshold of usability (which is why I’m fine with the CV 35 and 50 APO) whereas the VM 50/1.2’s girth relegates it to the reserves. But I’m OK with the 7A 28/1.4 which takes 52mm filters, the same as the VM 50/1.2. Go figure.
It seems that the size of the CV 35 and 50 APO has become my “normal”. The Distagon ZM 35/1.4, the APO-Summicron-M 75/2, and the CV APO lenses are all about the same size and each of them “sparks joy” to use Marie Kondo’s term. As does the BC Lux 50 APH, but that lens also happens to be an objet d’art.
genji wrote:
Ron’s post has reminded me how rarely ergonomics/haptics enter into comparative discussions about lens performance, which are overwhelmingly dominated by concerns about sharpness, rendering, and aberrations. Is it that ergonomics can’t be quantified in the way that these other qualities can and are therefore far more subjective? I could never be a happy VM 35/1.7 user because I had the similarly styled VM 50/1.5, whose harsh serrated focusing ring negated (for me) all its positive qualities. Similarly, after an initial burst of enthusiasm, I soon came to hate the bulbous monstrosity of the VM 75/1.5, despite its optical excellence.
I have both the VM 50/1.2 and a black chrome Lux 50 ASPH. It’s a joy to attach the Leica lens to an M body whereas the CV lens is merely tolerable. Perhaps a 49mm filter thread represents the threshold of usability (which is why I’m fine with the CV 35 and 50 APO) whereas the VM 50/1.2’s girth relegates it to the reserves. But I’m OK with the 7A 28/1.4 which takes 52mm filters, the same as the VM 50/1.2. Go figure.
It seems that the size of the CV 35 and 50 APO has become my “normal”. The Distagon ZM 35/1.4, the APO-Summicron-M 75/2, and the CV APO lenses are all about the same size and each of them “sparks joy” to use Marie Kondo’s term. As does the BC Lux 50 APH, but that lens also happens to be an objet d’art....Show more →
I would still use the 75 1.5 even if it were much larger, but I do really hate its lens hood and the ring to which it attaches – feels cheap and not secure compared to the rest of the CV hoods I have. But speaking of size, isn't the 75 1.5 about the same form factor as the Lux Black Chrome with that monstrous hood attached? I get it on the overall feel, though. The BC matte finish feels really nice, and it should for $5K. I particularly like using the felt-lined brass push-on lens cap with it instead of the hood.
The size differences between the f/1.2 vs APO f/2 versions of the CVs don't really sway me either way. If anything, I prefer the shorter length of the f/1.2 lenses as the width doesn't bother me. After using large lenses for the GFX and Canon R5, it makes these CVs feel like miniature spy camera lenses by comparison
genji wrote:
Ron’s post has reminded me how rarely ergonomics/haptics enter into comparative discussions about lens performance, which are overwhelmingly dominated by concerns about sharpness, rendering, and aberrations. Is it that ergonomics can’t be quantified in the way that these other qualities can and are therefore far more subjective? I could never be a happy VM 35/1.7 user because I had the similarly styled VM 50/1.5, whose harsh serrated focusing ring negated (for me) all its positive qualities. Similarly, after an initial burst of enthusiasm, I soon came to hate the bulbous monstrosity of the VM 75/1.5, despite its optical excellence.
I have both the VM 50/1.2 and a black chrome Lux 50 ASPH. It’s a joy to attach the Leica lens to an M body whereas the CV lens is merely tolerable. Perhaps a 49mm filter thread represents the threshold of usability (which is why I’m fine with the CV 35 and 50 APO) whereas the VM 50/1.2’s girth relegates it to the reserves. But I’m OK with the 7A 28/1.4 which takes 52mm filters, the same as the VM 50/1.2. Go figure.
It seems that the size of the CV 35 and 50 APO has become my “normal”. The Distagon ZM 35/1.4, the APO-Summicron-M 75/2, and the CV APO lenses are all about the same size and each of them “sparks joy” to use Marie Kondo’s term. As does the BC Lux 50 APH, but that lens also happens to be an objet d’art....Show more →
I think ergonomics can be quantified, but which quantities we actually care about varies enormously from person to person, and that's why were is less discussion than you might expect for something so important. Haptics make all the difference, for me, between being left in the cabinet and being used regularly. And yet I've yet to meet someone who has the same opinions as me, or any two others who agree (except maybe people just spouting agreement with some orthodoxy). And even when I might agree with someone, the AMOUNT of importance a feature has is very varied. For example, some people quite like the location of the aperture ring on Loxias. I don't - I'm in agreement with those who find it a nuisance, and would prefer a front ring like on OM Zuikos or most CV lenses. But for some it's a deal breaker, for me a minor nuisance. I have a friend who, like me, owned the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Behemoth. We both find it big and heavy. For me that was eventually a deal breaker - I used it a lot in the honeymoon period, but much less later. But for them it's a minor irritation. And so on...
genji wrote:
Ron’s post has reminded me how rarely ergonomics/haptics enter into comparative discussions about lens performance, which are overwhelmingly dominated by concerns about sharpness, rendering, and aberrations. Is it that ergonomics can’t be quantified in the way that these other qualities can and are therefore far more subjective? I could never be a happy VM 35/1.7 user because I had the similarly styled VM 50/1.5, whose harsh serrated focusing ring negated (for me) all its positive qualities. Similarly, after an initial burst of enthusiasm, I soon came to hate the bulbous monstrosity of the VM 75/1.5, despite its optical excellence.
I have both the VM 50/1.2 and a black chrome Lux 50 ASPH. It’s a joy to attach the Leica lens to an M body whereas the CV lens is merely tolerable. Perhaps a 49mm filter thread represents the threshold of usability (which is why I’m fine with the CV 35 and 50 APO) whereas the VM 50/1.2’s girth relegates it to the reserves. But I’m OK with the 7A 28/1.4 which takes 52mm filters, the same as the VM 50/1.2. Go figure.
It seems that the size of the CV 35 and 50 APO has become my “normal”. The Distagon ZM 35/1.4, the APO-Summicron-M 75/2, and the CV APO lenses are all about the same size and each of them “sparks joy” to use Marie Kondo’s term. As does the BC Lux 50 APH, but that lens also happens to be an objet d’art....Show more →
Personality and priorities has a lot to do with it.
If I were to set out to learn a new language I would never be inclined to compare it to English.
"But in English we say it this way or in English we say it that way; etc.
That's why I never thought to complain about Sony menus; I just made it my business to learn them.
I never thought of Loxia lenses as hard to mount/dismount; I just learned what was required to use them.
I do prefer to have the aperture ring toward the front of the lens (CV) vs rear (Loxia) but the Loxias never troubled me in any significant sort of way.
On the other hand I do care about power to weight ratios which is why you will never see a Bigma or an Otus in my collection.
I also care about bulk which is why the the Batis series will never enter my hall of fame despite producing nice images.
I guess it is like trying to establish an online consensus with regard to "how jeans should fit".
TBH, for the price I paid for it, and how well its served me, I'd be reluctant to sell it. I also accidentally scuffed up the front element, to my dismay, so doubt it will be of interest to anyone critical about maximum image quality performance (though I rarely notice any effect from it in images). At a similar time I managed to do the same to my 21 SEM. 
At least there it was worthwhile sending it to Leica for front element replacement. The price was acceptable relative to its replacement cost (but still not inexpensive - I could have bought a CV21/3.5 instead). I doubt it would be worth the effort for the CV and would be easier just to buy another one secondhand...