I'm very curious to see what the new CV 35mm f/2 APO brings in terms of CA correction and resolution. Also how it renders compare to Sigma 35/2 and 35/1.4 GM.
I'm still testing the Sigma 35/2 DG DN but so far I see it as having better than average CA correction, high resolution at infinity and lovely rendering, except for 'cat-eyes' due to optical vignetting. On the latter, I'm not expecting the new Voigtlander to do any better.
The new Voigtlander V2 35mm f2 Ultrons have the same optics as V1. The difference is all brass lens barrels and a black paint or silver paint finish,
along with classic 1970's styling and focusing tab for those preferring more traditional rangefinder lens styling.
The Voigtlander M or FE 35mm APO-Lanthars will likely have optical performance comparable to the 50mm APO-Lanthars.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a bigger picture showing the VM Version (Leica M mount)
Looking pretty large for a 35mm to me. No doubt it will perform, but compactness is one of the primary advantages of using a rangefinder system. For me anyways
And as per usual, Voigtlander is including the hood for the FE mount, but want an extra ¥10000 for one on the M mount version
"Except for the ones put out by *Zeiss and Leica*, these MTF maps are generated from computer models. Looking at the computer model MTF map is like looking at a retouched photo of a swimsuit model — in “real life” the curves are never quite as good as the image suggests.
Soon we’ll be adding optical bench results to our Imatest results when we test lenses. This will allow us to look at several other things: the performance of just the lens rather than the lens-camera sensor combination, the performance at infinity focusing distances rather than close up, and MTF at different frequencies among them.
We’ll even be able to create front element MTF maps of the lenses we test, and compare those to the computer generated MTF map of the manufacturer. That should be fun and interesting. Well, it will be fun and interesting for us. I’m guessing maybe some manufacturers won’t be so crazy about it."
Unfortunately, Erwin Puts muddied the waters by suggesting Leica use both calculated and measured methods because 'there is little difference' - most unhelpful for anyone who has grown tired of 100% MTF for 10lpmm, even 20lpmm.
Zeiss affiliate Cosina manufactures so many of the Zeiss lenses. Do you think they might use Zeiss's K8/K9 devices? I've read the 50/2 APO is actually assembled using an MTF device, it's an excellent reason to buy one. These Zeiss devices are used extensively for servicing high dollar cine lenses too.
So I respectfully disagree with the view that we cannot assuredly compare MTF across manufacturers. You can, but the list of such comparable makers is a short one. After some time, you can recognise the profiles of the correct ones. And don't expect 'the calculators' to change course anytime soon, it would be quite an embarrassment.
On axis, especially for mid-high spatial frequencies, a little more fall off in outer frames. The E gets the full hood as per the 50/2 E. Lots of circular apertures. Some very sensible compromises here.
philip_pj wrote:
"Except for the ones put out by *Zeiss and Leica*, these MTF maps are generated from computer models. Looking at the computer model MTF map is like looking at a retouched photo of a swimsuit model — in “real life” the curves are never quite as good as the image suggests.
Soon we’ll be adding optical bench results to our Imatest results when we test lenses. This will allow us to look at several other things: the performance of just the lens rather than the lens-camera sensor combination, the performance at infinity focusing distances rather than close up, and MTF at different frequencies among them.
We’ll even be able to create front element MTF maps of the lenses we test, and compare those to the computer generated MTF map of the manufacturer. That should be fun and interesting. Well, it will be fun and interesting for us. I’m guessing maybe some manufacturers won’t be so crazy about it."
Unfortunately, Erwin Puts muddied the waters by suggesting Leica use both calculated and measured methods because 'there is little difference' - most unhelpful for anyone who has grown tired of 100% MTF for 10lpmm, even 20lpmm.
Zeiss affiliate Cosina manufactures so many of the Zeiss lenses. Do you think they might use Zeiss's K8/K9 devices? I've read the 50/2 APO is actually assembled using an MTF device, it's an excellent reason to buy one. These Zeiss devices are used extensively for servicing high dollar cine lenses too.
So I respectfully disagree with the view that we cannot assuredly compare MTF across manufacturers. You can, but the list of such comparable makers is a short one. After some time, you can recognise the profiles of the correct ones. And don't expect 'the calculators' to change course anytime soon, it would be quite an embarrassment. ...Show more →
Since "Zeiss" (Non-Cine) and "Voigtlander" are the exact same manufacturer it follows that we are not necessarily talking "across manufacturers".
If we could verify that the charts were generated in an identical fashion then yes, it would be informative to compare their MTFs.
My understanding (from Lens Rentals) is you cannot compare Zeiss vs Sony vs Nikon, etc.
It will be wonderful when they are all subjected to independent and standardized testing.
CameraQuest wrote:
The new Voigtlander V2 35mm f2 Ultrons have the same optics as V1. The difference is all brass lens barrels and a black paint or silver paint finish,
along with classic 1970's styling and focusing tab for those preferring more traditional rangefinder lens styling.
The Voigtlander M or FE 35mm APO-Lanthars will likely have optical performance comparable to the 50mm APO-Lanthars.
Last first, they will never be. Well, never say 'never' but very unlikely in our time. It's gone the way of so many products, lens pages are now glossy brochures, sales is done via YT personalities. And the big factor, embarrassment.
The quote in my above post is from lensrental guru Roger Cicala. It's outrageous there is not an industry body charged with producing impartial lens performance charting.
Feb 15, 2021 at 06:34 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
JVan_02 wrote:
Possibly, I was just responding to the claim of "best MTF @ 35mm". If you wanna go really deep down the rabbit hole, any company that doesn't publish MTFs of production lenses is essentially putting smoke and mirrors over their manufacturing capabilities which leaves essentially... Zeiss?
OLAF is of course invaluable here, but we never know when Rodger will have the time & the inventory just lying around for testing. Speaking of OLAF, Sony has been on a real roll with their G and GM primes lately. I'm inclined to give them a little benefit of the doubt—not so much as to believe there would ever be a manufactured lens that would match that chart... but perhaps enough that it would take the #1 slot for Sony until we see enough tests of both lenses to get an opinion of the aggregate performance. ...Show more →
Notice in Fred's original post he said it was "perhaps" the best MTF at 35mm, not that it was the best. Someday maybe Roger will do comparisons, but until then all any one can say is "perhaps." Comparing across brands with different methods of calculating really doesn't help.
