Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
p.2 #1Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Steve Spencer wrote:
I still have my Loxia which has nice rendering and performs well as a landscape lens.
Seems to be difficult to find a well corrected 35mm lens that renders OOF pleasantly.While the Loxia 35 f/2 is a very nice option stopped down, I personally find it to have even harsher rendering than this Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO. It did not fare well at all for rendering in Nehemiahphoto's blind test of 35mm lenses on the the alt forum.
The Loxia 35's rendering is harsher for sure and axial CA is very out of control. I don't see the Loxia competing well here unless one stops it down to f/11 for landscapes and deals with some lateral CA in post.
magiclight wrote
Yes, the OOF rendering looks very harsh. You cant complain about field curvature and resolution though.I still have my Loxia which has nice rendering and performs well as a landscape lens.
Seems to be difficult to find a well corrected 35mm lens that renders OOF pleasantly.
The Loxia 35's rendering is harsher for sure and axial CA is very out of control. I don't see the Loxia competing well here unless one stops it down to f/11 for landscapes and deals with some lateral CA in post.
Apr 10, 2021 at 04:20 PM
p.2 #2Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO's optical design shows a good balance between resolution and rendering.
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.
Optical vignetting is moderate, so expect cat's eye shape bokeh and increase in DOF towards the corners. At mid-distance, a slight swirling effect may appear depending on the background complexity.
Overall, although not fully uniform, I consider the Voigt 35mm f/2 APO's rendering neutral. Not smooth nor harsh. It's very pleasant at close distance (MFD to 1.5m) and axial CA is pretty much not existent which is rare for a 35mm lens.
Here are some samples showing rendering with the subject focused at different distances:This is exactly what I wanted to see, and the “neutral” draw it what I was getting from the sample photos that I’ve seen. Thanks for doing this. The manual focus, better flare resistance, sun stars will be the draw for people over the sigma. The sigma has auto focus, more pleasant rendering, and is wider and cheaper while still being optically wonderful. Interesting trade-offs.From what's seen in my images, I would prefer the Voigtlander for landscapes. The Sigma comes close in terms of resolution and many will prefer its rendering making it perhaps a better all-rounder.Entirely agree. Especially as I don’t find the flare resistance that great on the 35i.I can already tell ghosting flare control is superior for the Voigtlander (will post soon) and of course the 12-point defined sunstars at any aperture other than f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/16 are top reasons to choose the Voigtlander. It looks like it has the best axial CA control from any 35mm I've seen to date. The Sigma is also good but not quite as spectacular in this regard.
I am assuming it is great as pretty much all modern CV’s are. I never like the sun stars, but that is preferential. The sigma is definitely not APO, but it has some of the best axial CA correction of any 35 mm I’ve seen without being APO.
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
<a name="chapter3"></a>Rendering:The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO's optical design shows a good balance between resolution and rendering.
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.
Optical vignetting is moderate, so expect cat's eye shape bokeh and increase in DOF towards the corners. At mid-distance, a slight swirling effect may appear depending on the background complexity.
Overall, although not fully uniform, I consider the Voigt 35mm f/2 APO's rendering neutral. Not smooth nor harsh. It's very pleasant at close distance (MFD to 1.5m) and axial CA is pretty much not existent which is rare for a 35mm lens.
Here are some samples showing rendering with the subject focused at different distances:
I am assuming it is great as pretty much all modern CV’s are. I never like the sun stars, but that is preferential. The sigma is definitely not APO, but it has some of the best axial CA correction of any 35 mm I’ve seen without being APO.
Apr 10, 2021 at 04:22 PM
p.2 #3Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Rendering compared to Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN:
Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:
Fred is the Sigma being tested with distortion correction turned on? That narrows its FOV a bit (sorry if you said somewhere I didn’t see it)
Rendering compared to Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN:
Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:
Fred is the Sigma being tested with distortion correction turned on? That narrows its FOV a bit (sorry if you said somewhere I didn’t see it)
Apr 10, 2021 at 04:22 PM
p.2 #4Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
DavidBM wrote:
Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:Fred is the Sigma being tested with distortion correction turned on? That narrows its FOV a bit (sorry if you said somewhere I didn’t see it)
Nope. No corrections. (distortion, CA or vignetting)
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483
Fred Miranda wrote
Rendering compared to Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN:Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:
Nope. No corrections. (distortion, CA or vignetting)
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483
Apr 10, 2021 at 04:25 PM
p.2 #5Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
BTW: When more FM members get their 35/2 APO, post samples here. I will link them to the Review's first post.
Apr 10, 2021 at 04:28 PM
p.2 #6Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Not sure when I'll get the chance, but I'll compare it to the Tamron 35/2.8. It has very little LaCA as well.
Fred, processing in Lightroom, did both lenses say "Built-in Lens Profile Applied"? If so, we really don't know the LaCA of each lens do we?
Tim
Fred, processing in Lightroom, did both lenses say "Built-in Lens Profile Applied"? If so, we really don't know the LaCA of each lens do we?
Tim
Apr 10, 2021 at 05:01 PM
p.2 #7Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.
Interesting that the specular highlights showing visible outlining in the samples I posted from the M-mount version prompted shock and horror but don’t seem to elicit the same extreme response with the E-mount version. Go figure.
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.
Interesting that the specular highlights showing visible outlining in the samples I posted from the M-mount version prompted shock and horror but don’t seem to elicit the same extreme response with the E-mount version. Go figure.
Apr 10, 2021 at 05:37 PM
p.2 #8Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Perhaps, better bokeh is expected from anything Leica? 
Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
genji wrote:
Interesting that the specular highlights showing visible outlining in the samples I posted from the M-mount version prompted shock and horror but don’t seem to elicit the same extreme response with the E-mount version. Go figure.
Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
genji wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.Apr 10, 2021 at 05:46 PM
p.2 #9Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:Fred is the Sigma being tested with distortion correction turned on? That narrows its FOV a bit (sorry if you said somewhere I didn’t see it)Nope. No corrections. (distortion, CA or vignetting)
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483
I think that explains the width, then. It's a lot closer to 35mm with distortion profiles applied. I haven't done careful tests yet, but I plan to find out how much resolution loss there is with it turned on. Doesn't seem too bad.
Lenses with distortion left in, even though it's often a good idea, are a nuisance for testers. On the one hand you might think that you should test with distortion correction applied, because that in a way is the design intent, and you certainly need to see how it performs then. But on the other hand, for many purposes photographers may prefer to have it turned off, so as to get maybe slightly better peripheral resolution and a bit of extra angle of view. So you end up tempted to test it both ways.
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
<a name="chapter5"></a>Rendering compared to Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN:Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483
I think that explains the width, then. It's a lot closer to 35mm with distortion profiles applied. I haven't done careful tests yet, but I plan to find out how much resolution loss there is with it turned on. Doesn't seem too bad.
Lenses with distortion left in, even though it's often a good idea, are a nuisance for testers. On the one hand you might think that you should test with distortion correction applied, because that in a way is the design intent, and you certainly need to see how it performs then. But on the other hand, for many purposes photographers may prefer to have it turned off, so as to get maybe slightly better peripheral resolution and a bit of extra angle of view. So you end up tempted to test it both ways.
Apr 10, 2021 at 06:24 PM
p.2 #10Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
realVivek wrote:
Perhaps, better bokeh is expected from anything Leica?
Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
Interesting that the specular highlights showing visible outlining in the samples I posted from the M-mount version prompted shock and horror but don’t seem to elicit the same extreme response with the E-mount version. Go figure.
Or maybe fans of, eg. the Summilux 35, regard outlining and harshness as a proprietary look, and are appalled at others copying it?
Perhaps, better bokeh is expected from anything Leica?
Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
genji wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.Or maybe fans of, eg. the Summilux 35, regard outlining and harshness as a proprietary look, and are appalled at others copying it?
Apr 10, 2021 at 06:27 PM
|
p.2 #11Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Testing, I believe, should use the corrections always. Not only will the maker's design intent be honoured but readers will see what the outcome is in detail loss and effects on peripheral bokeh. Most users will just use corrections; I mean, they are called 'corrections' for a reason.
Makers publish AOV to the tenth of a decimal point without owning up to the binary choice they have made. And it gets carried through to the major sellers, like B&H - whose AOV indicates this Sigma as a very neat 35.027mm. For those unaware, the E 35/2 APO is a stated equivalent AOV of 35.9mm and the M vsn is a stated AOV equivalent of 34.9mm.
While on testing, it might be worth posting standardised images at near MFD (say the MFD of the longer MFD lens) and infinity in comparisons, to show extent of breathing. Video is getting bigger. Someone will start doing this at some stage. Here, the DPR guys show the 'zoom breathing' of this Sigma lens, at 3.50 into the video (title below):
Sigma 35mm F2 DG DN and 65mm F2 DG DN Review
Makers publish AOV to the tenth of a decimal point without owning up to the binary choice they have made. And it gets carried through to the major sellers, like B&H - whose AOV indicates this Sigma as a very neat 35.027mm. For those unaware, the E 35/2 APO is a stated equivalent AOV of 35.9mm and the M vsn is a stated AOV equivalent of 34.9mm.
While on testing, it might be worth posting standardised images at near MFD (say the MFD of the longer MFD lens) and infinity in comparisons, to show extent of breathing. Video is getting bigger. Someone will start doing this at some stage. Here, the DPR guys show the 'zoom breathing' of this Sigma lens, at 3.50 into the video (title below):
Sigma 35mm F2 DG DN and 65mm F2 DG DN Review
Apr 10, 2021 at 07:14 PM
p.2 #12Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Thank you Fred for this long-awaited review! Could you also do an infinity comparison vs. CV APO-Lanthar 50mm and 35 1.4 GM?
Apr 10, 2021 at 07:16 PM
p.2 #13Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fixing the distortion won’t make much of a difference. The Sigma 35 f/2 does not have high distortion.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/2#15510799
If you look at the very corners the subject looks further away (houses look smaller) just like having a shorter focal lens than 35mm.
DavidBM wrote:
Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:Fred is the Sigma being tested with distortion correction turned on? That narrows its FOV a bit (sorry if you said somewhere I didn’t see it)Nope. No corrections. (distortion, CA or vignetting)
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483I think that explains the width, then. It's a lot closer to 35mm with distortion profiles applied. I haven't done careful tests yet, but I plan to find out how much resolution loss there is with it turned on. Doesn't seem too bad.
Lenses with distortion left in, even though it's often a good idea, are a nuisance for testers. On the one hand you might think that you should test with distortion correction applied, because that in a way is the design intent, and you certainly need to see how it performs then. But on the other hand, for many...Show more →
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/2#15510799
If you look at the very corners the subject looks further away (houses look smaller) just like having a shorter focal lens than 35mm.
DavidBM wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Rendering compared to Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN:Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483
Lenses with distortion left in, even though it's often a good idea, are a nuisance for testers. On the one hand you might think that you should test with distortion correction applied, because that in a way is the design intent, and you certainly need to see how it performs then. But on the other hand, for many...Show more →
Apr 10, 2021 at 08:33 PM
p.2 #14Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Extreme corner at f/4: Big improvement for both lenses. Similar performance now
In the extreme corners at F4~F5.6, APO-Lanthar seems to show more astigmatism and LaCA......
Extreme corner at f/4: Big improvement for both lenses. Similar performance now
In the extreme corners at F4~F5.6, APO-Lanthar seems to show more astigmatism and LaCA......
Apr 10, 2021 at 09:43 PM
p.2 #15Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
APO lenses can and do show lateral CA because it is often (not always and perhaps not completely) removable in profiles or post work. The Leicas are the same, they aim for eradication of LoCA. They basically aim for very low LaCA plus no LoCA.
I wonder how far the far hills are and how UV might affect images as a result. It's the same for both lenses but might it drag down the better lens at times? Maybe not here though - the Sigma diffraction MTF is very accurate:
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c020_35_2/
I wonder how far the far hills are and how UV might affect images as a result. It's the same for both lenses but might it drag down the better lens at times? Maybe not here though - the Sigma diffraction MTF is very accurate:
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c020_35_2/
Apr 10, 2021 at 11:56 PM
p.2 #16Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Fixing the distortion won’t make much of a difference. The Sigma 35 f/2 does not have high distortion.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/2#15510799
If you look at the very corners the subject looks further away (houses look smaller) just like having a shorter focal lens than 35mm.
Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:Fred is the Sigma being tested with distortion correction turned on? That narrows its FOV a bit (sorry if you said somewhere I didn’t see it)Nope. No corrections. (distortion, CA or vignetting)
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483I think that explains the width, then. It's a lot closer to 35mm with distortion profiles applied. I haven't done careful tests yet, but I plan to find out how much resolution loss there is with it turned on. Doesn't seem too bad.
Lenses with distortion left in, even though it's often a good idea, are a nuisance for testers. On the one hand you might think that you should test with distortion correction applied, because that in a way is the design intent, and you certainly need to see how it performs then. But on the other hand, for many purposes photographers may prefer to have it turned off, so as to get maybe slightly better peripheral resolution and a bit of extra angle of view. So you end up tempted to test it both ways.
It's not a big difference, many lenses have much more for sure, but it's enough to take note of, and I guess probably contributes to the overall FL difference.
Without LR profile distortion correction
With LR profile distortion correction
Fixing the distortion won’t make much of a difference. The Sigma 35 f/2 does not have high distortion.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/2#15510799
If you look at the very corners the subject looks further away (houses look smaller) just like having a shorter focal lens than 35mm.
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
<a name="chapter5"></a>Rendering compared to Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN:Not easy to compare these lenses side by side since the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is noticeable wider than 35mm.
For this rendering comparison, I did my best to have similar framing which required the camera to be about 10 inches closer when shooting with the Sigma.
Rendering Comparison at 0.75m:
Yes, the Sigma is way wider, especially at infinity:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561483
Lenses with distortion left in, even though it's often a good idea, are a nuisance for testers. On the one hand you might think that you should test with distortion correction applied, because that in a way is the design intent, and you certainly need to see how it performs then. But on the other hand, for many purposes photographers may prefer to have it turned off, so as to get maybe slightly better peripheral resolution and a bit of extra angle of view. So you end up tempted to test it both ways.
It's not a big difference, many lenses have much more for sure, but it's enough to take note of, and I guess probably contributes to the overall FL difference.
Without LR profile distortion correction
With LR profile distortion correction
Apr 11, 2021 at 12:20 AM
p.2 #17Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
There are many lenses called Summilux. In any event, choosing to simulate an under performer is not an achievement.
DavidBM wrote:
Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
Interesting that the specular highlights showing visible outlining in the samples I posted from the M-mount version prompted shock and horror but don’t seem to elicit the same extreme response with the E-mount version. Go figure.Or maybe fans of, eg. the Summilux 35, regard outlining and harshness as a proprietary look, and are appalled at others copying it?
DavidBM wrote:
realVivek wrote
Perhaps, better bokeh is expected from anything Leica?Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
genji wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.Apr 11, 2021 at 04:19 AM
p.2 #18Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
realVivek wrote:
There are many lenses called Summilux. In any event, choosing to simulate an under performer is not an achievement.
Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
Interesting that the specular highlights showing visible outlining in the samples I posted from the M-mount version prompted shock and horror but don’t seem to elicit the same extreme response with the E-mount version. Go figure.Or maybe fans of, eg. the Summilux 35, regard outlining and harshness as a proprietary look, and are appalled at others copying it?
It was an attempt at humour (but it was the current Summilux 1.4/35 asph. I was thinking about)
There are many lenses called Summilux. In any event, choosing to simulate an under performer is not an achievement.
DavidBM wrote
realVivek wrote
Perhaps, better bokeh is expected from anything Leica?Seriously, both look hideous. Yours, shot (as you said deliberately) in harsher light did not help.
genji wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
However, because it is well corrected for axial CA and spherical aberration, rendering can look a bit structured, especially at mid-distance, where specular highlights show visible outlining. With the subject at close distance, rendering is smooth and pleasant while when focusing at mid-distance (3-5m) it's less so.It was an attempt at humour (but it was the current Summilux 1.4/35 asph. I was thinking about)
Apr 11, 2021 at 04:46 AM
p.2 #19Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
I got that. 
They could have tried to emulate the ZM 35/1.4 in this regard, a lens they manufactured themselves.
They could have tried to emulate the ZM 35/1.4 in this regard, a lens they manufactured themselves.
Apr 11, 2021 at 04:56 AM
p.2 #20Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Extreme corner at f/4: Big improvement for both lenses. Similar performance now
I see Sigma ahead on this extreme corner f/4 comparison;
thank you for this lens review
Extreme corner at f/4: Big improvement for both lenses. Similar performance now
I see Sigma ahead on this extreme corner f/4 comparison;
thank you for this lens review
Apr 11, 2021 at 05:05 AM