tsdevine wrote:
For number 1, the E mount CV 50/2 APO was the first of the 4 you mention. The other 3 came after and all share the "new" aperture mechanism. So I assume the "new" mechanism is the standard for these lenses now. Arguably some people might have wanted this mechanism on the CV 110.
For number 2, I noticed that too when I did my CV 35/Tamron 35 comparison test. I have no theory around that.
Yes, I agree with that. The CV 50mm f/2 APO E-mount was the first to received the updated aperture mechanism. The latter was further tweaked with newer APO lenses.
The lack of LR built-in lens profile is intriguing and I don't know if it was intentional but I much prefer it this way. I don't like automatic corrections to lenses and it could indicate that the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO is actually superior in lateral CA performance compared to the other lenses I tested it against.
I agree, I actually had been using Photo Ninja when doing comparisons just so I could avoid that uncontrolled variable. The CV is pretty amazing for LaCA in a 35mm lens. Honestly, some of the newer lenses I've picked up over the past year or two have started making my "great" lenses look just "very good."
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I agree with that. The CV 50mm f/2 APO E-mount was the first to received the updated aperture mechanism. The latter was further tweaked with newer APO lenses.
The lack of LR built-in lens profile is intriguing and I don't know if it was intentional but I much prefer it this way. I don't like automatic corrections to lenses and it could indicate that the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO is actually superior in lateral CA performance compared to the other lenses I tested it against.
zugzwang2 wrote:
What lens hoods would work with the 35 APO Lanthar? Cameraquest offers a pricey bayonet hood that fits both the 50 and 35mm lenses--but are there less expensive alternatives available?
I've been using the dedicated LH-13 bayonet hood which only adds a small blockage to the 50mm's frameline compared to the bare lens. But you could pick up any of those Ebay 49mm vented hoods as a screw-in alternative. (Not sure about blockage though)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I agree with that. The CV 50mm f/2 APO E-mount was the first to received the updated aperture mechanism. The latter was further tweaked with newer APO lenses.
The lack of LR built-in lens profile is intriguing and I don't know if it was intentional but I much prefer it this way. I don't like automatic corrections to lenses and it could indicate that the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO is actually superior in lateral CA performance compared to the other lenses I tested it against.
Fred, but automatic corrections cannot be excluded in LR?
If the lens itself has a profile coded into it, and you use Lightroom, you won't see the "native" uncorrected (for CA) output. You could view/process the RAW files other tools that don't support this encoded profile though. At least that's my understanding.
I imagine it might be possible to strip the info out of the RAW file as well.
scalanc2 wrote:
Is this the case of all lenses with contacts?
If so we never see the real optical performances of a lens?
scalanc2 wrote:
Is this the case of all lenses with contacts?
Yes, most E-mount lenses.
If so we never see the real optical performances of a lens?
Yes, only in regards to lateral CA though, which is pretty much a lossless correction. Lightroom shrinks or expands the color channels from center.
My point was that with the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO, there is no correction whatsoever, so its performance is even more impressive since APO lenses are corrected for axial CA and not lateral CA.
genji wrote:
I agree with Tim’s reasoning. It’s not inconsistency but rather a gradual refinement of the concept: f/2 and f/2.8 for the E-mount 50, extended to f/5.6 for the M-mount 50, then extended further to f/16 for both 35s. Perhaps technical or manufacturing constraints initially limited the number of possible rounded apertures but these issues were solved for later iterations. My guess is that, although the response to the new aperture mechanism has been extremely negative at FredMiranda.com, it must have been so overwhelmingly positive from other customers that CV were encouraged to refine and extend it so that we can look forward to rounded apertures at f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, and f/16 in future APO-Lanthar lens releases....Show more →
For me personally, Cosina's decision to make the aperture opening round at f/2.8 and f/5.6 is growing on me. It's actually quite an accomplishment to get this working the way it is.
I don't mind stopping the lens down to f/11 whenever I want defined sunstars as I usually take another picture at f/5.6 focusing on the scene's main subject (to combine in post) when shooting landscapes. On top o that, usually scenes with a 35mm lens need a broad DOF anyways.
Moreover, I am starting to appreciate no sunstars in f/5.6 pictures. It's a different look that could work well for many scenes.
Fred Miranda wrote:
For me personally, Cosina's decision to make the aperture opening round at f/2.8 and f/5.6 is growing on me. It's actually quite an accomplishment to get this working the way it is.
I don't mind stopping the lens down to f/11 whenever I want defined sunstars as I usually take another picture at f/5.6 focusing on the scene's main subject (to combine in post) when shooting landscapes. On top o that, usually scenes with a 35mm lens need a broad DOF anyways.
Moreover, I am starting to appreciate no sunstars in f/5.6 pictures. It's a different look that could work well for many scenes....Show more →
I’m curious as to why they decided to have a rounded aperture at f/16, which I would not have thought is a much-used aperture nowadays. Is f/16 a popular aperture for landscape shooters?
And what about distortions and light fall off? tsdevine wrote:
If the lens itself has a profile coded into it, and you use Lightroom, you won't see the "native" uncorrected (for CA) output. You could view/process the RAW files other tools that don't support this encoded profile though. At least that's my understanding.
I imagine it might be possible to strip the info out of the RAW file as well.
scalanc2 wrote:
Is this the case of all lenses with contacts?
If so we never see the real optical performances of a lens?
I thought it's only when a built-in profile was flagged as mandatory that you couldn't remove it. Though come to think of it, I've never come across a built-in profile that I could turn off in an Adobe product (LR/PS/CamRaw).
Ugh, I was really hoping for some much more major differences between this and the GM to help me decide, especially given cost is relatively similar. About the only legs up I see on the GM is that its a bit faster and slightly better for astro, and has autofocus...but man that Voigtlander....
Haha.. was going through the same thoughts.. Went for the GM
motorhead9999 wrote:
Ugh, I was really hoping for some much more major differences between this and the GM to help me decide, especially given cost is relatively similar. About the only legs up I see on the GM is that its a bit faster and slightly better for astro, and has autofocus...but man that Voigtlander....
genji wrote:
I’m curious as to why they decided to have a rounded aperture at f/16, which I would not have thought is a much-used aperture nowadays. Is f/16 a popular aperture for landscape shooters?
I think it might be coincidental. I’ve noticed a fair number of my lenses appear to have very round aperture openings at the smallest setting of the range. This might just have provided an additional marketing point. Based on Fred’s sun star sequence, there is still some of the effect at f/16, but not as pronounced as f/14. In comparison, f/5.6 shows none of the effect and therefore likely is truly a circular opening.
As for when to use f/16… I’ve occasionally done so when I needed as much DoF in a single exposure and didn’t plan to blend separate captures. Environmental conditions might not permit it. Another example would be use of diffraction softening to suppress aliasing artifacts. I’ve done this when scenes included windows with mesh screens that can become a major PITA to retouch in post. If diffraction softening is a concern, this would be a situation where I’d selectively blend a peak sharpness image with a diffraction softened one. Careful sharpening in post may also be able to counteract some diffraction softening. Final image use may also have an effect. A scaled down and properly sharpened image will mask diffraction to some degree. But then, if that’s the intended end use, it may not be necessary to stop down that much for DoF.
Other than diffraction, I think the biggest downside to f/11 and smaller is how much more visible sensor dust becomes. It would be great to get perfect across-frame sharpness for an infinity scene at f/2.8 or f/4 and save a lot of time spotting images.
