I've updated the MFD resolution/contrast test using my latest copy (optimal). It's sharper compared to my other copy, especially at f/2 at minimal focus distance (0.35m):
Fred Miranda wrote:
We've spoke about it and I'm not seeing it with my copy at MFD, 2m and infinity.
I've tested for focus shift analyzing the center focused area for changes in apertures from f/2 until f/4. I do not see any difference focusing at f/2 and taking exposures at f/2.8 and f/4 compared to focusing at f/2.8 and f/4 at any distance.
I am seeing it also in my (e-mount) copy. Checked near infinity between f/2 and f/5.6 by following procedure: focus at f/2, change aperture to f/5.6, take picture, and take iPhone picture of distance scale, refocus at same f/5.6, take another picture and another iPhone picture of distance scale. Refocussing has moved lens to shorter distance, and effect is visible, taken pictures differ. Second (refocussed) one is sharper. Lens has to go back.
Edax wrote:
I am seeing it also in my (e-mount) copy. Checked near infinity between f/2 and f/5.6 by following procedure: focus at f/2, change aperture to f/5.6, take picture, and take iPhone picture of distance scale, refocus at same f/5.6, take another picture and another iPhone picture of distance scale. Refocussing has moved lens to shorter distance, and effect is visible, taken pictures differ. Second (refocussed) one is sharper. Lens has to go back.
The camera's distance scale is not reliable for this test imo.
Try this: Focus at f/2 and take a picture at f/2, f/2.8 and f/4. Then, do the best of three focusing it at f2.8 and another focusing at f/4. Compare the crops. I can't detect any difference at 100% mag.
Focusing at f/5.6 is prone to error. I would stick with f/2.8 and f/4.
Focus shift would be more of any issue with a rangefinder but I don't see focus shift on the Leica M10-P + M-version either.
I agree with Fred that it would be an issue with the RF mount lens. You can use the lens stopped to where you would use it and then focus using live view.
If the copy is within your expectation in all other aspects, you may want to keep it to use it.
Edax wrote:
I am seeing it also in my (e-mount) copy. Checked near infinity between f/2 and f/5.6 by following procedure: focus at f/2, change aperture to f/5.6, take picture, and take iPhone picture of distance scale, refocus at same f/5.6, take another picture and another iPhone picture of distance scale. Refocussing has moved lens to shorter distance, and effect is visible, taken pictures differ. Second (refocussed) one is sharper. Lens has to go back.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The camera's distance scale is not reliable for this test imo.
Try this: Focus at f/2 and take a picture at f/2, f/2.8 and f/4. Then, do the best of three focusing it at f2.8 and another focusing at f/4. Compare the crops. I can't detect any difference at 100% mag.
Focusing at f/5.6 is prone to error. I would stick with f/2.8 and f/4.
Focus shift would be more of any issue with a rangefinder but I don't see focus shift on the Leica M10-P + M-version either.
Well, the (re-) focussed shot at f/5.6 was sharper than the one focussed at f/2 (and also taken at f/5.6). I took pictures of the distance scale to show that it indeed was at another position after refocussing.
Good thing is that my VM version of the same lens in same test doesn't have noticeable focus shift. That one stays
Edax wrote:
Well, the (re-) focussed shot at f/5.6 was sharper than the one focussed at f/2 (and also taken at f/5.6). I took pictures of the distance scale to show that it indeed was at another position after refocussing.
Good thing is that my VM version of the same lens in same test doesn't have noticeable focus shift. That one stays
It's curious why some copies are showing this behavior. I had a similar experience with the CV 40/1.2 E-mount where some copies were showing stronger focus shift than others. That lens has under corrected SA though, so focus shift was expected but the amount varied from lens to lens. I could not get a good answer from Voigtlander on this.
I really appreciate your examples and comparisons.
I was interested in this lens, but changed my mind after seeing the rendering of areas behind the focus plane.
If I were still shooting Sony, I’d get the GM in a heartbeat.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's curious why some copies are showing this behavior. I had a similar experience with the CV 40/1.2 E-mount where some copies were showing stronger focus shift than others. That lens has under corrected SA though, so focus shift was expected but the amount varied from lens to lens. I could not get a good answer from Voigtlander on this.
Could be an issue they discovered early in production, and they made a stealth update to the assembly procedure or updated a part. Leica usually doesn't discover and correct these kind of things until enough users report an issue (flare with some of the first 50 APOs). Voigtlander may have the assembly line sophistication to catch and fix. Could be an assembly line error by one of several people on the assembly line that do the same work, such as what happened with the first run of Mitakon 65 1.4 for the GFX. One of the two people assembling the rear mounts was putting them together incorrectly.
Another possibility entirely is there may be very tight assembly tolerances for the 35 APO, and they aren't getting it right more often than they do with other lenses. Or normal copy variation is more pronounced on such a high-performing lens.
---------------------------------------------
CheshireCat wrote:
I really appreciate your examples and comparisons.
I was interested in this lens, but changed my mind after seeing the rendering of areas behind the focus plane.
If I were still shooting Sony, I’d get the GM in a heartbeat.
The GM rendering looks really nice. I would get both – the Voightlander's Zeiss-like microcontrast and color punch for landscape from f/2 to 5.6 is just stunning. Either could still work alone. With the CV, if shooting for background quality, I shoot at f/2 as close as possible to the subject. The CV is not a lens I would choose for mid-distance wide open expecting magic.
It would be incredible if for the version II of these CV APOs, they could incorporate a manual spherical aberration control lever like Canon is doing with their upcoming RF 100 macro.
I like both sunstars! My favorite are the 10 and 12 point sunstars. However, I like the idea of changing it up as long as the sunstars from other lenses are well defined as I think they are from the 35 GM.
The very few 'landscapes' in the GM 35/1.4 image thread get closer to the camera with each successive page. At this rate, it will soon qualify as a macro. Average focus distance over hundreds of images there appears to be 1-2 metres.
alexands wrote:
I like both sunstars! My favorite are the 10 and 12 point sunstars. However, I like the idea of changing it up as long as the sunstars from other lenses are well defined as I think they are from the 35 GM.
The Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN's sunstar is well defined too!
However it needs f/22.
philip_pj wrote:
The very few 'landscapes' in the GM 35/1.4 image thread get closer to the camera with each successive page. At this rate, it will soon qualify as a macro. Average focus distance over hundreds of images there appears to be 1-2 metres.
Testing it this morning it certainly is fun up close and personal. I’m that type of shooter though when it’s not work stuff
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm getting several PMs asking about which lens is best:
Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO vs Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM vs Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN.
Here are my personal thoughts on this after almost of month testing and shooting with all three lenses:
---
In general, for those who really like the 35mm focal length, I would recommend picking up both Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM + Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO lenses.
The GM is a jack of all trades, master of ALL.
It does everything well including landscapes and nightscapes. It also matches the rendering of the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN at f/2. The Voigtlander competes neck and neck with the GM in resolution/contrast, but has better flare resistance, sunstars (subjective) and axial CA correction. So, for landscapes, I would take the Voigtlander for its compactness and better performance against the light. Fir everything else I would choose the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM, although I do like the Voigtlander for many other applications as well.
The Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is also a great contender, especially for the price. It does everything well but can't quite match the other two in regards to off-axis resolution at wide apertures, distortion and flare resistance. Although it's compact and well-built, if I had to chose only one AF lens, it would be the GM....Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm getting several PMs asking about which lens is best:
Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO vs Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM vs Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN.
Here are my personal thoughts on this after almost of month testing and shooting with all three lenses:
---
In general, for those who really like the 35mm focal length, I would recommend picking up both Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM + Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO lenses.
The GM is a jack of all trades, master of ALL.
It does everything well including landscapes and nightscapes. It also matches the rendering of the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN at f/2. The Voigtlander competes neck and neck with the GM in resolution/contrast, but has better flare resistance, sunstars (subjective) and axial CA correction. So, for landscapes, I would take the Voigtlander for its compactness and better performance against the light. Fir everything else I would choose the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM, although I do like the Voigtlander for many other applications as well.
The Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN is also a great contender, especially for the price. It does everything well but can't quite match the other two in regards to off-axis resolution at wide apertures, distortion and flare resistance. Although it's compact and well-built, if I had to chose only one AF lens, it would be the GM....Show more →
2021. The year of the 35mm par excellence! Or 35mm madness if you will, as I am sure many will end up owning multiple stellar 35s in 2021. Why the hell not ?
Tora_2097 wrote:
Sigh, alright folks, you did it.
I caved and ordered a copy, even though I still like my Loxia 35.
Will do a few comparisons between the two.
Ben
Curious to see your comparisons. I don't own the Loxia anymore but liked it when I had it. I'm willing to bet that the Voigtlander 35/2 APO will perform much better even at small apertures and will have smoother rendering wide open. Lateral, axial CA and coma control should be night and day between these two.
Average focus distance over hundreds of images there appears to be 1-2 metres.
