bjornthun wrote:
The Sigma 35/2 DG DN C is next best and see how the relationship changes at f/5.6 where the Sigma 35/2 overtakes the Voigtländer Apo Lanthar 35/2.
The LensTip results are interesting. I wonder how much of the apparent difference between the two lenses at certain apertures is due to different testing methods. I thought that Fred's comparison of the two lenses favored the Voigtlander at infinity ( https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/0#15561379 ) but the LensTip test chart results from closer distances do let the Sigma shine at smaller apertures.
The center results shouldn't change if you have to adjust for the Sigma's distortion, but perhaps the midzone and corner resolution will suffer a bit. That's not an issue for the Voigtlander, and, in my use, I could often be happy with uncorrected Sigma images for landscapes. I haven't noticed any LensTip-like MTF comparisons of corrected and uncorrected files, although I understand that there might be some behind a paywall at diglloyd.com.
I'm glad that we have the opportunity to choose between such excellent lenses.
Lenstip posted a full review on the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO E-mount.
Here is their summary:
Pros:
very solid, metal barrel,
sensational image quality in the frame centre,
very good image quality on the edge of the APS-C sensor,
good image quality on the edge of full frame,
negligible longitudinal chromatic aberration,
slight lateral chromatic aberration,
imperceptible distortion, close to zero,
proper correction of coma,
very low level of astigmatism,
original appearance of circles in blurry areas.
Cons:
too high vignetting on full frame.
The Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 35 mm f/2 Aspherical has everything that is needed to be called a top-of-the-range, premium lens. Its build quality is excellent, its optical properties – beyond reproach. In many categories it is able to outclass its direct rivals. Still high quality costs and, accordingly you can hardly call this lens cheap as you have to spend about $1150 on it.
However the high price tag doesn't change our assessment which is very favourable indeed; in this case we feel such a high quality is worth paying for. When a lens comes with a long list of assets and is practically devoid of flaws we always grant it our 'Editors' Choice' badge. We feel the Voigtlander fully deserves it.
philip_pj wrote:
Messaging: 'high quality costs'; 'can hardly call this lens cheap'; 'you have to spend about $1150 on it'; 'high price tag';
The currently available manual focus 35mm f2 competition, in price order:
Zeiss Milvus 35/2 - $1117; Zeiss Loxia 35/2 - $1300; Leica M 35/2 Asph - $3795; Leica M 35/2 APO - $8195.
Yes I was thinking the same thing when I was reading those lenstip comments about the price.
I actually think it's quite cheap for the performance and build quality you're getting.
Diglloyd wrote that he is “rejecting the Voigtlander FE 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar for [his] own landscape photography use” due to “the sharpness-damaging effects of its rearward focus shift” although “the lens is supremely sharp when focused optimally. That is, that central areas are razor sharp, but by f/4 and beyond, that sharpness is displaced rearward. Therefore, mitigating the focus shift by focusing closer (at f/2) offers considerable reward in sharpness where intended.”
I haven't noticed this--the lens seems sharp enough for my landscape use. Has anyone else tried (or felt the need to try) adjusting focus for landscape use? (I did this with my ZM 35/1.4, but I didn't think that it would be necessary with the new Voigtlander.)
Taylor Sherman wrote:
I am not understanding how focus shift has any impact on manually-focused landscape photography.
I raised this issue earlier before I understood that the author thought, as he explained to Fred, that the effect that he observed had something to do with friction affecting focus when the aperture was changed from wide open (and focused) to the shooting aperture. (I don't subscribe to the diglloyd.com site, so I know little of his tests and nothing of his results beyond what he presents in his opening paragraphs.) Yesterday he suggested backing off on the focus a bit to achieve optimum sharpness. I seem to be less exacting, but it wouldn't bother me to do that--if it accomplished anything.
zugzwang2 wrote:
I raised this issue earlier before I understood that the author thought, as he explained to Fred, that the effect that he observed had something to do with friction affecting focus when the aperture was changed from wide open (and focused) to the shooting aperture. (I don't subscribe to the diglloyd.com site, so I know little of his tests and nothing of his results beyond what he presents in his opening paragraphs.) Yesterday he suggested backing off on the focus a bit to achieve optimum sharpness. I seem to be less exacting, but it wouldn't bother me to do that--if it accomplished anything.
With magnified view, I don’t have a problem focusing at the shooting aperture so no need to stop down after focusing. I haven’t worried about focus shift since I started using cameras with good EVFs.
zugzwang2 wrote:
Diglloyd wrote that he is “rejecting the Voigtlander FE 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar for [his] own landscape photography use” due to “the sharpness-damaging effects of its rearward focus shift” although “the lens is supremely sharp when focused optimally. That is, that central areas are razor sharp, but by f/4 and beyond, that sharpness is displaced rearward. Therefore, mitigating the focus shift by focusing closer (at f/2) offers considerable reward in sharpness where intended.”
I haven't noticed this--the lens seems sharp enough for my landscape use. Has anyone else tried (or felt the need to try) adjusting focus for landscape use? (I did this with my ZM 35/1.4, but I didn't think that it would be necessary with the new Voigtlander.) ...Show more →
He cares a lot about focus shift, I think because in reviews he will focus wide open and then do an aperture series without refocusing.
But for most of us we will focus at working aperture with magnification so focus shift is irrelevant.
I guess if you’re a “reviewer” like Lloyd, you have to look for problems and there is probably a benefit for him to point out the focus shift issue. But to say that he “rejects” this otherwise fantastic lens for his own landscape use as a result of this issue is in my opinion overly dramatic when there is such a simple workaround (i.e. focusing at the working or shooting aperture).
A head's up for anyone comparing the Lenstip's resolution tests between the CV35/2 and the GM 35/1.4: their copy of the Voigtlander is significantly swung and perhaps also somewhat decentered. The right edge of the frame is quite out of focus when focus is optimised on-axis. Their GM35 seems more centred and the plane of focus is not as misaligned. IMHO, Fred's excellent infinity-distance tests are a better indicator of what one should expect with optimal copies of each of these 35mm species.
Regarding Lloyd's findings, I'm a subscriber and I can see what he is showing. However, I have my doubts about whether focus shift from stopping down is truly a problem with this Voigtlander. The latest link that @zugzwang2 is showing doesn't really appear to exhibit this problem to me, and the comparison series where he refocussed at F5.6 was far too front-focused. A different test setup (Roger Cicala's field curvature test subject using lawn grass is ideal, or a gravel/tarmac road in a carpark on flat ground) will quickly reveal if the problem is real and how severe it is, but this does not.
I have been considering both this CV35 and GM35 and to a lesser extent, the new Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN lenses, and the CV35 is still the most appealing to me for landscape and astro work that don't rely on AF. If and when Sony gives us autofocus bracketing, the GM35's AF would prove to be very useful to have. The focus breathing on that lens is unfortunately dreadful. There is a loss of about 42% of image area from min to max focus distance, the Sigma is about 30% (it also does not focus as closely as the GM, so take that into account). Is there anyone with the CV35/2 who would be willing to do a focus breathing test? I'm still waiting on my lens to be shipped :-( I hope the Cosina factory is doing OK
The focus shift issue is a concern if you are shooting on a M body since you aren't focusing through the lens. I'd be interested in learning the extent of the issue. The Zeiss ZM C 50mm f1.5 has an issue with focus shift that is hard to live with.
CVickery wrote:
The focus shift issue is a concern if you are shooting on a M body since you aren't focusing through the lens. I'd be interested in learning the extent of the issue. The Zeiss ZM C 50mm f1.5 has an issue with focus shift that is hard to live with.
I read Lloyd’s blog from time to time. If my memory is correct, I think he would also reject M bodies for his landscape use.
