naturephoto1 wrote:
The Version II Type I and II I believe are the same optical design, but there is a difference in the weight, handling (I believe) (haptics), and appearance/presentation.
As said, all the differences are already explained in great detail in my review of Version II right at the beginning.
BastianK wrote:
As said, all the differences are already explained in great detail in my review of Version II right at the beginning.
Hi Bastian,
I was only responding to your comments here in this thread and not in reference your reveiw of the lens. I wanted this as a stand alone comment if people had not read your review. I know that Fred and I have tried to stress my comments regarding the lens and UT sensor modified vs Stock Sony bodies and Leica M bodies in the past.
Isn't your review for the version I of this lens not the version II? You are mixing up Version I and II with Version II Type I and Type II because of Cosina's ridiculously stupid naming scheme. It is also explained right at the beginning of the review in the comment you just quoted. This is the review of version I This is the review of version II, Type I. Version II Type I and II are the same, only the casing looks different.
OK – I see, I did not realize the naming convention was that convoluted.
So Fred's posts near the beginning of this thread where he shows focusing on the corner and stopping down to F9.5 giving decent across the field performance on stock A7r4 – even though that lens is a Version II type II, you're saying is identical in optical construction, if not looks, to the Version 11 type 1 in your review. Correct?
I'd love to see some more tests on stock A7r4 focusing on the midfield, and stopping down past F8 (which is what I'm nearly always at for DOF anyway) but I guess I should just try it myself.
Or just get a loxia 25 and learn to live with it's heft. I used to have the pentax 28 3.5 which was great optically but large also with the adapter. Also had and sold the sony 28 – couldn't stand the softness near the edges once the horrendous distortion was corrected. I want the Ultron to work on a Sony! I also tried and returned a contax G 28mm but only after seriously considering having Seboh mod it with an actual helicoil.
Irving wrote:
So Fred's posts near the beginning of this thread where he shows focusing on the corner and stopping down to F9.5 giving decent across the field performance on stock A7r4 – even though that lens is a Version II type II, you're saying is identical in optical construction, if not looks, to the Version 11 type 1 in your review. Correct?
Yes.
Irving wrote:
Also had and sold the sony 28 – couldn't stand the softness near the edges once the horrendous distortion was corrected.
If you are not happy with the Sony 28mm 2.0 FE's performance close to the edges you will 100% not be happy with the Voigtländer's.
Sony 28mm 2.0 has decent corner performance starting at f/4.0. Voigtländer looks only okayish at f/11 on a stock Sony camera.
PS: this is true for any rangefinder 28mm lens.
If you are not happy with the Sony 28mm 2.0 FE's performance close to the edges you will 100% not be happy with the Voigtländer's.
Sony 28mm 2.0 has decent corner performance starting at f/4.0. Voigtländer looks only okayish at f/11 on a stock Sony camera.
PS: this is true for any rangefinder 28mm lens.
Thanks, you're probably right. However, it wasn't just the corners of the Sony 28 F2 that bugged me it was the lens distortion that when corrected to make lines like architecture straight, I found significantly softened not only the corners but entire edge portions of the frame, even when stopped down to F8, and extending a fair way in towards the center. The ultron does look like it has distortion very well controlled.
If one wants the Ultron II to “work on a Sony,” well, a quick way to achieve the goal of mounting an Ultron II VM, in front of a high-resolution Sony sensor, without waiting while having an A7-series camera modified, is to buy a Leica M11.
I did say “quick way,” not “inexpensive way.” (It is not that I have an M11; still trying to remain happy at the 24MP level, with the original M10, and M Type 246 Monochrom, until 2023 or 2024, or beyond.)
If you are not happy with the Sony 28mm 2.0 FE's performance close to the edges you will 100% not be happy with the Voigtländer's.
Sony 28mm 2.0 has decent corner performance starting at f/4.0. Voigtländer looks only okayish at f/11 on a stock Sony camera.
PS: this is true for any rangefinder 28mm lens.
I found that the 7A 28/1.4 works ok for both Sony/Leica sensors but even the company acknowledged the differences and tweaked the lens for the "FE-Plus" version. I tried this version on the M10-R and got good performance from center to mid-field. The corners do not look that great even using the Leica optimized version.
RexGig0 wrote:
If one wants the Ultron II to “work on a Sony,” well, a quick way to achieve the goal of mounting an Ultron II VM, in front of a high-resolution Sony sensor, without waiting while having an A7-series camera modified, is to buy a Leica M11.
I did say “quick way,” not “inexpensive way.” (It is not that I have an M11; still trying to remain happy at the 24MP level, with the original M10, and M Type 246 Monochrom, until 2023 or 2024, or beyond.)
Nah...just get a used M240 or vanilla M10 and you will be super happy with the CV 28/2 II.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Nah...just get a used M240 or vanilla M10 and you will be super happy with the CV 28/2 II.
True. I already have the “vanilla” M10, and M Type 246 Monochrom.
Having the Version III Elmarit-M, and a Summaron LTM, there is been little hurry to add a 28mm Ultron II, but, sooner or later, the f/2 aperture will be nice to have. I think I prefer the Black Paint edition.
RexGig0 wrote:
True. I already have the “vanilla” M10, and M Type 246 Monochrom.
Having the Version III Elmarit-M, and a Summaron LTM, there is been little hurry to add a 28mm Ultron II, but, sooner or later, the f/2 aperture will be nice to have. I think I prefer the Black Paint edition.
Don't hold your breath for that f/2 aperture... its f/2.4 at best, and for all practical purposes I just treat this lens like an f/2.8 lens. There is essentially no exposure difference between f/2 and f/2.4 with exception of a slight centre hot spot.
Sep 17, 2022 at 10:46 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
hmzimelka wrote:
Don't hold your breath for that f/2 aperture... its f/2.4 at best, and for all practical purposes I just treat this lens like an f/2.8 lens. There is essentially no exposure difference between f/2 and f/2.4 with exception of a slight centre hot spot.
I find on my vanilla M10 if I use f/2 and center weighted metering I do get about twice the shutter speed in aperture priority mode as when I shoot f/2.8. I don't doubt that the edges and corners are a bit underexposed at that shutter speed, but I would not call the aperture f/2.4 either.
oberheimx wrote:
To get sharp corners and low distortion in 28mm with sony A7R4 we have the option of the Batis 18 in APSC mode or Loxia 25 (26mm) cropping a bit
Yes, but given you need a 1.5X crop with the Batis 18 (which is also huge compared to the Voigtlander lens) you get a lens that is about an f/4.2 in terms of the amount of light that is hitting the sensor, so I found that was not at all useful for indoor shots or any time you had low light, and even the Loxia 25 is almost a whole stop less in the amount of light hitting the sensor if you crop to a 28mm perspective (and it too is noticeably bigger than the Voigtlander). I have all three lenses and I find the Voigtlander 28 f/2 II to be a whole lot more useful and versatile lens. Both the Batis 18 and Loxia 25 are very nice lenses and if you just want to shoot landscapes work well, but if you want to shoot handheld under even moderately low light I like the Voigtlander a lot better.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I find on my vanilla M10 if I use f/2 and center weighted metering I do get about twice the shutter speed in aperture priority mode as when I shoot f/2.8. I don't doubt that the edges and corners are a bit underexposed at that shutter speed, but I would not call the aperture f/2.4 either.
With the exposure speed locked to one speed, and comparing the resulting images of both f/2 and f/2.4, the f/2 image is only a little brighter in a small portion of the centre. Try that with an Elmarit or a Summicron and that half stop aperture change is going to make a much larger difference.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I find on my vanilla M10 if I use f/2 and center weighted metering I do get about twice the shutter speed in aperture priority mode as when I shoot f/2.8. I don't doubt that the edges and corners are a bit underexposed at that shutter speed, but I would not call the aperture f/2.4 either.
---------------------------------------------
hmzimelka wrote:
With the exposure speed locked to one speed, and comparing the resulting images of both f/2 and f/2.4, the f/2 image is only a little brighter in a small portion of the centre. Try that with an Elmarit or a Summicron and that half stop aperture change is going to make a much larger difference.
The exposure does not change much in the corners from f/2 to f/2.4 due to optical vignetting.
Sep 17, 2022 at 01:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
hmzimelka wrote:
With the exposure speed locked to one speed, and comparing the resulting images of both f/2 and f/2.4, the f/2 image is only a little brighter in a small portion of the centre. Try that with an Elmarit or a Summicron and that half stop aperture change is going to make a much larger difference.
I have tried it and it is more than a little brighter, at least on my copy. I don't want to be pedantic, but f-stop is a physical measurement not an optical measurement (that is T stop). I assume you know that. The Voigtlander lens is an f/2 by that physical measurement, and any of the summicrons I have owned (and I have owned the 50 f/2 APO, the 90 f/2 APO, and the 90 f/2 pre-APO) certainly do not have a T stop of 2.0. Almost every lens in fact has a T stop smaller than its f-stop. The Voigtlander is no different in that respect. The Voigtlander does have some serious vignetting which does affect the light transmission, but it is simply misleading to call the lens f/2.4. It is not, and unless you have the measurements then I wouldn't be calling it T 2.4, either. I doubt that is accurate. It probably is T 2.2 or T 2.25. Yes, it does have more vignetting than many other lenses and that is worth noting, but calling the lens f/2.4 is, IMO, misleading and unhelpful.
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
The exposure does not change much in the corners from f/2 to f/2.4 due to optical vignetting.
Yes, that is of course true as it is true for many if not most rangefinder lenses when you stop down a half stop from wide open, but that does not mean the lens is f/2.4 or it is sensible to call it f/2.4. Light transmission could of course be measured and we could compare it to other lenses, but I am willing to bet that there is nowhere near a half stop difference between this lens and any Leica summicron in light transmission and that the difference in light transmission between this lens and any Leica Elmarit is at least three quarters of a stop.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, that is of course true as it is true for many if not most rangefinder lenses when you stop down a half stop from wide open, but that does not mean the lens is f/2.4 or it is sensible to call it f/2.4. Light transmission could of course be measured and we could compare it to other lenses, but I am willing to bet that there is nowhere near a half stop difference between this lens and any Leica summicron in light transmission and that the difference in light transmission between this lens and any Leica Elmarit is at least three quarters of a stop....Show more →
I don't think we should consider transmission to be @ f/2.4 either. Usually this is calculated at center as most fast lenses show some level of optical vignetting.
Sep 17, 2022 at 02:09 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't think we should consider transmission to be @ f/2.4 either. Usually this is calculated at center as most fast lenses show some level of optical vignetting.
And that means we definitely shouldn't consider the aperture to be f/2.4. It simply isn't. The transmission is almost certainly less than the aperture as it is with most lenses. What I think needs to be noted is that the lens has a lot of vignetting not misstatements about aperture. It isn't, however, all that unusual for rangefinder lenses and especially relatively fast one to have a lot of vignetting. The vignetting is a bit stronger for this lens than typical but it isn't a night a day thing either. I am pretty sure my Leica M 50 Lux Asph has about as much and probably a bit more. The discussion seemed to be going down the route that Leica lenses are relatively free from these sort of exposure issues, but this Voigtlander lens is a half stop slower than its reported aperture. That is what I found misleading.
Small size is valued by rangefinder shooters (and it is highly valued by me), but along with small size almost always comes relatively high vignetting and that is true for this lens but it is also true for most small Leica lenses as well.
