p.15 #1Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Here's a dump of some screen shot crops from Juha's photos. I believe these were all wide open examples and are all at farther focusing distances. I really feel there's strong astigmatism at play. Not sure how much of it is sensor related, but given that these crops were generally in the midfield, shouldn't IMO be entirely sensor related.
Note the 'hook' effect in some of the bokeh. Where you might expect circular OOF specular highlights, instead it's a crescent.
In the second crop you can see at the top right blank white area that the horizontally running line is more blurred than the vertically running line with has a 'sharp' element to it, as well as the expected blur.
The third crop is not that far off center yet the background foliage bokeh is pretty wild.
I don't entirely dislike this. Rather, it's not what I was expecting to see and just trying to better understand what's going on so that whenever I get this lens, I know what to expect.
p.15 #4Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
These look great! For a 3.5cm long 35/1.5 lens I'll take it any day of the week. For those who don't care about size, the 35/1.7, ZM 35/1.4 and 35/2 APO still exist. There's no free lunch but the set of compromises Voigtlander have chosen for a highly portable fast 35 seem appropriate to me.
nehemiahphoto wrote: BastianK wrotenehemiahphoto wroteBastianK wrotenehemiahphoto wroteSome samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much the an all-arounder successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price.Thanks for sharing.
From what I see here though, I gladly stick to the 35mm 1.7.Are you not liking the bokeh specifically?In some of your longer distance samples I expect the lens to perform a little better on a UT/Leica camera.
All the latest fast yet compact VM lenses (2/28 and 1.5/50) have a lot of bokeh "fall off" on any camera though, which also adds to the swirl.
All of this wasn't unexpected. I am also not sure the 35mm 1.7 would be really that noticeably different in this regard.
Now what caught me by surprise:
Super strong longitudinal CA. Yes, it is a tough scene in picture 7, but picture 10 looks far from great either. That outlining is several pixels wide.
The Coma visible in picture 7 in the bottom part is also really strong. The 35mm 1.7 + 5m PCX on a stock camera is doing much better here.
This is actually something I admired about the 35mm 1.7, as it meant it can actually be used for something like this,
without the borders and corners attracting a lot of attention due to light points forming obstrusive shapes
(and long before we had lenses like 1.4/24 GM, 1.4/35 GM and 1.2/35 Sigma):
https://live.staticflickr.com/1893/44522630002_aec50216b6_b.jpg Hong Kong Junk by BastianKOn LoCal: It’s just with acceptable limits to me for it being considered a decently corrected optic. Images #7 and #10 are absolute worse case scenario, and with the defringe tool in LR at 7 for both purple and green, it’s completely fixed. A weakness but manageable IMO in real world shooting. Given the similarity in the optical formula to the 35 1.2, I was not expecting good LoCal control. I think as you said, most of us are not surprised given Voight lander seems to favor lots of optical vignetting, so bokeh is what it is. The other 35/40/50 1.2 I could get busier bokeh at longer distance, esp in the corners.
The coma thing I am interested in and have a question for you as you will probably know better. I also noticed a type of blooming/oddity with OOF lights. But, when I did a more traditional coma test with stars, stars looked pretty good WO from corner to center on a modded sensor. If I get clearer skies tonight, I will shoot again but I feel like for astrophotography this one is usable (vignetting aside) like the 28/2ii. But if stars are fairly pinpoint, but out of focus lights are “bloomed,” is that coma or a different type of aberration? Or is it a specific type of coma (if there are types)? In photo #7, the loss of detail/clarity I assumed to be a little bit more of veiling issue.
p.15 #5Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
These look great! For a 3.5cm long 35/1.5 lens I'll take it any day of the week. For those who don't care about size, the 35/1.7, ZM 35/1.4 and 35/2 APO still exist.
I suspect the artefacts will be reduced on a digital M anyway. Out of interest, what keeps you from the CV 35/14, which is smaller and lighter?
p.15 #8Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Just received the Leica M10-R loan so I can start the review.
My personal copy is currently at Leica for repair.
Spoiler alert: The new Voigtlander 35/1.5 Nokton is a much better performer on the Leica sensor. It's sharp to the very edges from wide open. Optimal at f/2.8. On the Sony it needs f/8 for the corners.
p.15 #10Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Fred Miranda wrote: BastianK wroteI think the blooming aroung those christmas tree lights is mostly SA.
With the triangle like defocused light points in the corners I think it is mostly Coma,
but astigmatism can play a role here, too. These two aberrations are generally hard to separate.
But in your picture with the scale on the left it sure looks like there is a noticable amount of astigmatism, too.
Especially on lenses with high vignetting I always found city lights to be a much bigger problem
in regards to Coma than stars though.
These lenses with 3-4 EV vignetting in the corners, stars in the corners are so dark, the coma doesn't really become that obvious.It's definitely SA. If we get the 35/1.2 III and stop it down to f/1.5, we'd have a very similar look. I think the glow is pretty in the sample images though.
Maybe I am very mistaken, but this lens has a much more crisp feel--the SA is very minor, and much less than the 35/40/50 1.2 I've shot. And at all distances. Below are crops from a modded a7--I took a series at 1.5, f2 and 2.8. One with dark subjects, and one with brights that SA shows up on more in my experience a bit.
Then I included 3 actual photos, at different distances, all WO. You'll see there's very very minimal SA. Now that you have your review copy, I'll be curious to see what you think. If it is SA, I am confused why I see so little on axis, but the affect is very noticeable with OOF lights. What Bastian said makes sense more to me.
p.15 #11Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
nehemiahphoto wrote: Fred Miranda wroteBastianK wroteI think the blooming aroung those christmas tree lights is mostly SA.
With the triangle like defocused light points in the corners I think it is mostly Coma,
but astigmatism can play a role here, too. These two aberrations are generally hard to separate.
But in your picture with the scale on the left it sure looks like there is a noticable amount of astigmatism, too.
Especially on lenses with high vignetting I always found city lights to be a much bigger problem
in regards to Coma than stars though.
These lenses with 3-4 EV vignetting in the corners, stars in the corners are so dark, the coma doesn't really become that obvious.It's definitely SA. If we get the 35/1.2 III and stop it down to f/1.5, we'd have a very similar look. I think the glow is pretty in the sample images though.Maybe I am very mistaken, but this lens has a much more crisp feel--the SA is very minor, and much less than the 35/40/50 1.2 I've shot. And at all distances. Below are crops from a modded a7--I took a series at 1.5, f2 and 2.8. One with dark subjects, and one with brights that SA shows up on more in my experience a bit.
Then I included 3 actual photos, at different distances, all WO. You'll see there's very very minimal SA. Now that you have your review copy, I'll be curious to see what you think. If it is SA, I am confused why I see so little on axis, but the affect is very noticeable with OOF lights. What Bastian said makes sense more to me....Show more →
It's not the same as shooting with the CV 35/1.2 III wide open which would yield even stronger SA. The spherical aberration is better corrected on the new f/1.5 lens but it depends heavily on distance. The closer the more SA.
I've tested it side by side to the Leica 35/1.4 FLE and the Voigtlander is softer at closer distance. All this is expected though.
p.15 #12Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Fred Miranda wrote: nehemiahphoto wroteFred Miranda wroteBastianK wroteI think the blooming aroung those christmas tree lights is mostly SA.
With the triangle like defocused light points in the corners I think it is mostly Coma,
but astigmatism can play a role here, too. These two aberrations are generally hard to separate.
But in your picture with the scale on the left it sure looks like there is a noticable amount of astigmatism, too.
Especially on lenses with high vignetting I always found city lights to be a much bigger problem
in regards to Coma than stars though.
These lenses with 3-4 EV vignetting in the corners, stars in the corners are so dark, the coma doesn't really become that obvious.It's definitely SA. If we get the 35/1.2 III and stop it down to f/1.5, we'd have a very similar look. I think the glow is pretty in the sample images though.Maybe I am very mistaken, but this lens has a much more crisp feel--the SA is very minor, and much less than the 35/40/50 1.2 I've shot. And at all distances. Below are crops from a modded a7--I took a series at 1.5, f2 and 2.8. One with dark subjects, and one with brights that SA shows up on more in my experience a bit.
Then I included 3 actual photos, at different distances, all WO. You'll see there's very very minimal SA. Now that you have your review copy, I'll be curious to see what you think. If it is SA, I am confused why I see so little on axis, but the affect is very noticeable with OOF lights. What Bastian said makes sense more to me.It's not the same as shooting with the CV 35/1.2 III wide open which would yield even stronger SA. The spherical aberration is better corrected on the new f/1.5 lens but it depends heavily on distance. The closer the more SA.
I've tested it side by side to the Leica 35/1.4 FLE and the Voigtlander is noticeably softer at closer distance. All this is expected though.
Yes, that's why I included different distances as I know that the distance can vary the SA, though from .7 to about 20 feet (and I assume infinite, I don't see any change) I am sure at absolute MFD I would see increased SA. I am curious to see your review and findings. And still curious about the affect!
Are you saying you tested the new 1.5, or the 35/1.2iii against the Lux FLE? I found the 35/1.2iii to have much more than this lens throughout the range.
p.15 #13Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Desmolicious wrote: nehemiahphoto wroteSome samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much the an all-arounder successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price.Nice pics! Perhaps I missed it, but what camera did you use? And did you add vignette in PP?
I went in LR and checked. I only add -50 to picture #5. The rest are untouched vignetting wise--the natural vignetting of the lens.
p.15 #14Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
nehemiahphoto wrote: Fred Miranda wrotenehemiahphoto wroteFred Miranda wroteBastianK wroteI think the blooming aroung those christmas tree lights is mostly SA.
With the triangle like defocused light points in the corners I think it is mostly Coma,
but astigmatism can play a role here, too. These two aberrations are generally hard to separate.
But in your picture with the scale on the left it sure looks like there is a noticable amount of astigmatism, too.
Especially on lenses with high vignetting I always found city lights to be a much bigger problem
in regards to Coma than stars though.
These lenses with 3-4 EV vignetting in the corners, stars in the corners are so dark, the coma doesn't really become that obvious.It's definitely SA. If we get the 35/1.2 III and stop it down to f/1.5, we'd have a very similar look. I think the glow is pretty in the sample images though.Maybe I am very mistaken, but this lens has a much more crisp feel--the SA is very minor, and much less than the 35/40/50 1.2 I've shot. And at all distances. Below are crops from a modded a7--I took a series at 1.5, f2 and 2.8. One with dark subjects, and one with brights that SA shows up on more in my experience a bit.
Then I included 3 actual photos, at different distances, all WO. You'll see there's very very minimal SA. Now that you have your review copy, I'll be curious to see what you think. If it is SA, I am confused why I see so little on axis, but the affect is very noticeable with OOF lights. What Bastian said makes sense more to me.It's not the same as shooting with the CV 35/1.2 III wide open which would yield even stronger SA. The spherical aberration is better corrected on the new f/1.5 lens but it depends heavily on distance. The closer the more SA.
I've tested it side by side to the Leica 35/1.4 FLE and the Voigtlander is noticeably softer at closer distance. All this is expected though.Yes, that's why I included different distances as I know that the distance can vary the SA, though from .7 to about 20 feet (and I assume infinite, I don't see any change) I am sure at absolute MFD I would see increased SA. I am curious to see your review and findings. And still curious about the affect!
Are you saying you tested the new 1.5, or the 35/1.2iii against the Lux FLE? I found the 35/1.2iii to have much more than this lens throughout the range.
My observations are based on this thread's samples so far. I have not yet tested the lens on the M body.
I did compare the CV 35/1.5 to the Leica 35/1.4 FLE briefly on the Sony A74. The Leica is sharper wide open (away from center) and the Voigtlander has smoother rendering + narrower field of view.
p.15 #15Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Personally when I look at an image, I look at the whole image and not zoom into specific areas to pixel analyse. The images by nehemiahphoto look really good (photo of man). The bokeh is creamy (I think better than the FLE comparison photo by Fred Miranda. Looking at the dog photos, at 1.5 it's quite sharp. Looks like a good portraiture lens. Would how it will improve on a M.
I'm getting heavy deja vu to the other nokton-summilux comparison I did: the 50 lux ASPH and the 50/1.5 Nokton II. In both cases, the Nokton has more longitudinal CA and transition zones are perhaps uglier, whereas the Summilux has a beautiful clean snap from sharpness to blur. Also, in both cases the Nokton suffers at close distances whereas the Summilux has a floating group. But also in both cases, the Nokton is significantly smaller than the Summilux (not to mention cheaper) and the combination of bokeh, sharpness, and compactness is pretty incredible.
Very excited to see Fred's side-by-side of the 35/1.5 and the FLE on his M10-R. I could be mis-remembering how clean the 35 Summilux FLE was.
p.15 #18Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
Fred's quick comparison looks promising. Is it typical for other VM lenses to have a narrower field of view? I think I remember that about the VM 35 1.4 as well.
p.15 #19Voigtländer Nokton Vintage Line 35/1.5 VM I & II and Nikon Z Apo-Lanthar 65/2
thrice wrote:
These look great! For a 3.5cm long 35/1.5 lens I'll take it any day of the week. For those who don't care about size, the 35/1.7, ZM 35/1.4 and 35/2 APO still exist. There's no free lunch but the set of compromises Voigtlander have chosen for a highly portable fast 35 seem appropriate to me.
nehemiahphoto wroteBastianK wrotenehemiahphoto wroteBastianK wrotenehemiahphoto wroteSome samples from very limited shooting in bad light. Processed normally for me--interested in what real world photos look like. The only thing I left off is LoCal correction (there is a fair bit WO in high contrast). Not really seeing or feeling as much SA as I recall with the 35/40/50 1.2's. Very high central sharpness and contrast--really like the colors on the newer CV glass. These are all on stock Sony.
Sunstars start at f2 and are decently defined.
Flare resistance is excellent--better than some other modern CV's. You can induce minor ghost if you really push.
Ergonomically great--one of those lenses where things just pop into focus in the EVF--very easy to manual focus.
You can make the bokeh look a bit nervous and ugly, even centrally (sensor stack indepedant) if you try. Mostly pleasant though.
Not a character lens--very balanced feel to the files. Very little magic, though I do like them. Just a solid transparent feel when processing. Very much the an all-arounder successor to the 35/1.7 in my opinion. While not perfect, my initial thought it that I am impressed and will easily prefer this lens over the ZM 35/1.5 and 35 Lux's, esp. given size and price.Thanks for sharing.
From what I see here though, I gladly stick to the 35mm 1.7.Are you not liking the bokeh specifically?In some of your longer distance samples I expect the lens to perform a little better on a UT/Leica camera.
All the latest fast yet compact VM lenses (2/28 and 1.5/50) have a lot of bokeh "fall off" on any camera though, which also adds to the swirl.
All of this wasn't unexpected. I am also not sure the 35mm 1.7 would be really that noticeably different in this regard.
Now what caught me by surprise:
Super strong longitudinal CA. Yes, it is a tough scene in picture 7, but picture 10 looks far from great either. That outlining is several pixels wide.
The Coma visible in picture 7 in the bottom part is also really strong. The 35mm 1.7 + 5m PCX on a stock camera is doing much better here.
This is actually something I admired about the 35mm 1.7, as it meant it can actually be used for something like this,
without the borders and corners attracting a lot of attention due to light points forming obstrusive shapes
(and long before we had lenses like 1.4/24 GM, 1.4/35 GM and 1.2/35 Sigma):
https://live.staticflickr.com/1893/44522630002_aec50216b6_b.jpg Hong Kong Junk by BastianKOn LoCal: It’s just with acceptable limits to me for it being considered a decently corrected optic. Images #7 and #10 are absolute worse case scenario, and with the defringe tool in LR at 7 for both purple and green, it’s completely fixed. A weakness but manageable IMO in real world shooting. Given the similarity in the optical formula to the 35 1.2, I was not expecting good LoCal control. I think as you said, most of us are not surprised given Voight lander seems to favor lots of optical vignetting, so bokeh is what it is. The other 35/40/50 1.2 I could get busier bokeh at longer distance, esp in the corners.
The coma thing I am interested in and have a question for you as you will probably know better. I also noticed a type of blooming/oddity with OOF lights. But, when I did a more traditional coma test with stars, stars looked pretty good WO from corner to center on a modded sensor. If I get clearer skies tonight, I will shoot again but I feel like for astrophotography this one is usable (vignetting aside) like the 28/2ii. But if stars are fairly pinpoint, but out of focus lights are “bloomed,” is that coma or a different type of aberration? Or is it a specific type of coma (if there are types)? In photo #7, the loss of detail/clarity I assumed to be a little bit more of veiling issue.
These are all from a modded a7.I agree. Life is about embracing reasonable compromises
