Flare, Ghosting and Veiling:
In real world shooting, with strongly side and backlight situations, like sunsets, I found this CV 35/1.5 to produce some slight rainbow flare, definite ghosting artifacts but quite good in terms of veiling (maintaining contrast). In my experience, better than many lenses, but not as good as the CV 35/1.7. Some samples from the other night. All shot without a filter.
I agree that SA is better corrected compared to the CV 35/40/50 f/1.2 Nokton versions but we should consider that the 35/1.5 is 3/4 stop slower. I do see a bit of SA wide open, specially when comparing to the Leica 35m/1.4 FLE, but like you wrote, it's not very noticeable in real world images.
The MFD performance test shows it performs well even at 0.5m. (even better at 0.7m)
I've shot with the CV 35/1.7 Ultron for many years and I'm pretty sure it was crisper wide open at f/1.7. Having said that, the CV 35/1.5 Nokton will likely match it stopped down to f/1.7.
Fred Miranda wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@,
Thanks for your tests!
I agree that SA is better corrected compared to the CV 35/40/50 f/1.2 Nokton versions but we should consider that the 35/1.5 is 3/4 stop slower. I do see a bit of SA wide open, specially when comparing to the Leica 35m/1.4 FLE, but like you wrote, it's not very noticeable in real world images.
The MFD performance test shows it performs well even at 0.5m. (even better at 0.7m)
I've shot with the CV 35/1.7 Ultron for many years and I'm pretty sure it was crisper wide open at f/1.7. Having said that, the CV 35/1.5 Nokton will likely match it stopped down to f/1.7....Show more →
You're welcome! Happy to help and appreciate all your extensive testing.
I agree with you all all accounts in your assessment above--compact 1.2 lenses are no joke to design. Funny thing is, I wish this lens had as much (or more) SA than the 35/40/50 trio. I would’ve liked if they would’ve improved LoCal instead. I'll have some other testing I can post if you'd like—don’t want to hijack your thread!
Update: I just received two extra copies today. (Another Type I and one Type II)
They perform similarly to my first copy in terms of resolution and contrast . I'm impressed that they were all well centered and calibrated with the rangefinder. I have a feeling that tolerance is super tight with the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton.
Initially I really liked the matte black paint "Type I" style and most importantly its light weight. However, after testing the Type II brass version today, I changed my mind and now prefer this version.
I guess one couldn't go wrong with either style.
Here are a couple images showing the Type II "black paint" brass on the M10-R:
weezintrumpete wrote:
Fred - I'll be curious to hear your impressions of the aluminum vs brass versions. I bought the brass (black paint) version and while it feels heavy, like quality, etc, I'm somewhat regretting not going for the lighter version (which I assumed wouldn't feel as good).
Having tried both versions, I prefer the brass version. It's still very light at 284g but the Type I aluminum is noticeably lighter if that's a priority.
The extra 92 grams help with camera stabilization.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Update: I just received two extra copies today. (Another Type I and one Type II)
They seem to perform similarly to my first copy but I will update the resolution/contrast tests with better light once the weather cooperates. From the three copies I've tested, I'm impressed that they were all well centered and calibrated with the rangefinder. I have a feeling that tolerance is super tight with the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton.
Initially I really liked the matte black paint "Type I" style and most importantly its light weight. However, after testing the Type II brass version today, I changed my mind and now prefer this version.
I guess one couldn't go wrong with either style.
Here are a couple images showing the Type II "black paint" brass on the M10-R:...Show more →
Hmm, so the black paint matches my MP, and the matte black matches my 2022 M6.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
You're welcome! Happy to help and appreciate all your extensive testing.
I agree with you all all accounts in your assessment above--compact 1.2 lenses are no joke to design. Funny thing is, I wish this lens had as much (or more) SA than the 35/40/50 trio. I would’ve liked if they would’ve improved LoCal instead. I'll have some other testing I can post if you'd like—don’t want to hijack your thread!
Fred Miranda wrote:
For other FM members: If you already received your copy and would like to share some images, post it on this thread. I will link them to the review.
If you want to help me get a lens Fred I'll flood the thread
Thanks for the test shots. Could you or someone else test flare stopped down to say f8? That's when some lenses really get more severe veiling/ghosting.
nehemiahphoto wrote: Flare, Ghosting and Veiling:
In real world shooting, with strongly side and backlight situations, like sunsets, I found this CV 35/1.5 to produce some slight rainbow flare, definite ghosting artifacts but quite good in terms of veiling (maintaining contrast). In my experience, better than many lenses, but not as good as the CV 35/1.7. Some samples from the other night. All shot without a filter.
Not bad. I assume that these are from the lens mounted on a stock Sony. Wonder how it would exhibit this on an M?
Hi, glad to see the review of new Voigtlandder 35mm 1.5 and I bought it (type I, can't wait 3 weeks more for type II)last week and falled in love with it.
I got mine yesterday, Type I, what I wanted and tested it quickly on my way to work.
It seems better than the Summarit I like so much and more creamy with the benefit of 2 f-stops, a nicer focus ring (the Summarit is too smooth)
Looks like we got a winner.
The Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton's field curvature is well corrected, showing a small amount of outwards field curvature at mid distance. It's strongest at 1.5m and 2m and starts to flatten out towards infinity distance. So at long distance it's pretty much a flat field lens.
I will repost the resolution/contrast test whenever the weather improves (with my newer copy) but it's safe to say that the lens is sharp a center and extreme corners from wide open while there is a small mid-field dip which is not caused by field curvature. I was expecting this for this very compact and fast 35mm lens.
Here is a graphic representation showing the field curvature amount and shape at 1.5m, 2m, 3m and 7m:
FC at 1.5m: Outwards field curvature
FC at 2m: Outwards field curvature
FC at 3m: Starts to flatten out
FC at 7m: Gets flatter
At infinity distance the lens is pretty much flat field. The 100% crop in the LEFT shows the extreme corner focused at center while the one on the RIGHT shows the extreme corner focusing at the extreme corner. Virtually no difference.
