mark1958 wrote:
I am sorry Prism was the wrong word. What I mean-- the light coming into the rangefinder focus mirror mechanism is separate from the sensor. So if the light from the lens comes through the viewfinder --how would only a single lens mis-focus? I would think if one lens mis-focuses, the others would as well. I am just asking because i really do not know.
Hi Mark,
It can be perplexing, but it's crucial to account for two variables: RF misalignment and lens misalignment. In the case of the Voigtlander 75mm f/1.9 Ultron, a high precision lens, optimal resolution and contrast are achievable only when the camera and lens are perfectly aligned. Assuming the camera's rangefinder is correctly adjusted both horizontally and vertically, it's simple to check whether the lens is well-aligned by first focusing with the rangefinder and then with liveview (sensor). If the results are consistent, then the lens is well-adjusted.
ok good to know.. even if I do not totally understand mechanistically how this might happen.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Mark,
It can be perplexing, but it's crucial to account for two variables: RF misalignment and lens misalignment. In the case of the Voigtlander 75mm f/1.9 Ultron, a high precision lens, optimal resolution and contrast are achievable only when the camera and lens are perfectly aligned. Assuming the camera's rangefinder is correctly adjusted both horizontally and vertically, it's simple to check whether the lens is well-aligned by first focusing with the rangefinder and then with liveview (sensor). If the results are consistent, then the lens is well-adjusted.
mark1958 wrote:
I am sorry Prism was the wrong word. What I mean-- the light coming into the rangefinder focus mirror mechanism is separate from the sensor. So if the light from the lens comes through the viewfinder --how would only a single lens mis-focus? I would think if one lens mis-focuses, the others would as well. I am just asking because i really do not know.
Because the two lenses in your situation are not the same. There are physical differences between them. One is incorrectly calibrated for use on the rangefinder, the other is not.
How do we think this lens compares to the ZM 85 or Loxia 85 as a high resolving, landscape specialist? I feel like it doesn’t have to be as high resolving as the ZM or Loxia to be considered an attractive option because of it’s size and maximum aperture, and it’s current sample images and sharpness already seem to be “good enough” for a lightweight f1.9 option.
Is there any reason to grab a ZM 85 or 85 Loxia over this 75/1.9 CV, other than Zeiss colors and contrast and maybe absolute sharpness (in the case of the Loxia)
akashyap wrote:
How do we think this lens compares to the ZM 85 or Loxia 85 as a high resolving, landscape specialist? I feel like it doesn’t have to be as high resolving as the ZM or Loxia to be considered an attractive option because of it’s size and maximum aperture, and it’s current sample images and sharpness already seem to be “good enough” for a lightweight f1.9 option.
Is there any reason to grab a ZM 85 or 85 Loxia over this 75/1.9 CV, other than Zeiss colors and contrast and maybe absolute sharpness (in the case of the Loxia)
Someone else can comment on "versus ZM and Loxia 85s", but as far as sharpness and resolving power at infinity, I was extremely impressed how sharp the corners were by f/4 on the M11. I wouldn't hesitate to use it alongside the highest performing M lenses I've used, the CV 35 and 50 APO.
akashyap wrote:
How do we think this lens compares to the ZM 85 or Loxia 85 as a high resolving, landscape specialist? I feel like it doesn’t have to be as high resolving as the ZM or Loxia to be considered an attractive option because of it’s size and maximum aperture, and it’s current sample images and sharpness already seem to be “good enough” for a lightweight f1.9 option.
Is there any reason to grab a ZM 85 or 85 Loxia over this 75/1.9 CV, other than Zeiss colors and contrast and maybe absolute sharpness (in the case of the Loxia)
The Loxia 85mm f/2.4 and the 85/4 ZM are both excellent compact lenses, with the former being a particularly strong performer. However, when stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller apertures, the 85/4 ZM is not too far behind. On the other hand, the Voigtlander 75/1.9 Ultron performs exceptionally well, with no visible weaknesses at small apertures, although it should be noted that this was tested only on the Leica M sensor. While I have not compared them directly, I would expect the Loxia to still have a slight edge, but the difference would likely be insignificant.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Both MC and SC versions are back in stock at CameraQuest right now.
I find it intriguing that the new Voigtlander 75/1.9 lens is not being carried by B&H Photo at present, as this is the first instance of such an occurrence that I have seen.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find it intriguing that the new Voigtlander 75/1.9 lens is not being carried by B&H Photo at present, as this is the first instance of such an occurrence that I have seen.
I don't think CameraQuest was sent enough copies to distribute as overflow from their initial demand. Maybe Cosina didn't think this lens would be as appealing as it is.
mark1958 wrote:
Maybe post Passover break--- BH photo will list in stock? I purchased from Cameraquest
It is unusual based on their history, but B&H Photo currently does not have the new Voigtlander 75/1.9 lens listed. Adorama, on the other hand, has listed the lens, but it is currently on backorder.
My replacement 75 1.9 arrived today! Very happy to report that it's a good copy – well-centered, well-calibrated with the rangefinder wide open, and rangefinder alignment at infinity at the hard stop is perfect. Whew.
(I had rolled my first perfect copy off a table onto a tile floor, and my second copy wasn't calibrated well with the rangefinder when shot wide open.)
I really like how this lens pairs up with the 35 1.5. As of today, I believe these are the only two matte black paint Voigtlander lenses in their lineup. Both are lightweight aluminum, compact, and a nice balance between character and high IQ.
I have to give myself a virtual pat on the back from not succumbing to the lure of heavy M lenses this time around. I briefly fell off the wagon with the 50 f/1, but have since recovered
Still on my list to purchase is the 50 Cron Safari to pair with my 28 Cron Safari. That should complete my small M lens set with 28/35/50/75, which can be split into matching 28/50 or 35/75 sets.
highdesertmesa wrote:
My replacement 75 1.9 arrived today! Very happy to report that it's a good copy – well-centered, well-calibrated with the rangefinder wide open, and rangefinder alignment at infinity at the hard stop is perfect. Whew.
(I had rolled my first perfect copy off a table onto a tile floor, and my second copy wasn't calibrated well with the rangefinder when shot wide open.)
I really like how this lens pairs up with the 35 1.5. As of today, I believe these are the only two matte black paint Voigtlander lenses in their lineup. Both are lightweight aluminum, compact, and a nice balance between character and high IQ.
I have to give myself a virtual pat on the back from not succumbing to the lure of heavy M lenses this time around. I briefly fell off the wagon with the 50 f/1, but have since recovered
Still on my list to purchase is the 50 Cron Safari to pair with my 28 Cron Safari. That should complete my small M lens set with 28/35/50/75, which can be split into matching 28/50 or 35/75 sets....Show more →
Great to hear you got an optimal copy. Don't drop it!
Finally got around to importing and looking at some of the pictures with this lens. I believe all of these were shot wide open except the last two. Will post a few more at different apertures.
Edit: Sorry - it took a few tries to get the right way to post from flickr and fix the resolution.
Testing out close focus at f/1.9. These are from MFD to ~0.7m. The little Santa candle is about 3.25" high and is sitting on an average-sized ceramic drink coaster.
Parallax at 0.7m does not allow accurate composition with the rangefinder, so even though focus was coming out correct, I had to switch to live view. If I had to use the rangefinder with this lens (or any 75mm at 0.7m), I would need to more loosely frame the scene and crop later.
Is anyone else's focus ring on this lens fairly stiff? The 75 1.9 I used to own was extremely fluid/loose focusing, but this lens (or my copy of this lens) is at the other end of the spectrum for stiffness.
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/75 lens75mmf/2.41/360s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/75 lens75mmf/1.41/400s64 ISO-0.7 EV
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/75 lens75mmf/1.71/180s64 ISO0.0 EV
Only cropped for square format, not a magnified image
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/75 lens75mmf/2.81/160s100 ISO-0.7 EV
LEICA M11Summilux-M 1:1.4/75 lens75mmf/2.41/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
Focus ring on mine is pretty stiff too, compared to my Leica 35 and 50 luxs. I seem to remember my CV Ultron 28 was smooth. Maybe it gets better with use? Does not bother me though. Figured it just takes a little getting used to. Also, in a way the extra stiffness helps getting the focus accurate.
stockshas wrote:
Focus ring on mine is pretty stiff too, compared to my Leica 35 and 50 luxs. I seem to remember my CV Ultron 28 was smooth. Maybe it gets better with use? Does not bother me though. Figured it just takes a little getting used to. Also, in a way the extra stiffness helps getting the focus accurate.
Thanks. The stiffness does make it easier to focus than the 75 1.5 I used to own, which was too loose considering the short focus throw. I guess I've gotten spoiled with the focus feel of the CV 35 1.5, which is crazy nice.
Well, the hood on this thing is really thin. Somehow already managed to bump it on something which slightly bent a side a bit flat. Don't even remember hitting anything with it. It's so thin, though, that I was easily able to bend it back to normal. I worked the flat spot against a round broom handle with a cloth over the handle to protect the hood.
My two cents: throw the hood in the box and leave it there. It doesn't help much with flare, and makes the lens longer than it needs to be. + It comes unscrewed too easily, and if it doesn't, it's so tight, the filter will stay attached to it when removing the hood. Too many screwy parts to get all the tension right. Just reminds me why I hate hoods that screw into the lens filter threads.
