I’m using the E mount version. It adapts quite well but it is very picky on adapter thickness. You’ll want to get an adapter that is bang on with regards to thickness. If you have one that’s too thin it degrades image quality dramatically (massive induced field curvature so that it’s impossible to get everything in focus). At the correct registration it’s great.
I tried an CV E mount 21/1.4 on various Z cameras using a couple of cheap dumb adapters-a Haoge (from Amazon) and the dumb Fotodiox; No go on those. When used with a CV 21/1.4E, the combo showed pronounced blur at the sides of the frame. I'll wait to see what CV does in Z mount.
You know, there are people who criticize the ALs as being unsuitable for people photography and having unpleasant bokeh - just a 'landscape lens'. Can't say as I agree!
I bought the 50mm f2 APO due to FOMO with it ceasing production. I wasn’t sure I needed it alongside my 35mm f2 but I’m really pleased I bought it. It’s been wonderful on our Crete holiday (including a trip to Santorini). The 35mm wouldn’t have worked so well though it’s better in other circumstances. I didn’t bring the 35mm to force myself to use the 50mm.
Love both these lenses and their size on the Zf is wonderful, they even make the 24-70 f4 seem big.
A day with house-cleaning and laundry, but I managed to look at some flowers. Zf with APO-Lanthar 50mm, picture control auto, Jpegs, one cut to a square and made B/W in PS.
Clivem2 wrote:
I bought the 50mm f2 APO due to FOMO with it ceasing production. I wasn’t sure I needed it alongside my 35mm f2 but I’m really pleased I bought it. It’s been wonderful on our Crete holiday (including a trip to Santorini). The 35mm wouldn’t have worked so well though it’s better in other circumstances. I didn’t bring the 35mm to force myself to use the 50mm.
Love both these lenses and their size on the Zf is wonderful, they even make the 24-70 f4 seem big.
Your FOMO and mentioning, plus my prior usage with the E-mount version gave me FOMO suddenly, and I went and bought one from Cameraquest.
However, I was looking at the Voigtlander website, and was surprised to see that while they have the same number of lens elements, the optical formula appears to be significantly different for the Z mount version of the lens - has anyone directly compared them? Is the Z mount version every bit as good (or somehow even better) than the E-Mount version?
The text on the page says it "inherits the same optical system as the E and VM mount version" (though those differ slightly too in the block diagrams). Here are the block diagrams shown on the pages:
E-mount:
Z-mount:
The 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar shows identical block diagrams between the two mount versions, so I'm very curious.
The filename of the jpg image clearly refers to the construction of the D23 mm f/1.2 lens.
Therefore, they show the optical scheme of the Voigtlander D23 mm f/1.2 Nokton (https://www.voigtlaender.de/z-mount/d23-mm-11-2-nokton/?lang=en) in the Z 50/2 Apo-Lanthar webpage.
Ripolini wrote:
The filename of the jpg image clearly refers to the construction of the D23 mm f/1.2 lens.
Therefore, they show the optical scheme of the Voigtlander D23 mm f/1.2 Nokton (https://www.voigtlaender.de/z-mount/d23-mm-11-2-nokton/?lang=en) in the Z 50/2 Apo-Lanthar webpage.
