ashwinrao1 wrote:
Great commentary, debate, and talk regarding the technical merits and potential distractions of the lens, along with how to best define reference. I very much enjoyed the debate around RF vs telecentric lens design, and how positioning of rear elements to the sensor (depending on the sensor stack glass thickness) may impact how the edges of the image is resolved, and the price paid for the compromises we accept. I for example, have very little interest in SL lenses, which resolve better and are more perfectly corrected compared to their M lens counterparts, due to the size and handling of those lenses. For me, the size and portability of the M system facilitates me in taking the setup wherever I may roam. As a few others have noted, I am also very much into the "detail peeping" aspects of the lens, but when it comes down to it, I find that any lens that pleases me in its rendering and physical haptic/handling properties tends to get used more often once the honeymoon period has concluded. This lens seems to fit that bill for me. It's not perfect, but heck, what is perfect anyways?
A few more images of the Type II on the M11 Mono (mostly taken wide open, because):
Hi Ashwin, long time i don't see your posts, (i remember your images from Steve huff site).
The BW images look great! But the color one, the one outside, has a very strong purple cast, is that the case with all color images, or it was due to the lighting. Thanks!
Malabito wrote:
Hi Ashwin, long time i don't see your posts, (i remember your images from Steve huff site).
The BW images look great! But the color one, the one outside, has a very strong purple cast, is that the case with all color images, or it was due to the lighting. Thanks!
Thanks so much! I haven’t been reviewing gear (I do have a YouTube channel, but it’s really in its infancy) as much recently but shooting pretty regularly . The color cast may well have been my/Lightroom processing or an auto WB foible. I didn’t process most of these files much to keep things closer to what they look like out of camera.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think you are missing that size and optical quality are still a trade off even with MILCs. So far Canon has only made two small RF mount lenses with some optical tradeoffs and they are very small lenses (a 28 f/2.8 that weighs just 120g and is just 24.7mm long; and a 50 f/1.8 that weighs just 160g and is just 40.5mm long) and Nikon has just three such lenses in their compact prime line of lenses (a 26 f/2.8 which weigh just 125g and is 23.5mm long; a 28 f/2.8 that weighs 160g and is 40.5mm long, and a 40 f/2 that weighs 170g and is 45.5mm long). These lenses are fat, but they are light and short. Sigma has actually made the most small primes with their i-series lenses. They haven't made a 28mm lens yet, but they do have a 24 f/2 that weighs 365g and is 70mm X 72mm (diameter X length) and they have a 35 f/2 that is 325g and 70mm X 65mm (diameter X length). So these lenses aren't as small as the Voigtlander lenses, but not that far off either. They are similar in weight due to more use of plastics. They are substantially fatter, but only a bit longer given about 8mm longer would be expected because of the short registration distance.
So, if you want small from mirrorless then it is out there it just hasn't been a priority and is slowly emerging, but if you have a wider mount, of course the lenses will be fatter. I think the reason to buy the Voigtlander lenses for mirrorless mount is not really the small size, but because you like how they operate and you like the optical qualities of the lenses. Sometimes this is sheer optical performance like the APO Lanthars, sometimes this is the rendering like the 35 f/1.4 classic, the 40 f/1.2, or the 50 f/1.0, sometimes this is even the angle of view like the 15 f/4.5 (although I suspect this one exists for mirrorless mounts because it for some reason, perhaps the narrow aperture, didn't need hardly any adjustment for the thicker cover glass of mirrorless cameras).
I don't expect Voigtlander to port many of their VM lenses to mirrorless mounts unless it is really easy to do so without significant optical compromises and even then they will probably need to see sales opportunities in mirrorless. I would be shocked to see any of the f/1.5 lenses ever ported to mirrorless. I think too many mirrorless shooters would just see it as a weird aperture. I don't expect them to port unusual focal lengths for mirrorless like 75mm either, even though these lenses I think would be easier to port without much change in the optics. If the 35, 50, and 65 APO Lanthars sold well then I could see them bring the 110 APO Lanthar to the other mounts beside E mount and they might bring out a 28 APO Lanthar. I have not heard these are selling well, however. They might port the 90 f/2.8 APO color-skopar, and perhaps make a 28 f/2.8 APO color-skopar, but I am not sure the 90 is even selling well in VM mount and there is an F-mount version of this lens that could be easily adapted to mirrorless as well presumably with no optical penalties. The 21 f/1.4 which is available in E-mount also seems like an obvious candidate to bring out in mirrorless but I am not sure that has sold at all well in E-mount so perhaps they don't want to try bringing it out in other mounts. Suffice it to say that I don't think we will see a lot more lenses from Voigtlander for mirrorless mounts and I would be really surprised if the 28 f/1.5 were ever made in any mirrorless mount, but I would be very happy to be wrong....Show more →
Currently, Cosina is primarily concentrating on adapting existing successful M-lenses to the Nikon Z-mount while also working on creating entirely new designs for the Fuji X-mount. Their X-mount latest releases have been ultra-compact lenses (equivalent to 28 and 40mm full frame). These lenses are delightful to use on small Fuji cameras, being similar in size to the CV 28/2.8 Color Skopar (Type II) but even lighter. I will be reviewing the new CV 18/2.8 X-mount lens when it becomes available next week. As of now, I haven't heard anything about a new E-mount from them.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Currently, Cosina is primarily concentrating on adapting existing successful M-lenses to the Nikon Z-mount while also working on creating entirely new designs for the Fuji X-mount. Their X-mount latest releases have been ultra-compact lenses (equivalent to 28 and 40mm full frame). These lenses are delightful to use on small Fuji cameras, being similar in size to the CV 28/2.8 Color Skopar (Type II) but even lighter. I will be reviewing the new CV 18/2.8 X-mount lens when it becomes available next week. As of now, I haven't heard anything about a new E-mount from them.
Thanks Fred! I am very interested in the Fuji 28 and 40 CV releases. Assuming an X-Pro4 is released this year and the OVF supports 28mm framelines (Xpro 3 doesn't support 28) this setup could be very compelling.
I received my Type II Black Paint today. Focusing is great, smooth as should be expected, however the aperture ring is stiffer than I would like. No problem, and I think it will likely loosen up over time. I also discovered that the lens hood for my Zeiss ZM 50 (also used for the ZM 35) fits this lens, which is nice for now until I figure out whether I want to get a different hood. From some quick test shots it doesn't look like it has any effect on the already strong vignetting. Looking forward to a short trip with this lens paired with a Leica Summilux 50 ASPH.
photonc wrote:
Thanks Fred! I am very interested in the Fuji 28 and 40 CV releases. Assuming an X-Pro4 is released this year and the OVF supports 28mm framelines (Xpro 3 doesn't support 28) this setup could be very compelling.
I have a feeling the Xpro line is discontinued. The 3 was cancelled w/o a replacement. I really like my Xpro3 but all the stories of the failing rear screen made me unload mine while it was still working.
Valorin wrote:
I received my Type II Black Paint today. Focusing is great, smooth as should be expected, however the aperture ring is stiffer than I would like. No problem, and I think it will likely loosen up over time. I also discovered that the lens hood for my Zeiss ZM 50 (also used for the ZM 35) fits this lens, which is nice for now until I figure out whether I want to get a different hood. From some quick test shots it doesn't look like it has any effect on the already strong vignetting. Looking forward to a short trip with this lens paired with a Leica Summilux 50 ASPH....Show more →
The aperture ring in my sample also has much more resistance than the 28mm Ultron II, but it's not a big issue, and it moves smoothly between the clicks. The clicks are still felt (but less clearly than in the Ultron since that moves quite easily), and the extra force needed to move the aperture will make sure I don't change f-stop unintentionally. The focus ring is smooth with "the right" amount of resistance.
The Voigtländer LH-6 and the Zeiss ZM 35/50 lens hood are exactly the same. No need to buy a separate hood for the Nokton 28mm, if you have one of them
jgeenen wrote:
The Voigtländer LH-6 and the Zeiss ZM 35/50 lens hood are exactly the same. No need to buy a separate hood for the Nokton 28mm, if you have one of them
Before Haoge started making their knockoffs, I would buy the Voigtlander version for my Zeiss lenses as it was $20 cheaper than the Zeiss version.
Both made in the same Cosina factory, only difference is one has Zeiss written on it, the other Voigtlander.
jgeenen wrote:
The Voigtländer LH-6 and the Zeiss ZM 35/50 lens hood are exactly the same. No need to buy a separate hood for the Nokton 28mm, if you have one of them
---------------------------------------------
Desmolicious wrote:
Before Haoge started making their knockoffs, I would buy the Voigtlander version for my Zeiss lenses as it was $20 cheaper than the Zeiss version.
Both made in the same Cosina factory, only difference is one has Zeiss written on it, the other Voigtlander.
I was not aware of this. Thanks for mentioning it, although the Zeiss lens is even more expensive.
LarsHP wrote:
The aperture ring in my sample also has much more resistance than the 28mm Ultron II, but it's not a big issue, and it moves smoothly between the clicks. The clicks are still felt (but less clearly than in the Ultron since that moves quite easily), and the extra force needed to move the aperture will make sure I don't change f-stop unintentionally. The focus ring is smooth with "the right" amount of resistance.
In my experience with my own copies, I've noticed that the aperture ring of the CV 28/1.5 lens shares similarities with that of the CV 35/2 and 50/2 APO-Lanthar lenses in terms of how they rotate and the precision of the clicks.
My conclusions so far regarding the optical qualities of the 28mm Nokton:
Good:
Sharpness from wide open in most of the frame from infinity to about 1 meter.
Sharpness wide open in the center, even at MFD (0.5 meter).
Flare and ghosting is very well suppressed.
Great sun-stars when stopped down a bit.
Bokeh in the central image area.
Transition zone in the central image.
Average:
Optical vignetting. Sometimes this will be visible is you look for it.
Overall bokeh behavior.
Bokeh-balls, or points of light behind the plane of focus, creates balls of light with a highlighted edge, when the lens is wide open. In the central area, these outlinings are minimized when stopping down to f/2.8 or more.
Bad:
Sharpness away from center at or near MFD. (EDIT: wide open)
Bokeh away from center at certain distances: Transition zone well away from the center of the image, when structures with lines pointing to the center of the image sometimes yields "double-drawing" (looks like a shaken image) instead of just blurring.
Wide open and well away from the center, bokeh balls become more or less squares with highlighted edges. The outlining of the bokeh balls (or squares) away from center never disappears when stopping down.
LarsHP wrote:
..Sharpness away from center at or near MFD...
I don't doubt this as it was a character trait of the 35 1.5, but did you test this on an M body using the Visoflex to focus? On a non-M mirrorless camera, the performance in the same conditions (close distance, wide open, off center) with the 35 1.5 was noticeably worse than it was on the M. With the 35 1.5 on M, I'd considered it average performance in those conditions, whereas on non-M it was definitely below average.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I don't doubt this as it was a character trait of the 35 1.5, but did you test this on an M body using the Visoflex to focus? On a non-M mirrorless camera, the performance in the same conditions (close distance, wide open, off center) with the 35 1.5 was noticeably worse than it was on the M. With the 35 1.5 on M, I'd considered it average performance in those conditions, whereas on non-M it was definitely below average.
I understand where you are coming from. I use a Kolari Ultra-Thin sensor glass modified Nikon Z6. It should perform similarly as a Leica M11, but in only 24MP resolution.
Also, if you check sample images done with digital M cameras, like Fred's and others in this thread, they look as I describe it above.
Great photos and blog post! I also have the ZF and noticed that the highlights, when using CV lenses look a little overexposed. Probably related to the camera exposure using non chipped lenses. Wondering if you have noticed the same.
