AcuteShadows
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · New Cosina Voigtländer 75/1.5 development announcement for Nikon Z | |
philip_pj wrote:
The conundrum is that middle weight lenses have little headroom when the weight is amplified with the new mount makeovers - so a 385 gram VM 75/1.5 plus Novoflex adapter gives way to a 530 gram lens. The extra 38% is unwelcome in such a lens because it pushes it deep into middle weight territory, and it sours a prospective purchase for weight-conscious photographers.
It might look like significant added weight for very little gain. You do get a knurled focus ring even though it is too close to the aperture ring for gloved hands, plus a 62mm filter thread (up from 58mm), and the niceties mentioned above. Maybe a screw in hood, I did not check.
I'd have to see carefully controlled VM/VZ comparisons in performance on a Z camera to feel that the change is what most users might regard as 'gains'. A similar case exists for the 50/1. It went from 484g to 598g, from just about the limit to a little too heavy.
The confused situation is a result of each Voigtlander lens's provenance. The 50/2 APO Z is just 20% heavier than the equivalent VM (347g -vs- 288g) and it's clearly a better lens, according to Cosina. This is because it was made for Sony first, then choked down to suit Leica aesthetics, VF requirements and user preferences. And to be a closer match for the M APO competing with it for sales.
The backdrop is that longer focal length lenses suffer far less from cross-mount adapting than lenses wider than 50mm. M lenses are ideal for this purpose because the adapter essentially 'disappears', being both light (35g) and thin (just 10mm difference in FFD). You literally have no situational awareness of it being there at the back of the lens.
I feel it's a great shame Cosina have done this poorly in the factory conversion exercise. Just stop and ponder this: imagine if they had put their resources into new lenses designed specifically at FE/Z/RF even at the same weight and size as this converted 75/1.5 lens, but at 90-100mm?
An example: Sony's great new GM 50/1.4 weighs less than this Z 75/1.5 (516g) and is a very complete design - 14 elements in 11 groups, with loads of asph surfaces. And it has excellent AF.
So it rankles that Cosina are so frugal with their M lenses' dimensions but do not show the same respect for their EVF camera customers. Sony began the EVF camera revolution in large part to met the pent up demand for small light cameras and lenses.
What is best and was first for Leica is what you will get here, plus a hefty (near 40%) weight penalty for simply adding electronic signalling and finishing the cosmetics so you think it was made for your camera. You can see where their heart is here. The new Z 75/1.5 is heavier than every one of their VM lenses. The M users would raise a loud chorus of opposition if Cosina tried to foist a 530 gram on them.
Luckily, Fred usually tests their better new VM lenses on a Sony body, so we do know what works and what does not, and why. Even then, people are using the 50/1 and other VMs on Sony bodies, because their particular photography does not require equality in edge performance and they like the deal outlined above for adapting VM lenses.
I'd be surprised if many such users swap to a much heavier converted design lens to chase the chimera of the last 1-2 percent of edge performance, in portrait lenses that have subjects centrally placed much of the time in any case. And whose outer frames are filled with gorgeous bokeh much of the time.
...Show more →
Smaller Z mount lenses would mean bringing the exit pupil closer to sensor plane, which results in more light rays not hitting the sensor perpendicularly (or close to that), causing chromatic aberrations. Thus, unless you do all that stuff that makes Leica lenses (and Leica sensors) so expensive, you are better off making lenses somewhat longer in order to accomodate a smaller flange distance.
|
