If you can try it on another camera or with another adapter, then one can rule out whether it's the camera, adapter or the lens. Adapters are a more likely to have swing or tilt issues than lenses. But, with that in mind, my last 3 Voigtlander lenses, which include this Skopar 50mm, were de-centred.
I do have another M to E adapter, a Voigtlander close-focus adapter (mk i) which I can try. Nevertheless, I do have other lenses that show the same kind of slight tilt on the FC and I have no complaints about those. Beside this, I don't really expect this lens to perform at its best when adapted to Sony cameras (but still, if the adapter is not the culprit, then is the lens...).
I can also test it on my A7R4, just to rule out the camera as a factor.
On the vignette issue, I recall reading on the huge medium format site at the dawn of digital, that the reason film was potentially superior was actually the opposite of the explanation offered here.
The theory was that film emulsions have thicknesses that contains a huge number of more or less randomly distributed particles in layers - be they dye clouds in color film or grain in BW - that are excited by light striking them. Whereas digital was thought to be less deep, more linear and more isolated in each 'receiving cell'. Hence the corner issues.
Again, only placed here from what was discussed twenty years back. Don't shoot me by accident, for merely providing information.
'Fixing leaves behind only the formed color dyes, which combine to make up the colored visible image. Later color films, like Kodacolor II, have as many as 12 emulsion layers,[4] with upwards of 20 different chemicals in each layer.'
That is of course critical to make sure your testing regiment is good. As mentioned above, make sure the ground you're focusing on is level and that ideally the camera is set up on a tripod.
My Skopar 50mm f/2.2 had asymmetry and the left mid-zone that never got as sharp as the right hand side.
Below is an f/4 infinity example of a near mid-zone comparison (mid distance between centre and edge). I took one image in normal orientation and one upside-down making sure the composition is the same. This isn't a swing issue or focus issue... The plane of focus was perfectly level on my tests, just that the plane of focus would always render fine detail worse on the left than the right.
Here is an f/5.6 example comparing the true mid zone (between centre and bottom left corner). One image in normal orientation and one upside-down making sure the composition is the same. Effectively comparing bottom left with top right of the lens.
I've never experienced this degree of asymmetry with Voigtlander as I did with this Skopar and the two APO-Lanthar 50mm f/3.5 lenses I purchased. The APO Lanthars were not much better but with different degrees of error.
I'm on my third copy of a Snapshot Skopar 25mm. It has somewhat less "asymmetry" than the second (which I kept) and considerably less than the first copy, which went back. When they're good, they're very good. When they're bad, they're horrid. I have another two Voigts with a slight degree of being off. On the other hand, I have a handful of Voigts (M & LTM) that are fine. For whatever reason, it feels like a crap shoot sometimes. It gets blamed on the sensor cover glass a lot of times...
mapgraphs wrote:
I'm on my third copy of a Snapshot Skopar 25mm. It has somewhat less "asymmetry" than the second (which I kept) and considerably less than the first copy, which went back. When they're good, they're very good. When they're bad, they're horrid. I have another two Voigts with a slight degree of being off. On the other hand, I have a handful of Voigts (M & LTM) that are fine. For whatever reason, it feels like a crap shoot sometimes. It gets blamed on the sensor cover glass a lot of times...
I'm willing to play this lottery if I lived in a place where returns were easy and possible. But yeah, it feels unnecessary. I suppose modern high res sensors, like that of the M11, are not helping the problem either.
Just went back re-doing my test, this time paying close attention to camera's position (horizontality). With the Voigtlander adapter the plane of focus is perfect, with the TTA 6 bit mk II adapter there still is a very slight shift in this plane. I concluded it is the TTA adapter at fault, alongside my slackness. The TTA adapter weights only 40grams, while the Voigtlander close-focus adapter (mk I) weights 120 grams.
Nevertheless, I am still curious to find out if this method is valid for checking the centering of a lens.
I think it's a valid data point for determining if there is something to further inspect. I believe Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals is a proponent of this for providing a quick reference.
From my experience I believe photographing a range of real world scenes that are typical of what you usually photograph is a good exercise because it will reveal lens quirks and possible problems that are directly relevant to your use cases. You can also include the usual 'brick wall' type tests because they will be informative about performance across a flat plane. I expect the stock Sony sensor glass will affect peripheral performance to some degree.
I'm curious to hear opinions on the way it handles. More specifically the focus tab/ring. Most people seem to love it but some say it feels too close to the body?
okmarzo wrote:
I'm curious to hear opinions on the way it handles. More specifically the focus tab/ring. Most people seem to love it but some say it feels too close to the body?
I really liked the size and handling of the lens. The focus tab was for me perfectly shaped. The focus feel was nicely dampened with a nice resistance that was neither light nor heavy. No funny binding or change in focus feel based on orientation of the camera (like my Ultron 35mm ASPH II, Nokton 75/1.5 ASPH, Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2)
Even as a lens that optically didn't impress me very much for the obviously defective copy I received, I find it hit the mark perfectly for handling. I don't find it a very good looking lens. I got the silver version since the black version struck as even uglier.
okmarzo wrote:
I'm curious to hear opinions on the way it handles. More specifically the focus tab/ring. Most people seem to love it but some say it feels too close to the body?
The only complaint I have is I wish the focus tab was about 50% thicker.
After about a week shooting this lens, I can say I like it quite a lot. The only thing I don't really like is its bokeh, as it looks too smooth to me. I wish it was a bit more structured.
catacore wrote:
After about a week shooting this lens, I can say I like it quite a lot. The only thing I don't really like is its bokeh, as it looks too smooth to me. I wish it was a bit more structured.
Few samples below:
Thanks for the samples! At close distances, like in the images you posted, the rendering appears smoother because there's less outlining in the specular highlights, accentuated by the higher blur. However, when the subjects are focused at mid-distance, the out-of-focus background rendering has more structure due to slightly more defined outlining. This is very evident when compared to the Voigtlander 50/2 APO, which has a more smooth and modern rendering at all distances.
