highdesertmesa wrote:
This review is writing itself as you go along!
That's why I prefer writing reviews in this format. It allows me to take my time, really get to know the lens, and most importantly, gather valuable feedback from all of you!
Well, that fifty didn't convince me. Somehow I don't see the magic. For me, the most interesting 50mm Voigtlander lens so far is the Nokton 50mm f1.5. Too bad the shortest focusing distance is only 0.7m.
Maybe post us an image or two from the 50/1.5 so we can see what the magic looks like? It's always more persuasive to show, don't tell, as they say. Otherwise it's just words from a stranger. Images we can share and view and inspect.
Ripolini wrote:
... maximum magnification (Type II) attainable with VM/E, or VM/Z, "close focus" adapters by Voigtlander.
According to Cosina website, the minimum focus distance of the VM 50/3.5 Type II with 'close focus' adapters is around 28cm. This should correspond to about 0.30 X magnification*.
*: by using the thin lens approximation (internodal distance = 0, and constant focal length), i.e., the relationship: D = F(1/M + M +2), where D is the focusing distance, F the focal length and M the magnification.
Plzenaak wrote:
Well, that fifty didn't convince me. Somehow I don't see the magic. For me, the most interesting 50mm Voigtlander lens so far is the Nokton 50mm f1.5. Too bad the shortest focusing distance is only 0.7m.
The difference in MFD for the f/3.5 at 0.35m... could be a strong attractor. In some regard, that's like putting on a TC to get additional magnification, and the resulting reduction in light that comes along for the ride. The size / weight difference to the 50/2 APO are also an attractant for some folks.
Something (crude concept) like this:
50/2 APO + 2X = f/4 APO
That of course, is different from the 50/1.5 II Vintage, where the design is similar to the 75/1.5 Vintage. At the moment ... I'm probably leaning toward the Vintage (since I liked the rendering of the 75), but that mfd of 0.35m isn't something to readily dismiss, either.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's why I prefer writing reviews in this format. It allows me to take my time, really get to know the lens, and most importantly, gather valuable feedback from all of you!
I was dead set on the f/2.2 but now this review has me wanting the 3.5. I wanted something compact and don't need speed (have the Lux) so was more focused on size/weight/rendering/sharpness. Fred, what is your preference between Type I and II with this lens? Is the aperture/focus ring being tied together much nuisance? I've never used a lens like that so hard for me to think about how it will impact normal workflow
Given the MFD / magnification of the 50/3.5 APO ... it begs the question of "if not" the 50/3.5 APO, then what (different focal lengths) other lens(s) might serve similar MFD duties, if someone went with the 2.0 APO, 2.2 or one of the Noktons for the 50mm?
RustyBug wrote:
Given the MFD / magnification of the 50/3.5 APO ... it begs the question of "if not" the 50/3.5 APO, then what (different focal lengths) other lens(s) might serve similar MFD duties, if someone went with the 2.0 APO, 2.2 or one of the Noktons for the 50mm?
None of the other MFDs even come close. The Leica 35 APO-M and the Voigtlander 75 1.9 are the only two M lenses I can think of that might provide similar magnification without using a macro adapter.
rsolti13 wrote:
I was dead set on the f/2.2 but now this review has me wanting the 3.5. I wanted something compact and don't need speed (have the Lux) so was more focused on size/weight/rendering/sharpness. Fred, what is your preference between Type I and II with this lens? Is the aperture/focus ring being tied together much nuisance? I've never used a lens like that so hard for me to think about how it will impact normal workflow
The 2.2 is way smaller than the 3.5 if you want compact.
rsolti13 wrote:
I was dead set on the f/2.2 but now this review has me wanting the 3.5. I wanted something compact and don't need speed (have the Lux) so was more focused on size/weight/rendering/sharpness. Fred, what is your preference between Type I and II with this lens? Is the aperture/focus ring being tied together much nuisance? I've never used a lens like that so hard for me to think about how it will impact normal workflow
Despite having the same focal length, the Voigtlander 50mm f/2.2 and 50mm f/3.5 APO-Lanthar offer different strengths. The 50mm f/2.2 is one of the smallest and lightest 50mm lenses for your Leica M, which is a camera that pairs well with smaller lenses for better ergonomics and rangefinder framelines.. While it does show noticeable vignetting when shot wide open,, it performs well across the board with no significant weaknesses, though aside from size, it doesn't excel in any particular area.
On the other hand, the Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 APO-Lanthar is a more specialized lens. It's not as compact but delivers the highest possible IQ for your Leica M. Although you might expect the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar to outperform it, my tests show their image quality is actually very similar. One area where the 50mm f/3.5 APO-Lanthar truly shines is its MFD, allowing you to capture close-up shots that no other lens for the M-system can achieve, with image quality that holds up even at close distances. Another standout feature is its zero distortion, a rarity among 50mm lenses. This lens also benefits from its APO design, and because of its f/3.5 maximum aperture, chromatic aberration is non-existent. The only downside so far is the f/3.5 maximum aperture.
As for the Type II aperture and focus ring linkage, I find it bothersome during testing because I prefer to keep focus constant while changing the aperture for some tests. However, in real-world shooting, it's not an issue for me since I typically set exposure with ISO, aperture, and shutter speed first, and then focus afterward. It might take some getting used to if you haven't worked with a lens like this before.The now-discontinued Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 Heliar also combined the aperture and focus in the same ring.
Update: I’ve confirmed that I’ll be receiving a Leica M11 loan from Leica in a few days. This will give me the chance to compare both Voigtlander 50mm APO-Lanthar lenses on the 61MP sensor. I’m also interested in seeing if the latest firmware has improved the stability of the M11 series, as I encountered several freezes with earlier versions.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Update: I’ve confirmed that I’ll be receiving a Leica M11 loan from Leica in a few days. This will give me the chance to compare both Voigtlander 50mm APO-Lanthar lenses on the 61MP sensor. I’m also interested in seeing if the latest firmware has improved the stability of the M11 series, as I encountered several freezes with earlier versions.
You of all people....don't see how you don't get an M11 after trying it right now. I loved my M10-R for multiple reasons, and was the best M I'd ever used. The M11 colors aren't anywhere near as good out of camera as the M10-R, but that can easily be fixed and the rendering/sharpness of the M11 files make you say wow when you open them in LR.
rsolti13 wrote:
You of all people....don't see how you don't get an M11 after trying it right now. I loved my M10-R for multiple reasons, and was the best M I'd ever used. The M11 colors aren't anywhere near as good out of camera as the M10-R, but that can easily be fixed and the rendering/sharpness of the M11 files make you say wow when you open them in LR.
I have mixed feelings about the M11 for several reasons. Initially, I was concerned about camera stability, especially after trying several M11 cameras with issues, though that seems to be less of an issue now. While the colors are accurate, they’re almost too precise for my taste, and there’s that magenta tint in all the images, which I’m not a fan of. The open sensor attracts more dust, and I find the shutter action (closing, opening, closing, and opening for every shot ) quite irritating... The shutter noise when turning the camera on reminds me of the M10-R in LV mode, which I also don’t like. It’s unclear how these extra actions will affect the shutter’s longevity.
On the upside, the M11 offers around 20% higher linear resolution, though this is mainly noticeable in the center of the frame if you use the right shutter speeds and has a high performer lens. The improved battery life is another plus, but beyond that, there’s not much else that stands out to me, especially since I focus with the rangefinder, which hasn’t changed at all.
I'll give the M11 another shot with the latest firmware, and if it impresses me, I might consider trying the new M11-D. But honestly, I'm really satisfied with the M10-R at the moment.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have mixed feelings about the M11 for several reasons. Initially, I was concerned about camera stability, especially after trying several M11 cameras with issues, though that seems to be less of an issue now. While the colors are accurate, they’re almost too precise for my taste, and there’s that magenta tint in all the images, which I’m not a fan of. The open sensor attracts more dust, and I find the shutter action (closing, opening, closing, and opening for every shot ) quite irritating... The shutter noise when turning the camera on reminds me of the M10-R in LV mode, which I also don’t like.
On the upside, the M11 offers around 20% higher linear resolution, though this is mainly noticeable in the center of the frame if you use the right shutter speeds and has a high performer lens. The improved battery life is another plus, but beyond that, there’s not much else that stands out to me, especially since I focus with the rangefinder, which hasn’t changed at all.
I'll give the M11 another shot with the latest firmware, and if it impresses me, I might consider trying the new M11-D. But honestly, I'm really satisfied with the M10-R at the moment....Show more →
You’ll probably like the electronic shutter + base ISO 64 for wide open shooting in bright daylight.
The M11 now has a menu option that closes the shutter when you change lenses or turn off the camera. I found stubborn dust spots a problem with the M10 cameras, the kind of dust that requires a wet cleaning versus a blower. On the M11, I found that everything that would get on the sensor could be blown off with a filtered bulb blower. Makes me wonder if they added a coating on the M11 cover glass to make it anti-static and/or hydrophobic, IDK.
highdesertmesa wrote:
You’ll probably like the electronic shutter for wide open shooting in bright daylight.
The M11 now has a menu option that closes the shutter when you change lenses or turn off the camera. I found stubborn dust spots a problem with the M10 cameras, the kind of dust that requires a wet cleaning versus a blower. On the M11, everything that got on the sensor could blow off with a filtered bulb blower. Makes me wonder if they added a coating on the M11 cover glass to make it more slippery, IDK.
I completely understand why many people enjoy shooting with electronic shutters, but it’s just not for me, especially with a Leica M. It takes away the joy of the experience for me personally. I enjoy the feel of mechanical components, and electronic advancements don’t really impress me. For that, I prefer shooting with other mirrorless cameras like the SL. I’m perfectly fine adding an ND filter when needed, just like I would when shooting film.
Dust was never an issue with the M10 series, even though I switch lenses frequently. However, I noticed significantly more dust with the M11, similar to what I see with my other mirrorless cameras.
I had the M11 for several months when it was first released, and as you mentioned, there have been improvements to the firmware regarding the shutter action. I’m curious to give it another try...
