Yes, some of the recently non-FLE Voigtlander lenses are surprisingly good at MFD.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I also wonder if you can achieve high contrast at MFD but are limited to strong central performance without FLE’s.
Do we know if lenses like the GM 35/1.4 incorporate some FLE type optics?
I suspect for strong across-frame wide open performance from a high speed lens, it's an argument for aspherical surfaces combined with FLE.
I'm not sure about the GM 35/1.4 but some mirrorless lenses have two separate focusing elements/groups that move independently depending on focusing distance. My guess is one probably does the bulk of focusing and the other optimizes sharpness (floats).
Steve Spencer wrote:
I find the residual SA a nice feature at focal distances of 1M or longer. I find the increase SA above that at closer distances not welcome, but that is just me. Perhaps others feel differently.
I also agree with Nehemiah that the recent f/1.5 lenses do really quite well at fairly short MFDs without a floating element design, but I also agree with Ron that might not work at f/1.2. I too would love to see an FLE in revised 35, 40, and 50 f/1.2 lenses from Cosina. In fact, I am skeptical they can have the kind of close up performance I would like to see without it. And while they are at it, I don't want them to clean up all the SA just the extra from focussing closely and if I can ask for even more I would love to see a few more APD elements to lower axial CA. ...Show more →
So basically a set of Nokton APO ASPH FLEs.
If Cosina wanted to go all out, they'd include a ring to dial-in the desired control of SA (or lack thereof), like with the old Nikon 105/2 and 135/2 DC (defocus control) lenses or the SA control ring on the Canon RF 100/2.8 macro (that helps control focus shift at certain distances). Or what MS Optical allows with some of their lenses.
Dec 18, 2024 at 04:58 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rscheffler wrote:
Yes, some of the recently non-FLE Voigtlander lenses are surprisingly good at MFD.
I suspect for strong across-frame wide open performance from a high speed lens, it's an argument for aspherical surfaces combined with FLE.
I'm not sure about the GM 35/1.4 but some mirrorless lenses have two separate focusing elements/groups that move independently depending on focusing distance. My guess is one probably does the bulk of focusing and the other optimizes sharpness (floats).
So basically a set of Nokton APO ASPH FLEs.
If Cosina wanted to go all out, they'd include a ring to dial-in the desired control of SA (or lack thereof), like with the old Nikon 105/2 and 135/2 DC (defocus control) lenses or the SA control ring on the Canon RF 100/2.8 macro (that helps control focus shift at certain distances). Or what MS Optical allows with some of their lenses. ...Show more →
They don't have to be APO, but I would like to see better control of CA. The CV 35 and 40 f/1.2 have zero APD elements and the 50 f/1.2 has one. Two or three APD elements won't give you a fully APO lens but it will improve the control of CA, and if they leave a little residual SA it will help mask the remaining CA as well. I think the 50 lux Asph, which Peter Karbe never labelled as fully APO despite thinking about it, is a good model for leaving a bit of residual SA and controlling but not totally eliminating CA. The Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 is a different model but an interesting comparison. It doesn't leave much residual SA at all and includes 3 APD elements, but doesn't fully control CA and in fact until stopped down to f/2.4 or so has moderately strong CA. I would have preferred that lens control CA more and residual SA less. It is still a great lens, but I am hoping for a different model. One that allows some flaws wide open--it can have some residual SA, some coma, some moderate CA, some vignette--but none of those flaws are extreme or completely eliminated. There is some control of all these aberrations, and all are gone by f/4 and the lens is very sharp across the frame. It is that sort of dual character lens that is balanced but not perfect wide open, but excellent stopped down that I would like to see. Who knows if it will be what Cosina makes.
I have always found those lenses that control SA with a ring interesting, but unnecessarily complex. I think if the lenses were just designed for moderate/modest SA wide open that is eliminated when stopped down that would be a better plan--let aperture control SA and not the ring.
Steve Spencer wrote:
They don't have to be APO, but I would like to see better control of CA. The CV 35 and 40 f/1.2 have zero APD elements and the 50 f/1.2 has one. Two or three APD elements won't give you a fully APO lens but it will improve the control of CA, and if they leave a little residual SA it will help mask the remaining CA as well. I think the 50 lux Asph, which Peter Karbe never labelled as fully APO despite thinking about it, is a good model for leaving a bit of residual SA and controlling but not totally eliminating CA. The Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 is a different model but an interesting comparison. It doesn't leave much residual SA at all and includes 3 APD elements, but doesn't fully control CA and in fact until stopped down to f/2.4 or so has moderately strong CA. I would have preferred that lens control CA more and residual SA less. It is still a great lens, but I am hoping for a different model. One that allows some flaws wide open--it can have some residual SA, some coma, some moderate CA, some vignette--but none of those flaws are extreme or completely eliminated. There is some control of all these aberrations, and all are gone by f/4 and the lens is very sharp across the frame. It is that sort of dual character lens that is balanced but not perfect wide open, but excellent stopped down that I would like to see. Who knows if it will be what Cosina makes.
I have always found those lenses that control SA with a ring interesting, but unnecessarily complex. I think if the lenses were just designed for moderate/modest SA wide open that is eliminated when stopped down that would be a better plan--let aperture control SA and not the ring....Show more →
I know our tastes can differ a bit, but I too would like if CV left some (or a lot) of SA but minimized CA. I’d also love if they backed off on optical vignetting as I think swirl bokeh, especially when the central part is the frame is abstracted, is unappealing.
I have a 73 Sonnetar that has a SA ring—after fiddling with it years ago to my liking, have touched it since. It doesn’t have to be complicated—and I’d rather have the option than not!
The issue with SA adjustment is that it disrupts the RF calibration, making it unsuitable for M lenses on Leica M bodies. However, it’s acceptable for live view shooting.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The issue with SA adjustment is that it disrupts the RF calibration, making it unsuitable for M lenses on Leica M bodies. However, it’s acceptable for live view shooting.
True. Except that Sonnetar has lots of focus shift and wasn’t calibrated despite I purchased new, so it ended up being a boon, though it did force me to decide between more SA or worse calibration 🤣 Classic MS Optics
Al Trujillo wrote:
CV 180/2 APO-Lanthar...for less than $1,200.00 !!
A friendly reminder it's currently December 2024 and not 1974!
Granted, in 1974 such a lens would pale in optical performance compared to the present, but it's about the threshold for when $1200 might have had the buying power for such a lens.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
True. Except that Sonnetar has lots of focus shift and wasn’t calibrated despite I purchased new, so it ended up being a boon, though it did force me to decide between more SA or worse calibration 🤣 Classic MS Optics
I’ve never bought an MS Optics lens that was properly calibrated to the rangefinder. I had to open each one and calibrate it myself!
The Sonnetar was particularly tricky because its rangefinder calibration varied depending on the distance. Yukosteel worked on my copy and had to do some grinding to ensure the focus was accurate throughout the entire range.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The issue with SA adjustment is that it disrupts the RF calibration, making it unsuitable for M lenses on Leica M bodies. However, it’s acceptable for live view shooting.
On the flip side, if you suddenly found the RF out of calibration with such a lens, you could just dial in more or less SA and potentially be back in sync, albeit with more or less SA and other bokeh qualities than desired.
While not quite the same thing, it reminds me of my 7Artisans 50/1.1, which has the ability to fine-tune RF calibration on the lens (like most or all 7A/TTA lenses). That lens has a ton of SA wide open that gradually diminishes on stopping down, along with considerable focus shift. So at least for me, it was a matter of picking the aperture/SA combo I preferred, which was around f/1.4 or f/1.7, and dialing in the calibration for that aperture in order to be able to correctly RF focus it.
So that's got me thinking, why not add lens/RF calibration capability to future VM lenses? Every VM lens I've recently owned has not been properly calibrated to my M240. It could be the camera, though it has been calibrated a couple times by Leica during the period I acquired some of those lenses, such as the VM 35/1.7, which requires about 2mm of front focusing on the focusing ring to focus on the point I want it to focus on.
rscheffler wrote:
A friendly reminder it's currently December 2024 and not 1974!
Granted, in 1974 such a lens would pale in optical performance compared to the present, but it's about the threshold for when $1200 might have had the buying power for such a lens.
Al Trujillo wrote:
CV 180/2 APO-Lanthar...for less than $1,200.00 !!
rscheffler wrote:
A friendly reminder it's currently December 2024 and not 1974!
Granted, in 1974 such a lens would pale in optical performance compared to the present, but it's about the threshold for when $1200 might have had the buying power for such a lens.
Al Trujillo wrote:
Someone told me once 'dream big, or go home!'
Well, if TTArtisan can release a 500/6.3 for $370, there might still be some hope. Not from Cosina/Voigtlander, but maybe one of the newbies will take up the challenge!
rscheffler wrote:
On the flip side, if you suddenly found the RF out of calibration with such a lens, you could just dial in more or less SA and potentially be back in sync, albeit with more or less SA and other bokeh qualities than desired.
While not quite the same thing, it reminds me of my 7Artisans 50/1.1, which has the ability to fine-tune RF calibration on the lens (like most or all 7A/TTA lenses). That lens has a ton of SA wide open that gradually diminishes on stopping down, along with considerable focus shift. So at least for me, it was a matter of picking the aperture/SA combo I preferred, which was around f/1.4 or f/1.7, and dialing in the calibration for that aperture in order to be able to correctly RF focus it.
So that's got me thinking, why not add lens/RF calibration capability to future VM lenses? Every VM lens I've recently owned has not been properly calibrated to my M240. It could be the camera, though it has been calibrated a couple times by Leica during the period I acquired some of those lenses, such as the VM 35/1.7, which requires about 2mm of front focusing on the focusing ring to focus on the point I want it to focus on....Show more →
It's funny you said that because a lot of people have been tweaking the SA ring, thinking it was for RF calibration! So yes, it would kind of work, except that only a certain distance would be calibrated. It's a weird lens design, but once tuned up, it becomes my favorite 75mm lens. The MS Optics 57/2 Petz also offers a SA ring for a special model called "Vario". I have the standard "History Series" without SA control though.
When it comes to calibrating Cosina lenses, they’ve made significant improvements over the years. Recent lenses have been perfectly calibrated for me, which wasn’t always the case in the past. Many of these lenses offer the option to adjust calibration by adding or removing shims, though this requires some disassembly. I appreciate the TTArtisan approach, as it eliminates worries about the lens being out of calibration. It’s a very straightforward tweak.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I’ve never bought an MS Optics lens that was properly calibrated to the rangefinder. I had to open each one and calibrate it myself!
The Sonnetar was particularly tricky because its rangefinder calibration varied depending on the distance. Yukosteel worked on my copy and had to do some grinding to ensure the focus was accurate throughout the entire range.
Yes, I am on that thread also tweaking the SA ring serval pagers earlier I just optimized my SA ring to focus accurately at 8-15 feet near WO. I could never get it consistent across distances either. Did you ever ask Yukosteel to try to tweak the (too long) MFD of the Sonnetar?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yes, I am on that thread also tweaking the SA ring serval pagers earlier I just optimized my SA ring to focus accurately at 8-15 feet near WO. I could never get it consistent across distances either. Did you ever ask Yukosteel to try to tweak the (too long) MFD of the Sonnetar?
I just re-read your comments there! It’s not an old thread. Unfortunately, no. My copy focuses down to 0.8m, which isn’t great but is almost at the limits of the RF. BTW, I have my SA ring set to 3, which seems to give me the results I want. However, I can tweak it when using LIVE VIEW, only having to remember to position it back to “3” when focusing with the RF.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just re-read your comments there! It’s not an old thread. Unfortunately, no. My copy focuses down to 0.8m, which isn’t great but is almost at the limits of the RF. BTW, I have my SA ring set to 3, which seems to give me the results I want. However, I can tweak it when using LIVE VIEW, only having to remember to position it back to “3” when focusing with the RF.
I actually just skimmed that whole thread quickly. Brings back a lot of nice memories and places for me, and that I’ve had the Sonnetar for sometime now. What a lovely lens
When I am in typical use, I put the coma adjustment at “3.” If the lighting is controlled though, “1” has even more character.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I actually just skimmed that whole thread quickly. Brings back a lot of nice memories and places for me, and that I’ve had the Sonnetar for sometime now. What a lovely lens
When I am in typical use, I put the coma adjustment at “3.” If the lighting is controlled though, “1” has even more character.
Yes, I agree. Setting '1' provides the most character with higher bokeh outlining and more glow, while 'INF' offers the least character with higher resolution and contrast. Setting '3' strikes a great balance that works well most of the time!
