nehemiahphoto wrote:
I would enjoy if CV ported their 35/2 Ultron to other mounts.
Not sure about that particular lens, but I think it's easy to forget that very compact lenses might not have a sufficiently large image circle to allow for IBIS. That is probably one of the reasons that not all Voigtländer M lenses come in other mount versions as well. For example, I highly doubt that the 35/1.5 would fare well on a sensor with IBIS, since it vignettes alot already with a stationary sensor.
Makten wrote:
Not sure about that particular lens, but I think it's easy to forget that very compact lenses might not have a sufficiently large image circle to allow for IBIS. That is probably one of the reasons that not all Voigtländer M lenses come in other mount versions as well. For example, I highly doubt that the 35/1.5 would fare well on a sensor with IBIS, since it vignettes alot already with a stationary sensor.
It’s even easier to forget when you don’t know Makes senses but I hasn’t considered it
Dec 21, 2024 at 12:05 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
nehemiahphoto wrote:
It’s even easier to forget when you don’t know Makes senses but I hasn’t considered it
I think the image circle of Voigtlander lenses is an interesting issue that Makten raises and it is an issue that we can actually investigate. There is an M adapter for the Fuji GFX cameras that lets us see how big the image circle is by examining performance on that bigger sensor. The answer isn't always simple. Sometimes there is coverage at a bit wider than 43mm in diameter but the coverage comes with not very good performance.
One lens I have shot a fair bit on the Fuji GFX is the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 in M mount. It does not have a very big image circle and for my tastes needs a lot of cropping on the GFX. I wonder whether one of the reasons that it took Voigtlander so long to bring this out in mirrorless mounts and one of the reasons that the mirrorless lenses are so much bigger and heavier than the Leica M mount version is that Cosina thought they had to tweak the lens to expand the image circle for IBIS on mirrorless mounts.
Now we know from Fred's test that the M mount version performs as well on Sony cameras as Leica M cameras even into the corners at infinity focus, but I would think Fred did those tests with IBIS shut off and he shot those from a tripod. If I get time after the holidays maybe I will investigate that issue a bit further and see if IBIS on that lens deteriorate far corner performance. I know personally I wouldn't care if it did as I almost always crop to a 4 X 3 image ratio, but it would be good to know whether IBIS affects the far corners of that lens and if it does it might help explain why the mirrorless versions of that lens are so much bigger than the Leica M mount version. I can also shoot the lens on the GFX so we can see just what the image circle looks like.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the image circle of Voigtlander lenses is an interesting issue that Makten raises and it is an issue that we can actually investigate. There is an M adapter for the Fuji GFX cameras that lets us see how big the image circle is by examining performance on that bigger sensor. The answer isn't always simple. Sometimes there is coverage at a bit wider than 43mm in diameter but the coverage comes with not very good performance.
One lens I have shot a fair bit on the Fuji GFX is the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 in M mount. It does not have a very big image circle and for my tastes needs a lot of cropping on the GFX. I wonder whether one of the reasons that it took Voigtlander so long to bring this out in mirrorless mounts and one of the reasons that the mirrorless lenses are so much bigger and heavier than the Leica M mount version is that Cosina thought they had to tweak the lens to expand the image circle for IBIS on mirrorless mounts.
Now we know from Fred's test that the M mount version performs as well on Sony cameras as Leica M cameras even into the corners at infinity focus, but I would think Fred did those tests with IBIS shut off and he shot those from a tripod. If I get time after the holidays maybe I will investigate that issue a bit further and see if IBIS on that lens deteriorate far corner performance. I know personally I wouldn't care if it did as I almost always crop to a 4 X 3 image ratio, but it would be good to know whether IBIS affects the far corners of that lens and if it does it might help explain why the mirrorless versions of that lens are so much bigger than the Leica M mount version. I can also shoot the lens on the GFX so we can see just what the image circle looks like....Show more →
Maybe a few of their lenses are tweaked for larger image circle, but I think the main reason for other-than-M-mount versions being larger is that they have much shorter MFD. Which requires a much larger helicoid.
I know and have experimented with the GFX in terms of full frame lenses, and what coverage they offer. Interestingly, the CV 35/1.7 covers the GFX entirely at near to mid distance. I never tried it out infinity. So does the 73 Sonnetar and 31 Pentax. But I never considered it in terms of IBIS
I know and have experimented with the GFX in terms of full frame lenses, and what coverage they offer. Interestingly, the CV 35/1.7 covers the GFX entirely at near to mid distance. I never tried it out infinity. So does the 73 Sonnetar and 31 Pentax. But I never considered it in terms of IBIS
Well, IMO vignetting should be defined at infinity, because in most cases it will be worst there. The unit focusing classic designs will give a larger image circle the closer you focus, simply because the whole lens assembly is moving away from the sensor.
Also, "coverage" isn't defined. I know a lot of lenses that I find unusable on GFX, where others claim they "cover perfectly" just because the corners are not pitch black.
Makten wrote:
Well, IMO vignetting should be defined at infinity, because in most cases it will be worst there. The unit focusing classic designs will give a larger image circle the closer you focus, simply because the whole lens assembly is moving away from the sensor.
Also, "coverage" isn't defined. I know a lot of lenses that I find unusable on GFX, where others claim they "cover perfectly" just because the corners are not pitch black.
Yeah—I meant that the those lenses do not offer “hard vignetting,” as in, the image circle is covered even if darkened. Lots of lenses I tried like a Minolta 100/2, 75 Lux, CV 40/1.2 (m-mount) and others were simple black—not photons were getting to the sensor periphery.
My opinion varies from yours because I am interested in how the lenses perform in my actual usage cases. Perhaps they offer full coverage at infinity, I just did a check.
Even with native lenses, I am interested in their performance at the aperture and the distances I shoot them at. Otherwise, it is more academic.
Makten wrote:
Maybe a few of their lenses are tweaked for larger image circle, but I think the main reason for other-than-M-mount versions being larger is that they have much shorter MFD. Which requires a much larger helicoid.
Almost all of the Voigtlander lenses in E mount are less than 90g heavier than the same lens in Leica M mount and part of that is of course the extra length from the shorter registration distance of E mount, and you are right part of that extra weight is the extra helicoid because of the shorter MFD on all the Sony E mount lenses. The 75 f/1.5, however, is different from all the other E mount lenses. It weighs 165g more in Sony E mount than it does in Leica M mount and the difference in MFD is only .7M vs. .55M which is less than the difference in MFD for the other lenses and yet it has that much bigger weight difference. That heavier weight and the performance of the Leica M 75 f/1.5 on the GFX that suggests it has a quite small image circle has led me to speculate that Cosina tweaked the lens to expand the image circle when they made the E mount version. I could easily be wrong but I think it is a possibility.
Here's what I'd want, which will be the least likely lenses Voigtlander would ever make:
A set of small rangefinder-coupled 1.3x or 1.6x anamorphic f/2 lenses for stills shooting (would still work for video but no video-centric features like focus gearing or large filter diameters).
And while I'm at it, they could give us:
A set of large M-mount lenses with an image circle designed to work with the Fujifilm G and Hasselblad X mount sensors. Alongside these, they would offer their own M to G and X mount adapters with macro helicoids.
Not sure if Voigtländer has to join the l-mount alliance for making l mount versions of current M lenses. Would be Interesting for all l mount cameras…
Dec 24, 2024 at 06:49 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
DonaldM wrote:
Not sure if Voigtländer has to join the l-mount alliance for making l mount versions of current M lenses. Would be Interesting for all l mount cameras…
I think there are two things that will likely prevent Cosina from joining the L-mount alliance or making L-mount lenses. First, there is of course good adapters from Leica M mount to Leica L mount, adapters that are even approved by the L-mount alliance. Second, the L-mount cameras vary quite significantly in their sensor cover glass thickness with Leica L-mount cameras having quite thin cover glass (and therefore working quite well with Leica M mount lenses), and Panasonic and Sigma cameras having thicker cover glass. If you are Cosina, and you make an L-mount lens, then it isn't clear for which cameras you optimize your lenses. This isn't a problem for most L-mount lenses as they have longer exit pupils, but it would be a problem for Cosina Voigtlander lenses.
In the meantime, you can get great performance from most Voigtlander Leica M mount lenses on a Leica L-mount camera with a simple M to L mount adapter.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think there are two things that will likely prevent Cosina from joining the L-mount alliance or making L-mount lenses. First, there is of course good adapters from Leica M mount to Leica L mount, adapters that are even approved by the L-mount alliance. Second, the L-mount cameras vary quite significantly in their sensor cover glass thickness with Leica L-mount cameras having quite thin cover glass (and therefore working quite well with Leica M mount lenses), and Panasonic and Sigma cameras having thicker cover glass. If you are Cosina, and you make an L-mount lens, then it isn't clear for which cameras you optimize your lenses. This isn't a problem for most L-mount lenses as they have longer exit pupils, but it would be a problem for Cosina Voigtlander lenses.
In the meantime, you can get great performance from most Voigtlander Leica M mount lenses on a Leica L-mount camera with a simple M to L mount adapter....Show more →
I always got the impression that all M-lenses suffer from degradation in the corners (here in this forum and Reidreviews) even on SL cameras. I have an old SL601 (and M8 and M6) together with (also) older M lenses (Elmarit-m 21mm, Summicron 40 and 90mm, Elmar-m 50mm, Zeiss Sonnar 50mm 1.5, Voigtlander Nokton 40mm 1.4), so cannot really test it out with a modern, say Voigtländer Apo Lanthar. I guess I’ll have to try it out…
There is one new lens for E-mount in the list, but no further details yet:
PORTRAIT HELIAR 75mm F1.8
Nothing new is listed for Z or RF or X mounts, but according to their updated Zeiss lens list for CP+ they'll have both Otus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 at CP+ available to be tried at their counter on all 3 mounts E/Z/RF.
Other new lenses are all for VM:
APO-LANTHAR 28mm F2 Aspherical (VM)
NOKTON 35mm F1.2 IV (VM)
NOKTON 40mm F1.2 II (VM)
NOKTON 50mm F1.2 II (VM)
