Can anyone with experience of using both this Ultron APO and the Zeiss ZM 85mm f/4.0 comment on how they compare, particularly with respect to contrast, for landscapes and travel? Even better if you could also comment on the CV 75mm f/1.5 Nokton.
Edit to add: flare resistance is important to me; I often shoot with the sun in or near the frame, particularly when it’s low in the sky.
I actually have the CV Nokton, which is a good lens but, for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on, I’ve never enjoyed using it as much as my other lenses. I’d also quite like a slightly longer focal length (although that isn’t a deciding factor). I realise that the ZM is somewhat longer (although smaller diameter), but it’s also a little lighter. And I know that the ZM is an older design and no longer available new, but I do really like the Zeiss ZM character. I was interested to see @rsolti ‘s opinion from about a year ago, a few pages back in this discussion.
Andrew CD wrote:
Can anyone with experience of using both this Ultron APO and the Zeiss ZM 85mm f/4.0 comment on how they compare, particularly with respect to contrast, for landscapes and travel? Even better if you could also comment on the CV 75mm f/1.5 Nokton.
Edit to add: flare resistance is important to me; I often shoot with the sun in or near the frame, particularly when it’s low in the sky.
I actually have the CV Nokton, which is a good lens but, for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on, I’ve never enjoyed using it as much as my other lenses. I’d also quite like a slightly longer focal length (although that isn’t a deciding factor). I realise that the ZM is somewhat longer (although smaller diameter), but it’s also a little lighter. And I know that the ZM is an older design and no longer available new, but I do really like the Zeiss ZM character. I was interested to see @rsolti@ ‘s opinion from about a year ago, a few pages back in this discussion.
I guess my question about the ZM 85mm was rather niche ….
But I’d also be grateful if anyone with experience of using both this 90mm Ultron and the 75/1.5 Nokton could comment on how they compare for landscapes.
I’m pretty familiar with the Nokton, and did have the ZM for a while several years ago, but know nothing of the newer Ultron. My suspicion, based purely on reviews and looking at samples here, is that the Ultron is probably superior. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s worth switching, of course. The Nokton remains an excellent, dual character lens.
Plzenaak wrote:
For landscape photography, I would wait for the release of the Apo-Lanthar 90mm f/4.0.
As usual, I wonder in which cases someone will see the difference on a print between a landscape shot with one of the good 90mm, i.e. 90mm/2.8 Elmarit, 90mm/4 macro, 90mm/2.8 and 90mm/2.0 Voigt Apo...
Especially when used a f/5.6.
Plzenaak wrote:
For landscape photography, I would wait for the release of the Apo-Lanthar 90mm f/4.0.
Very good point. Thanks for the reply. I just confess, I had completely forgotten about the forthcoming APO-L. 90/4.0. I’ve no problem at all with larger lenses when appropriate (the 21/1.4 Nokton, for instance) but small and light is also nice too, when possible.
Sadly, I very much doubt the new CV lenses will be available within the next few weeks — I was wondering about an alternative to my 75/1.5 Nokton for a trip in the not too distant future — but the Nokton is still an excellent lens, so I may well just stick with that.
pmeheut wrote:
As usual, I wonder in which cases someone will see the difference on a print between a landscape shot with one of the good 90mm, i.e. 90mm/2.8 Elmarit, 90mm/4 macro, 90mm/2.8 and 90mm/2.0 Voigt Apo...
Especially when used a f/5.6.
Eminently sensible point, and one that’s easy to forget. I have the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M; although, in my experience, the 75/1.5 Nokton is noticeably sharper, if one looks very closely (and I dare say that the 90/2.0 Ultron will be more so), it’s not unreasonable to ask: so what?
Andrew CD wroteI have the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M; although, in my experience, the 75/1.5 Nokton is noticeably sharper, if one looks very closely (and I dare say that the 90/2.0 Ultron will be more so), it’s not unreasonable to ask: so what?
Yes, I have plenty of lenses that are sharper than others. And I used to test lenses alongside professionals (i.e. people publishing their tests for money).
But my question is: do you see the difference once printed or even on a screen when not zooming to 100%?
This has not been my experience.
I can see the difference when it comes to bokeh and rendering, sometimes colors and even in one case, I saw on a print that my 28mm Summicron V1 was not perfect in the angles at f/2. I still framed and displayed the image though.
The 75/1.5 has non-trivial advantages for regular travel usage. You can shoot dreamy compositions in any light with very reliable bokeh (more so than many CV lenses) and at smaller apertures dial in a very solid blend of sharpness and quality rendition, lovely color. It's only 350 grams.
Even numerically, if we say lenses offer up to f8, such a lens gives you more than half that range over an f4 lens, and an extra valuable two stops over an f2.8 lens. It translates to an extra hour or two of shooting per day. F4 short teles are rather niche in the travel paradigm.
pmeheut wrote:
As usual, I wonder in which cases someone will see the difference on a print between a landscape shot with one of the good 90mm, i.e. 90mm/2.8 Elmarit, 90mm/4 macro, 90mm/2.8 and 90mm/2.0 Voigt Apo...
Especially when used a f/5.6.
From the lenses you mentioned, I don’t think you’d see a meaningful difference in a print. At the pixel level, yes, differences can show up, but that’s something I usually look for only when doing detailed reviews.
Out in the field, shooting a landscape, there are so many variables that once you stop these lenses down to f/5.6 and smaller apertures, most high quality lenses perform very similarly.
There are still differences in performance and lateral CA at f/5.6, but they tend to show up off axis and mainly at higher magnifications, not in real world viewing. Field curvature is also rarely an issue with telephoto lenses compared to wider focal lengths.
pmeheut wrote:
This is the case with all the Voigt lenses I disassembled and of course, one can always refer to the excellent https://www.yukosteel.com
At least it worked.
Because mine had back focus and front focus depending on the distance, such a solution does not work.
I ordered another one to check.
Just to let those who might be interested know: I managed to get my 90mm/2 Apo Voigt focusing perfectly with my M11.
It was front-focusing and in this case, you have to remove shims to fix it.
But removing the thinnest shim makes it back-focus.
So I tried to build some even thinner shims myself by cutting copper plates: it did not work, they are to thin for their diameter.
I finally ordered some 0.025mm and 0.05mm shims from a provider (Precision Micro) for nearly the cost of the lens because it is not a matter of money but about being an obsessive engineer who will solve the problem, whatever the chose
All in all, it took me 5 months (not full time, obviously but as a hobby).
Anyhow, I would not recommend it but it ended well for me
pmeheut wrote:
Just to let those who might be interested know: I managed to get my 90mm/2 Apo Voigt focusing perfectly with my M11.
It was front-focusing and in this case, you have to remove shims to fix it.
But removing the thinnest shim makes it back-focus.
So I tried to build some even thinner shims myself by cutting copper plates: it did not work, they are to thin for their diameter.
I finally ordered some 0.025mm and 0.05mm shims from a provider (Precision Micro) for nearly the cost of the lens because it is not a matter of money but about being an obsessive engineer who will solve the problem, whatever the chose
All in all, it took me 5 months (not full time, obviously but as a hobby).
Anyhow, I would not recommend it but it ended well for me ...Show more →
Choose inner diameter "2," outer diameter "4", then just select the thickness. Alternatively, you can make shims out of aluminum foil. Heavy duty foil is about 0.024 mm thick, while standard foil is thinner, around 0.016 mm (16 microns).
Choose inner diameter "2," outer diameter "4", then just select the thickness. Alternatively, you can make shims out of aluminum foil. Heavy duty foil is about 0.024 mm thick, while standard foil is thinner, around 0.016 mm (16 microns).
Thanks but it says "link invalid". And I'm not sure it would work but I cannot check of course.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
I am thinking of getting this lens. I wonder how many are actually having the focus discrepancies mentioned in this thread.
The CV 90/2 APO made me sell my beloved Leica 90/2 AA. It's better corrected for axial CA, has better flare resistance, and is smaller and lighter. I'll be comparing it to the new CV 90/4 APO-Lanthar next week.
For more character, I also like and use the Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron pre-ASPH.
