Fred Miranda wrote:
Giuseppe, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I do have quite a few samples at f/4 and smaller apertures, but honestly, the lenses perform very similarly in that range. That said, the APO-Lanthar still shows slightly better resolution and cleaner correction of both lateral and axial chromatic aberration.
Here's a sample taken at f/4 of a flat subject that spans across the frame. Same exposure and identical white balance. I think you'll be able to spot the differences I mentioned. They are subtle and only really visible when viewing at the pixel level, but they are there.
Another thing I've consistently noticed between the two lenses is that the APO tends to render slightly warmer tones, while the Ultron comes across a bit cooler. The APO also shows a slightly narrower field of view, which might be due to its better distortion correction. These differences are subtle, but they do become noticeable when you look closely comparing them side by side....Show more →
Thank you very much, Fred.
At this point, I’m wondering how the same test would go against the fast Voigtländer 28mm Nokton.
I would expect its performance at f4 to be inferior to the Ultron and the APO.
Thanks for showing what the VC 28 APO can do for Leica Fred, sad no love for Sony.
Till then I'm sticking with the C/Y 28 for Sony, although I'm very happy with my other VC APO lenes for Sony
Ulysseita wrote:
Thank you very much, Fred.
At this point, I’m wondering how the same test would go against the fast Voigtländer 28mm Nokton.
I would expect its performance at f4 to be inferior to the Ultron and the APO.
The 28mm f/1.5 Nokton's main weakness is its CA correction and that's both lateral and axial. In that sense, it's really no better than the Leica 28 Summilux. When it comes to resolution and contrast, at center, it's quite comparable to both the Ultron and the new APO-Lanthar. But off-axis, even when stopped down, it falls behind the Ultron, and the APO-Lanthar clearly pulls ahead. This is especially true for things like landscapes. How much better it is really depends on how picky you are and what kind of output you're aiming for.
I really enjoy the 28 Nokton. It's my favorite 28mm lens, but I tend to use it in specific situations where its structured rendering character really stands out.
catacore wrote:
There must be some constraints at work, for this APO lens, since this lens is (when compared against the Nokton) 2mm thicker, 5mm longer, sports a 49mm filter (vs 43mm) while being one stop slower.
IMO it's very much an aesthetic constraint because they already established a design standard for their VM APO Lanthars. The first to be released was the 50, which is the least concern among the current trio for frame line blockage, given it's about the same size as a 50 Lux ASPH. The 35 is worse because it's longer than the 50 and the frame lines are wider. Of course the 28 offends the most because it's a similar size and frame lines are the widest. If it was made narrower, it would deviate from the design of the other two. But even then it could only be made so much narrower while its length would still result in some viewfinder intrusion. So maybe Cosina's solution was to not even bother addressing frame line blockage. If someone is really sensitive about that, there's already the Ultron, which as Fred suggests, once stopped down, will be barely distinguishable from the APO in most cases.
It's not that there is some internal optical constraint that keeps the size/girth what it is. It's probably mechanically easier to make a larger diameter lens because the various parts don't need to be shrunk down as much to keep them as close to the optical block as possible while still providing the necessary functionality.
Consider the VM 28 APO's optical block below:
I really think this lens was made for mirrorless. I'm just unsure why it was released in VM mount first. But it's Cosina and often things don't quite make sense (when viewed from the outside).
rscheffler wrote:
...
I really think this lens was made for mirrorless. I'm just unsure why it was released in VM mount first. But it's Cosina and often things don't quite make sense (when viewed from the outside).
I'm guessing it might be because Cosina released E-mount and Z-mount Nokton 28/1.5 this year in January/February and it could make sense to have some gap time between new 28mm lenses for the same mounts. There's already about 1.5 year gap since they released the previous 28mm lens in VM mount (28/1.5 in January 2024). On the other hand, 28/2.8 VM and 28/1.5 VM only had about 5 months between the releases.
I do hope they release this 28/2 APO for mirrorless before CP+ 2026 (end of February) or at least pre-announce the mirrorless versions there.
At the moment Cosina have announced only Otus 85/1.4 for September this year and nothing was announced for August. There's still room for previously unannounced new CV releases even for September and until February next year before we get to next CP+. I think this 28/2 APO for mirrorless could well appear somewhere in that window.
rscheffler wrote:
IMO it's very much an aesthetic constraint because they already established a design standard for their VM APO Lanthars. The first to be released was the 50, which is the least concern among the current trio for frame line blockage, given it's about the same size as a 50 Lux ASPH. The 35 is worse because it's longer than the 50 and the frame lines are wider. Of course the 28 offends the most because it's a similar size and frame lines are the widest. If it was made narrower, it would deviate from the design of the other two. But even then it could only be made so much narrower while its length would still result in some viewfinder intrusion. So maybe Cosina's solution was to not even bother addressing frame line blockage. If someone is really sensitive about that, there's already the Ultron, which as Fred suggests, once stopped down, will be barely distinguishable from the APO in most cases.
It's not that there is some internal optical constraint that keeps the size/girth what it is. It's probably mechanically easier to make a larger diameter lens because the various parts don't need to be shrunk down as much to keep them as close to the optical block as possible while still providing the necessary functionality....Show more →
Since the APO is the only 28 of the three (APO, Nokton, Ultron) that has "floating elements for improved close up performance" - don't you think the floating element mechanism and the room necessary to implement it may also impact how small the lens can ultimately be?
OscarF wrote:
Since the APO is the only 28 of the three (APO, Nokton, Ultron) that has "floating elements for improved close up performance" - don't you think the floating element mechanism and the room necessary to implement it may also impact how small the lens can ultimately be?
It's unclear how Cosina implemented the floating design but it's possibly a factor. However, it doesn't necessarily need to mean a much larger design. For example, the VM 35/2 APO is a floating design that is 58mm long (the VM 28/2 APO is 50mm) compared to the Leica 35 Cron APO ASPH that is 41mm long and also a floating design. Of course the Leica is an example of a design free from not trying to hit a $1K price point. The floating section is likely towards the back, or at the back of the design where lens girth could be wider because it's closer to the mount. My issue with the VM APO's physical design is more so the front half that could potentially be narrowed by up to around 1cm to reduce viewfinder blockage. But as Fred pointed out, it would result in a rather visually unappealing design. Anyway, this is mostly just nitpicking on my part. If one wants the performance of the 28 APO on Leica M, its size is a tradeoff one must accept. For me the frame line blockage isn't a deal breaker considering I've lived with it already for many years when using the 28 Lux. But Leica users can be a funny bunch where non-technical considerations that improve user experience can prevail over sheer technical performance. And I have to admit lately I've mostly opted for the VM 28 v2 Ultron because I usually shoot stopped down and prefer its smaller size compared to the Lux. Therefore I'm not sure I'd really benefit that much from the APO's optical superiority if I'm mostly going to be using it stopped down and could instead use the Ultron to reduce viewfinder blockage.
Jul 22, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rscheffler wrote:
It's unclear how Cosina implemented the floating design but it's possibly a factor. However, it doesn't necessarily need to mean a much larger design. For example, the VM 35/2 APO is a floating design that is 58mm long (the VM 28/2 APO is 50mm) compared to the Leica 35 Cron APO ASPH that is 41mm long and also a floating design. Of course the Leica is an example of a design free from not trying to hit a $1K price point. The floating section is likely towards the back, or at the back of the design where lens girth could be wider because it's closer to the mount. My issue with the VM APO's physical design is more so the front half that could potentially be narrowed by up to around 1cm to reduce viewfinder blockage. But as Fred pointed out, it would result in a rather visually unappealing design. Anyway, this is mostly just nitpicking on my part. If one wants the performance of the 28 APO on Leica M, its size is a tradeoff one must accept. For me the frame line blockage isn't a deal breaker considering I've lived with it already for many years when using the 28 Lux. But Leica users can be a funny bunch where non-technical considerations that improve user experience can prevail over sheer technical performance. And I have to admit lately I've mostly opted for the VM 28 v2 Ultron because I usually shoot stopped down and prefer its smaller size compared to the Lux. Therefore I'm not sure I'd really benefit that much from the APO's optical superiority if I'm mostly going to be using it stopped down and could instead use the Ultron to reduce viewfinder blockage....Show more →
I think this tradeoff between finder blockage and vignetting is always a tough issue and especially at 28mm where the frame lines cover pretty much the whole viewfinder and either you block the finder quite a bit or you are going to get pretty heavy vignetting. Personally, I switched from the VM 28 f/2 ultron II to the Leica M 28 f/2 summicron (version 1) even though the Voigtlander was a bit sharper, because the Leica has noticeably lower vignetting. It isn't the darkening of the outer part of the image that bothers me as much as the effect the vignetting has on the bokeh in the outer part of the frame increasing the depth of field there. I found the VM 28 f/2 Ultron II had noticeably more depth of field at f/2 in the outer part of the frame than the 28 summicron. I think there is no way around this tradeoff for 28mm lenses, but the VM 28 f/2 APO certainly has quite a bit of blockage, but what comes with that is an outer zone that is much less affected by vignetting. As Rustybug often says, you got to "pick your poison," and with VM lenses you can pick either poison but you can't get a lens with no blockage and little issues with vignetting.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think this tradeoff between finder blockage and vignetting is always a tough issue and especially at 28mm where the frame lines cover pretty much the whole viewfinder and either you block the finder quite a bit or you are going to get pretty heavy vignetting. Personally, I switched from the VM 28 f/2 ultron II to the Leica M 28 f/2 summicron (version 1) even though the Voigtlander was a bit sharper, because the Leica has noticeably lower vignetting. It isn't the darkening of the outer part of the image that bothers me as much as the effect the vignetting has on the bokeh in the outer part of the frame increasing the depth of field there. I found the VM 28 f/2 Ultron II had noticeably more depth of field at f/2 in the outer part of the frame than the 28 summicron. I think there is no way around this tradeoff for 28mm lenses, but the VM 28 f/2 APO certainly has quite a bit of blockage, but what comes with that is an outer zone that is much less affected by vignetting. As Rustybug often says, you got to "pick your poison," and with VM lenses you can pick either poison but you can't get a lens with no blockage and little issues with vignetting....Show more →
And, the wider you go, the tougher it gets.
My "poisons" are typically Vignetting, Distortion and CA. Nervous bokeh, field curvature, corner sharpness get on the radar, too. Depending on "how bad" they are, I can tolerate different amounts of different things, but when it comes to size / blockage ... yeah, there's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to correcting for various optical attributes.
Much of optics is an exercise in quid pro quo ... and quid and quo can come in all kinds of shapes, sizes and issues, not the least of which is size, weight and size of hole in your wallet.
rscheffler wrote:
I really think this lens was made for mirrorless. I'm just unsure why it was released in VM mount first. But it's Cosina and often things don't quite make sense (when viewed from the outside).
I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion when it's likely the highest performing 28 for the M-mount, but obviously suffers on a stock Sony. The M-mount is Cosina's bread and butter for Voigtlander lenses. There are certainly more mirrorless shooters in the world, but only a fraction of us are willing to accept a manual lens. Everyone who picks up an M is a manual shooter, and, between digital and film, there's a healthier base than ever. Until that changes, I expect Cosina to make the mount it's top priority. Mirrorless shooters get whatever they think will sell and what translates well. This lens probably falls into that category, but I doubt it will get ported over without tweaks.
Neither Leica nor Cosina have been shy about eating chunks of the VF when it suits their design goals. And we may be approaching a time when that's going to be a secondary concern for both companies, assuming Leica is serious about integrating an EVF in the M cameras, either as a separate offering (which would be dumb, but wouldn't surprise me) or as a hybrid integrated into the optical VF (much smarter, especially if they can improve on Fuji's implementation).
Some info on this lens's availability and possible mirrorless versions:
Voigtlander's 28mm f/2 APO-Lanthar is expected to go on sale starting Thursday, 7/24.
As of now, there's no word on when Cosina might release a Z-mount or E-mount version of the 28/2 APO-Lanthar.
Snico wrote:
This reminds me the kind of result I get from the 35mm Apo-Lanthar on Fuji :-)
You see the 35mm Apo Lanthar on par with the 28mm Apo Lanthar? 😳
The 35mm really disappointed me. I couldn’t see anything in the results that would deserve the “Apo” badge. Apochromatic correction looks different to me…
gammarART wrote:
You see the 35mm Apo Lanthar on par with the 28mm Apo Lanthar? 😳
The 35mm really disappointed me. I couldn’t see anything in the results that would deserve the “Apo” badge. Apochromatic correction looks different to me…
Sorry, I was talking about the CV 35mm Apo-Ultron f2 for Fuji X.
Snico wrote:
Sorry, I was talking about the CV 35mm Apo-Ultron f2 for Fuji X.
I really wish Cosina would port that over to Sony. The 6700 isn't my favorite camera for MF, but I'd happily make an exception for that lens. It's a great normalish close-focuser for the format.
