This lens looks like a very good performer, I have the 28mm 1.4ED that I really like. The only issue is the using it with the FTZ adaptor on my Nikon Z7 mike the combo a bit to awkward to carry around for for street shooting.
I would really like to know how the Voigtlander compares with the Nikon 28mm 1.4ED if any of you ever shoot with the Nikon.
Best regards.
youie wrote:
This lens looks like a very good performer, I have the 28mm 1.4ED that I really like. The only issue is the using it with the FTZ adaptor on my Nikon Z7 mike the combo a bit to awkward to carry around for for street shooting.
I would really like to know how the Voigtlander compares with the Nikon 28mm 1.4ED if any of you ever shoot with the Nikon.
Best regards.
The comparative tests perfomed by Bastian and reported in the link above (a really impressive work) didn't include the Voigt 28/2 Apo-Lanthar.
However, my feeling is that the Apo-Lanthar is a better lens than the Voigt 28/1.5 Nokton. It's also preferable (being ultrasharp, with much less LoCA, and beautiful out-of-focus rendition) to the Nikon 28/1.4E if you can live with MF and f/2 maximum aperture.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Here are lots of samples from my short trip to Yutorian Kawaba Onsen (Hot Spring) at Gunma prefecture, taken with my A7CII & the new CV 28/2 APO-Lanthar E-mount lens. I exported these from RAW with C1 Pro without any additional PP. Almost everything was shot at f2 (close range shots) and f4 (long distance shots), maybe 2 shots at f5.6.
On the first day the weather was very cloudy and snowy and I mainly shot indoors at the impressive Onsen place. Somehow me and my wife were the only guests there on Friday so I could enjoy taking photos quite freely inside the facilities. Today the weather was great but our train back was already before noon so time to shoot was limited. I'm very happy with the lens so far, I think it works very nicely both for close-up scenarios and for landscapes / cityscapes and there's no need to stop down much at all (except to reduce vignetting which is noticeable wide open)....Show more →
I was looking through the pictures again and noticed that, similar as with my 50/2 AL it has significant lateral CA in the right circumstances. Picture DSC00973.jpg (look at the branches at the left top) is a good example. I have not found a proper way to correct it in PP (using Capture pro).
ustjwenew wrote:
I was looking through the pictures again and noticed that, similar as with my 50/2 AL it has significant lateral CA in the right circumstances. Picture DSC00973.jpg (look at the branches at the left top) is a good example. I have not found a proper way to correct it in PP (using Capture pro).
I noticed some fringing on a couple of shots in this particular scene with the highly overexposed tree branches in the far background (with the rising sun at the backside). I don't think it's a real problem though and I haven't noticed anything in normal conditions.
I checked the focus distance from original RAW file of this shot (973) and it was 8.552 m. I think I was focusing on the red gate.
ustjwenew wrote:
... similar as with my 50/2 AL it has significant lateral CA in the right circumstances.
My 50/2 AL (Z-mount) does not show any visible CA (neither lateral, nor longitudinal); it's comparable, or even slightly better, than my Zeiss ZF.2 135/2 Apo-Sonnar.
My lens is the second sample I received from the Italian importer, as the first one was visibly off-center.
As I have already written elsewhere, a sample that is not correctly centered may present aberrations that are not found in well-made samples.
Therefore, I'd suggest you to check if your lens suffers or not from de-centering issues.
Ripolini wrote:
My 50/2 AL (Z-mount) does not show any visible CA (neither lateral, nor longitudinal); it's comparable, or even slightly better, than my Zeiss ZF.2 135/2 Apo-Sonnar.
My lens is the second sample I received from the Italian importer, as the first one was visibly off-center.
As I have already written elsewhere, a sample that is not correctly centered may present aberrations that are not found in well-made samples.
Therefore, I'd suggest you to check if your lens suffers or not from de-centering issues.
That is a good idea. I did a not so scientific check when I got the 50 AL but it is good to do it in a proper way. My 35/2 and 75/1.5 don’t have the “issue” so I was surprised to see in with the 50 AL and now also with the 28 AL. Also in the review thread of the 50 AL I could find some examples. It is only in certain situations popping up though.
I found the previous reports somewhat confusing: On one side Cosina claims (and I do not doubt this), that the 28mm Apo Lanthar is their best wide angle ever, on the other side these reports of CA have crept up. I unfortunately have not understood if this is:
a) lateral chromatic aberation (which should be correctable to some extent)
b) longitudinal chromatic aberation (LOCA or purple fringing, uncorrectable) or
c) a sample of a rare misaligned lens (of which the results should not be generalisable)
Has anyone here understood the issue at stake to a greater depth?
What is really going on, as this is obviously an extraordinary lens?
ustjwenew wrote:
I was looking through the pictures again and noticed that, similar as with my 50/2 AL it has significant lateral CA in the right circumstances. Picture DSC00973.jpg (look at the branches at the left top) is a good example. I have not found a proper way to correct it in PP (using Capture pro).
I've downloaded the high-res file of picture DSC00973.jpg.
I opened it in Photoshop CS6 and couldn't see (at 100%) any visible CA at the top left of the image (tree branches).
Could you please post a crop showing the alleged LaCA?
Anyway, according to my experience, Capture One Pro is not the best tool to remove LaCA (at least from Nikon raw files, i.e. NEFs; I have no experience with jpegs). I much prefer DxO PureRaw 5. In my typical workflow, when I have issues with LaCA and/or noise, I first develop raw files with DxO to create dng that I then process with Capture One pro to make 16 bit TIFs that I optimize in Photoshop. A long process, I know
It's hard to put my finger on it, but there's a rendering quality with the 35 and 50 APO that I'm just not seeing in any of the posted examples in this thread. Perhaps it's that the bokeh never quite evolves to a satisfying blur, or that many examples are hampered by the flat light of winter, or have an extreme amount of negative space where rendering characteristics can't be understood, but for the shots with midrange subjects, I don't know...the 35 and 50 images have such pop, and it's a high bar to live up to.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's hard to put my finger on it, but there's a rendering quality with the 35 and 50 APO that I'm just not seeing in any of the posted examples in this thread. Perhaps it's that the bokeh never quite evolves to a satisfying blur, or that many examples are hampered by the flat light of winter, or have an extreme amount of negative space where rendering characteristics can't be understood, but for the shots with midrange subjects, I don't know...the 35 and 50 images have such pop, and it's a high bar to live up to.
Unless you move closer to frame a shot, you will get less blur at 28mm f/2 than 35mm f/2. Although it also may be the heavy vignetting that reduces blur as well towards the edges and corners, since it is effectively kind of equivalent to stopping down.
You can sort of see that in the shots I posted here.
tsdevine wrote:
Unless you move closer to frame a shot, you will get less blur at 28mm f/2 than 35mm f/2. Although it also may be the heavy vignetting that reduces blur as well towards the edges and corners, since it is effectively kind of equivalent to stopping down.
You can sort of see that in the shots I posted here.
I'm aware of how bokeh works, I'm just wondering if this lens crosses sort of a threshold for my eye where f/2 isn't enough anymore to generate that same APO pop I love.
It might just be me or the assortment of photos posted, but the 28 APO seems to lack the transparency and clarity of my 21 and 40 Noktons and180 APO. The 28 seems kind of flat.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I noticed some fringing on a couple of shots in this particular scene with the highly overexposed tree branches in the far background (with the rising sun at the backside). I don't think it's a real problem though and I haven't noticed anything in normal conditions.
I checked the focus distance from original RAW file of this shot (973) and it was 8.552 m. I think I was focusing on the red gate.
If I'm not mistaken, this looks like a bit of transverse CA - something that should come out easily in post. The preceding DSC00969.jpg shot may be a better example.
Even the greatest lenses made can be made to do something like this. You can find small flaws in any lens. This is a really good lens.
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm aware of how bokeh works, I'm just wondering if this lens crosses sort of a threshold for my eye where f/2 isn't enough anymore to generate that same APO pop I love.
The vignetting is rough.
I didn't mean to imply you didn't. But since it was a public post, I thought other people might read my reply. Sorry it came across as if I was implying you didn't know that.
taildraggin wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, this looks like a bit of transverse CA - something that should come out easily in post. The preceding DSC00969.jpg shot may be a better example.
Even the greatest lenses made can be made to do something like this. You can find small flaws in any lens. This is a really good lens.
Yes, you are right, I made a mistake and it should be picture 969. There it is much more visible what I meant. It is similar as what I can see with the APO 50/2 but there it shows up rarely and only with branches in the corners against a very bright sky. The APO 35/2 does not show it at all though nor does the 75/1.5.
You mention that it is easy to correct but with Capture 1 Pro I could not do it. But that might be lack of knowledge on my side.
Hopefully I will get the APO 28/2 for Z next week😊
