I'm a Sony shooter who's about to pull the trigger on the CV 50/1.0, but I'm torn between the VM and E mount version. I have the opportunity to get a like-new VM version for a great price so I'm having a hard time making a decision, since money is also a factor.
I like the rendering, feel and look of the VM a lot more, but obviously the FE is optically superior since it's optimized for Sony sensors.
My main concern with the VM version is the mid-zone dip at infinity on Sony sensors. I saw it was definitely there thanks to Fred's comparison, but these are 12,4x magnified shots on a 40+ MP camera, and we don't have the full size images for context. Since I'm shooting 12MP pics (a7s) and mostly video (astro stuff), I'm wondering how much of an issue this mid-zone dip would be for me at these lower resolutions. It's hard to tell how "big" the dip is in context, without looking at the full image (Fred, asking you if you still have those just in case!).
In fact I also use a Laowa 35/0.95 and even though there's technically a visible dip in the mid-field (BastianK's review shows it clearly), I just don't see it practically at all on my side, despite shooting lots of starry skies wide open. Stars look evenly sharp across the frame, at least on 4K footage. So while it's there, it's not severe enough to be a problem, even in my use case where even sharpness at infinity is crucial.
So I'd like being able to evaluate how much dip there is on the VM version compared to my 35/0.95, for instance, because such field curvature levels would be acceptable for my use, making me more comfortable with my purchase and saving me a significant amount of money ($1,1k V.S full price).
I'm open to any opinions, and I'm not against getting the FE version by principle. It's both an emotional and economical dilemma. The VM looks more appealing to me, and I like its more characterful bokeh rendering. I could accept the IQ tradeoff, but it has yet to be quantified and contextualized.
Some of you could say spending more than $1k on a lens and miss out on performance by not choosing the better version is not reasonable, and I don't disagree either. Anyway, I hope some of you VM mount + Sony shooters chime in and give me your two cents! Thanks for reading me
I‘m not sure how to advise you. I tend to go for the better lens if I can afford it now, or wait the time until I actually can afford it.
Going for the cheaper solution has often lead to frustrations until I finally pull the trigger and upgrade. Financially this two step approach was always less optimal.
If you're getting the VM for a great price (relative to other VMs for sale at the moment) then you'll probably be able to sell it without much loss if it doesn't work out for you. No lens is perfect, not even when they're "made for" your mount. You're best off evaluating how any lens suits your purpose.
Sorry, can't help you with your dilemma (though I'd add that with VM version you could even get AF with a smart adapter ) .
But I wanted to ask how's astro with the Laowa wide open?
Personally, I never thought it would be possible due to its rather uncorrected characteristics wide open, but maybe at infinity they are not that visible...
ustjwenew wrote:
I don’t understand why and how the VM version can have a preferred rendering while the VM and E version have exactly the same lens diagram.
Did anyone perform an apple-to-apple comparison of the two? The OP's impression of the E-mount version's "rendering" could be affected by the variation of scene/light or even technique of different reviewers.
My own experience confirms what you're hinting at. My favorite lens of all time is the Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 II. I have it in two mounts: VM and E and they render 99% identical images in a controlled environment [1]. Despite the differences in dimensions and appearance, it's the same lens.
[1] I said 99% because I did not compare vignetting wide open.
Some of us would say: image quality is actually image appeal. If the imagery matters to you, it seems a fair argument. Optical engineers will feel different to photographers. They have their own agendas - technical perfection - and these often do not coincide with their user group's aspirations. Design oversight is often inadequate, as Zeiss discovered.
Image quality is far more than technical metrics. You have to like the output, and this applies in spades for artistic or specialty lenses. I was impressed by Edward Teller's images from the VM on a Nikon Z7.
It doesn't help that they added 100 grams and a larger filter size. So a 55mm x 74mm lens became 70mm x 80mm. It was a special little 'gift' for Sony users - more lens for your money. No one else does this, others try to even up dimensions, weight.
If the longer MFD does not matter greatly, and do consider that as well. Manual E-mount 50/1 lenses of 600 grams will definitely be harder to sell in future than the VM, which will take its place as a classic.
Like this one, many of the finest lenses ever made have curvature built into them because of the way it builds the image, and gives designers more degrees of freedom elsewhere.
My E-mount Nokton 50/1 is one of the best lenses I’ve ever owned. And I’ve owned and still own a lot of really good lenses. If I were you, I’d get the E-mount version if you plan on staying with Sony for a long time. Fred’s comparison of the VM and e-mount on a Sony camera clearly shows the superior image quality of the e-mount version. And if you decide to get a high res Sony camera later, you’ll be very glad to have the e-mount version. If you might switch to Nikon or something else, then the VM is the one to get.
I run too many camera systems, and choosing a 50mm f1.0 turned into a small life crisis.
I shoot with the M11M, M11P, A9 III, and Zf. I rented the VM version for a week and instantly fell in love with the look. The images are pure magic.
Then I discovered the catch. The VM version focuses down to 0.9 m, while the Sony and Nikon versions go to 0.45 m. That is a huge difference and way more fun for close and creative shots.
Long story short, I bought the Nikon Z version. Still, the Sony version keeps whispering to me because it can be adapted to Nikon Z. Temptation is real.
I will definitely miss this lens on my Leica M11. I just hope I do not end up owning three Voigtländer 50mm f1.0 lenses, one for each mount. That would be ridiculous. Or maybe inevitable.
I'm sure everyone knows this, but you can reduce the mfd by using adapters with a helicoid. Also the Pronto adapter can reduce the mfd and adds AF (but weights about 150g).
Thanks so much everyone for the replies! As I'm a new member I can't reply to you guys individually, so I'll write a global reply here.
ustjwenew -> The formula is the same, but the bokeh is sharper and has more texture when using the VM version on Sony cameras. Fred Miranda made a rendering comparison thread about this.
j4n -> I never pixel-peeped on stills, but this lens is stellar in 4k video / 12MP pics. It's not clinical, but coma levels are extremely small, CA isn't distracting, and the sharpness is amazing. It's probably the best f/0.95 lens (with the 45mm 0.95 too) out there for astrophotography in my opinion.
old-gregg -> I'm only basing my opinions on actual tests made by Fred Miranda himself, and Bastian's review also. Fred proved that IQ is superior using the E mount version on a Sony (see his thread). But honestly rendering is relatively similar, although a bit softer / creamier on the E version. Rendering isn't the only thing I prefer about the VM, it's the overall feel and look of the lens. I know it can sound superficial, but to me a lens like this is also an object and a tactile experience. I just love the classic vintage Voigtlander look, and the compactness of this version over the bulkier E version.
mudlake -> I don't plan on changing systems anytime soon so being locked to E-mount is a non-issue. Also, I consider this lens the endgame 50/1.0, so once I own it, I'll likely won't ever sell it
JohnSC 9 -> I have a close focus adapter from Voigtlander so focusing closer wouldn't be an issue, although it's less practical than having a lens that does that natively.
) .