p.1 #1 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
Hello colleagues and friends, I'm writing this thread because I'm curious about a particular topic adjacent to the oft-mentioned "M—mount thin filter stack" that I'm not sure has been addressed directly, at least in one place. As a Voigtländer shooter, I've enjoyed using their fantastic E—mount optics for some time, but I've always been curious about what the practical differences are between the equivalent designs on the original "M—System".
We know as a matter of fact that the "M" lenses must be modified in some way to account for the thicker filter glass (and presumably flange distance) on "E" which induces some field curvature. However, is the original "M" lens superior on its own mount to the mirrorless-available option? For example, is the 50mm ƒ/1,2 on "M" superior to "E" as a result of the thinner glass? Is acuity reduced in designs sharing the same model?
I know that some of this information has been explored intermittently in the ensuing pages of discourse generated after Fred's fantastic reviews, and much interest been expressed in seeing tests of "M" lenses adapted to "E" directly but I wanted to poll the experts who may have the knowledge or equipment more readily to hand to give an answer as to whether the 35mm ƒ/1,4 Nokton "Classic" for example is significantly different in its performance on the native-mirrorless version versus the native-"M" version, and whether in general the thin filter stack is an optical advantage of note.
It is generally recommended to stick to native mount for wide angle lenses, with the (negative) effects of sensor stack thickness decreasing with higher mm focal lengths. It's of course more nuanced than that with some M lenses playing well and other M lenses not playing well adapter to a Sony camera. That said however a lot of people are adapter M mount lenses, especially since they make it possible to use the TAP AF adapter. Are people okay with getting 95% of the performance compared to native mount, in exchange for getting AF? It seems so
It is generally recommended to stick to native mount for wide angle lenses, with the (negative) effects of sensor stack thickness decreasing with higher mm focal lengths. It's of course more nuanced than that with some M lenses playing well and other M lenses not playing well adapter to a Sony camera. That said however a lot of people are adapter M mount lenses, especially since they make it possible to use the TAP AF adapter. Are people okay with getting 95% of the performance compared to native mount, in exchange for getting AF? It seems so ...Show more →
Yes, that article is a fantastic resource, but what it doesn't seem to cover is the unmodified "E" version of the 21mm ƒ/1,4 vs the "M" version, for example. Do the optical changes made to the "E" native model change its performance in some way, and is the "M" native version on the "M" body at an inherent advantage compared to the "E" native version on the "E" body.
Feb 19, 2026 at 10:46 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
Stargenx wrote:
Yes, that article is a fantastic resource, but what it doesn't seem to cover is the unmodified "E" version of the 21mm ƒ/1,4 vs the "M" version, for example. Do the optical changes made to the "E" native model change its performance in some way, and is the "M" native version on the "M" body at an inherent advantage compared to the "E" native version on the "E" body.
I can answer that with experience as I have used the E mount version of the 21 f/1.4 extensively and it performs wonderfully on Sony E mount. I think the performance is every bit as good as the M mount version on a Leica M camera. I have not done testing, but that is very much my impression. I really couldn't ask for much better performance than I get with the E mount version on Sony.
p.1 #5 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
It's not always the case that M-mount version is the original and E-mount version is derived from that. For example 21/1.4 was first released on E-mount in 2019/6/27 and then released in M-mount 8 months later (2020/2/27). I think some of the benefits of E-mount versions include the ability to focus closer (0.25m in case of 21/1.4) while M-mount version focuses to 0.5m. Since this lens has a floating element design, the M-mount version might not be as good at close range when adapted to mirrorless with a close-focus helicoid adapter. There's also the benefit of having EXIF with the mirrorless versions and possible lens optics corrections through lens profile info that is included in EXIF (CV E-mount lenses include distortion compensation, CA compensation, vignetting compensation metadata in EXIF on E-mount). Usually the benefit of M-mount versions is that they tend to be a bit smaller and lighter and more adaptable to various mounts.
I have a lot of CV E-mount glass (have owned everything they have released in E-mount, and still own 15 of their 20 E-mount releases), and I also have some of their VM and LTM glass but I've never owned a digital or film M camera so I've just used those adapted. I haven't seen any reviews or evidence that would have demonstrated their VM lenses working better on M vs. their corresponding E-mount lenses on Sony. There could be some little differences in various areas though but I don't think there is any consistent bias.
Cosina seems to be also releasing more mirrorless lenses these days than VM (latest new release for VM was in July last year and there have been plenty of mirrorless releases since then). I don't think they keep thinking that VM is leading the way and mirrorless are following. Also, in a Japanese lens sales/popularity ranking site that I follow closely, majority of the CV top seller lenses are for mirrorless. Currently 8 out of top 10 are for mirrorless, 1 is a VM and 1 is a Nikon F mount lens... It's still true though that they probably consider constraints from each mount when they make a new lens for VM + mirrorless and M-mount version constraints might have some impact on the overall design.
p.1 #6 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
Stargenx wrote:
I wanted to poll the experts who may have the knowledge or equipment more readily to hand to give an answer as to whether the 35mm ƒ/1,4 Nokton "Classic" for example is significantly different in its performance on the native-mirrorless version versus the native-"M" version, and whether in general the thin filter stack is an optical advantage of note.
I am not an expert but this lens is my favorite 35mm of all time regardless of mount. I own both versions: M and E. The E-mount version feels a bit superior optically. Again: I am saying "feels", because I haven't done anything resembling an instrumented test. But intuitively it makes sense: the E-mount is wider and the E-version is heavier, which means more glass mass which usually leads to higher IQ.
p.1 #7 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
Apologies for bumping my own thread so long after the fact, but if anyone is cruising through from Google, I found the answer to my own question (as usual through Fred's testing in past years) in a relatively short threads from a while back. The short answer is yes; arguably the E—Mount ones are superior
p.1 #8 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
old-gregg wrote:
I am not an expert but this lens is my favorite 35mm of all time regardless of mount. I own both versions: M and E. The E-mount version feels a bit superior optically. Again: I am saying "feels", because I haven't done anything resembling an instrumented test. But intuitively it makes sense: the E-mount is wider and the E-version is heavier, which means more glass mass which usually leads to higher IQ.
The glass is the same 8 in 6 design, regardless of mount. The Sony's heavier and larger because it's got a longer helicoid and had to accommodate the electronics to make 5-axis IBIS work.
May 05, 2026 at 01:05 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
Stargenx wrote:
Apologies for bumping my own thread so long after the fact, but if anyone is cruising through from Google, I found the answer to my own question (as usual through Fred's testing in past years) in a relatively short threads from a while back. The short answer is yes; arguably the E—Mount ones are superior
The test that you linked here is rather an exception and not the typical results. The 50 f/1 probably has the biggest difference in rendering between the Leica M mount version on Leica and the Sony E mount version on Sony (the lens also comes in Nikon Z mount and Canon RF mount and I am not sure how it performs on those mounts). The 50 f/2 APO also has a bit of different rendering between the Leica M mount on Leica and the Sony E mount version on Sony and in that case the glass types are even a bit different. Despite these differences in most cases the Leica M mount version on a Leica M camera and a mirrorless version on a mirrorless camera will look very similar. And I don't think there is anything like a general pattern that the E-mount versions on a Sony E mount camera are superior. I do think it is true that using a lens with the camera with its same mount is the safest way to get good performance (although many Voigtlander lenses can be adapted quite well), I don't think it is true that any mount generally produces better results.
p.1 #10 · Voigtländer M vs. E: Native Sensor Designs
"arguably the E—Mount ones are superior"
It's ONE: The E Mount version of the 50 1.0.
Your original post made it clear you are talking about lenses, plural.
I don't think you found an answer to your question at all.
