MAubrey wrote:
Thanks so much for this review, Fred! Looks like a really superb lens.
A 90mm f/4 this compact sort of takes me way back to my μ43 days with the Olympus 45mm f/1.8!
Yes, I'm really happy with the CV 90/2 APO-Ultron. The smaller size and lighter weight, plus how close it can focus, make it pretty addictive to shoot with. That said, at f/4 and normal shooting distances, there's still noticeable blur with a tele lens.
zugzwang2 wrote:
I'd be interested in learning how this new Voigtlander 90 compares to the Zeiss 85/4 Tele-Tessar. It seems that it might be more generally useful--although I enjoy the Zeiss lens closed down a bit for landscapes.
It has been a very long time since I used the ZM. I suspect the VM 90/4 APO will outperform it in many ways, though differences, if any, will likely be minor the more both are stopped down.
In the 90/4 announcement thread I posted published MTFs of a bunch of of 85 and 90mm lenses and am pasting them below for your convenience.
Two Leica M lenses - 90/4 and 90/2 APO ASPH, Zeiss ZM 85/2 and 85/4 and the new VM. Indeed, the VM centrally outperforms the other f/4 lenses. The Zeiss MTFs are 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. Cosina only publishes MTFs for their APO-Lanthar lens series, therefore MTF isn't available for the 90/2 but based on Fred's tests, is probably very close to the Leica 90/2 APO's performance.
Leica 90/4, ZM 85/4, VM 90/4 APO:
Leica 90/2 AA, ZM 85/2
As a Canon fanboy, here are a couple Canon MTFs. 90/2.8L TS-E and RF 85/1.4L (Canon's version of the Leica APO-Cron-SL series, though likely with more modest optical performance). Canon publishes 10 and 30 lp/mm.
I'm sure Nikon, Sony, Sigma, etc. all also have 85/90mm lenses with great MTF performance.
Not many lenses reach an on-axis measure of 80% of contrast transfer at the standard high spatial frequency of 40 lpmm. Lens makers have been able to do it for quite some time, as we see in the early century ZM above, something that is repeated in the (2016) Loxia 85mm, Leica SL APOs at 75mm and 90mm, Otus 100/1.4.
All are ~500 grams or (often much) more, by coincidence. I can't find an aperture or resolution series for the 85/1.4L VCM, so as to check on the work of the science fiction writers club at Canon.
PS: AI informs about the ill-fated ZM 85/2: 'Users and repair technicians noted that the complex internal mechanics were prone to developing mechanical play or wear in the focusing helicoid over time—a known issue often discussed among rangefinder owners.'
LoCA at f1.4 Canon 85/1.4L VCM (it's kind of gone by f4)
zugzwang2 wrote:
I'd be interested in learning how this new Voigtlander 90 compares to the Zeiss 85/4 Tele-Tessar. It seems that it might be more generally useful--although I enjoy the Zeiss lens closed down a bit for landscapes.
For many years, the Zeiss 85mm f/4 was my go-to landscape lens, primarily because of its compact size and stellar performance when stopped down. While it did well wide open, it really needed f/6.7 or smaller for the mid-field to match the high-frequency detail of larger lenses.
So yes, stopped down it's still a great option for landscapes, though I could still spot some lateral CA closed down, alongside axial CA when shooting wide open.
In contrast, the new Voigtländer 90mm f/4 APO outperforms it across every single metric. It's actually smaller (especially when both have hoods attached) and noticeably lighter (by 80 grams), too. It is dramatically better at wide apertures and handles color fringing exceptionally well. Plus, it offers quasi-macro capabilities that the Tessar never attempted.
philip_pj wrote:
Not many lenses reach an on-axis measure of 80% of contrast transfer at the standard high spatial frequency of 40 lpmm. Lens makers have been able to do it for quite some time, as we see in the early century ZM above, something that is repeated in the (2016) Loxia 85mm, Leica SL APOs at 75mm and 90mm, Otus 100/1.4.
All are ~500 grams or (often much) more, by coincidence. I can't find an aperture or resolution series for the 85/1.4L VCM, so as to check on the work of the science fiction writers club at Canon.
PS: AI informs about the ill-fated ZM 85/2: 'Users and repair technicians noted that the complex internal mechanics were prone to developing mechanical play or wear in the focusing helicoid over time—a known issue often discussed among rangefinder owners.' ...Show more →
As bad as that Canon LoCA might seem, the much loved Sony 85/1.4 v1 and v2 aren't better and in fact the v1 is a lot worse, according to TDP. In real world use it wouldn't appear much of the time, based on my experience with the EF 85/1.4L IS, which is worse than the RF, but itself was a significant LoCA improvement over the EF 85/1.2L. The RF 85/1.4 is also a lens I would buy (it's on my wishlist if Canon does not release a fast 100mm VCM) for various reasons beyond pure image quality, such as size, weight, AF performance, etc. But it really depends. I'm also a science fiction fan.
I'm not sure if you've used the ZM 85/2 before. It's a lens I passed on a chance of buying about 15 years ago and now regret somewhat, as I'm a Sonnar fan. But I was able to shoot with one some time later and it exhibited MASSIVE purple fringing/blooming wide open in high contrast transitions that TBH, shocked me. The 90AA controls this much more effectively even if it's not as 'pure' an APO as some more recent lenses. The ZM 85/2 however was a lens I found very easy to focus via rangefinder, perhaps precisely due to the complex non-linear rangefinder coupling.
