Qwerty64 wrote:
I remember having a private correspondence with optical guru Cinstance back in the manual focus hey-day on FM about the Voigtlander 125mm vs the Canon 135mm L as he owned them both (and practically every other high end glass). I too was looking for the ideal lens to replace both the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro and Canon 135mm f2 L with one lens. Lee Song indicated that although the 125mm was good at distances, it was not as good as the 135mm f2 L based on his testing, so I ended up not purchasing one at the time.
I miss Cinstance, was a solid member here and did a lot of testing at own expense for us all...
...and there will always be those who say, but what about AF?
Well, not all of us need AF (as many of you already know). To demonstrate that, here are the shots that came immediately before and after the shot above (to show that I didn't just rattle off 5 shots to get one in focus).
It is possible to nail focus more often than Canon AF.
cogitech wrote:
Indeed, it may not be as good as the 135L at further distances, but I can certainly conclude from my experience that it is more than good enough (and certainly better than any other 100-something mm portrait lens that I have used).
I've been using this lens for about a year now, and can confidently say that there's nothing wrong with it at further distances. As you can see from the crops compared to the full processed image, it's also a lower contrast optic; in other words, it produces fantastically flexible RAW files, much like OM lenses.
Ray Simpson wrote:
I think what Steven at CameraQuest meant was that only about a hundred were produced in the EF mount. There were others made in various mounts. I know I've seen them in Minolta & Nikon mounts. I think I've seen them in one or two other mounts. It took lots of patience for me to find mine at a semi-reasonable price once the word was out.
There were five mounts as far as I know:
Canon EF
Canon FD
Nikon F
Minolta ME
Contax/Yashica
It has pentax PK mount also, and "might" have auto aperture as EF mount. CV 125/2.5 is excellent for macro photography. At infinity, it's good but not excellent. In other words, there is no perfect lens.
I've just bought a FD mount version, and converted it to EOS mount.
This lens is definitely a promising one.
I paid $600 + $100(for conversion).
Although i don't have the auto aperture, I think I can live with it....
The lens is just beatiful to look at....
edwardkaraa wrote:
The question is why was this lens discontinued, and why Cosina only makes the other 2 lenses (40 and 58) only in Nikon and Pentax mounts while they don't seem to have a problem with the EF mount and electronic communication with the camera body as this lens proves it? Could this issue be related as to why Cosina/Zeiss does not make any EF mount lenses?
Maybe it was practice for the ZE line? I don't know how people got the idea that Zeiss doesn't like to put electronics in their lenses. The ZA line is full of electronics. The ZE line will have to have auto-aperture which will also require electronics.
phuang3 wrote:
I don't know how many CV125 they produced, but I do know COSINA try to dump the last batch (around 100 units) for USD 300 ea (half the original price) in Japan not long ago. I paid 350 for my CV125 though.
It certainly looks like a very, very nice lens, with some of the best bokeh I've ever seen. I'm not sure it's that much better than my Sigma 150 macro, though. The bokeh might be a smidge creamier, but other than that....
Sam N wrote:
Maybe it was practice for the ZE line? I don't know how people got the idea that Zeiss doesn't like to put electronics in their lenses. The ZA line is full of electronics. The ZE line will have to have auto-aperture which will also require electronics.
The SL line predates the Zeiss partnership, although Cosina does eletronics-equipped lenses in the SLII line as well (the F mount lenses, which ironically were fully mechanical in the SL line).
Note the ZA's are a partnership with Sony and using Sony's lens mount, so it's a completely different situation with no worries about potential compatibility issues unlike being a 3rd party supplier as the Cosina-produced Zeiss lenses are.
The extremely strong backlighted scene has rendered this colour photo into almost a b&w photo, except for the tell tail sigh of the red float and some slight purple fringe caused by sensor bloom.
In that article Paul linked, they say it had slight vignetting at f/2.5 on a 350D. That sounds like it would vignette a bit on a 5D at f/4. Not the end of the world, for sure, but it would be good to know, as I'm sure many folks are now considering looking for one of these.
I must be the densest guy on the planet, but are we talking about two separate 125mm's here?
This thread started out talking about the Voigtlander SL 125mm f/2.5 APO, but somewhere along the way folks started mentioning the "CV 125/2.5" -Same lens?
Looks like a touch of longitudinal and or defocus CA to me. Sensor bloom should affect all areas of equal exposure equally, and not be concentrated within areas near or at focus. Also I'm not sure why sensor bloom would appear as any particular colour; this would imply some relation between the leakiness of a sensel and the colour of the filter it lies under?
cogitech wrote:
I've never seen purple LoCA before. Green? Red? Blue? Yellow? Yes.
Purple? No.
Defocus CA is common in lots of apochromatic designs, though there's no hard or fast reason why any particular colour combination couldn't be the outliers. Purple longitudinal is not uncommon in near-apo designs, the Zeiss 100/2 macro being an example. Depending on your definition, some visible colour of any particular band can be allowed to miss the airy disk of a true apochromat, too, though this is usually held much closer than in an achromat. Either aberration could be showing up in those waves.
cogitech wrote:
Not to mention, it happens in the sharpest area of the photo.
My guess is wee is correct.
Why would sharpness affect blooming, and why would blooming have a particular colour? If it was a telescope I'd request some front/in/back focus shots of a bright star as an acid test, but I'd also fall over sideways if an f/2.5 telephoto managed to pass it with no colour anywhere.
In this case, the best test would be to recreate the "blooming" wide open and then stop down and reshoot for the same exposure. If the "blooming" goes away, it never was blooming but rather either longitudinal or defocus CA.
I'm unable to get the purple fringe go away using the LR CA correction tool. However it does go away off easily when I check the color fringe box.
Frankly I don't really know what causes the purple fringe. Similar fringe is very excessive with the ZF 100 and many experts told me that it was caused by sensor bloom. Hence I call this sensor bloom here.
Whatever it is, it is CERTAINLY better than the ZF100 lens. The lens is also a great performer in its own right under such extreme backlite and high contrast situation.
Call it "eye control" if you wish 
)
