Chris_88
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III - rolling review | |
hesb wrote:
I don't know what stopped down performance means compared to apo lanthar series. The strength of the lanthar series is their performance wide open, especially considering corner to corner sharpness, and CA.
My Nokton 50mm 1.2 E is considered by some to be one of the sharpest lens at 5.6 in center. But I don't think the corners come close to the APO 50. CA at 5.6 are also perfectly corrected whereas under 2.8, fringing can be seen...
On this infinity test Center looks perfect where corners look only good to very good. And as Fred said, at closer distance, it cannot be as good as lenses with floating element.
I was merely transcribing what that review stated; no need to shoot the messenger. Their point was that the 35 1.2 was different from the APO Lanthars, in that it had a dual character: Usable sharpness with some old school glow wide open (like the APO Lanthars that are hard to fault from the wide open) and sharpness on the same level as the APO Lanthars stopped down to f5.6 or f8 at infinity. They also noted the lack of a floating element which obviously effects close up performance, just like it did with the 40 1.2.
This all sounds reasonable to me and I'm curious to see what Fred reports, seeing how there are probably no reviewers with better and more critical eyes around than him.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Chris_88 wrote:
Fred, I know it's early, but I'm curious about your findings re performance differences between the VM and e-mount versions. A major camera store in Tokyo just posted their review the other day, and among other things they mentioned that the e-mount version showed less purple fringing than the VM version. Also, they argued that stopped down performance was on the same level as the APO Lanthar lenses. I would be interested to hear you thoughts on these points, when you've had more time to evaluate the lens.
Yes, the E-mount version will show less lateral CA when editing its raw files in Lightroom. However, it's not because it's superior optically.
The reason is that Sony embeds CA correction to the RAW file and that does not happen with the VM lens adapted to Sony or used on a Leica body. Once the VM file is corrected for CA, files from both lenses would look pretty much the same in terms of color error. (There is some correction for purple fringing as well)
Thanks, Fred. I had forgotten about the "software" part of the package. Looking forward to your comparisons with older 35mm MF glass to get an idea how this compares to the Loxia 35, etc.
|
