highdesertmesa
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Official: Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar announced! | |
Fred Miranda wrote:
highdesertmesa wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
highdesertmesa wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe we can petition Cosina for an apodisation element version.
I see a lot of OOF specular 'donuts' at f/2 & 2.8 and even still some at f/4. It wouldn't be my first choice for background rendering... But this aspect has frequently been a challenge for 35mm lenses at medium focus distances with relatively near backgrounds. Which M mount 35mm lenses handle this better (meaning more Gaussian-like blur)? Maybe the VM35/1.7? The various VM35/1.2s?
IMO I'd be buying the APO for its performance at the plane of focus. Background/foreground rendering would be secondary. That said, it's an integral aspect of the lens's character that needs to be understood.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Honestly aside from high optical vignetting, their best 35mm was the CV 35/1.7 Ultron in terms of smooth transition zone but unfortunately it was discontinued once the CV 35/2 Ultron (version I) was released. The latter has structured rendering (harsher) in comparison. Perhaps they were trying to match the Leica 35/2 cron's look and although rendering is quite similar, the Leica has noticeably lower optical vignetting which means more rounded bokeh off-axis (less swirling).
And that is precisely my conundrum as a very happy VM 35/1.7 user... What optical advantages will the APO provide for my typical uses? TBH, I seem to use the 35/1.7 mostly stopped down to f/5.6-8 for urban and natural landscapes. Could probably use any number of 35s... I'm also still at 24MP. Differences in favor of the APO likely will become more apparent at higher resolutions and with closer evaluation (pixel peeping).
As I've said before, I really don't like the 1.7's ergonomics, upon which the APO improves. But I'm not sure I'll like the APO's larger size (from the perspective of a Leica M user).
The new Ultron version 2 IMO improves ergonomics even more to better align with Leica's designs, and it's a small lens. Maybe I should be looking there instead as a smaller stopped down walk-around option. But yes, its harsh focus transition zone was an initial turn-off I saw in early images from it.
---------------------------------------------
If I had every other CV 35, I would still buy the 35 APO again due to the insane resolving power and sharpness to the very corners on the M10-R at f/5.6. It's the ultimate stopped-down 35mm M lens, IMO, and a $7K savings over the Leica version that doesn't perform as well into the corners. Wide open, I'm very happy with the CV 35 APO since I usually like to shoot at close distance. With its 50cm MFD, it's quite versatile for an APO – I would have expected 70cm.
Honesty, though, I can't get the Leica 35 APO out of my head due to its 30cm MFD, which matches my Q's MFD when in non-macro mode. Maybe someday.
Steve Spencer wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe we can petition Cosina for an apodisation element version.
I see a lot of OOF specular 'donuts' at f/2 & 2.8 and even still some at f/4. It wouldn't be my first choice for background rendering... But this aspect has frequently been a challenge for 35mm lenses at medium focus distances with relatively near backgrounds. Which M mount 35mm lenses handle this better (meaning more Gaussian-like blur)? Maybe the VM35/1.7? The various VM35/1.2s?
IMO I'd be buying the APO for its performance at the plane of focus. Background/foreground rendering would be secondary. That said, it's an integral aspect of the lens's character that needs to be understood.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Honestly aside from high optical vignetting, their best 35mm was the CV 35/1.7 Ultron in terms of smooth transition zone but unfortunately it was discontinued once the CV 35/2 Ultron (version I) was released. The latter has structured rendering (harsher) in comparison. Perhaps they were trying to match the Leica 35/2 cron's look and although rendering is quite similar, the Leica has noticeably lower optical vignetting which means more rounded bokeh off-axis (less swirling).
And that is precisely my conundrum as a very happy VM 35/1.7 user... What optical advantages will the APO provide for my typical uses? TBH, I seem to use the 35/1.7 mostly stopped down to f/5.6-8 for urban and natural landscapes. Could probably use any number of 35s... I'm also still at 24MP. Differences in favor of the APO likely will become more apparent at higher resolutions and with closer evaluation (pixel peeping).
As I've said before, I really don't like the 1.7's ergonomics, upon which the APO improves. But I'm not sure I'll like the APO's larger size (from the perspective of a Leica M user).
The new Ultron version 2 IMO improves ergonomics even more to better align with Leica's designs, and it's a small lens. Maybe I should be looking there instead as a smaller stopped down walk-around option. But yes, its harsh focus transition zone was an initial turn-off I saw in early images from it.
And in Fred's review, I really like the Voigtlander 35 f/2.5. That looks like a great lens for your use as well. If you ever want to sell your 35 f/1.7, let me know. I might well be interested and I live not too far away. Not sure what I am going to do at this focal length. I am considering the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 III, the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO, getting both of those or the f/1.2 plus the f/2.5 but lately have been thinking the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 might be a nice one lens compromise.
I have the CV 35 1.2 III and CV 35 APO. I really like both of them, but I will probably never carry both at the same time. The 1.2 will go with me when I only take one lens and am shooting vacation and casual shots. The 35 APO will go with me when I am shooting a 3-lens kit (35/50/75), and I know I'll have opportunities for infinity landscape. If I were forced to choose between them, I would take the 1.2 every time, though, since I have the 50 APO. I find it very difficult to take the 50 APO off the M10-R. Due to the longer focal length's effect on background blur, I think the 50 APO can better take the place of its f/1.2 counterpart than the 35 can. But then again, I don't own the 50 1.2 to be sure 
If you like 50mm, you would love the CV 50/1.2. It's sharper than the 50/2 APO at f/2 (center) and performs well across the field (better than the 35 and 40mm Nokton lenses). IMO, rendering is also more pleasant in comparison.
That’s pretty incredible if the 1.2 is sharper in the center than the APO. The 50 APO on the M10-R reminds me of the central sharpness of the Q2M or one of the native GF lenses on the GFX 50S/R.
Yes, I was surprised by it as well but the test was done with the E-mount versions on 60MP.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/32#15314691
I would take the CV 50/1.2 over the Leica 50/1.4 on resolution and rendering. The CV 50/1.5 is the one more comparable to the Lux although not as good at close distance since the latter is equipped with FLE.
Interesting. I wonder if the M-mount versions on an M body show the same difference.
|
