I already commented that I dont find the CV65s rendinging to pop
I said that it’s rather optical perfection
But you probably didn’t read my post before writing this.
Steve Spencer wrote: Happydan wrote:
BTW: I was looking at the lens diagram of the 65APO on voigtlander.de the german website
There the ED elements are not denoted, neither in their description = strange
Same with the lens diagram on Amazon.com - super strange
I saw it with your link to the voigtlander.co.jp site
Sorry for the confusion.
Ive attached both diagrams below. Only the Aspherical element was denoted.
Sorry for spamming
Steve Spencer wrote: Happydan wrote:
Also note that the CV 28 APO is full! Of ED glass elements
What I’m gathering right now is that more ED does not translate to natural 3D face profiles.
I’m seeing this with the CV 65 which has no ED compared to the CV110 that is almost entirely made of ED glass - although they both correct chromatically excellently (APO)
The portrait pictures I’m seeing from the 110 apo are not nice
I’m liking the pop from the simera 35 - it has no ED glass
Also the simera 28 has proven much better pop factor - that’s why I chose it over the CV 28 nokton.
Pop pop pop - lol
Coming to think that I prefer asphericals / high refractive index glass elements for sharpness/contrast and naturally perceivable depth over much ED to avoid CA.
Edit: the Zeiss 55/1.8 has 3 aspherical elements - that’s it
It’s famous for its rendition and I’m considering sticking with it as opposed to the 50 simera
The 40 nokton was a blast’ having two double sided aspherical elements and no ED Glass
Getting interesting to think about the lens diagrams in combination to looking at picture samples!!
The CV 65 f/2 APO has six APD elements. See the diagram here:
I see exactly zero evidence the ED glass prevents 3D rendering and your own arguments argue against it as the CV 65 has tons of ED glass.
Yes you were looking at the wrong website. The Cosina website that I linked shows 6 APD (Cosina's label for ED glass) elements in the CV 65 f/2 APO. If you think that lens has 3D pop, then you should count its existence as pretty good evidence against your proposition that ED glass prevents 3D pop.
