Ripolini wrote:
Well, the 58/0.95 is not an "APO" lens, it is impressively fast and sharp though, hence the price and the nickname. Similarly, if we consider much cheaper lenses like my Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar and 135/2 Apo Sonnar, we note that the former isn't an "Apo" lens and shows much more LoCA than the Apo Sonnar. Of course, the Apo Sonnar has much much less CA, not zero CA. There are no perfect lenses. The Makro-Planar is only slightly cheaper than the Apo Sonnar; it has same speed and shorter focal length (smaller glass elements) but macro 1:2, with a more complex design for the correction of aberrations at close range. I mean, the two lenses play in the same league, price is/was not much different and the one that doesn't carry the name "Apo" has (in high-contrast scenes) visible LoCA till f/4-f/5.6.
taildraggin wrote:
... it does seem to check all the boxes for lateral CA: short focal length lens, off center occurrence, even at a mild (not wide open) f/stop (f/4, in this case).
Probably nobody read what I wrote previously:
"purple fringing is not visible in the top right corner of the DSC01055.jpg file ... "
That image has a corner (top right) with tree branches and similar contrast but NO visible purple fringing, Why?
I have an hypothesis that Juha won't like
I think this 1055 has quite many differences to 969 in terms of various conditions, e.g. based on raw files the focus distance on 969 was 31.3m and on 1055 it's 6.322m. Both are heavily overexposed in certain (different) areas but light angles and a lot of things relating to the compositions are different. In 1055 the trees on the right side are pretty close and in 969 the trees on the left are very far away etc. If "sensor related oversaturation" would be behind the fringing on 969, I still think it would depend a lot on various conditions and wouldn't necessarily show up in other shots with branches and similar contrast if other conditions are not quite the same.
Anyway, possible lens decentering could also be a factor. I received my original lens just around 15min before heading out on that hotspring trip where I took those photos, so I didn't have much time to test it beforehand, but I did a quick decentering (4-corners) test from balcony at that time at f2 and all corners looked fine (just checking on the camera) so I didn't worry about it afterwards. I also didn't notice any weak corners or edges etc. on my actual shots.
I did another quick test this morning from balcony and I would say that 3 corners looked fine and equal but one looks a little bit suspect when inspected closely on a computer. I'll need to check in more detail to make sure so not sharing any corner-check samples now. When shooting vertically like I did on most of these samples, the potentially weak corner would be lower left. The upper left and right corners both looked perfectly good and equal.
Anyway, I also bought a 2nd copy of the lens today (while Fujiya Camera still had some stock) so I can compare them to see if my original copy is really having any issue. Today's weather turned quite cloudy so I didn't do much shooting with the 2nd copy yet but on initial inspection it looks perfectly good.
Based on Okigubo Sakuraya online store, next shipments for the E-mount version from Cosina are now expected in May so I figured it will be hard to get it soon after the few remaining stores that still have some stock from initial shipments run out... Hence I got motivated to go for the 2nd copy with some urgency...
Jan 24, 2026 at 05:45 AM
Previous versions of Juha Kannisto's message #16973267 « Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 28/2 lens for E-mount & Z-mount got announced! »
