Steve Spencer
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Zeiss Otus ML 35F1.4 Released | |
freaklikeme wrote:
Juha Kannisto wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
tschopp wrote:
I’m fairly certain I’m not in the Otus target demographic. I do enjoy the GM primes, in many cases I would struggle with a MF lens. What are the main differences between the CV APO’s and this Otus line? I could potentially see picking up the CV 50 APO or maybe the 35 APO although what I have read the 50 seems like the stronger lens. As someone else said some view the CV APO as the high end, that does fit me.
---------------------------------------------
Juha Kannisto wrote:
tschopp wrote:
I’m fairly certain I’m not in the Otus target demographic. I do enjoy the GM primes, in many cases I would struggle with a MF lens. What are the main differences between the CV APO’s and this Otus line? I could potentially see picking up the CV 50 APO or maybe the 35 APO although what I have read the 50 seems like the stronger lens. As someone else said some view the CV APO as the high end, that does fit me.
Some of the major differences are size, weight, price, focus throw (very long on the Otus MLs), aperture, and the rendering is quite different in my opinion. I find CV 50 APO to be quite calm and understated and neutral, whereas the Otus ML produces much more dramatic shots in terms of focused point standing out and the overall rendering. CV 50 APO works great for landscapes and cityscapes but I don't find it as exciting for wide open object shots. Personally I prefer CV APO 35/2 over the 50/2. CV 35/2 APO has somewhat more structured bokeh rendering but I find the subject rendering to be more impactful than 50/2.
I'll add that the smaller lenses are more prone to shapely optical and higher natural vignetting that impact more of the frame. Also, the CVs have 12 blades in the aperture, but only maintain a round shape down to f/2.8. After that, they straighten out to give better light stars, but they take on a distinct shape as a result. I think you're back to round at f/16. The Otus have ten rounded blades that keep a decent circle throughout (they still do light stars, but they're smaller and less distinct). Bokeh's a matter of taste, of course, but I prefer the distinctly Distagon bokeh of the Otus (comparing 50 to 50, anyway). And the Otus does a better job of retaining its resolution regardless of focus distance. Neither 50 loses much, but the CV softens up a bit more.
I've only rented the 35 and 50/2, but I own the AL 28/2 along with the AL 50/3.5. I take them along when I'm hiking with the wildlife kit as my small incidentals and landscape kit, and they're both brilliant. The 28 is such a fine all-arounder, it makes me forget it's not one of my favored focal lengths.
CV Apo-Lanthar (E-mount) aperture specs are a bit different between each lens. 50/2 is specified to have round aperture at f2 and f2.8 and f16, and 35/2 is specified to have round aperture at f2, f2.8, f5.6 and f16. 28/2 doesn't have such special aperture design.
https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/en/e-mount/apo-lanthar-50mm-f2-aspherical/
https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/en/e-mount/apo-lanthar-35mm-f2-aspherical/
https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/en/e-mount/apo-lanthar-28mm-f2-aspherical/
Thanks for the correction. I never noticed the difference between the rented 35 and 50. I love the 12 round on the 28 and wish they'd release AL 65 and 110 updated with that same arrangement. The ten straight blades on the 50/3.5 might be a weakness if I ever used it for anything other than landscapes and panos.
The aperture shape on the 28 APO aren't round at any aperture except f/2, but the twelve blades make the polygons somewhat hard to see and of course the size of the bokeh balls matters and they get bigger as the aperture is bigger and you focus closer. I find I never notice the polygons of the CV 28 f/1.5 even at f/2 as the bokeh circles are just too small to see the shapes unless you zoom way in. I don't shoot that lens close enough for the bokeh circles to ever get that big and they would be even smaller with the 28 APO.
I have thought a lot about the aperture shape, probably much too much, as I noticed Cosina has been so variable on this issue. My favorite aperture shape for Cosina lenses is the M mount 90 f/2.8 APO, it is round at f/2.8, f/4, and f/16. So when shooting portraits you can get nice round balls at wider apertures but sunstars at narrower apertures, but can still avoid them at f/16 if it was important to you to avoid them. This shape works because I prefer the round aperture for portraits and that is available through f/4 where I would shoot almost all my portriats, and I prefer having sunstars for most of my stopped down shooting. The 50 f/2 APO, for Sony and Nikon (but not M) mounts is quite similar with round apertures at f/2, f/2.8, and f/16. I am less of a fan of the aperture shape of the 50 f/2 APO on the Leica M mount lens (which is the same aa the 35 f/2 APO on all mounts) with round apertures at f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, and f/16 as you can't get good sunstars until you stop down pretty far. All the other CV lenses have either 10 or 12 blades that have a round aperture only at the widest. I think futzing with the aperture shape was something Cosina tried but in the end it looks like they don't think it was that good of an idea.
The alternative is making the aperture shape round at all apertures and Voigtlander doesn't do that with any of their own current offerings, but as Brad says they do with the new Zeiss Otus ML lenses. They also did that with all the Zeiss classic, Milvus, and the original Otus lenses. I prefer the round shape at all apertures for portraits and especially for macro lenses as I find for macro the bokeh balls can often be very large and the shapes quite noticeable. Ideally for me a lens would have round bokeh balls up to f/8 and good sunstars starting at f/8. One of the strengths of the Otus ML lenses, for my tastes, is they basically achieve that.
|
