LightShow wrote:
I've already been looking for an APO wide, all I've found is the Otus 28, and this: http://www.slrmagic.info/product/APO+HyperPrime+CINE+APO25PL
I contacted them to see if they had any plans to house it in a normal lens body, and their reply was not at this time...
Also this: Schneider 24mm f/5.6 Apo-Digitar XL, and, Rodenstock 35mm f/4.5 Apo-Grandagon
I'm looking forward to a CV 65/2 Macro APO vs Leica R 60/2.8 Macro comparison.
The Schneider 24 needs exactly 12mm between the rear surface and the sensor for infinity. You might be able to sync it into the mount 6mm to accomplish that, but you'll want to do a bag-bellows test before committing to a remount. I'm betting the corners will be trouble no matter how far you stop down. The Grandagon requires a little less than 18mm and there's no way you're getting that huge rear element in a Sony. it's the APO-Sironar-Digital HR or Digaron HR 35/4 that can work. I'd planned to convert mine for use on a GFX (along with a 60/4 and 100/4) before I went the DB route, but I've still got it in it's temporary E-mount I used for proof-of-concept. Great lens, but given the size, weight, and typical price (good deals happen if you're patient) you're better off the 35LII which, by f/4, is as well-corrected and higher resolution across the frame.
GMPhotography wrote:
It's funny I read a lot of negatives on this VC65 n other sites, glad I don't pay attention to any of them but if the whiners actually shot the damn thing maybe they would get it. For us pixel peeping souls this thing has a place in your kit. Get over it's a 65mm it's actually a lovely focal length
Interesting: where have read the whining? The only semi negative stuff I've read is from complete bulls**t sites.
I mean, even Llloyd Chambers loves the CV65, and it's not even made by Zeiss!
DavidBM wrote:
Interesting: where have read the whining? The only semi negative stuff I've read is from complete bulls**t sites.
I mean, even Llloyd Chambers loves the CV65, and it's not even made by Zeiss!
I've read comments like, "why would anyone buy this lens when there is a Sony 90/2.8 1:1 macro" or "manual focus lens, no thank you!..." or "weird focal length" or "too heavy", "too expensive"...etc... Some say the rendering can be harsh but I found that at close and mid-distances it's comparable with the 55/1.8 ZA's which everyone seems to really like... https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1451413/26#14168206
So I guess, some folks don't like manual focus lenses, or don't care about the level of CA correction and have different priorities.
The 50/1.4 ZA is tougher competitor. Both have great CA correction although 65 APO is better with pretty much no CA. Both have high resolution close and at infinity and both are flat-field. Aside from weight differences, the 50/1.4 ZA's only major disadvantage is a noticeably mid-zone resolution dip in comparison.
davewolfs wrote:
Any advantage over Loxia 50 or Zony 50 1.4 other than Macro capability?
Read back a few pages. It is getter corrected for CA and is sharper across the frame than the Loxia at least at larger apertures. There is no contest till F5.6 or smaller where the differences diminish, but don't disappear entirely.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've read comments like, "why would anyone buy this lens when there is a Sony 90/2.8 1:1 macro" or "manual focus lens, no thank you!..." or "weird focal length" or "too heavy", "too expensive"...etc... Some say the rendering can be harsh but I found that at close and mid-distances it's comparable with the 55/1.8 ZA's which everyone seems to really like... https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1451413/26#14168206
So I guess, some folks don't like manual focus lenses, or don't care about the level of CA correction and have different priorities.
Oh sure, that's the usual stuff, and of course some people don't want MF or 65mm or a big heavy normal lens (actually I have some sympathy for the last - that's part of why I managed to hold out for a few days). I guess I thought Guy had read negative stuff about its optical qualities. Whether those great qualities are worth the trade off with MF, size, weight, aperture, magnification etc etc is another matter and we'll all decide differently.
And if I were sensible enough to have a pared down system with one key lens at each FL, rather than having different lenses for different use cases with different tradeoffs, I'm not sure that the CV would be in that pared down system because of the bulk and weight. But luckily I'm not that sensible...
Gotta say, I am amazed by the quality. I'd love to see a comparison with Otus 55 from f2 onwards...
DavidBM wrote:
Agree completely with that; in fact I'm expecting the 40 to perform rather better than 1.2/35, quite good though that was.
It's possible. Newer design, maybe newer materials available. I wasn't all that fond of the 35 (much prefer the ZM Distagon) so I think there's room for improvement.
If I ran Cosina, my next plan for the E-mount would be a three lens landscaper kit that didn't try to be anything but a landscaper kit. Fully manual. no FLEs, limited MFD's, nothing faster than f/4, but designed for high resolution, flare resistance, and color correction, at focal lengths of 24, 40, and 100. Give them locks so you can set them to the hyper-focal distance at your shooting aperture, filter-friendly hoods, and two sets of aperture blades, ten rounded and nine straight, with controls for one toward the front of the lens and the other behind the focusing ring with a clutch between them to keep you from trying to close one if the other is set for something other than wide open.
kaioyang wrote:
Well, I look forward to seeing comparison between Batis 135, Zeiss APO 2/135 ZF.2 and Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125/2.5 :-)
There's a limited comparison between the f2ZF2 Apo Sonnar and the Batis in my review of the Batis on Phillip Reeve's site.
It's confined to wide open bokeh; but I can tell you that these two lenses, at shared apertures, look remarkably similar, though the Batis has even better APO correction!
I've still got them both, because while I'll never travel with the ZF2 Apo Sonnar, I quite often use it wide open for portraits or botanical images (sometimes blending in an f3.5 image of the detailed parts of the image to get the best of both worlds)
davewolfs wrote:
Interesting. Maybe I'll pick one up.
Fred and others how do you like the Loxia 35 to the 50 at larger apertures.
Usually the 50/21 combo serves me well for not so serious stuff.
The L35 has a mug of SA haze wide open, which you will either think is atmospheric and great, or hate. It clears up one stop down. The L50 is free of that.
The L50 is then a bit better in the periphery in terms of sharpness from f2 to f4; the gap is closing by f5.6. They are both superb at stopped down landscape apertures, with slight nod to the 50 in the corners as you'd expect with 50 vs 35.
