zhangyue wrote:
A great lens as is. But I will not replace either 50 or 85 with this. 50mm is a very important focal length no matter do landscape or portrait, stitch 3 vertical frame with 50% overlap I got another important focal 35 for landscape. And 85 is claasic portrait lens that no 65 can replace.
This is a great lens and Sony user really should add this one if budget allow, but replace 50? I don't know. I will always rate focal length more important for getting the shot than color correction or resolution. Not to mention, difference will be small compare to competition for most relevant images. ...Show more →
Agree. How are you figuring the vertical 3 stitch crop with 50% overlap = 35mm? I've wondered how much I would have to crop and stitch a 35 and 28 to get the FOV of a 21 and 18mm.
DavidBM wrote:
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)
I didn't have much time to test the Batis 135 APO today but took a couple shots outside. Could not see any spherochromatism or Lateral CA...pushing it very hard...Very impressive level of correction. (CV 65 APO very similar)
Resolution is very high from wide open to the extreme corners at infinity. (Again similar to CV 65)
Finally a lens that will beat my Zeiss 100-300 @135mm. (I think)
The Batis 135/2.8 APO is a remarkable lens and I waited too long to get it. AF is fast and silent. Manual focus is improved from the Batis 85/1.8, being linear and with similar feedback to my GM lenses.
The sunstar rendering surprised me being sharp and without ghosting. F/5.6 looks pretty good already improving more as we step down further. Here are two samples showing its sunstar rendering:
DavidBM wrote:
...
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...
...
Well, "having different lenses for different use cases with different tradeoffs" is precisely what I'd define as the sensible approach.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I didn't have much time to test the Batis 135 APO today but took a couple shots outside. Could not see any spherochromatism or Lateral CA...pushing it very hard...Very impressive level of correction. (CV 65 APO very similar)
Resolution is very high from wide open to the extreme corners at infinity. (Again similar to CV 65)
Finally a lens that will beat my Zeiss 100-300 @135mm. (I think)
The Batis 135/2.8 APO is a remarkable lens and I waited too long to get it. AF is fast and silent. Manual focus is improved from the Batis 85/1.8, being linear and with similar feedback to my GM lenses.
The sunstar rendering surprised me being sharp and without ghosting. F/5.6 looks pretty good already improving more as we step down further. Here are two samples:...Show more →
It is wonderful, isn't it?
Johnathon talked about gateway drugs @Genji and it does make me look at my dry cabinets and wish that everything in them was like this, or the few other lenses in the same class.
DavidBM wrote:
It is wonderful, isn't it?
Johnathon talked about gateway drugs @Genji@ and it does make me look at my dry cabinets and wish that everything in them was like this, or the few other lenses in the same class.
I am so glad you said dry cabinets. I was wondering if I was unusual in needing two.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am curious about the CV 125 APO--it is like a longer CV 65 in terms of rendering and IQ? Anyone compared it to the any modern great lenses?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am curious about the CV 125 APO--it is like a longer CV 65 in terms of rendering and IQ? Anyone compared it to the any modern great lenses?
I've never tried it but it's a SLR lens with 9-aperture blades. At 690g + adapter is also much heavier than the Batis 135 APO, with pretty much the same amount of blur. The CV 125 benefit is 1:1 macro!
I hope the CV 65/2 APO sells well.
Voigtlander may decide to bring this one back redesigned for the E-mount. Meanwhile I will be enjoying the Batis.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've never tried it but it's a SLR lens with 9-aperture blades. At 690g + adapter is also much heavier than the Batis 135 APO, with pretty much the same amount of blur. The CV 125 benefit is 1:1 macro!
I hope the CV 65/2 APO sells well.
Voigtlander may decide to bring this one back redesigned for the E-mount. Meanwhile I will be enjoying the Batis.
What I would love is a modern take on the cv 4/180 APO Lanthar (it's from the same era as the 125 macro)
It's still my most used tele: usefully better than the f4 zoom, especially in colour correction, much smaller and lighter, and very close focusing - 1:4 from memory but not sure)
If we could have something like it with more contrast and a tiny bit better in the extreme corners without losing its stellar mid and centre performance, I'd be all over it.
The 65 makes me fear, though, that any new 4/180 will end up a lot bigger that the classic APO Lanthar, which will kind of defeat its point.
DavidBM wrote:
It is wonderful, isn't it?
Johnathon talked about gateway drugs @Genji@ and it does make me look at my dry cabinets and wish that everything in them was like this, or the few other lenses in the same class.
Yes, it's wonderful, including the OOF and color rendering. The downside is that except for the CV 65, all my other lenses look bad in comparison. Once you go apo, you never go back!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it's wonderful, including the OOF and color rendering. The downside is that except for the CV 65, all my other lenses look bad in comparison. Once you go apo, you never go back!
Did you have this terrifying thought when shooting it? "So *this* is what it would be like to shoot Otus"
I think I'm safe due to size, weight, and the fear of divorce...
DavidBM wrote:
Did you have this terrifying thought when shooting it? "So *this* is what it would be like to shoot Otus"
I think I'm safe due to size, weight, and the fear of divorce...
The only Otus I am remotely interested in is the 28/1.4 APO but both price and weight make this proposition prohibited to me. With adapter, it weights the same as my 100-400 GM!
I am still hopeful we will see a Loxia or CV 28 in the future.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The only Otus I am remotely interested in is the 28/1.4 APO but both price and weight make this proposition prohibited to me. I am still hopeful we will see a Loxia or CV 28 in the future.
Yes me too: there are alternatives that come close enough while being infinitely more usable at 55 and 85. But wide is where we aren't yet in lens perfection nirvana, and that Otus (I did get my hands on one for a few hours) is as close as I've seen. While the lens itself is not as good as the 55 or 85, my sense was that the extent to which *it was better than the wide alternatives* was greater than the extent to which the 55 and 85 are.
But I have no interest really in a kilo class 28. But an f2.4 - f2.8 of comparable quality? Bring it on!
DavidBM wrote:
Yes me too: there are alternatives that come close enough while being infinitely more usable at 55 and 85. But wide is where we aren't yet in lens perfection nirvana, and that Otus (I did get my hands on one for a few hours) is as close as I've seen. While the lens itself is not as good as the 55 or 85, my sense was that the extent to which *it was better than the wide alternatives* was greater than the extent to which the 55 and 85 are.
But I have no interest really in a kilo class 28. But an f2.4 - f2.8 of comparable quality? Bring it on!...Show more →
I have found the Nikon 28/1.8G to be optically excellent on my A7RII (with correctly spec'd adapters), but similar performance in a Loxia or CV (native mount) design would welcome. I would likely be smaller, but heavier than the 28G. That lens is surprisingly light for a 28/1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I'm not warming up to the CV 65 like I had planned. I should own one by now, but after using the Loxia 85 with ext tubes to get 1:2 macro I'm no longer smitten by the limited macro capability of the 65. The Loxia 85 is almost as well corrected, and I would rather shoot macro with a 85 for the greater working distance. I'm also still on the fence concerning the bokeh of the CV65 at macro distances. The L85 bokeh (and sharpness) is excellent with extension tubes.
I'm also not convinced I want to give up shooting with a 50mm lens.
DavidBM wrote:
The 65 makes me fear, though, that any new 4/180 will end up a lot bigger that the classic APO Lanthar, which will kind of defeat its point.
The announced 1.2/40 seems to be very small though and the SWAs are small as well. So I still have hope that their next lenses remain small.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The announced 1.2/40 seems to be very small though and the SWAs are small as well. So I still have hope that their next lenses remain small.
I hope you are right, Phillip, but by fear is that the APO Lanthar tag may be reserved for large no optical compromises lenses.
So maybe there will be many compromise lenses, and no compromise lenses, rather than the moderate compromise solutions I might prefer
DavidBM wrote:
I hope you are right, Phillip, but by fear is that the APO Lanthar tag may be reserved for large no optical compromises lenses.
So maybe there will be many compromise lenses, and no compromise lenses, rather than the moderate compromise solutions I might prefer
We have certainly seen too few good compromise lenses lately and too many uber-large super high performance ones. I wonder though how much better a CV 4/180 could be made made with today's technology while keeping size and weight.
