Seriously this is my biggest fundamental problem with reviews. Just really bad info, really bugs me. Some poor soul will read that and take it to heart and we all know better. Why I hate reviews.
I know I know but it’s getting very hard to trust anything written.
I happened to notice it and thought it was odd . . . there's a few positive reviews there now to offset the one negative review.
I buy a lot of stuff off of Amazon and depend on reviews for general guidance, so I'm sensitive to the odd negative (or conversely overly positive) review and try to participate when I can.
Since no one has replied - I would not think that this would replace the 90 Sony and it is a dedicated macro lens and gives you working distance. The 65/2, in my mind, is more of an all around lens that is geared toward closer-in photography (not necessarily macro) and meant to be shot wide open quite frequently.
billsnature wrote:
I am trying hard to resist buying the 65mm as I already have too many lenses.
For macro is this really any better than Sony 90mm macro which I find to be quite stunning?
Bill
No. For macro purposes the 90 is, I think, just as sharp, and of course goes to 1:1 and has a little more working distance at equivalent magnifications.
The CV seems to optimised at 1:10 (though still very sharp at 1:2 - I get this from Jim Kasson).
But what's compelling about it is it's incredible colour correction and sharpness at every distance out to infinity. I think it's sharper than the Sony at long distances, where the Sony is weakest (though still extremely good).
But I'm expecting to still use the Sony as my usual macro lens, despite having the 65.
(The FBW implementation on the Sony, by the way, is very good, and allows you to switch from linear to variable FBW. But that is one respect in which the CV is more pleasant for macro. Having said that, with close macro, I usually dial up the magnification I want and move the lens and camera to get focus -- and the Sony will let you do that just fine)
billsnature wrote:
I am trying hard to resist buying the 65mm as I already have too many lenses.
For macro is this really any better than Sony 90mm macro which I find to be quite stunning?
Bill
jhinkey wrote:
Since no one has replied - I would not think that this would replace the 90 Sony and it is a dedicated macro lens and gives you working distance. The 65/2, in my mind, is more of an all around lens that is geared toward closer-in photography (not necessarily macro) and meant to be shot wide open quite frequently.
DavidBM wrote:
No. For macro purposes the 90 is, I think, just as sharp, and of course goes to 1:1 and has a little more working distance at equivalent magnifications.
The CV seems to optimised at 1:10 (though still very sharp at 1:2 - I get this from Jim Kasson).
But what's compelling about it is it's incredible colour correction and sharpness at every distance out to infinity. I think it's sharper than the Sony at long distances, where the Sony is weakest (though still extremely good).
But I'm expecting to still use the Sony as my usual macro lens, despite having the 65.
(The FBW implementation on the Sony, by the way, is very good, and allows you to switch from linear to variable FBW. But that is one respect in which the CV is more pleasant for macro. Having said that, with close macro, I usually dial up the magnification I want and move the lens and camera to get focus -- and the Sony will let you do that just fine) ...Show more →
That's exactly how I feel and that's what I will be using the Voigtlander lens for.
Back to the original question:
Bill, I also have too many lenses but I didn't resist that much . I took delivery of that lens 2 days ago. So far, I have been amazed at the image quality that lens delivers. I will take it to Yosemite for fall color shooting up there this weekend with a few other prime lenses but I will leave my Sony FE 90mm lens home. On the other hand for my trip to Costa Rica in the early part of next year, I will take the FE 90mm macro with me.
That's exactly how I feel and that's what I will be using the Voigtlander lens for.
Back to the original question:
Bill, I also have too many lenses but I didn't resist that much . I took delivery of that lens 2 days ago. So far, I have been amazed at the image quality that lens delivers. I will take it to Yosemite for fall color shooting up there this weekend with a few other prime lenses but I will leave my Sony FE 90mm lens home. On the other hand for my trip to Costa Rica in the early part of next year, I will take the FE 90mm macro with me....Show more →
I'm very curious to see what you can do with the CV 65 in Yosemite. I will be there next month and will bring it too!
That's exactly how I feel and that's what I will be using the Voigtlander lens for.
Back to the original question:
Bill, I also have too many lenses but I didn't resist that much . I took delivery of that lens 2 days ago. So far, I have been amazed at the image quality that lens delivers. I will take it to Yosemite for fall color shooting up there this weekend with a few other prime lenses but I will leave my Sony FE 90mm lens home. On the other hand for my trip to Costa Rica in the early part of next year, I will take the FE 90mm macro with me....Show more →
Hopefully the fires will subside and smokes clears out
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm very curious to see what you can do with the CV 65 in Yosemite. I will be there next month and will bring it too!
I am not sure what I will encounter there either, Fred. I will start posting as soon as I can, depending on the internet connection there. Somehow I imagine, the Loxia 21mm and Apo Lanthar 65 will be used a fair amount . I will also have wider and longer lenses, just in case.
AGeoJO wrote:
I am not sure what I will encounter there either, Fred. I will start posting as soon as I can, depending on the internet connection there. Somehow I imagine, the Loxia 21mm and Apo Lanthar 65 will be used a fair amount . I will also have wider and longer lenses, just in case.
My mostly used FLs in Yosemite are:
12, 15, 21, 35, 50 and 85.
This time I will replace the 50 and 85 for the 65 and see what happens...
Fred Miranda wrote:
My mostly used FLs in Yosemite are:
12, 15, 21, 35, 50 and 85.
This time I will replace the 50 and 85 for the 65 and see what happens...
I will have the FE 12-24, 35mm and GM 100-400mm in addition to the two lenses I mentioned above. So, two zoom lenses covering the short and long ends and 3 prime lenses in the middle.
Last year I sold my Otus 55mm. I LOVED that lens, but selling it was the right thing to do because I wanted/needed a lighter/smaller all-native lens kit. So, I’m hoping the CV 65mm will be my new Otus. Probably wishful thinking on my part, because that Otus was amazeballs for me, but the raves about the CV 65mm on this forum and in this thread have won me over and I finally placed my order tonight.
I am very pleased with the way my prime lens kit will be spaced out with the addition of the CV 65mm (and subtraction of my little FE 55mm): CV 12mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 65mm, Batis 135mm.
GMPhotography wrote:
Frankly I think the 65 apo and Batis 135 are two of the best lenses going in Native mount. Let me rephrase that they are the two best lenses in native.
