I wonder why 65mm and not 45-55mm. I imagine the latent demand for an apo close focussing 50mm must exceed the same in 65mm by about 100X. It's the only thing stopping me. That and the 600g. And the E mount, which unlike Nikon or Canon mounts can't be adapted to other systems.
Nov 19, 2017 at 10:04 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
kotmj wrote:
I wonder why 65mm and not 45-55mm. I imagine the latent demand for an apo close focussing 50mm must exceed the same in 65mm by about 100X. It's the only thing stopping me. That and the 600g. And the E mount, which unlike Nikon or Canon mounts can't be adapted to other systems.
Well I would presume one of the reasons it is 65 instead of 45-55 is that it is considerably easier to make a longer lens APO than a shorter lens APO. I think there are only two lenses between 45-55 that are APO and one (the Otus 55) costs $4,000, and one (the Leica M 50 f/2 APO) costs $7,000. Even a 65 f/2 APO lens at a $1,000 price point is pretty remarkable, but one at even a shorter focal length and anything close to that in price would be pretty astounding.
I've been going around since yesterday shooting the Voigtlaender Ultron 40/2 (which is more like a 42mm) on my A6300 to see if the 63mm-e focal length is something I can warm to.
A seller in my market has it in stock for the equivalent of USD 880 all taxes included. That's the price of a used Makro-Planar 50/2 "classic" on eBay.
For what it's worth, I just spent a short time testing the 2/65 on a a7r2 body at portrait distances and found it very difficult to focus accurately (with a person, ie a slightly moving subject). It seems the falloff between sharp and OOF is quite abrupt and the helicoid is too short at portrait distances to allow careful, accurate focus, so I found myself overshooting a lot in both directions. I should add that I do have heaps of experience focusing people with various fast MF lenses and find this lens about as hard to focus accurately as any I've used (stationary subjects would be easier simply because there is more time). As a people lens I'm not sure the 2/65 is a 'thing', even though the images are superb and the bokeh was a little better than I'd anticipated too, it might be a bit too much of a struggle with too many missed shots. By comparison I regularly use an R 1.4/80, R 1.4/35 and FL 1.2/58 and have far less trouble getting accurate focus (even though the resulting images are less sharp than the images from the 2/65 (when focus is nailed)). Just my 2 cents.
65mm may also be to avoid cannibalising sales of the Loxia 50. Imagine a 50 macro apo native emount Voigtlaender at usd1k. Nobody would buy the Loxia anymore.
It's also in the emount to avoid cannibalising the Milvus 50M available for Canon and Nikon.
So by selecting the 65mm focal length, Cosina is being polite to its biggest customer, Zeiss.
However, in 10 years when Zeiss manual focus lenses are made by Zhongyi in China, Cosina will be free to flesh out its portfolio of Voigtlaender lenses.
kotmj wrote:
65mm may also be to avoid cannibalising sales of the Loxia 50. Imagine a 50 macro apo native emount Voigtlaender at usd1k. Nobody would buy the Loxia anymore.
It's also in the emount to avoid cannibalising the Milvus 50M available for Canon and Nikon.
So by selecting the 65mm focal length, Cosina is being polite to its biggest customer, Zeiss.
They have made oddball FLs for a very long time - 75, 90, 125, 180, all just in the tele ranges. Perhaps the real explanation is the simple one: having a strong hand at the helm, they go their own way in design terms. It is disheartening to think Zeiss may have eschewed the lucrative/vital middle FL range to serve Sony's lens interests, and by implication there is some kind of pecking order determining who can do what on the 'open source' mount. It may happen to some degree, esp regarding time of release and real or imagined opportunities others do not offer.
There are precious few 50s that can lay reasonable claim to anything like APO status, for good reason - they are bloody hard to design compared to a 65mm (or really 60-100mm) which is why many new age 50s are hybrids rather than 6/4 Planars. The new breed are rather complex, and take much longer to ready for market. Even with CV efficiency you would pay for it.
The trad CZ short makro FL was 60mm and very popular in the day. Maybe CV sniffed that user preferences in close focus lenses are drifting longer - for better working distance, the 'look', easier work on insects, etc. and a 65mm has much broader applications than a 100-125mm. All these guys are loving historians of lenses too, and are design-smart in ways we do not understand.
Like the 40/1.2, they saw a gap and filled it with panache and style - and super quality. JJ's portrait experience is not a surprise, it has 'macro' in its title, and must pay at least some dues to close focus ability at the expense of other work. These things can be, and are, designed in to some degree, then there is the focus ring performance biased to the short end. It's why you see primary purpose portrait lenses delivering so strongly on the main goal - they know exactly what the focal distance will be, and how much separation they are aiming for, where the trade-offs need to be for still very good infinity work. This is the brief. It's not a lucky outcome, and this is one area where older firms have an advantage - legacy knowledge gained over decades. It's perhaps the reason new-to-the-game Sony propagated their distinctive GM bokeh style in PR - something new to sell.
A complex 11/9 lens with two ED elements, the 125/2.5 was far ahead of its time. With a filter size of 58mm and just 690 grams, it would seem a great addition for Sony users. It could be the best choice for true 1:1 macro work, esp with Sony's EVF aids. It features an amazing 530 degree focus ring rotation.
Two things come to mind when considering such lenses: (i) imagine how good it could be with a slight refresh and modern coatings, and (ii) how on earth does such a lens come to be discontinued?
The only thing people complained about was availability. Given their support so far, you would think CV knows Sony is a great future format for their MF lenses and their philosophy. So maybe?
I took delivery of mine today---it feels lighter than my Distagon 2/35 ZE on an MC-11. The Voigtlander is mostly barrel weight while the Distagon is packed with dense glass. The size and weight feels good.
I love Zeiss' colour transmission and acutance, and have been unhappy with my previous Voigtlanders like the supposedly state-of-the-art Nokton 1.5/50 in M mount which had a thin, tepid colour transmission. Same with the Ultron 2/40 which has a desaturated look when shot against a Canon 40/2.8 or Distagon 2/35.
I saw some of Fred's comparison pics with a Loxia. The Loxia looked maybe 10% more saturated than the V65. That's good enough for me.
I just shot this comparison pic. LED lighting. Tripod mounted. Manual WB. Identical shutter & aperture. Top is Planar 2/50 ZM at f2. Cropped to match the FOV of the V65. The V65 has a lower T value and more vignetting, so I increased the exposure in post to achieve equivalence. Focus is on the eye in the wood.
I bought the V65 to be part of a 2-lens, 2-camera kit. The other lens is the Distagon 2/35 ZE with Sigma MC-11. The cameras are an A7 and A6300. By mixing and matching, I get 35mm FOV equivalents from 35mm to 100mm.
formula4speed wrote:
FYI, Adorama has the 65mm lens on sale for Black Friday, down to $899. If you are on the fence, this could be the time to get your hands on one.
formula4speed wrote:
FYI, Adorama has the 65mm lens on sale for Black Friday, down to $899. If you are on the fence, this could be the time to get your hands on one.
