I also have the Vello extenders and they feel solid when on the body and the lens feels solid on the extenders. They work well with the 65/2 which l recently bought from cameraquest. Very happy with the in-hand feel of the lens and results (and the 40 as well)
I've sold mine, because I've found that it rarely leaves its place on my shelf, which is a pity, because its an amazing lens. However, for casual shooting I prefer the 55 1.8 and when I'm on a dedicated photo trip I prefer the smaller footprint of the Loxia lenses and the 90 Elmarit. I might get the Loxia 50 as a sort of replacement, though.
CV makes nice lenses, but unfortunately they never grow on me. The same happened with the CV 35 1.2. I hope the CV 180 finds a more lasting place in my bag.
Chris_88 wrote:
I've sold mine, because I've found that it rarely leaves its place on my shelf, which is a pity, because its an amazing lens. However, for casual shooting I prefer the 55 1.8 and when I'm on a dedicated photo trip I prefer the smaller footprint of the Loxia lenses and the 90 Elmarit. I might get the Loxia 50 as a sort of replacement, though.
CV makes nice lenses, but unfortunately they never grow on me. The same happened with the CV 35 1.2. I hope the CV 180 finds a more lasting place in my bag.
The Lox 50 is something that I have kept even though I have the 65 just for these purposes.
It's pretty much as good, and similar in look, stopped down, but of course does not shine in the same way at wider apertures.
I'd love to see a L50 Mk II. The L50 is great, but it's an older simple double gauss. Maybe the apotheosis of the simple double gauss, but one of them nonetheless. I'm sure it's within their powers to make something like the Leica APO-summicron 2/50 for less money (and maybe even better). That could be as good as the Apo Lanthar, but without macro and in the L50 form factor.
I am just about to buy this lens but i have a small reservation about its size,
i decided to add a set of M only primes to my kit, 2 this year and then 1 or 2 next year, I wanted small sharp and with character, I was attracted to the loxia lineup, in the end and after weeks of research i went for the voigtlander 40f1.2, and what a good choice thought i have only had it a short while, the 65mm seams a logical choice and after the reviews i have read i am ready to buy one, but its just a little bigger than i would of liked,
how have you found it?
Mine arrived a couple of days ago. Looks great, as expected, from initial testing around the house - no chance yet for any real shooting.
It actually seems more compact and light than I thought it would be - having read the specs, I knew that it's between my 50 and 100 makro-planars, but still it seems very nicely sized. Of course, there's the difference of not needing an adapter, and also I'm used to big and bulky, so that probably factors into it somewhere.
yea lets get it, 2 lenses from the same line is always good to have the same feel across the images, just need them to release a 21 or 25 now (not that i can afford any more lenses this year)
Uncle Chip wrote:
I am just about to buy this lens but i have a small reservation about its size,
i decided to add a set of M only primes to my kit, 2 this year and then 1 or 2 next year, I wanted small sharp and with character, I was attracted to the loxia lineup, in the end and after weeks of research i went for the voigtlander 40f1.2, and what a good choice thought i have only had it a short while, the 65mm seams a logical choice and after the reviews i have read i am ready to buy one, but its just a little bigger than i would of liked,
how have you found it?...Show more →
I've since replaced mine with a Loxia 50, because the lens hardly found it's way into my bag. I didn't care about the weight (625g), but I found that when I went out to shoot landscapes I always picked the smaller Loxia lenses and the 55 1.8 or my old Elmarit 90.
It's not that the 65 APO is a big lens by any means (compared to say a 70-200 2.8), but the difference in size to the Loxia lenses is quite striking. The 65 feels a bit "fat" and long (due to being a macro lens).
You already said that you'd like the 65 FL so with that out of the way, the remaining questions you have to ask yourself is how often do you use the 1:2 macro feature, and whether you need/want the most highly corrected e-mount lens or alternatively could live with something that is optically very good, but not perfect (think 55 1.8 or 85 1.8).
Chris_88 wrote:
I've since replaced mine with a Loxia 50, because the lens hardly found it's way into my bag. I didn't care about the weight (625g), but I found that when I went out to shoot landscapes I always picked the smaller Loxia lenses and the 55 1.8 or my old Elmarit 90.
It's not that the 65 APO is a big lens by any means (compared to say a 70-200 2.8), but the difference in size to the Loxia lenses is quite striking. The 65 feels a bit "fat" and long (due to being a macro lens).
You already said that you'd like the 65 FL so with that out of the way, the remaining questions you have to ask yourself is how often do you use the 1:2 macro feature, and whether you need/want the most highly corrected e-mount lens or alternatively could live with something that is optically very good, but not perfect (think 55 1.8 or 85 1.8)....Show more →
I already have the 85/1.8 batis, and i am adding to this in AF a 35f1.4 and 50f1.4 (waiting on sigma before i decide on the make)
I have got the cv40f1.2 and am happy with this but now the loxia 50 is too close, so yes 65 sits about right to take out with the 40, the macro is actually a nice feature for me, and the 1:2 is fine as i do close up and not true macro,
to be honest i am new to primes and especially M primes, 15 years of dragging canons L2.8 primes around, or more accurately leaving them at home because i cant be bothered, all of this kit is much smaller than i am used to, and i dont need it to be very small as i have the a6500 as a travel camera,
suppose you pays your money and takes your chance
I really like the handling of the 65. Dense but not long or unwieldy. Very similar to the CV40 in terms of focus control and solid aperture ring. I much prefer the aperture ring placement and feel on the CVs compared to my Loxia 21. The 65 has a nice short hood.
I also have the 55 and prefer the 40/65 spread for MF use for the reasons above. I am keeping the 55 as a walk-around AF.
I also enjoy shooting macro when I take a lunch break during hiking and with the 65, i have a great focal length for scenary and as a macro , especially when I add the Vello extenders which weigh next to nothing
Beware of APO Lanthar.
This is a lens that has derailed/de-stabilised many sorted kits. Its an expensive lens because you buy it then you start rebuilding/re-gapping your kit again because 65mm is such an odd focal length.
So you had, 21/35/50-55/85
Now you buy 65 and wonder what to do with 55 and 85 and sell them to buy 135, etc etc
I have 40 and 85 so this sits just nice, for AF i was always going to add a 35f1.4 to compliment the 85, maybe i should look at a 25 or 28 first and see how i go, if sigma do all their art then they do a nice 20f1.4 that could be interesting
rji2goleez wrote:
^ Douglass - As the guys over at Phillip Reeve told me . . . just get it!
You are not helping! Bob I will use the 24-105 to cover this FL but when I need good sunstars, I need good sunstars. I will wait patiently for a used one at the right price.
kdrk888 wrote:
You are not helping! Bob I will use the 24-105 to cover this FL but when I need good sunstars, I need good sunstars. I will wait patiently for a used one at the right price.
Douglas
I don't always have that will power to wait it out . . . Good luck with the search.
. I have seen them going for $800 used.