sebbe wrote:
Take the 85GM with a Marumi Achromat. Much better for such situations. And without sunstars and octagon bokeh.
In addition to what Fred said, the GM 85 f/1.8 is a whopping 11mm fatter in diameter, and almost 10mm longer, so although it is only a bit heavier it is really a lot bigger. Something that would matter to me on a hike like I described. I think it is pretty obvious the CV 110 is going to be better for macro and for my purposes better for landscapes, but the Sony GM would be better for portraits. I am very happy that at our house, I can get the CV 110, and my wife who focusses on portraits most in her shooting is getting the GM 85 f/1.4. Both are great lenses, and certainly could be wonderful choices based on what you shoot, but if you do lots of closeup and landscapes with a moderate telephoto as I do, then the CV 110 is a very compelling lens.
By the way, I do share the concern about the focus throw. As a former owner and lover of the Zeiss ZE 100 MP, its short focus throw for non-close up shots annoyed me for quite awhile. I did find after awhile, however, I got totally used to the very fine control needed with the short focus throw. After six months or so, for me I didn't even think about it any more, even though it bugged me to no end at the beginning. I hope I have a similar experience and perhaps a shorter learning curve with the CV 110.
Steve Spencer wrote:
In addition to what Fred said, the GM 85 f/1.8 is a whopping 11mm fatter in diameter, and almost 10mm longer, so although it is only a bit heavier it is really a lot bigger. Something that would matter to me on a hike like I described. I think it is pretty obvious the CV 110 is going to be better for macro and for my purposes better for landscapes, but the Sony GM would be better for portraits. I am very happy that at our house, I can get the CV 110, and my wife who focusses on portraits most in her shooting is getting the GM 85 f/1.4. Both are great lenses, and certainly could be wonderful choices based on what you shoot, but if you do lots of closeup and landscapes with a moderate telephoto as I do, then the CV 110 is a very compelling lens.
By the way, I do share the concern about the focus throw. As a former owner and lover of the Zeiss ZE 100 MP, its short focus throw for non-close up shots annoyed me for quite awhile. I did find after awhile, however, I got totally used to the very fine control needed with the short focus throw. After six months or so, for me I didn't even think about it any more, even though it bugged me to no end at the beginning. I hope I have a similar experience and perhaps a shorter learning curve with the CV 110....Show more →
You are right. The 85GM wouldn't be my choice either. On hikes I prefer wider lenses (cv 12/5.6, loxia 21/2.8 and cv40/1.2). But that's my preference. I'm looking forward to your shots with the CV110. Maybe I'll jump over and take one too then.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Basically all modern macro lenses drop focal length when they go to 1:1. Here are some examples:
Canon 100 f/2.8L - drops to 75mm
Nikon 105 f/2.8 G VR - drops to 78.5mm (25% drop)
Sony 90 f/2.8 G - drops to 70mm (22% drop)
Leica R 100 f/2.8 APO - drops to 75mm with elpro 1:1 adapter (no drop at 1:2)
Voigtlander 125 f/2.5 APO - drops to 95mm (24% drop)
Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 APO - drops to 87.5 (20% drop)
Zeiss Milvus (or ZE/ZF) - drops to only 97mm at 1:2 (when lenses only go to 1:2 we tend to not see them drop in focal length)
Even the Medium format 120mm macro do it a little:
Fuji G 120 f/4 - drops to 112.5mm (6% drop)
Hasselblad X 120 f/3.5 - drops to 107.5mm (10% drop)
Pentax 645 FA 120 f/4 - drops to 97.5mm (19% drop)
Mamiya/Phase One 120 f/4 - drops to 100mm (17% drop)
Contax 645 120 f/4 APO - drops to 106mm (11% drop)
Leica S 120 f/2.5 APO - doesn't drop but only goes to 1:2 (again the exception that seems to prove the rule it seems it is primarily the lenses that go to 1:1 that the focal length drops) ...Show more →
Thank you for that great summary. The drop in FL at higher mag does result in less loss of light. For example my CV 125/2.5 at 1:1 loses (in round numbers) only 1 stop of light with the helicoid extension whereas the Zuiko 135 which is a bellows lens and uses pure extension loses 2 stops. The gain in the light does result in loss of working distance demonstrating the "no free lunch" rule of optics. The "no penalty goes uncompensated" corollary with the Zuiko mean the effective aperture is smaller ( size, i.e. higher number) resulting in more dof at the same aperture "lens setting." The Zuiko is symmetric so the pupil mag is 1 but the complex macro lenses now are unlikely to be so.
I'm simply in love with the Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton, and I didn't jump on the 65 being so close in focal range. But I can't resist this, since I got rid of my 135 leica a bit ago, and only have the 85/1.8
Haven't had a dedicated macro in some time, so this is going to be a treat!
I'm simply in love with the Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton, and I didn't jump on the 65 being so close in focal range. But I can't resist this, since I got rid of my 135 leica a bit ago, and only have the 85/1.8
Haven't had a dedicated macro in some time, so this is going to be a treat!
The weather hasn't been fair to me - shiny new lens on my desk and nothing to photograph. I had a french Viola flower that was waiting for the lens to arrive, but it died suddenly. Alas, had to use a tulip, even though I didn't have good light either right now. But couldn't wait to try the lens.
So far, incredibly sharp with no hint of chromatic aberration and I think its perfect for Sony pixel-shift mode, to get every minute detail out of the lens. The tulip was 41 pixel-shifted frames, focus-stacked using macro rail and processed in Helicon Focus. For tech interest, 41 a7r3 dng files took about 34GB of RAM in Photoshop to process (though didn't do a good job stacking) and 12GB in Helicon Focus.
Can't wait to try it on something in decent light!
Just looking at the pics from today. They are not necessarily sharper than some other lenses (I did some informal testing) but this lens is as good as any I have seen. Here is a 100% crop from one of the above pics:
Yes, looks like the 110/2.5 CV will make for a fine landscape lens. Particularly when you only have to stop it to f/2.8 to make great sun stars at night!
Infinity focus is very fiddly though to get best sharpness just like my 90/3.5 CV - good thing the A7RIII has a great 100% stabilized live view.
More later.
This was hand held with my elbow on a fence and fully electronic shutter - amazing.
Why not leave it to auto which should allow the camera to set it based on electronic communication with the lens? I always do that with all lenses that support electronic communication.
With manual legacy lenses I'd set it to closest value below actual FL when actual is not available for selection to avoid overcompensation unless the next higher selection option is much closer.
Tofino77 wrote:
Which SteadyShot focal length works best for the 110mm macro? 105mm or 120mm? Thanks
I was concerned that my new Sigma 135/1.8 would make a better landscape lens, but the Sigma doesn't make nice sun stars even at f/4 . . ..
So the Sigma will be the low light f/1.8 AF lens and the 110/2.5 CV will be paired with the 65/2 CV for landscapes. The 40/1.2 is sometimes not wide enough, but it will do.
So I now have in E mount:
21/3.5 CV
40/1.2 CV
65/2 CV
110/2.5 CV
and the 90/3.5 APO SL-II CV & 180/4 APO SL CV (Nikon mount).
- good thing the A7RIII has a great 100% stabilized live view.
