I took a lot of photos with my 110/2.5 APO-Lanthar again yesterday at Shinjuku, mostly at Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden. The weather was very nice and clear though a bit windy and cold.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I took a lot of photos with my 110/2.5 APO-Lanthar again yesterday at Shinjuku, mostly at Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden. The weather was very nice and clear though a bit windy and cold.
Awesome samples Juha! It really showcases the lens' strengths.
My tests show the CV 110/2.5 APO is a technically perfect lens. Aesthetically, it has beautiful smooth rendering at close distance. (especially macro). At infinity, the lack of color aberration impresses me and it's so sharp that I can see false color in high detail foliage at around the center area. Only at mid-distance, rendering can be less smooth matching the CV 65/2 APO's signature rendering.
I'm beginning to work on actual macro testing of the lens. So, more tulip abuse.
No pixel shift this time, 42 individual frames, merged in Helicon Focus. Few blurry spots are all due to my lack of skill with focus stacking I think.
The black pearl photo was attempt at something smaller. White dots on the pearl are not dust - I guess its part of the pearl itself. I really like the out-of focus areas here.
Last photo is an even bigger stack, 57 pixel-shifted photos, merged in Helicon Focus.
In conclusion, an amazing lens and I couldn't be happier with it. I still have to learn proper focus stacking and general focusing with the lens (pretty hard to focus at full extension), but it's certainly worth the money for me. Of course I have never owned an APO lens before, so I might be a bit more excited than I should be, but to me, this has same feeling as my original jump from a regular $300 kit lens to L glass.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Awesome samples Juha! It really showcases the lens' strengths.
My tests show the CV 110/2.5 APO is a technically perfect lens. Aesthetically, it has beautiful smooth rendering at close distance. (especially macro). At infinity, the lack of color aberration impresses me and it's so sharp that I can see false color in high detail foliage at around the center area. Only at mid-distance, rendering can be less smooth matching the CV 65/2 APO's signature rendering.
Just got a chance to shoot for 30 min in Downtown Chicago yesterday and the lens is everything you say it is. I like the rendering it is good at infinity and sharp as a tack.
I've been waiting for a nice sharp 28mm APO to go with my Leica R 60/2.8 Macro and 100/2.8 APO Macro. I still haven't decided between keeping the Leica pair(Trio if I include the 180/3.4 APO) or the CV 65/110 pair... I will probably wait till a 28 APO is available.
It would also be nice to see the 180/4 APO Lanthar added to the lineup.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
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.
Another advantage of the electronic communication is the focus distance encoder that will enable 5 axis IS--the X/Y planes stabilization should especially be important for macro. This is not available for the CV 125 in any flavor but it wll have 3 axis IS if enabled. I have not seen any significant comparisons yet between the CV 125 and 110. One might predict the resolution at infinity will be better with the 110. I could coax out a tad of LoCA at 1:1 with the CV 125. As you can probably tell, I am trying to talk myself into requiring the 110.
CV 125 A mount or EF mount has same chipped electronic communication with the camera, so CV 125mm has 5 axis IS also. I have A-mount version. It reports as 130mm.
Michael Gordon wrote:
Another advantage of the electronic communication is the focus distance encoder that will enable 5 axis IS--the X/Y planes stabilization should especially be important for macro. This is not available for the CV 125 in any flavor but it wll have 3 axis IS if enabled. I have not seen any significant comparisons yet between the CV 125 and 110. One might predict the resolution at infinity will be better with the 110. I could coax out a tad of LoCA at 1:1 with the CV 125. As you can probably tell, I am trying to talk myself into requiring the 110. ...Show more →
serhan_ wrote:
CV 125 A mount or EF mount has same chipped electronic communication with the camera, so CV 125mm has 5 axis IS also. I have A-mount version. It reports as 130mm.
serhan_ wrote:
Yes, LA-EA3 adapter supports 5-axis IBIS. It is the native adapter for A mount lenses and A mount has IBIS also. I don't know the distance decoder, but the lens reports same as any CV and Zeiss mf lens does with its chipped electronic contacts.
The distance encoder is required for 5-axis IBIS.
Dec 19, 2018 at 10:24 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
bjornthun wrote:
The distance encoder is required for 5-axis IBIS.
Yes, the distance encoder is required. The Zeiss ZE lenses with a metabones adapter did not if my memory serves me well have 5-axis IBIS, even though they had electronic contacts. They didn't have a distance encoder, so they were only 3-axis. I am pretty sure the CV 125 for Canon EOS mount with an adapter would be the same. No distance encoder, so no 5-axis IBIS.
"Sony lenses without OSS (Including 8-pin A-mount lenses on LA-EA adapters) get 5-Axis IBIS from the body.
Any other lenses (including 5-pin A-mount lenses) do not transmit focus distance to the cameras so you get 3-Axis."
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, the distance encoder is required. The Zeiss ZE lenses with a metabones adapter did not if my memory serves me well have 5-axis IBIS, even though they had electronic contacts. They didn't have a distance encoder, so they were only 3-axis. I am pretty sure the CV 125 for Canon EOS mount with an adapter would be the same. No distance encoder, so no 5-axis IBIS.
"Sony lenses without OSS (Including 8-pin A-mount lenses on LA-EA adapters) get 5-Axis IBIS from the body.
Any other lenses (including 5-pin A-mount lenses) do not transmit focus distance to the cameras so you get 3-Axis."
Quite a feat to be take the trouble to report focusing distance in a MF lens. I can only think of Loxia and CV that do this. I have not seen any data that the CV 110 will report the actual aperture in exif at higher mags. I can only think of Nikon systems that do this for macro lenses. The aperture chosen on the lens is really just a "lens setting" then as the FL has changed to due to focal length shortening.
Michael Gordon wrote:
Quite a feat to be take the trouble to report focusing distance in a MF lens. I can only think of Loxia and CV that do this. I have not seen any data that the CV 110 will report the actual aperture in exif at higher mags. I can only think of Nikon systems that do this for macro lenses. The aperture chosen on the lens is really just a "lens setting" then as the FL has changed to due to focal length shortening.
Loxia lenses do not report distance and therefore only capable of 3-axis IBIS. Only the latest Voigtlander E-mount lenses have a distance encoder and it's a big plus.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, the distance encoder is required. The Zeiss ZE lenses with a metabones adapter did not if my memory serves me well have 5-axis IBIS, even though they had electronic contacts. They didn't have a distance encoder, so they were only 3-axis. I am pretty sure the CV 125 for Canon EOS mount with an adapter would be the same. No distance encoder, so no 5-axis IBIS.
You are right Steve. No distance reporting from ZE lenses. (Not sure about Milvus or Otus)
So, it's something missing from the lens, not the adapter.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Has anyone ever tested how much difference 3 vs 5 axis makes?
My guess is that it's more important in the longer focal lengths, e.g. 65/2 and 110/2.5.
No , I haven't tested.
This is a good selling point for Voigtländer FE lenses compared to the Loxia series. The better the stabilization the better the image quality from expensive lenses. It seems silly for Zeiss to leave this out when the differences may be otherwise small. Then on top there is the ergonomics and handling of Voigtländer FE vs Zeiss Loxia lenses.
Now they only need to throw in an Apo Lanthar 180mm and 28mm.
Dec 19, 2018 at 04:04 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Has anyone ever tested how much difference 3 vs 5 axis makes?
Here is one test by Brian Smith and you don't see much advantage of 5 axis over 3 axis and these are fairly close shots when theoretically 5 axis should help the most:
