I have posted other pics in this thread but used the lens at an arboretum again the other day. I own the top nineteen lenses for Sony e-mount and no Sigma's btw but four Voigtlander and every GM made etc.
The CV110 is one of my favorite lenses in my top five for sure. The images I am posting are not really showcasing the sharpness which it is as sharp as any lens that I own (exception being 135 GM), but rather the rendering that get with the lens.
I've had this lens for a few months now but haven't done all that much with it until recently due to the pandemic. I'm really happy with the results I'm getting out of it, although I am finding it takes care to focus correctly at infinity.
Was thinking about the Zeiss Makro Plannar T* 2/100 ZF.2, for macro and portraits on my Nikon system. After hearing from the Voigtlander Macro APO Lanthar 110mm 2.5, I'm not sure if I should wait to buy a Sony A7R II and buy the MAL 110mm 2.5 instead.
On paper, the MAL 110mm 2.5 will be better for several reasons:
- it's easier to manual focus on a A7R II, compared to a focusing on Df and D800
- image stabilization
- APO
- 1:1 macro
- 110mm is more distant from my 85mm 1.2L portrait lens that I use on my Canon DSLR system
Versus the advantages for the MP100:
- Half the price and can use it on cameras that already have
- it's 2/3 of a stop faster, making it better for subject isolation
- Zeiss probably had more know how than Cosina when designing the lens which could render better images
- better rendering from Nikon
- Profile for my Lightroom is available for sure
- could get Kenko AF extension tubes to increase the 1:2 magnification
- could use it on Sony too with adapters
The MAL 110mm 2.5 seems a bit too close to something like the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, while losing AF. And the MP 2/100 shows some chromatic aberration, though less than my 85mm 1.2L.
Aug 02, 2020 at 06:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Igor Sotelo wrote:
Was thinking about the Zeiss Makro Plannar T* 2/100 ZF.2, for macro and portraits on my Nikon system. After hearing from the Voigtlander Macro APO Lanthar 110mm 2.5, I'm not sure if I should wait to buy a Sony A7R II and buy the MAL 110mm 2.5 instead.
On paper, the MAL 110mm 2.5 will be better for several reasons:
- it's easier to manual focus on a A7R II, compared to a focusing on Df and D800
- image stabilization
- APO
- 1:1 macro
- 110mm is more distant from my 85mm 1.2L portrait lens that I use on my Canon DSLR system
Versus the advantages for the MP100:
- Half the price and can use it on cameras that already have
- it's 2/3 of a stop faster, making it better for subject isolation
- Zeiss probably had more know how than Cosina when designing the lens which could render better images
- better rendering from Nikon
- Profile for my Lightroom is available for sure
- could get Kenko AF extension tubes to increase the 1:2 magnification
- could use it on Sony too with adapters
The MAL 110mm 2.5 seems a bit too close to something like the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, while losing AF. And the MP 2/100 shows some chromatic aberration, though less than my 85mm 1.2L....Show more →
I had the MP100 for several years and it was one of my favorite lenses. I now have the Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 APO and it too is one of my favorite lenses. The primary advantage of the Zeiss is the increased subject isolation, IMO. The primary advantage of the Voigtlander is the much better color correction. I replaced the Zeiss 100 f/2 with the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO and that can provide even a little better subject isolation in many situations and doesn't have the chromatic aberration problems that the 100 f/2 does. The 135 f/2 APO "only" has 1 to 4 magnification instead of 1 to 2 magnification, but if I need more magnification the Voigtlander fills in nicely.
Regarding what you said you do realize that Cosina manufactures both lenses. Cosina also have a lot of experience in lens design and although Zeiss is a phenomenal design company I would say they have more know ho that Cosina, but are high level and great at design. I also have both Sony and Nikon camera, and although I use the Nikon a bit more I don't think it has any better rendering. There is also a lightroom profile for the Voigtlander 110 f/2.5, so no problem there.
The Zeiss is a nice lens and definitely cheaper. It really only has the CA issue as a weakness, but the Voigtlander basically has no weaknesses (really only very minor ones) and that makes it a joy to use. You really can't go wrong with this choice.
Igor Sotelo wrote:
Was thinking about the Zeiss Makro Plannar T* 2/100 ZF.2, for macro and portraits on my Nikon system. After hearing from the Voigtlander Macro APO Lanthar 110mm 2.5, I'm not sure if I should wait to buy a Sony A7R II and buy the MAL 110mm 2.5 instead.
On paper, the MAL 110mm 2.5 will be better for several reasons:
- it's easier to manual focus on a A7R II, compared to a focusing on Df and D800
- image stabilization
- APO
- 1:1 macro
- 110mm is more distant from my 85mm 1.2L portrait lens that I use on my Canon DSLR system
Versus the advantages for the MP100:
- Half the price and can use it on cameras that already have
- it's 2/3 of a stop faster, making it better for subject isolation
- Zeiss probably had more know how than Cosina when designing the lens which could render better images
- better rendering from Nikon
- Profile for my Lightroom is available for sure
- could get Kenko AF extension tubes to increase the 1:2 magnification
- could use it on Sony too with adapters
The MAL 110mm 2.5 seems a bit too close to something like the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, while losing AF. And the MP 2/100 shows some chromatic aberration, though less than my 85mm 1.2L....Show more →
All these lenses are great, what Steve says about the differences between them is right, and the IQ difference between the cameras is not worth talking about.
But the elephant in the room is manual focus on a DSLR. Manual focus is light years apart between any DSLR, even with dedicated MF focussing screens, and a recent ff mirrorless. Really this is a more significant factor than all the others out together (1/3 stop aperture, sensors, LoCA differences between these great lenses....though the MP will give you a lot of PF in some circs, not usually portrait circs.
The MP100 works wonderfully on an adapter on a mirrorless FF body, though, so choice of lens is no reason to choose bodies here. If I were you I’d stick to AF lenses on my DSLRs and get a mirrorless body if you want to use MF.
Hello Everyone. Fantastic thread....with even more fantastic images!
I' ve read this whole thread because at the moment I' m looking for a true macro lens. I' m shooting with the Sony A7RIV / 16-35mm GM / Batis 85...and the Sigma DP3M.
Beside macro like small critters/flowers/structures/etc., I would also like to use this lens for copying slides (I have thousands lying around of travels in past decades..don' t need to copy them all though); copy stand/light plate/etc.
I have also posted this question on DPR.
I don' t have to use the macro for portraits (my Batis does this very well).
At first I had 3 "contenders" ...Laowa 100 mm macro 2x / Voigtlander 110 Macro / Sony 90mm Macro.
Because the Sony version of the Laowa doesn' t communicate with the camera, only 2 stayed (Voigtlander and Sony).
Then someone pointed me towards the IRIX 150 mm. Very nice working distance, but I would have to use the Sigma MC-11 adapter. Don' t want to do that. IRIX does have a macro Cine lens in Sony mount, but I' m not sure how this would work for photography and photography only (don' t care about video).
Maybe someone can tell me if this is a good or workable idea?
At the moment I feel that I' m all over the place, but the main question that keeps nagging me:
Sony 90mm Macro OR Voigtlander 110mm Macro??
I might also buy a Marumi 200 Achromat filter for any of these lenses. Good idea?
I don' t mind manual focus...have done that in film days.
I' m open to all ideas...especially from people that have experience with any of these lenses ofcourse.
Mujabad123 wrote:
IRIX does have a macro Cine lens in Sony mount, but I' m not sure how this would work for photography and photography only (don' t care about video).
Maybe someone can tell me if this is a good or workable idea?
Cine lenses can work for photography, but you'd be paying a lot of extra money for cine-specific features that you won't need. Some of those are mechanical (follow-focus rings, etc.) but others involve the lens design: for example, cine lenses are designed to minimize focus breathing (the slight zoom that can happen when you shift focus; this isn't an issue for stills but it's quite distracting in video and cinema).
Thank you. The IRIX Cine Lens 150mm T3.0 would be around the same price as the Voigtlander, where I live. I thought that focus breathing might also occur in macro shooting (stills), but maybe I' m wrong (?).
What macro lens do you use?
Mujabad123 wrote:
Thank you. The IRIX Cine Lens 150mm T3.0 would be around the same price as the Voigtlander, where I live. I thought that focus breathing might also occur in macro shooting (stills), but maybe I' m wrong (?).
What macro lens do you use?
I don't shoot macro, but if I did I'd go with the Voigtländer. Focus breathing is common in stills lenses but I don't see how that would be a problem for stills since it's not a moving image. In video, it's disconcerting to see the image zoom in and out even slightly when you shift focus from one subject to another. Focus breathing is not the same as focus shift, where focus changes with aperture. A lens with focus shift can be a problem in stills if you don't focus at the taking aperture, because then your image will be out of focus when you stop down.
The Irix Cine 150mm T3.0 is simply a rehoused version of their stills lens (150mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1), which is not available in e-mount, only Canon EF, Nikon F, and Pentax K. You might consider the cost of buying the stills version (which would be cheaper) and an adapter; I have a Nikon F/G to e-mount adapter and use it for several lenses; works great although of course you don't get EXIF data. Also most lenses for Nikon mount focus the "wrong" way and the lenses mount anti-clockwise instead of clockwise, which can take some getting used to.
Thank you again. Using an adapter on a (for instance) Canon version of this lens, is something someone else on DPR also said. But that would take another accessoire to take with me. Getting exif data would also be nice. Advantage could be: longer working distance with such a setup.
Why would you choose the Voigtlander over the Sony 90mm macro ?
Mujabad123 wrote:
Thank you again. Using an adapter on a (for instance) Canon version of this lens, is something someone else on DPR also said. But that would take another accessoire to take with me. Getting exif data would also be nice. Advantage could be: longer working distance with such a setup.
Why would you choose the Voigtlander over the Sony 90mm macro ?
As for the adapter, yes it can be an inconvenience, but in the case of the Irix I'm pretty sure you'd be paying more overall for the cine version than if you bough the stills version (which is optically identical) plus an adapter. You'd be buying the cine version only so you can use it on e-mount, whereas you could achieve the same thing by buying the stills version with an adapter. If money is not an object then it doesn't matter, but my guess is that the Voigtländer is going to be the better lens given the glowing reviews of its optical quality.
