I agree with you. An IRIX + adapter is cheaper than the IRIX Cine lens (around € 850,- vs € 1200,-) And if there are no real advantages to the Cine lens only (apart for being Sony mount), then that choice looks easy.
I think I' ve read almost all reviews of the Voigtlander by now....and they all are very positive! At the same time those of the Sony 90mm are also positive. Very confusing for me, but maybe I should just choose one and (learn) to live with it :-)
Then ofcourse there is also the fact that I want to copy/digitise slides as well...and possible differences between those 2 lenses..cannot find much about this. But maybe someone did this with either the the Voigtlander or the Sony....(?)
Mujabad123 wrote:
I think I' ve read almost all reviews of the Voigtlander by now....and they all are very positive! At the same time those of the Sony 90mm are also positive. Very confusing for me, but maybe I should just choose one and (learn) to live with it :-)
In this review of the Sony (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-90mm-f2-8-macro-oss-one-of-sonys-finest/) there is this to consider, although in this case they're comparing it with the Voigtlander 65mm APO not the 110 (which may not have existed when they did this review): "The Sony’s advantage is a little smoother bokeh, especially in the transition zone. If your focus is on macro photography the Sony is the better option because it focuses to 1:1 and is significantly longer. The manual focus Voigtlander on the other hand offers a more universal focal length, nicer handling, superior build quality and nice sunstars."
Since you're mainly planning to use this lens for macro, maybe the Sony is the better choice?
Personally I don't like autofocus/focus-by-wire lenses so my choice would be the Voigtländer, but I'd be using it as a telephoto/portrait lens as much or more than I would use it for macro. If I were only doing macro I might choose the Sony based on the review above, but I'd like to see a comparison between the Sony and the Voitlander 110 instead of the 65.
Sorry I don't know about using these lenses for digitizing slides; I used a scanner to digitize mine years ago.
Thnxs again. I' ve read that as well. The 65 (1:2) isn' t "true" macro. Based on that review the Sony might indeed be a better choice. IQ wise the 110 macro seems to be on par with the 65mm (at least).
You don' t like AF for portraits/etc. ? I like the AF on my A7RIV very much for this purpose (eye focussing tracking is magic). I don' t think that af is necessary for macro shots or slide copying though (maybe even on the contrary).
The focus throw is very long and very smooth on the Voigtlander, for very precise focussing. Good for macro, I think. Some reviewers find, that the focus throw on the Sony 90 is too short (more difficult to get exact manual focus).
The Sony has nice internal focussing whereas the Voigtlander extends very much. Working distance seems to be comparable.
The more information, the more difficult it gets to make a good choice. That' s why I keep coming back to either the Voigtlander or the Sony. IQ is the most important aspect (by far) in such a choice (especially sharpness and colour rendition....although something can be done in postprocessing, I guess), and there doesn' t seem to be a lot of difference here.
I use DXO Photolab 3 and I can see that the A7RIV/Voigtlander 110 mm combination is not (yet) supported. That doesn' t mean that I cannot process those files in Photolab, but things like Viewpoint and geometry might not work. However, that shouldn't be a big problem with a macro lens like the Voigtlander.
bjhurley wrote:
In this review of the Sony (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-90mm-f2-8-macro-oss-one-of-sonys-finest/) there is this to consider, although in this case they're comparing it with the Voigtlander 65mm APO not the 110 (which may not have existed when they did this review): "The Sony’s advantage is a little smoother bokeh, especially in the transition zone. If your focus is on macro photography the Sony is the better option because it focuses to 1:1 and is significantly longer. The manual focus Voigtlander on the other hand offers a more universal focal length, nicer handling, superior build quality and nice sunstars."
Since you're mainly planning to use this lens for macro, maybe the Sony is the better choice?
Personally I don't like autofocus/focus-by-wire lenses so my choice would be the Voigtländer, but I'd be using it as a telephoto/portrait lens as much or more than I would use it for macro. If I were only doing macro I might choose the Sony based on the review above, but I'd like to see a comparison between the Sony and the Voitlander 110 instead of the 65.
Sorry I don't know about using these lenses for digitizing slides; I used a scanner to digitize mine years ago....Show more →
The Sony 90/2.8 G Macro has among the better focus by wire implementations. You can pull the focus ring toward you and get a distance scale, which gives you a linear and repeatable focus by wire experience. if you leave the lens on AF and switch to MF in the camera menu you get the non-linear focus by wire type. So, pull the focus ring toward you on the lens to get the analogue distance scale with linear focus by wire. This is better than DSLR clutch AF lenses and only beaten by real manual focus lenses, think Zeiss, Leica, Nikon manual focus lenses.
Thank you bjornthun. Also beaten by Voigtlander 110 (being a real manual focus lens) (?). What' s your opinion about this Sony 90mm vs Voigtlander 110 dilemma? Any experiences here?
Mujabad123 wrote:
Thank you bjornthun. Also beaten by Voigtlander 110 (being a real manual focus lens) (?). What' s your opinion about this Sony 90mm vs Voigtlander 110 dilemma? Any experiences here?
I’m very satisfied with my Sony 90/2.8 G, but I haven’t tried the Voigtländer 110/2.5, so I can’t compare them.
I have used the Voigtländer 125/2.5 Macro for DSLRs, and if the Voigtländer 110/2.5 Macro is at least as good, you will be extremely pleased with the Voigtländer 110/2.5. Bottom line, you have to choose if you want a manual focus lens or an autofocus lens. In both cases the lens you choose should be top drawer.
thnxs. I' ve read reports, that it' s even better. Correct bottom line, I think. I have IBIS in my A7RIV. The 90mm has IS too and double might be better, but not by much...I guess.
Like I said, I' ll probably only use it for macro and slide copying.
I've read that the Sony 90 is sharper by a hair at macro distances, and that the CV 110 is sharper at landscape distances. I have them both and can't tell a difference. Both are stellar.
smpetty wrote:
I've read that the Sony 90 is sharper by a hair at macro distances, and that the CV 110 is sharper at landscape distances. I have them both and can't tell a difference. Both are stellar.
Yes, David keeps saying the FE 90/2.8 is sharper at macro 1:1 without posting any proof!
"By a hair" also means within variance tolerance. Let's just say they perform similarly great at life-size macro and the CV 110 is shaper at infinity (although with some FC)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, David keeps saying the FE 90/2.8 is sharper at macro 1:1 without posting any proof!
"By a hair" also means within variance tolerance. Let's just say they perform similarly great at life-size macro and the CV 110 is shaper at infinity (although with some FC)
Mujabad123 wrote:
I might also buy a Marumi 200 Achromat filter for any of these lenses. Good idea?
Nope, at least not with the Voigtländer. The Marumi for some reason doesn't match very well with it. It introduces visible image degredation, like aberrations, fiel curvature and a big drop in resolution. I've also tested it on the old Sigma 105/2.8 EX DG Macro with which results were much better. If you're ok with stopping down to f/11 to get decent results, go for it.
Thnxs for al replies!
So, in short...it’s a toss up. Both are great and you can’t go wrong. Did you try both, Fred? If so, do you have a preference and why?
I didn’t know that about the achromat filter on the Voigtlander..thnxs! Cropping could be a possibility then (if needed occasionally).
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, David keeps saying the FE 90/2.8 is sharper at macro 1:1 without posting any proof!
"By a hair" also means within variance tolerance. Let's just say they perform similarly great at life-size macro and the CV 110 is shaper at infinity (although with some FC)
Mea culpa! I was going to do a comparative review of 1:1 lenses The phillipreeve.net site, but ended up concluding that I really needed an etched glass resolution target that could be used in a slide holder to get a repeatable target that is guaranteed to be more or less parallel to the sensor plane. Turns out they are expensive, and we haven’t done it yet. In any case in frustration at the non-repeatability I chucked out all the dull test images from the Sony 50, Sony 90, cv 110, anon MPE and Laowa 100 that I had taken intending to replace them when I get around to a serious (and more hassle free) macro testing rig.
So FWIW I thought that, based not on an etched target, that the Sony was a touch contrastier and sharper than the CV at 1:1, but the reverse was true at 1:2 to infinity. Of course this might be within sample variation.
I might also add that both are great, and I absolutely wouldn’t use the resolution differences to make my decision. I’d choose on preference for AF or not primarily. Or if you are allergic to a little residual loCA I’d get the CV.
The bokeh is a bit nicer on the Sony at 1:1... I think there is a small sample of that in Phillip’s and my review of the 110. But again, that’s distance dependent.
IQ wise, they seem pretty much comparable. In handling, the Sony seems “better”(?). AF on the Sony looks a bit slow and not really necessary for macro. Don’t think it’s necessary for slide copying either. I can try the Sony, but it’s difficult to find a copy of the Voigtlander where I live. I would probably have to order it through the internet. More hassle.
I’ll keep thinking.
