I am not Phillip, but I just returned from doing a preliminary infinity test. I can post some crops if desired, but I did not see any significant field curvature at infinity. I did two different tests. On one, I focused on center and then I did the same scene refocusing in the midfield. A second test was one for centering. I focused first on a distant building top in one corner then tried all four. Then, I did the same test but focused on center and then ran through the four corners. In each case, I saw no significant difference even wide open. Looking at 4:1 magnification, I could see some difference depending upon where I looked, but as I only did each test once and light was failing, I chock up any slight difference to variation in focus. With these caveats, I am happy to post crops if you would like.
My overall impression is that I have a well centered copy and that the quality at infinity is terrific. I only had time for a very quick test, but tried the Batis 135/2.8, the Zeiss 100-300, and the Sony GM 100/2.8 (Tf.6) STF. The Batis and Voigtlander were very close and ahead of both the Zeiss and Sony though the Sony was surprisingly closs in sharpness but less well corrected for CA. ...Show more →
Thanks for testing this. Very interesting because I was playing with this today and I definitely see a very slight inwards field curvature. Enough to make a difference from f/2.5 until f/4 when viewing at pixel level.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for testing this. Very interesting because I was playing with this today and I definitely see a very slight inwards field curvature. Enough to make a difference from f/2.5 until f/4 when viewing at pixel level.
Do you see a difference at 1:1 and even at F4? I do not, but then I hesitate when you say "very slight." I know your eyes are good and your testing rigorous, but even on my centering test, I focused in the extreme corner and then I did the same test focusing on center first and then shooting the four corners. All look very close to me even looking enlarged to 4:1.
Luvwine wrote:
Do you see a difference at 1:1 and even at F4? I do not, but then I hesitate when you say "very slight." I know your eyes are good and your testing rigorous, but even on my centering test, I focused in the extreme corner and then I did the same test focusing on center first and then shooting the four corners. All look very close to me even looking enlarged to 4:1.
Yes, even at f/4 and it's more obvious when comparing it to other lenses. Are you testing it diagonally? That's the best way to see this stuff. Focusing towards the mid-field fixes the issue but there is a loss of bite in the center area...The good news is that at f/5.6 and smaller, this is no longer an issue.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, even at f/4 and it's more obvious when comparing it to other lenses. Are you testing it diagonally? That's the best way to see this stuff. Focusing towards the mid-field fixes the issue but there is a loss of bite in the center area...The good news is that at f/5.6 and smaller, this is no longer an issue.
No, not diagonally. I just posted my centering crops. Again, this was quickly done, but perhaps this will help. I just uploaded 9 crops. Each are labeled. The first one is the upper left corner and I focused on the distant building top with the building top in the corner. Then, without changing focus, I moved the tripod to put the building top in each corner in succession (Lower left, upper right, and lower right). I do this to see if there is any variation in the image in each corner. If not, I figure it is well centered. I repeated this test twice. Then, I did a second test where I focused on the same building top. I focused on center. Then, without changing focus, I put the building top in each corner so five shots total. I just put up 100% crops, 90 quality jpegs with no processing SOOC. Here is the link for your edification if they are useful to you:
I also did a cityscape scene from F2.5 to F8 focusing on center first and then on midfield. I also shot the same cityscape with the other lenses to compare. Happy to post more crops if you want or can send you raw files via dropbox. I only did these quickly and once each so I am not willing to disagree with your comment about field curvature as I have had very little time with the lens and I got to my shooting location after work just at sunset.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just tested the L85 at infinity and the 110 is only marginally better because of the lack of any fringing. There is also a slight field curvature on the 110 which is not the case with the Loxia.
The Loxia only weighs 574g (without caps) making the CV 110/2.5 almost 200g heavier.
You can't go wrong with either one if you want very detailed landscapes. (Both optimum at f/4 but also excellent from wide open)
That also must mean only marginally better than ZM for landscape, right, since I recall you saying that a good ZM is extremely close to L85 by f5.6?
GMPhotography wrote:
Like to see this against the Leica 135 whatever it’s called
It will be noticeably better than the Apo Telyt 135. It was great in its day, but as Bastian's review shows it's not quite up to the Batis 135. Its good, but not quite as good as the best modern stuff in terms of contrast and colour correction (while still being very good) and way over priced.
Still, a small MF 135 of high quality still has its attractions, so I can see why some keep the AT until something better comes along.
Luvwine wrote:
No, not diagonally. I just posted my centering crops. Again, this was quickly done, but perhaps this will help. I just uploaded 9 crops. Each are labeled. The first one is the upper left corner and I focused on the distant building top with the building top in the corner. Then, without changing focus, I moved the tripod to put the building top in each corner in succession (Lower left, upper right, and lower right). I do this to see if there is any variation in the image in each corner. If not, I figure it is well centered. I repeated this test twice. Then, I did a second test where I focused on the same building top. I focused on center. Then, without changing focus, I put the building top in each corner so five shots total. I just put up 100% crops, 90 quality jpegs with no processing SOOC. Here is the link for your edification if they are useful to you:
I also did a cityscape scene from F2.5 to F8 focusing on center first and then on midfield. I also shot the same cityscape with the other lenses to compare. Happy to post more crops if you want or can send you raw files via dropbox. I only did these quickly and once each so I am not willing to disagree with your comment about field curvature as I have had very little time with the lens and I got to my shooting location after work just at sunset. ...Show more →
Your lens seems to be well centered but to really see the CV 110/2.5's field curvature you must turn your camera diagonally so entire image field is tested. Again, it's not a big deal but for the sake of this review, I'm reporting it.
Many landscape photographers including myself carry the 100-400GM to some locations. It's a superb lens and competes very well against the 110/2.5 and Batis 135. This is not surprising since the zoom has 22 elements and it's very well corrected.
In the crops below you will see the inwards field curvature since I focused both lenses at center. If I had focused the CV 110 on mid-field, the mid and extreme corner crops would be very similar compared to the zoom.
See below, both lenses at f/5.6: (Not much difference at f/4.5 where the zoom is wide open)
PS: Sorry, it was a big hazy today.
Center @f/5.6
Mid-zone @f/5.6. The zoom does slightly better because it's more flat field than the prime. If I'd focused the CV 110 at mid-field, they would look very similar
Extreme corner @f/5.6: If I'd focused the CV 110 at mid-field, it would do slightly better here
DavidBM wrote:
That also must mean only marginally better than ZM for landscape, right, since I recall you saying that a good ZM is extremely close to L85 by f5.6?
Yes but if there is high contrast (branches against clouds), the ZM won't look as good since it's not as well corrected for purple fringing compared to the Loxia. At f/5.6, the Loxia is still better than the ZM. Only at f/7.1 and f/8 they are pretty much equal but the Loxia is still marginally better everywhere if we look very close.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Your lens seems to be well centered but to really see the CV 110/2.5's field curvature you must turn your camera diagonally so entire image field is tested. Again, it's not a big deal but for the sake of this review, I'm reporting it.
Many landscape photographers including myself carry the 100-400GM to some locations. It's a superb lens and competes very well against the 110/2.5 and Batis 135. This is not surprising since the zoom has 22 elements and it's very well corrected.
In the crops below you will see the inwards field curvature since I focused both lenses at center. If I had focused the CV 110 on mid-field, the mid and extreme corner crops would be very similar compared to the zoom.
See below, both lenses at f/5.6: (Not much difference at f/4.5 where the zoom is wide open)
PS: Sorry, it was a big hazy today. ...Show more →
Well, just to quibble, with cityscape scenes where buildings occupy corners and center, I am not convinced you have to turn the lens diagonally so long as essentially the whole scene is at infinity. Will look some more at this when I get a chance in better light and see if I see what you are seeing.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a comparison between the CV 110 (top) vs Loxia 85 (middle) vs 100-400@110 (bottom) against the low sun.
All were all shot at f/8 and flare was unavoidable for all lenses. Which one do you prefer?
In your sunset scene, I think I like the Loxia best here. Flare tends to be more troublesome the longer the focal length and I think the zoom is slightly longer than the CV here and shows the most flare. It may also be that it is less flare resistant. The loxia seems to have less flare than the CV which is not surprising given the focal length advantage for this.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes but if there is high contrast (branches against clouds), the ZM won't look as good since it's not as well corrected for purple fringing compared to the Loxia. At f/5.6, the Loxia is still better than the ZM. Only at f/7.1 and f/8 they are pretty much equal but the Loxia is still marginally better everywhere if we look very close.
That all seems right; but for landscape at from about f6.3 the ZM is so good that improvement will make very little difference to your images, and the handling advantage is significant.
DavidBM wrote:
That all seems right; but for landscape at from about f6.3 the ZM is so good that improvement will make very little difference to your images, and the handling advantage is significant.
I agree as far as resolution goes but will test them for flare side by side. The ZM at f/6.3 or f/7.1 is optimal.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Couple macro samples at 1:1 magnification:
Nice!
I have a review sample coming from the Australian CV distubutor (Scott from Mainline Photographic) and Phillip (Reeve) and I will be doing a joint review; Phillip concentrating on landscape and general use, and me on the macro side (maybe comparing to the G90).
Unfortunately CV who usually ship to us first, won't have any in Australia until the week before Christamas. So you'll get Phillip's general take before my macro take.
What interests me includes:
OOF shapes compared in same circs between it and Sony 90
Resolution and contrast at 1:2 and 1:1
Handling on and off tripod at high mag.
Smallest aperture you can use with nice OOF shapes for focus stacking
Comparative flare in macro conditions (I've often found flare performance to vary a lot between infinity and very close focus with these lenses with complicated rearranging of the elements at close focus.
Was able to do some lens borrowing. Here is a CA torture test at 1:1, both at f/2.8
Can't really provoke too much from the CV. So I applaud CV for living up to the APO claim.
