carlosmcse wrote:
I had this for my Leica. Sold it and replaced it with the Summicron (v5).
Yes the IQ was near perfect. The issue for me is I learned I didn’t want perfect. It was soulless and sterile. It was also way too big and heavy for my M10R.
The Mandler design is perfectly flawed. The images have a beauty the APO-Lanthar didn’t have, because it has been perfected to oblivion.
So for me it’s a niche lens for specific use cases. But I didn’t find it beautiful for every day documenting and expressing myself.
When you are perfect from f2 to f16 or whatever there’s nowhere to go. Like a 1 note song. ...Show more →
Except at f/2 it is somewhat flawed as Fred mentioned. The heavy vignetting and tendency for swirly bokeh with busy backgrounds can be a great combination with the crazy large-format level resolving power.
That said, the 50 Cron v5 is my desert island lens
highdesertmesa wrote:
Except at f/2 it is somewhat flawed as Fred mentioned. The heavy vignetting and tendency for swirly bokeh with busy backgrounds can be a great combination with the crazy large-format level resolving power.
That said, the 50 Cron v5 is my desert island lens
Cosina has a clever trick up its sleeve that Leica never developed. The Voigtlander 50/2 APO M-mount is equipped with an aperture mechanism that boasts a perfect round aperture at f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/16. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1625777/0?b=2#chapter5
Moreover, when stopped down to f/2.8, it diminishes vignetting and tames the cats-eye effect on specular highlights.
The aperture mechanism update from the original E-mount to the M-mount is intriguing. In the E-mount version, the aperture is perfectly round at f/2, f/2.8, and f/16. However, on the M-mount version, it achieves roundness even at f/5.6, presenting an additional enhancement worth noting.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Cosina has a clever trick up its sleeve that Leica never developed. The Voigtlander 50/2 APO M-mount is equipped with an aperture mechanism that boasts a perfect round aperture at f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/16. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1625777/0?b=2#chapter5
Moreover, when stopped down to f/2.8, it diminishes vignetting and tames the cats-eye effect on specular highlights.
"The aperture blades, consisting of 12 elements, have a special shape that is circular not only at the maximum aperture of F2, but also at F2.8 and F5.6. This allows the photographer to take full advantage of the “ball blur” effect of point light sources and other objects."
Surprisingly, unlike the CV 35/2 AL-Z, f/16 is not specified for the CV 50/2 AL-Z as one of the round blade shapes.
This is what the Voigtländer page says about the CV 35mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar Z-mount.
The 12 aperture blades form a circular aperture at F2.0, F2.8, F5.6 and F16, which allows a circular and also very balanced bokeh from a point light source.
Main Features:
– Apochromatic optical design to eliminate chromatic aberration
– Floating Lens Elements for outstanding performance
– Exceptional imaging performance and resolution
– Extremely solid and high quality construction
– 12 aperture blades with circular aperture at F2.0 / F2.8 / F5.6 / F16
– Manual focus for precise focusing
The official Cosina site confirms that for the CV 35/2 AL Z-mount version under the specification tab.
FM's 50APO for M-mount is round at 2, 2.8, 5.6 and 16.
My 50APO for E-mount is round at 2, 2.8 and 16.
My 35APO for E-mount is round at 2, 2.8, 5.6 and 16.
My 35APO for M-mount is round at 2, 2.8, 5.6 and 16.
Never had 35APO for E and M side by side and just realized that these are quite different mechanically and size wise. M version is more pleasing in hand, aperture is half-step compared to one third step on E version.
lensfan wrote:
My 50APO for E-mount is round at 2, 2.8 and 16.
My 35APO for E-mount is round at 2, 2.8, 5.6 and 16.
My 35APO for M-mount is round at 2, 2.8, 5.6 and 16.
Never had 35APO for E and M side by side and just realized that these are quite different mechanically and size wise. M version is more pleasing in hand, aperture is half-step compared to one third step on E version.
And to complete, the 50APO for M-mount is round at 2, 2.8, 5.6 and 16.
I'm not sure about the Z-mount as I never tried that version.
Fred Miranda wrote:
And to complete, the 50APO for M-mount is round at 2, 2.8, 5.6 and 16.
I'm not sure about the Z-mount as I never tried that version.
This video (57 MB download) shows the behavior of the Z-mount 50/2 AL (my sample): link
So is this lens similar to the Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art? The way it is described as "perfect" and "without character". I have the Sigma and while it is very sharp, I don't like it's overly flat and sterile rendering. Will I get more of the same with the APO Lanthar?
jaygould wrote:
So is this lens similar to the Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art? The way it is described as "perfect" and "without character". I have the Sigma and while it is very sharp, I don't like it's overly flat and sterile rendering. Will I get more of the same with the APO Lanthar?
Neither flat nor devoid of character in my experience. I never had the sigma 40 but I had the sigma 35 1.4 art (hsm not dn). I agree that the sigma was fairly sterile and I sold it. Everything I shoot with the voigtlander has a special quality that's hard to put into words, but something about a subtle increase of saturation and vibrance, without ever being over the top, and a very pleasing overall rendering coupled with very sharp resolution. Whereas the sigma was very sharp without as pleasing of an overall rendering character.
It does have some vignette wide open, which may add to the special sauce of character but may or may not be what you're looking from. The sigmas tend to have very little vignette (possibly rendering them more flat?).
I rarely have to do much post processing with the Voigtlander lenses. It paints the picture like I remember it, but better
It's also a whole different experience using an entirely manual lens vs the entirely electronic sigma. Better or worse depends on context.
No I had Sigma 40 1.4 Art and both E and M Mount CV 50 APO. 50 APO is more balanced in terms of correction and pleasant rendering. 40 ART leans more for hyper plane sharpness, great light transmission, and cine colors starting point. 50 APO is not unsharp but it's much more suited for stills and much more enjoyable to use haptics wise.
I enjoyed using 40 Art for video until the 35 GM came out.
