highdesertmesa wrote:
This makes me want the 40 1.2 now, thanks
IMO, the CV 40mm f/1.2 and CV 75/1.5 Nokton lenses are a powerful combo for the Leica M. (I have both)
....just waiting for the new CV 28/2 Ultron II to finish my set. ;-)
It's early, but I suspect the rendering of the new 28 won't quite be in-line with the other two. However, that's TBC.
Great sets! Very informative. The 35 Ultron at f/2 looks like its images have had NR applied compared to the superb fine detail of the wide open 35 APO, especially with the focus point off-center.
Have you posted test results of the 35 Ultron already in another thread? Just wondering how it does stopped down around f/4-5.6.
So awesome someone did this comparison between the Tammy and the APO. Sonyalphablog charts the Tamron as excellent at 2.8 and outstanding in the center at f4. These comparison samples seem to back that up.
While not quite APO level, for 199.00...I think that's pretty insane performance.
rscheffler wrote:
LMK when you want to sell your VM 35 APO.
It's early, but I suspect the rendering of the new 28 won't quite be in-line with the other two. However, that's TBC.
Great sets! Very informative. The 35 Ultron at f/2 looks like its images have had NR applied compared to the superb fine detail of the wide open 35 APO, especially with the focus point off-center.
Have you posted test results of the 35 Ultron already in another thread? Just wondering how it does stopped down around f/4-5.6.
Thanks Ron! I was very curious to see how they compared. The 35/2 APO's rendering is smoother compared to the Ultron. I never though the 35/2 Ultron was a particularly sharp lens. The 40/1.2 is the smoothest at f/2 but rendering is not technically perfect either. I tried to frame the 40mm to match the other two as close as possible.
I will compare the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO VM to the 35mm f/2 Ultron II at infinity tomorrow (resolution/contrast) if the weather cooperates.
Maybe throw in the CV 40/1.2 Nokton as well. :-))
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Samuel,
At what apertures, you like the CV 35/2 APO's sunstars?
Hi Fred, I really like them at F2, 2.8 and 5.6 where it's just a soft glow without long spokes . And everything else is also very nice, until about F8. Yet beyond that, the defined spokes are also not offensive at all. I want to use it for stars at F2.8, and I don't really want spokes for that. The CV50/2 is nice that way, while the CV65/2 has strong spokes at that aperture, but it's also fine.
No luck with this lens. Second copy is tilted and decentered. I am not that patient to try every copy available to find one that comes close to the product description by Voigtländer. (MTF, best CV wide angle ever)
1. Copy: Centre sharpness CV 35 ApoLanthar vs CV 40 Nokton @ f2
peter.d.huang wrote:
Wow, I'm surprised that APO-Lanthar has smoother bokeh than the Ultron.
Seems the only advantage of Ultron is the very compact size.
I was not surprised about that. The Ultron has harsher rendering than the CV 35/2.5 Color-Skopar II, Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM and Leica 35/2 asph which are not lenses famous for their smooth rendering. (The CV 35/1.7 Ultron was...)
Without inspecting rendering at pixel level, I'd say the APO and Ultron are not that different although we know the APO's rendering is smoother. The CV 40/1.2 takes the cake even at same framing which does not give it any blur advantage. It can also be used in much wider apertures than f/2.
GartenMoorriem wrote:
No luck with this lens. Second copy is tilted and decentered. I am not that patient to try every copy available to find one that comes close to the product description by Voigtländer. (MTF, best CV wide angle ever)
1. Copy: Centre sharpness CV 35 ApoLanthar vs CV 40 Nokton @ f2
Hi Albrecht,
A good copy should have similar resolution/contrast compared to the 40/1.2 @f/2. This is the first time I see a tilted/swung copy and yours definitely is.
I tried 4 copies and they were all well centered. However, the first was not very sharp off-axis while the second was not optimal on-axis. My 35/2 APO M-mount loan was perfect from the start and my third copy of the E-mount performed similarly the M-mount.
For me it would be interesting to compare the 35 F2 APO-Lanthar with the Loxia 35mm....I'm very aware the APO- Lanthar would smoke it wide open but at half the price for a used copy I could deal with the fiddly focus knob and less pleasing mounting lock if the distortion for straight lines near the edges of the frames was similar between the two.
I find the heavy distortion of the Sigma contemporary lenses unusable for any pictures of buildings or walls that have straight lines in them.
Irving wrote:
For me it would be interesting to compare the 35 F2 APO-Lanthar with the Loxia 35mm....I'm very aware the APO- Lanthar would smoke it wide open but at half the price for a used copy I could deal with the fiddly focus knob and less pleasing mounting lock if the distortion for straight lines near the edges of the frames was similar between the two.
I find the heavy distortion of the Sigma contemporary lenses unusable for any pictures of buildings or walls that have straight lines in them.
It's true that the main advantage for the APO is wide open resolution across the field and CA correction but it would still be significant superior even at f/8 compared to the Loxia 35. I've used the later for many years and like you, I used it for stopped down landscapes.
I will try to find some infinity shots (same scene with different lighting) to show you the difference.
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO has excellent flare resistance for both ghosting and veiling. In backlit situations, a little ghosting and loss of contrast could be noticeable though.
Compared to other 35mm lenses like the Sigma 35/2 DG DN and Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM, it does a much better job suppressing flare compared to them. For those shooting backlight scenes (landscapes) where superior flare resistance is desired, the Voigtlander should be a top contender.
Here are some side by side comparisons to the Sigma and Sony lenses:
@FredMiranda Thanks for testing. Interesting to see, but not surprised. People have to understand at f2 and the Ultron’s size, IQ has to give, so rendering is a bit wild. The APO looks harsh, but not as harsh as the Ultron. Looks much harsher than the 35/1.7 and 35/1.2iii I’ve owned.
Very curious where the new 28/2 lands...I suspect closer to the 35/2 Ultron and APO.
Are you (or can you please) post how the 35/2 Ultron and APO stopped down at infinite? I wouldn’t use either much WO or near/mid distance, or I’ll anticipate the coarser draw, but very curious to see differences at f8 (landscape).
The Voigtlander does much better especially in Sample 1.
Fred
Based on what you have evaluated so far, do you have a favorite.. if you could only own one?
Seems like for landscapes only the Voigtlander is the way to go but for all around 35mm -- the Sony GM?
I like the rendering on the 40mm Nokton. Seems like fringing is a bit more severe though
What is the consensus for the best 35mm for astro? The Voigtlander APO seems perfect wide open but the GM does let more light in and could be as good stopped down to f2?
nehemiahphoto wrote
@FredMiranda Thanks for testing. Interesting to see, but not surprised. People have to understand at f2 and the Ultron’s size, IQ has to give, so rendering is a bit wild. The APO looks harsh, but not as harsh as the Ultron. Looks much harsher than the 35/1.7 and 35/1.2iii I’ve owned.
Very curious where the new 28/2 lands...I suspect closer to the 35/2 Ultron and APO.
Me too!
Are you (or can you please) post how the 35/2 Ultron and APO stopped down at infinite? I wouldn’t use either much WO or near/mid distance, or I’ll anticipate the coarser draw, but very curious to see differences at f8 (landscape).
aldburg wrote:
What is the consensus for the best 35mm for astro? The Voigtlander APO seems perfect wide open but the GM does let more light in and could be as good stopped down to f2?
Whenever the weather cooperates, I will test the CV 35mm f/2 APO for coma and will compare it to the GM.
mark1958 wrote:
The Voigtlander does much better especially in Sample 1.
Fred
Based on what you have evaluated so far, do you have a favorite.. if you could only own one?
Seems like for landscapes only the Voigtlander is the way to go but for all around 35mm -- the Sony GM?
I like the rendering on the 40mm Nokton. Seems like fringing is a bit more severe though
Very tough to decide Mark.
For landscapes, the Voigtlander has excellent flare resistance, it's compact and has very nice sunstars starting at f/11.
The GM performs similarly across the field (resolution/contrast) but it's bigger and flare resistance is not as great. (Although very good)
The Sigma is another contender having similar resolution performance to both Voigt and Sony at center and starting at f/5.6, it's comparable off-axis (although not as good). Flare resistance is worse than the other too...but it's very compact with AF...
...like I wrote, it's not an easy decision to pick only one.
