rscheffler wrote:
Difficult to tell how much sarcasm extends to your comment to cancel the 35 Cron APO deposit.
It's only my 2¢, but it's the internet, so I'll post anyway.
Based solely on images posted online, the Voigtlander is great when you don't care about wider aperture background rendering at medium distances and are fine with its size. Its physical design should be of no concern to anyone not using an M system given that it's already very compact compared to other 35mm mirrorless and DSLR lenses. But on an M camera, the VM is large, already larger than the 50 Lux ASPH. The 50 is acceptable because viewfinder blockage of 50mm frame lines is reasonable. But with the VM being larger and 35mm, viewfinder blockage becomes more obvious, and probably annoying. IMO this is where Leica, once again, and with Leica's price premium, offers a more harmonious M system experience. It's physically smaller yet also very sharp and with what appears to be more pleasing OOF rendering at all distances. Maybe the VM is fractionally sharper? I don't know. Maybe the VM has better colour response? I don't know. Will you care if you don't like using the VM on an M? This I know will bother you to no end.
Isn't this why you have the 35 Cron APO on order?
If mostly shooting stopped down, maybe just stick with your 35 Lux or VM 35/2. ...Show more →
I was being totally sarcastic about cancelling my 35 Cron APO order, Ron. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the strengths of the CV APO-Lanthar 35, which I know from personal experience is a wonderful lens, so much so that I have exempted it and its 50mm sibling from my deCosinafication program. But, as you point out, on a Leica M it’s just a little too large and I know from the samples I’ve seen that the 35 Cron APO will suit me perfectly well optically and—equally importantly from my perspective—its size and haptics make for what you correctly describe as a more harmonious M system experience.
DavidBM wrote:
I would restrict the caveat on the CV even further: wider aperture middle distance rendering with busy aspects in the periphery and backlighting. In that very narrow niche some other glass is slightly nicer to most tastes. Otherwise it’s by far the nicest manual 35 I know if you are good with the speed.
I say this not to be picky but to make a general point about gear discussion. How so often an legitimate complaint about one use case derails our understanding of something that might overall be the most useful tool in the kit (not saying this is true of Ron, in fact I take you to be making a similar point)...Show more →
Because the lens is a bit long for a 35/2, optical vignetting is higher than average. The Leica 35/2 APO likely does better in this aspect.
genji wrote:
Wow! This is astonishingly well-organised. Flawless colour, very appealing medium distance bokeh, vibrant rendering at small (f/9) aperture, perfect colour tonal separation, much better than expected highlight handling, not a trace of blotchy bokeh, and an optimum amount of macro contrast.
hmm...here we go again: using sarcasm to make fun of philip's comments...
Always good when people are passionate about their gear. Most of us are disappointed with early release images, we have this long term problem with all anticipated lenses, no? It's worse with expensive lenses because highly partial reviewers wax lyrical about the LENS, not the images it makes. So you get a 'tell, don't show' situation when images should speak for themselves. But if someone calls me on an opinion, I'll give the reasons for it.
It would be great to compare it to the Voigtlander 35/2 APO-Lanthar. From the images I've seen online, I think the Voigtlander has slightly higher micro-contrast, better colors and less field curvature but it's hard to know without inspecting DNG files side by side. Perhaps one day.
It would be great to compare it to the Voigtlander 35/2 APO-Lanthar. From the images I've seen online, I think the Voigtlander has slightly higher micro-contrast, better colors and less field curvature but it's hard to know without inspecting DNG files side by side. Perhaps one day.
Extremely enthusiastic response to that linked post in which you say: “If there is enough interest, I may pick up a Leica 35mm f/2 APO to compare to the Voigtlander.” I guess I may have to step up to the plate when my Cron 35 APO eventually arrives.
Though I am convinced by the quality of the Apo Lanthars, the resolving power with the A7R4 sometimes still comes as a surprise. To summit of the Teide volcano, Tenerife, there is cable car. On this picture, taken at sunset from 15 km distance, you may spot the cables.
It would be great to compare it to the Voigtlander 35/2 APO-Lanthar. From the images I've seen online, I think the Voigtlander has slightly higher micro-contrast, better colors and less field curvature but it's hard to know without inspecting DNG files side by side. Perhaps one day.
With the degree of thoroughness and objectivity that your reviews have, I too would love to see this comparison (but would particularly like to see it done on a Leica M (not that that is meant as a hint to anyone else …. )).
I hope it’s not rude (absolutely not my intention, apologies if it is) to mention that Sean Reid has quite a long article on this very topic. What is interesting to me is that he included the ZM 2.8/35 in the comparison.
Thanks to FM's review, this thread and Philips review, I just took delivery of this lens from B&H. My CY 35mm 2.8 is always soft in the corners on my Sony A7RIV. I'm going to Berlin for the first time next week and decided that I wanted to match my CV 65mm APO-Lanthar with it's little buddy. The lens is smaller than I thought it looked online. So far, my testing is all good.
letchhausen wrote:
Thanks to FM's review, this thread and Philips review, I just took delivery of this lens from B&H. My CY 35mm 2.8 is always soft in the corners on my Sony A7RIV. I'm going to Berlin for the first time next week and decided that I wanted to match my CV 65mm APO-Lanthar with it's little buddy. The lens is smaller than I thought it looked online. So far, my testing is all good.
Congratulations on your new lens! Post some pictures whenever you can.
Many thanks to this forum, to Fred Miranda for your superb reviews, and the substantial feedback by so many members.
I exhaustively read all 42 pages of this thread and clicked and followed all associated links to other reviews before I ordered the CV 35mm f/2 APO. Thanks to B&H for their superb website and especially quick shipping (48 hours from NY to the hinterlands of Colorado!!). FedEx dropped a shiny new box in my hands a couple of hours ago!!
My first impression holding CV lenses is the material density...you know quality engineered materials go into the heft of this lens. After quickly shooting about 30 images in my back yard, including my block fence (which I test all my lenses against) I found that at f/2 the corners are slightly (ever so...) soft but by 2.8 things tighten up and everything gets very sharp! Color rendition looks wonderful at this point but I'll be out with it more tomorrow and will give my impressions then. Finally I find the size of this lens pleasantly surprising. All my other lenses are larger and feel substantially heavier than this one.
Al Trujillo wrote:
Many thanks to this forum, to Fred Miranda for your superb reviews, and the substantial feedback by so many members.
I exhaustively read all 42 pages of this thread and clicked and followed all associated links to other reviews before I ordered the CV 35mm f/2 APO. Thanks to B&H for their superb website and especially quick shipping (48 hours from NY to the hinterlands of Colorado!!). FedEx dropped a shiny new box in my hands a couple of hours ago!!
My first impression holding CV lenses is the material density...you know quality engineered materials go into the heft of this lens. After quickly shooting about 30 images in my back yard, including my block fence (which I test all my lenses against) I found that at f/2 the corners are slightly (ever so...) soft but by 2.8 things tighten up and everything gets very sharp! Color rendition looks wonderful at this point but I'll be out with it more tomorrow and will give my impressions then. Finally I find the size of this lens pleasantly surprising. All my other lenses are larger and feel substantially heavier than this one.
Would you be able to tell me what other lenses you have that are larger than this 35 APO? I was under the impression that this 35 APO was one of the larger lenses that's often recommended. I currently have the 50 APO and am debating on what 35 to buy and this is on the list.
For native Sony glass, it’s not really large for its speed. It’s similar in size to the 50 APO. In fact so much so that I have to be careful to check which lens I grabbed from my bag.
mrjoeltan wrote:
Would you be able to tell me what other lenses you have that are larger than this 35 APO? I was under the impression that this 35 APO was one of the larger lenses that's often recommended. I currently have the 50 APO and am debating on what 35 to buy and this is on the list.
tsdevine wrote:
For native Sony glass, it’s not really large for its speed. It’s similar in size to the 50 APO. In fact so much so that I have to be careful to check which lens I grabbed from my bag.
Yeah, I've had an a9ii and 50 GM at some point and didn't really mind - although I will admit it was a noticeable weight when being carried around. Going to the Q2 and eventually the M11 was a big difference in size and weight.
At the moment I have this 35 APO in consideration along with some version of a summicron or even the CV 35 Ultron ii.
Gotcha..my comments were solely based on E mount. For Leica it probably falls on the larger size.
mrjoeltan wrote:
Yeah, I've had an a9ii and 50 GM at some point and didn't really mind - although I will admit it was a noticeable weight when being carried around. Going to the Q2 and eventually the M11 was a big difference in size and weight.
At the moment I have this 35 APO in consideration along with some version of a summicron or even the CV 35 Ultron ii.
mrjoeltan wrote:
Would you be able to tell me what other lenses you have that are larger than this 35 APO? I was under the impression that this 35 APO was one of the larger lenses that's often recommended. I currently have the 50 APO and am debating on what 35 to buy and this is on the list.
Yes, I have the CV 110mm APO and have a CV 65mm APO on order. I've traded or sold my Zeiss Milvus lenses (15, 50/2 and 135) in the last six months to place these three in my kit.
Is there decrease in image quality when adapting Leica M-Mount version of the lens to Sony E-mount? I have a feeling I'm not getting the maximum quality on A7R IV compared to what I get with my CV 2/50 APO which is native E-mount lens.
lensfan wrote:
Is there decrease in image quality when adapting Leica M-Mount version of the lens to Sony E-mount? I have a feeling I'm not getting the maximum quality on A7R IV compared to what I get with my CV 2/50 APO which is native E-mount lens.
