tsdevine wrote:
Would have to be Leica M mount wouldn't it?
Could be, looks like there is a Novoflex Leica M Lens to Canon RF-Mount Camera Adapter
However, I havn't been able to find a FE to RF adapter
I know the wide angle M lens to FE supposedly does not play well with the Sony sensor, However it looks to works well on the Canon R5 sensor from the sample above.
I use a Zeiss 85M on my Sony body, and it does well
I doubt an E to RF adapter is possible. The flange distance for RF mount is 20mm, it's 18mm for E. So the E mount lens would have to be partially inside the RF mount to reach infinity.
IndyFab wrote:
Could be, looks like there is a Novoflex Leica M Lens to Canon RF-Mount Camera Adapter
However, I havn't been able to find a FE to RF adapter
I know the wide angle M lens to FE supposedly does not play well with the Sony sensor, However it looks to works well on the Canon R5 sensor from the sample above.
I use a Zeiss 85M on my Sony body, and it does well
tsdevine wrote:
I doubt an E to RF adapter is possible. The flange distance for RF mount is 20mm, it's 18mm for E. So the E mount lens would have to be partially inside the RF mount to reach infinity.
Got you .. So from the sample from previous page It looks like the 35 & 50 APO and 75 and 110 should all play nice on the Canon RF mount. I wonder if the lens registers the meta data... Then the question comes up, if the VC M wide angle lenses does as good on the RF mount.
I don’t believe CV VM lenses have electrical contacts. So I don’t think you’d get EXIF.
Voigtlander is starting to come out with RF mount lenses. You may want to wait until they release a native mount version if you want EXIF on Canon RF.
Again, anyone correct me if anything in may past several posts is incorrect.
IndyFab wrote:
Got you .. So from the sample from previous page It looks like the 35 & 50 APO and 75 and 110 should all play nice on the Canon RF mount. I wonder if the lens registers the meta data... Then the question comes up, if the VC M wide angle lenses does as good on the RF mount.
In limited use I've found the two shorter APO-Lanthars to produce fine bokeh in the house style we see from Cosina these days. That with the technical performance in difficult light. The 35/2 is a very well-rounded lens, I believe, redolent of medium format - that ability to provide great resolution with classy handling of light. A snippet from the article:
'produced clear and beautiful rendering with no visible chromatic aberration. The contrast is particularly splendid, and I felt that it was a lens that I couldn't get out of once I got hooked on it, as it creates sharp images without damaging the soft texture of the skin.'
Just curious.
35mm is my most used focal length. I have several 35mm lenses, and one of my favorite is Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE classic. I really love its rendering, especially with Canon sensor (6D, 5D II).
Now I use Sony A7R II as well, and I can use 35mm f2.0 ZE with adaptor.
How does Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO compare to Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE? Which lens has the better rendering?
reza187 wrote:
Just curious.
35mm is my most used focal length. I have several 35mm lenses, and one of my favorite is Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE classic. I really love its rendering, especially with Canon sensor (6D, 5D II).
Now I use Sony A7R II as well, and I can use 35mm f2.0 ZE with adaptor.
How does Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO compare to Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE? Which lens has the better rendering?
I don't own (yet ) the 35 APO, however I use the Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 Distagon and the 50 APO (on my 24 Mpix Nikon Z6).
The 50 APO is definitely better. The Apo-Lanthars have similar performance and they should be compared to Otus lenses, so I guess the 35/2 APO outperforms the very good Zeiss 35/2. Let me be clearer. The Zeiss 35/2 is better than any zoom at the wider apertures, but at intermediate apertures it's not that better than my Z 24-70/4 S. My 50/2 Apo-Lanthar is not only perfect w/open (aside corner light fall-off); it is able to outperform my 24-70/4 at f/8 too. Differences are barely visible by pixel peeping on 24 Mpix sensor, but they are there.
Finally, don't forget that the 35/2 Apo-Lanthar is both lighter and less obtrusive than Zeiss 35/2+adapter. I am tempted to buy the (Z-mount) 35 APO mainly for this reason.
Thanks for your feedback.
I know that it's hard to quantify, but (beside the sharpness) how about the 3D effect, microcontrast, and other characteristics of Zeiss, as compared to Voitgtlander's APO lenses?
For the sharpness and CA, I have no doubt that Voigtlander's APO lenses have the edge. However, related to 3D effect and microcontrast, it seems to me that FM members here mention Zeiss more than Voigtlander. But I might he wrong here.
Ripolini wrote:
I don't own (yet ) the 35 APO, however I use the Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 Distagon and the 50 APO (on my 24 Mpix Nikon Z6).
The 50 APO is definitely better. The Apo-Lanthars have similar performance and they should be compared to Otus lenses, so I guess the 35/2 APO outperforms the very good Zeiss 35/2. Let me be clearer. The Zeiss 35/2 is better than any zoom at the wider apertures, but at intermediate apertures it's not that better than my Z 24-70/4 S. My 50/2 Apo-Lanthar is not only perfect w/open (aside corner light fall-off); it is able to outperform my 24-70/4 at f/8 too. Differences are barely visible by pixel peeping on 24 Mpix sensor, but they are there.
Finally, don't forget that the 35/2 Apo-Lanthar is both lighter and less obtrusive than Zeiss 35/2+adapter. I am tempted to buy the (Z-mount) 35 APO mainly for this reason....Show more →
reza187 wrote:
... how about the 3D effect, microcontrast, and other characteristics of Zeiss, as compared to Voitgtlander's APO lenses?
3D effect and microcontrast are rather vague attributes.
We had a lot of discussions here at FM; the output of such a waste of time was: we have as many opinions as fellows
So I give my own definitions, which could differ from yours. 3D: (when referred to the lens) smooth sharpness transition between focal plane and planes above and behind it; it has nothing to do with blurred backgrounds, or, in other words, 3D has no relationship with large apertures. However, photography is made not only by lenses (and to a minor extent by cameras) but - most important - by lighting. And lighting can contribute to the 3D illusion. Probably it's the most important characteristics of a picture (photograph or painting, it's the same). microcontrast: I assume it has to do with MTF (%) at high spatial frequencies; the MTF vs frequency curve shows relatively high MTF values at high frequencies. More simply, ability to resolve tiny details.
According to those definitions, I see no advantage of Zeiss lenses (I own 21/2.8, 35/2, 100/2 Makro and 135/2 Apo) over my 50 APO insofar as 3D effect and microcontrast are concerned. The 35 APO should not differ significantly from the 50 APO.
Ripolini wrote:
According to those definitions, I see no advantage of Zeiss lenses (I own 21/2.8, 35/2, 100/2 Makro and 135/2 Apo) over my 50 APO insofar as 3D effect and microcontrast are concerned. The 35 APO should not differ significantly from the 50 APO.
Interesting. Thanks for your comment.
We have the similar Zeiss line up: I also own (and love) 21/2.8, 35/2, 100/2. I also have 25/2, 50/2, which make it a very nice set up for landscape or portrait. I really want 135/2, but do not have it (yet).
I have Voigtlander 110mm, because a dealer offered me a price that was hard for me to refuse. I can say that I like the rendering, but my usage is still limited.
Now I plan to buy Voigtlander 65mm, and was thinking if I should get Voigtlander 35mm APO to make it a very nice lens kit with a good spacing of 35-65-110. However, I already have Zeiss 35mm f2.0 which I really like, and I'm not sure if I should make it a redundant by purchasing Voigtlander 35mm APO.
reza187 wrote:
Interesting. Thanks for your comment.
We have the similar Zeiss line up: I also own (and love) 21/2.8, 35/2, 100/2. I also have 25/2, 50/2, which make it a very nice set up for landscape or portrait. I really want 135/2, but do not have it (yet).
I have Voigtlander 110mm, because a dealer offered me a price that was hard for me to refuse. I can say that I like the rendering, but my usage is still limited.
Now I plan to buy Voigtlander 65mm, and was thinking if I should get Voigtlander 35mm APO to make it a very nice lens kit with a good spacing of 35-65-110. However, I already have Zeiss 35mm f2.0 which I really like, and I'm not sure if I should make it a redundant by purchasing Voigtlander 35mm APO.
Now, your answer makes me want that 35mm APO ...Show more →
I own a ZE 21 and Loxia 21 I feel the ZE is more saturated, but the Loxia micro contrast is better, just as is the CV 35APO compared to the ZE. I am not saying the Loxia or CV lack saturation because they do have good saturation, I am saying the ZE seems to be over saturated compared to the Loxia and CV..
I just received CV 35 APO (E-mount), and have done preliminary shots with it, including yesterday's A/B comparison against the Loxia 35, using two a7R2 bodies, hand held.
Currently, I own the ZE 35/2, Loxia 35/2 and now the CV 35 APO.
My only complaints (niggles, really) about the CV are 1) the focus throw seems quite abrupt -- would prefer a slightly more refined focus control, and 2) little sunstar action in the defined sense of many Zeiss lenses.
Sharpness, color (slightly cooler) and contrast are all excellent and on par with, or surpass, the two Zeiss I have (although we are almost splitting hairs here). CA is very well controlled, to non-existent. I used the same LRc settings for PP as I did with Loxia 35, and results were to my liking.
I've only had two short outings with the CV, but MF focal length redundancy aside, it is a keeper. Anxious to get out into forest and beaches to see how it does.
Here are a few shots from residential walk-around yesterday shot at f/5.6 and 8.0.
Thanks -- in reviewing this thread since my most recent post, I see Fred and others also confirming only the most meager sunstars, except at f/11, and some smaller apertures. Not my cup of tea -- I consider the lens incapable of sunstars at f/8 and wider apertures = for me zero sunstars. I'll certainly keep my Loxia 35 as well.
No free lunch, and no perfect lens!
I'd forgotten how LONG and diverse this thread is! Lots of good coverage of the topics and some terrific examples. In reviewing the reviews, it is nice to see most others confirm the qualities and (thankfully few) deficiencies I found on me brief experience with it. I was warned there might be some magenta tinge in corners or vignetting, but luckily: no -- I'm sure this is a newer vintage production.
I was fortunate to find an excellent used cope of the lens with box, hood an lens caps, all in pristine condition from a professional Pennsylvania photographer. Couldn't resist -- all for $600, shipped. I'm terribly grateful!
) the 35 APO, however I use the Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 Distagon and the 50 APO (on my 24 Mpix Nikon Z6).
