Voigtlander 35mm APO...just a fabulous lens. My kit is the 21mm Nokton, this one, the 65mm APO and 110 APO. The hardest decision I ever have is which one to pull out of the bag.
Al Trujillo wrote:
Voigtlander 35mm APO...just a fabulous lens. My kit is the 21mm Nokton, this one, the 65mm APO and 110 APO. The hardest decision I ever have is which one to pull out of the bag.
I'm considering adding the CV 35/2 APO to go along with my CV 50/2 APO, specifically for shooting landscapes. I also believe the CV 21/1.4 Nokton is excellent, but I usually go for my Leica 21/3.4 SEM mainly because of its compact size.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm considering adding the CV 35/2 APO to go along with my CV 50/2 APO, specifically for shooting landscapes. I also believe the CV 21/1.4 Nokton is excellent, but I usually go for my Leica 21/3.4 SEM mainly because of its compact size.
I have both the 35 and 50 APOs for exactly the same use scenario. Just wonderful lenses for landsacpe.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Does anyone have a comp or know how the ZM 35/1.4 and CV 35 APO compare at f2 at infinite?
I haven't directly compared both lenses side by side, but they both deliver sharp details and strong contrast right from the widest aperture settings, whether you're shooting at the center, mid-field, or corners. (no dips)
Previously, I used the ZM 35/1.4 on my Sony, with a special filter, and it performed well. However, I was pleasantly surprised by its performance on the M even at f/1.4. The CV 35/2 APO also impressed me a lot, even though it's one stop slower.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I haven't directly compared both lenses side by side, but they both deliver sharp details and strong contrast right from the widest aperture settings, whether you're shooting at the center, mid-field, or corners. (no dips)
Previously, I used the ZM 35/1.4 on my Sony, with a special filter, and it performed well. However, I was pleasantly surprised by its performance on the M even at f/1.4. The CV 35/2 APO also impressed me a lot, even though it's one stop slower.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thanks Fred. I really like the ZM 35/1.4 and on a modded sensor, I found it pretty crispy across the frame WO at 42mp. At f2, a pinch better.
I am curious to try the 35 APO, but not really sure I would be gaining anything.
I have both of these lenses. And while I ask myself this same question on owning both, I can't seem to let one go. Both are excellent yet different. While I wouldn't call the Voigtlander 35/2 APO 'clinical' by any means, it might tend toward that look more than the Zeiss. There is something smooth yet bitingly sharp about the Zeiss that gives it a different look. Perhaps lower contrast and softer color rendering vs the APO . . . and I'm not sugggesting this is a disadvantage to the Zeiss. The look is just different and wonderful.
Al, beautiful photographs. are you using E or M version ?
Al Trujillo wrote:
Voigtlander 35mm APO...just a fabulous lens. My kit is the 21mm Nokton, this one, the 65mm APO and 110 APO. The hardest decision I ever have is which one to pull out of the bag.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thanks Fred. I really like the ZM 35/1.4 and on a modded sensor, I found it pretty crispy across the frame WO at 42mp. At f2, a pinch better.
I am curious to try the 35 APO, but not really sure I would be gaining anything.
In terms of resolution and contrast, there isn't much difference, but you might notice some improvement in color accuracy. The CV 35/2 APO stands out as one of the top 35mm lenses available. It performs equally well compared to our top large autofocus lenses. It's also smaller than the ZM. (less RF obstruction)
I always find the ZM 35/1.4 stiff to focus (have owned 4 copies since launch) and the 1/3rd stop increments annoying. How does the CV 35 APO do with those?
I always find the ZM 35/1.4 stiff to focus (have owned 4 copies since launch) and the 1/3rd stop increments annoying. How does the CV 35 APO do with those?
Maybe the focusing issue could be related to its floating element design? The CV 35/2 APO also features a floating element, but I didn't find it to be stiff. In my experience, it rotates smoothly, much like the CV 50/2 APO. One benefit of the ZM lens is its rendering quality, although the 35/2 APO also has its own character, being more structured compared to the 50mm version at transition zone.
Lloyd looked at the M-mount versions of each lens, but it is secret information.
Again for the VM, Matt Osborne did a refreshingly unbiased video of the VM 35/2 APO at this title:
'Best 35mm EVER? Voigtlander 35mm APO'
I'd be surprised if the ZM 35/1.4 startled anyone wide open, it has the traditional Zeiss fast lens formula of low microcontrast everywhere and adds significant fall-off at the wide edges. At f2, who knows until someone delivers good images from it at that setting? Zeiss report f4 as the 'best' aperture.
(A note for new readers: the VM is distinguished from the other mount versions of this 35/2 APO (Z and E) by its shiny front ring. It's a different performing lens.)
philip_pj wrote:
(A note for new readers: the VM is distinguished from the other mount versions of this 35/2 APO (Z and E) by its shiny front ring. It's a different performing lens.)
According to data Cosina publishes in the Company website, VM and E/Z versions have identical optical schemes.
Rather surprisingly, MTF plots are slightly different.
Ripolini wrote:
According to data Cosina publishes in the Company website, VM and E/Z versions have identical optical schemes.
Rather surprisingly, MTF plots are slightly different.
Thanks for posting this!
The MTF graphs show remarkable similarity between the E and Z-mounts. However, I do observe a slight difference in the M-mount version. (For the better)
Random question - do the benefits of APO translate to street photography? In other words, is a thinner DOF (Nokton 35mm 1.2) more preferable than an APO corrected 35mm F2 for street application or would the APO benefit be seen as more useful?
gunmetal wrote:
Random question - do the benefits of APO translate to street photography? In other words, is a thinner DOF (Nokton 35mm 1.2) more preferable than an APO corrected 35mm F2 for street application or would the APO benefit be seen as more useful?
To improve street photography, it's often better to use a narrower aperture. So, if you're aiming for high image quality and higher correction for color error, the 35/2 APO lens would be a better choice compared to the 35/1.2 III Nokton.
Unless you're referring to environmental portraits, where the added depth of field from the Nokton might be preferable.
According to data Cosina publishes in the Company website, VM and E/Z versions have identical optical schemes.
Rather surprisingly, MTF plots are slightly different.
The MTF curves start off higher in the center for e-mount, but drop off slightly faster to the edge reaching similar levels at the very edge.
To me the differences are so minute that typical sample variation most likely is higher than the MTF differences we see here between e and M mount (just look at the variations Roger Cicala sees between lenses in his MTF curves … )
All without real relevance for the images taken …
