They look so sharp and balanced from corner to corner!
I'm really struggling if I want this high performance but rather large/heavy lens, or on the other hand smaller and lighter, maybe even a bit faster 35mm lens. Ultron and Nokton are quite appealing in terms of size and handling (I like focusing knob) but I've fell in love with the image quality and rendering from this APO lens..
I already have Color-Skopar which is f2.5. I'm more into shallow DoF because the 'pop' and '3D'ness' it gives than low light shooting in terms of aperture.
I might as well get all of them - now the question is in which order...
tommmi wrote:
They look so sharp and balanced from corner to corner!
I'm really struggling if I want this high performance but rather large/heavy lens, or on the other hand smaller and lighter, maybe even a bit faster 35mm lens. Ultron and Nokton are quite appealing in terms of size and handling (I like focusing knob) but I've fell in love with the image quality and rendering from this APO lens..
I already have Color-Skopar which is f2.5. I'm more into shallow DoF because the 'pop' and '3D'ness' it gives than low light shooting in terms of aperture.
I might as well get all of them - now the question is in which order... ...Show more →
I agree, it's one of the best 35mm lenses ever produced. Although I haven't compared them directly, it's hard to believe the Leica version would perform better in any way, except perhaps for lower optical vignetting. The only downside of the 35/2 APO-Lanthar is its obvious size, but it's still smaller and lighter than the other masterpiece, the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM.
Looking at anything of rank in the Sony portfolio (1.4/35) the Voigtländer 2.0/35 Apo Lanthar is still quite light.
Sigma iSeries are the only ones that may compete to some extent weight wise, but the 2.0/35 DG DN needs to be closed to f2.8 to f4.0 to then match the Voigtländer 2.0/35 Apo Lanthar. Wide open at f2.0 the Voigtländer Apo is clearly ahead of the Sigma.
rsolti13 wrote:
I have some reading to do....but anyone compare this lens to the ZM 35 Distagon?
When used on a Leica M, the resolution and contrast of these lenses are very similar. Both offer high resolving power at the center, mid, and extreme corners, even at wide apertures. The Zeiss lens is longer and heavier, and many prefer its rendering, but I think they are not too different at f/2. The Voigtlander is better corrected with lower CA.
Summer finally arrived today after a wet, cool spring and early summer with upper nineties coming next week. The rain made for some pretty impressive waterfall flows. Here is Rockwell Falls in the Two Medicine area (Glacier NP) from earlier this week.
enjoy!
CMOS sensors don't have such colour aberrations at high contrast areas. It's something that used to happen with overflow in a column shooting CCD based cameras.
I remember people telling me my 50mm Summilux-R E60 couldn't have purple fringing and it must be the sensor (Canon 5D mkII). So I shot the same subject on an R8 with Provia and it had exactly the same purple fringing.
davidjl wrote:
gammerART wrote: "(especially the CAs)."
I wonder if those purple fringes are lens problems or sensor (film?) problems?
Those are some seriously extremely high-contrast edges, and I'd expect there to be some infelicities there.
Try taking exactly the same image (same f stop, ISO, shutter speed) with diffferent lenses, and see how they do.
(I may be wrong here, but I'd test before blaming the lens.)
Firstly, realise that all versions of this one (including the soon to be pulled Z version) are the same design (glass mix, construction) and go through the same development, fab and QA process. It'd be a surprise to see graphic differences in handling LoCA between them - done by design.
The M version is obviously designed for a different set of photographic uses and user preferences - a lighter lens aimed more for street, urban, interiors. But they are the same design and apart from a few percent lower detail wide open, they can and should be considered the same. Scroll for factory checked MTF - very few lenses can do this:
So the design is fabulous, and you many have a less than wonderful copy, or push the lens to its limits (very unlikely but we see minor aberration traces even in Otus and SL lenses).
So, take an ample series of what you want the lens for (n=100 plus) and see how it comes up in post - as a basic QA check. See your friendly dealer if unhappy. BTW, the 35/2 E version is even better at CA correction than the 50/2 APO (E), very unusual at 35mm. Very minor but we see these things.
