speedgraphic wrote:
Ahem, Adox CMS20II Pro resolves around 800lp/mm. Much higher resolution than any digital sensor available. I scanned the frames with an Eversmart Supreme II for evaluation. I also have made optical prints on 16x20 paper. If there is any softness, it's not apparent. Maybe there is some sample variation and if it's bad enough, buyers should seek warranty replacement.
My mistake, sorry. I think we're saying the same thing, that any midframe issues are not that bad.
I'm impressed with it so far, especially considering the lens is so small and is not a floating element design.
I think it just comes down to the general idea that the lens is obviously not going to tick all the boxes as nicely as a lens that is 4x its price tag. And it's ok. It's expected and good enough for most people, likely. It is, for me, what I shoot, how I shoot etc. Highly subjective.
But Cosina should really give more attention to quality control, having to worry about getting a lemon is not something cool to go through when buying lenses - not everyone lives in a city/country where it's easy to return/replace or even buy them. No brand is safe from having occasional issues though, even some USD 9k M11s do...
marcelography wrote:
But Cosina should really give more attention to quality control, having to worry about getting a lemon is not something cool to go through when buying lenses.
Or people should to worrying about "problems" they would not have noticed in real life and use lenses to shoot pictures instead of doing months of 100% crop comparisons.
I would like someone to show me a good picture ruined by the "midframe dip" so badly you cannot post it here or expose.
Everything we have today, even bad cameras and lenses are many times better that what we used a few decades ago.
So one can still want the best, know the limitations of our gear but getting a lemon is close to impossible unless you buy something with a defect which is very different story.
pmeheut wrote:
Or people should to worrying about "problems" they would not have noticed in real life and use lenses to shoot pictures instead of doing months of 100% crop comparisons.
I would like someone to show me a good picture ruined by the "midframe dip" so badly you cannot post it here or expose.
Everything we have today, even bad cameras and lenses are many times better that what we used a few decades ago.
So one can still want the best, know the limitations of our gear but getting a lemon is close to impossible unless you buy something with a defect which is very different story....Show more →
Speaking only for myself, but I don't return lenses with very minor issues or just because I don't like the rendering. If I don't like the character of a lens, I'll sell it. That shouldn't be on the vendor, IMO. But if a lens had midframe or other issues that are caused by a problem with the lens like focus shift – things that can easily be corrected and were obviously an assembly defect – then I will exchange it. I don't see what's wrong with that.
That said, I've already made the point that midframe weakness is relative to one's use for the lens. That's different for everyone, and you can't assume that what might not bother you is not reasonable for someone else to be bothered by.
marcelography wrote:
But Cosina should really give more attention to quality control, having to worry about getting a lemon is not something cool to go through when buying lenses - not everyone lives in a city/country where it's easy to return/replace or even buy them. No brand is safe from having occasional issues though, even some USD 9k M11s do...
Perhaps that's a tradeoff of their current and attractive price point. Clearly there is a lot of middle ground the Voigtlander brand could occupy compared to Leica's price points. But moving prices higher would alienate some Voigtlander fans and eliminate some of their current customer base.
One solution could be what HDM proposed - a line of individually inspected and certified A++ quality lenses that sell at a premium over the standard versions. But we would have to have faith that Cosina would actually grade them accurately (I think they would) and that it's not just a cash grab. There's also the question of how such tiering could affect perception about non-certified lenses.
Honestly who cares about the mid-frame sharpness wide open at infinity? If you're shooting a landscape you're probably stopped down. If you're shooting wide open your subject is probably pretty centered, i.e. a portrait.
I think it is the offhand, dismissive and categorical nature of the comment that irritates people. You only have to think about other people’s needs for a moment for it to be very obvious that 35mm lens portraiture is almost always environmental, and the subject will frequently be somewhere close to the midframe. When I use that strategy, which is very, very often, I want my subject’s face to be as sharp as possible.
Until I see some sustained evidence that this lens is as sharp in this way of shooting as the Leica 35 lux that I currently use, I’m not interested.
rscheffler wrote:
Perhaps that's a tradeoff of their current and attractive price point. Clearly there is a lot of middle ground the Voigtlander brand could occupy compared to Leica's price points. But moving prices higher would alienate some Voigtlander fans and eliminate some of their current customer base.
One solution could be what HDM proposed - a line of individually inspected and certified A++ quality lenses that sell at a premium over the standard versions. But we would have to have faith that Cosina would actually grade them accurately (I think they would) and that it's not just a cash grab. There's also the question of how such tiering could affect perception about non-certified lenses....Show more →
I think the opportunity may be better suited for a small Voigtlander vendor, selling them for X% over retail but they have been tested for the most common issues. They could grade them as A/B/C and sell them priced accordingly. If Cosina themselves did this, I think they'd have to create separate lens versions with some sort of physical difference on the outside or a different name (physical example: Canon's red ring / naming example: Zeiss "Master Prime"). So they could have the 35 1.5 and the 35 1.5 "Pro" or whatever they want to call it.
I am fed up with RF’s more and more, aside from focus shift, price, lack of IBIS, calibration and being limited outside of 28-50mm without extra/care and gear. I absolutely love shooting them, film and digital, I understand how singular they are, but I just don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze for me at this point. My modded MILC’s will do for me.
Your summary of the disadvantages is spot on. There are, however, many advantages - size, distance scale on the lens, tab for focus distance with feel, clear view, very fast and accurate focus with wide angles, simplicity.
wolfloid wrote:
I think it is the offhand, dismissive and categorical nature of the comment that irritates people. You only have to think about other people’s needs for a moment for it to be very obvious that 35mm lens portraiture is almost always environmental, and the subject will frequently be somewhere close to the midframe. When I use that strategy, which is very, very often, I want my subject’s face to be as sharp as possible.
Until I see some sustained evidence that this lens is as sharp in this way of shooting as the Leica 35 lux that I currently use, I’m not interested....Show more →
I don't see this lens as a replacement for the 35 Lux. But at $899 USD, it could be a nice compliment to the Lux when you only want to travel/shoot with one very small lens. And unless you have the FLE II, the CV will give you a closer minimum focusing distance as well.
I don't see this lens as a replacement for the 35 Lux. But at $899 USD, it could be a nice compliment to the Lux when you only want to travel/shoot with one very small lens. And unless you have the FLE II, the CV will give you a closer minimum focusing distance as well.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I don't see this lens as a replacement for the 35 Lux
I do. I sold the Lux because I was not crazy about the bokeh and the size/weight. In fact, I always preferred the Cron ASPH when shooting film but was not convinced on M digital.
The Voigt is creamy, sharp enough, much more than my previous Summarit, small, lightweight...
P.S: still waiting for a picture than can be published/printed when shot with a Lux but not with the Voigt
Here you can see a bunch of images I shot with the 35/1.5 on Adox CMS20II and scanned them with my Eversmart Supreme II.
This film is a special emulsion that has the rough equivalence of a 500mp sensor. The scanner created approximately 45mp images, and I don't think it pushed the limits of the lens or the film at all.
In my next video I'll be enlarging them in the darkroom. I've already made a few of these and even with the enlarger racked all the way up, I haven't stopped revealing more detail. There are also a few frames with the Sigma 50mm Art, which also did very well! No surprise there. (I shot 12 frames in an F6 and then wanted to finish the roll in my M4-P so I rewound it back and started at the 13th frame. Worked just fine.
I agree with the above commenter, I have yet to see an image that was ruined by loss of detail. Even the ones in the Jack Taka review...that portrait of him and his GF, you'd have to blow that up to 13x19 to even notice the loss of fine detail and even then nobody would bat and eye. They'd probably appreciate how good their skin looks!
Now IF he got some flawed version of the design, I'd want to replace it. But that image could have just as easily been slightly mis-focused. If people are so upset by the performance, the Ultron is also available and that lens is stunningly sharp. Honestly I'm a huge fan of CV these days. I wish Zeiss was still designing new M lenses because I like the brand but currently CV is giving me everything I've wanted. All metal lenses with a balance of great sharpness and some classic rendering sprinkled in, for completely reasonable prices. Can't wait to try the new 55/1.2 on my F2.
speedgraphic wrote:
Here you can see a bunch of images I shot with the 35/1.5 on Adox CMS20II and scanned them with my Eversmart Supreme II.
This film is a special emulsion that has the rough equivalence of a 500mp sensor. The scanner created approximately 45mp images, and I don't think it pushed the limits of the lens or the film at all.
In my next video I'll be enlarging them in the darkroom. I've already made a few of these and even with the enlarger racked all the way up, I haven't stopped revealing more detail. There are also a few frames with the Sigma 50mm Art, which also did very well! No surprise there. (I shot 12 frames in an F6 and then wanted to finish the roll in my M4-P so I rewound it back and started at the 13th frame. Worked just fine.
I agree with the above commenter, I have yet to see an image that was ruined by loss of detail. Even the ones in the Jack Taka review...that portrait of him and his GF, you'd have to blow that up to 13x19 to even notice the loss of fine detail and even then nobody would bat and eye. They'd probably appreciate how good their skin looks!
Now IF he got some flawed version of the design, I'd want to replace it. But that image could have just as easily been slightly mis-focused. If people are so upset by the performance, the Ultron is also available and that lens is stunningly sharp. Honestly I'm a huge fan of CV these days. I wish Zeiss was still designing new M lenses because I like the brand but currently CV is giving me everything I've wanted. All metal lenses with a balance of great sharpness and some classic rendering sprinkled in, for completely reasonable prices. Can't wait to try the new 55/1.2 on my F2....Show more →
Can the thickness of film hide some weaknesses seen on digital? The surface of a digital sensor is zero-tolerance.
For landscape stopped down to f/5.6-8: on the 60mp M11, I can't see midframe weakness at 100% magnification.
For portraits wide open at f/1.5: I don't see much midframe weakness near MFD out to headshot distances. I do see weaker performance when the focus point is moved off center to the midframe when shooting at distances from 3.5m out to the limit of portrait distance (full body distance and longer). If the photographer focuses at the center at these distances but the subject's head is off center, it's completely unrealistic to expect the head in the midframe to be sharp – this is not an APO lens being shot at f/2 after all.
pmeheut wrote:
I do. I sold the Lux because I was not crazy about the bokeh and the size/weight. In fact, I always preferred the Cron ASPH when shooting film but was not convinced on M digital.
The Voigt is creamy, sharp enough, much more than my previous Summarit, small, lightweight...
P.S: still waiting for a picture than can be published/printed when shot with a Lux but not with the Voigt
I just added the caveat about having booth to soothe the souls of those who love their 35 Lux and swear by it. It removes negative emotions from the equation if they realize this lens can coexist rather than replace. Once they have it, then maybe they switch allegiance...
highdesertmesa wrote:
Can the thickness of film hide some weaknesses seen on digital? The surface of a digital sensor is zero-tolerance.
Film is more forgiving for sure. You don't have any problems with light rays hitting at off angles, i.e. the need for micro lenses and things like that on sensor. Conventional films are also just lower resolution but Adox CMS20II is an exception. The best B&W films like TMax 100 would also be similarly high resolving to digital sensors.
Long ago I shot 35mm TechPan and processed it for continuous tonality. That was super high resolving. I never had any lenses that did it justice back then. One reason I used it was so I could shoot 35mm instead of 4x5 knowing certain images would never be enlarged beyond 8x10".
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think the opportunity may be better suited for a small Voigtlander vendor, selling them for X% over retail but they have been tested for the most common issues. They could grade them as A/B/C and sell them priced accordingly. If Cosina themselves did this, I think they'd have to create separate lens versions with some sort of physical difference on the outside or a different name (physical example: Canon's red ring / naming example: Zeiss "Master Prime"). So they could have the 35 1.5 and the 35 1.5 "Pro" or whatever they want to call it.
I agree. That thought crossed my mind while writing that post but was too lazy to add it. It also struck me as going to be a lot of extra work for some boutique distributor to do such tests. How thoroughly do you test each lens? Compare corners for tilt? Focus shift? Consistent field curvature across copies? Test a multiple distances?
Or send them all to Lenrentals to run through OLAF for a fee, assuming they even still have OLAF, or similar, and could squeeze in the extra work. IIRC LR toyed with the possibility of a fee-based service for anyone to send in a lens to be analyzed, but I guess they have enough in-house work and never heard if it ever came to fruition. I doubt it.
I have the 35 FLE right now, and I would say, for my style shooting, and what I rarely hear criticized, is the poor flare resistance. The ZM 35/1.4 and CV 35/1.5 are easily better in this regard. And I don’t find the way the 35 FLE flares particularly elegant or attractive like a 50 Lux
iunno how I missed this lens, been catching up. is the FL true to 35mm throughout focus range? or little wider or tight based on MFD or INF? I mean focus breathing I guess
aside from fle 2, this is exactly what I need for between 21 1.4 and the 50 1.0 for the ltw general carry.
One reason I used it was so I could shoot 35mm instead of 4x5 knowing certain images would never be enlarged beyond 8x10".
