I bought a 1.5 but somehow it didn't convince me, maybe I got a bad copy. In the middle even ok. But the midframe zone is weak. This is crucial when photographing a person vertically, the head is in this out-of-focus part. I returned and purchased the 35mm 2.0 APO. It's not that big and the picture is great.
szwayko wrote:
I bought a 1.5 but somehow it didn't convince me, maybe I got a bad copy. In the middle even ok. But the midframe zone is weak. This is crucial when photographing a person vertically, the head is in this out-of-focus part. I returned and purchased the 35mm 2.0 APO. It's not that big and the picture is great.
Does the Canon R5’s sensor glass negatively impact RF glass? I think it does (IIR it’s better than Sony, but still not as thin as Leica M) so what you’ve posted isn’t an issue of the CV 35/1.5 but of adapting to a suboptimal setup.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Does the Canon R5’s sensor glass negatively impact RF glass? I think it does (IIR it’s better than Sony, but still not as thin as Leica M) so what you’ve posted isn’t an issue of the CV 35/1.5 but of adapting to a suboptimal setup.
On the R5, performance with M lenses is much better with a macro adapter: each time you attach an M lens, move the focus ring to the hard stop, set the aperture to the maximum opening, and adjust focus on a subject at infinity using the helicoid. Make sure your subject is at true infinity, usually about 1 mile or more away for most M lens focal lengths. Once you've found the hard stop infinity focus, use the lens normally without moving the helicoid (not difficult since the helicoid usually has heavy resistance). This especially helps lenses with a floating element design like the current 35 and 50 Lux ASPH v1 and recent v2 releases. Performance will not be as good as it will on an M body, but it puts performance pretty close to the SL2-S. This is one of those YMMV things, but for me, I went from "don't bother using M lenses on the R5" to finding they worked quite well. It would not be my setup of choice for landscape where I wanted the highest possible IQ out to the corners, but for general use and especially for wide open shooting at close distances, it was pretty good.
highdesertmesa wrote:
This especially helps lenses with a floating element design like the current 35 and 50 Lux ASPH v1 and recent v2 releases.
It can only help with lenses with floating elements.
For unit focus lenses it is completely irrelevant if you use the lens' helicoid or that from the close focus adapter.
BastianK wrote:
It can only help with lenses with floating elements.
For unit focus lenses it is completely irrelevant if you use the lens' helicoid or that from the close focus adapter.
I thought moving the lens further forward than the M-mount flange distance spec could cause IQ loss in the corners when using non-floating element designs due to the cover glass thickness vs the ray angles of many M lenses, especially wide angles.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I thought moving the lens further forward than the M-mount flange distance spec could cause IQ loss in the corners when using non-floating element designs due to the cover glass thickness vs the ray angles of many M lenses, especially wide angles.
No it doesn't.
If you want to focus at a given distance (e.g. infinity) that defines the distance between lens and sensor.
For unit focus lenses it is irrelevant for the image quality if true infinity is at the infinity mark or at 2m.
highdesertmesa wrote:
On the R5, performance with M lenses is much better with a macro adapter: each time you attach an M lens, move the focus ring to the hard stop, set the aperture to the maximum opening, and adjust focus on a subject at infinity using the helicoid. Make sure your subject is at true infinity, usually about 1 mile or more away for most M lens focal lengths. Once you've found the hard stop infinity focus, use the lens normally without moving the helicoid (not difficult since the helicoid usually has heavy resistance). This especially helps lenses with a floating element design like the current 35 and 50 Lux ASPH v1 and recent v2 releases. Performance will not be as good as it will on an M body, but it puts performance pretty close to the SL2-S. This is one of those YMMV things, but for me, I went from "don't bother using M lenses on the R5" to finding they worked quite well. It would not be my setup of choice for landscape where I wanted the highest possible IQ out to the corners, but for general use and especially for wide open shooting at close distances, it was pretty good....Show more →
I am not sure I agree—but maybe because I don’t understand. The CV 35/1.5 doesn’t use a floating element. So, if you have infinity focused WO on the center, you’ll get the native optical performance of the lens minus induced FC from the R5 sensor stack, correct?
Theoretically, if the CV 35/1.5 is better at 2-15 meters but worse at infinite, I could set the lens to the strongest performing distance and focus past infinite on the adapter which might allow me to hit infinite with the lens at less than infinite to use it’s best distance given I have a modded a7r2. Not sure about that as I’ve not tried and the adapter would have to focus well passed infinite.
BastianK wrote:
No it doesn't.
If you want to focus at a given distance (e.g. infinity) that defines the distance between lens and sensor.
For unit focus lenses it is irrelevant for the image quality if true infinity is at the infinity mark or at 2m.
What happens when the lens is 1 foot in front of the sensor? j/k – Thanks for the clarification that setting the hard stop with a macro adapter only helps with FLE lenses.
BastianK wrote:
No it doesn't.
If you want to focus at a given distance (e.g. infinity) that defines the distance between lens and sensor.
For unit focus lenses it is irrelevant for the image quality if true infinity is at the infinity mark or at 2m.
One quick question: If an adapter is too short and the lens is closer to the sensor, does that have any impact at all at infinity with regard to the image circle that hits the sensor? If that a flaw in my thinking that the image circle would change as the lens gets closer to the sensor, similar to how focus breathing looks? Or is it that as long as the lens can be focused to infinity, the image circle would stay the same regardless of the distance the lens is from the sensor?
highdesertmesa wrote:
One quick question: If an adapter is too short and the lens is closer to the sensor, does that have any impact at all at infinity with regard to the image circle that hits the sensor? If that a flaw in my thinking that the image circle would change as the lens gets closer to the sensor, similar to how focus breathing looks? Or is it that as long as the lens can be focused to infinity, the image circle would stay the same regardless of the distance the lens is from the sensor?
As long as the lens can be focused at infinity there is absolutely no difference.
weezintrumpete wrote:
Anyone want to trade a black Type II for a Type I? Looking for a lighter weight lens as evidenced by my previous post. If so, send me a DM!
I thought I won't be buying this lens, but lately I've been thinking about it all the time
If I sell my 35/1.7 Ultron, then I'll buy this one.
Weight wise - I always want the lightest possible, but I'm not usre about look and feel of that matt lighter option of this lens.
I love the thick paint of other Voigtlanders - like my 21/3.5 Color Skopar. I would love to have that black paint version, but 288g might be heavy - like you said, after having this one, you would like to get lighter now. I also have 40/1.2 VM which is over 300g and its very heavy for me, so this is why I think lighter 35/15 would be better.
Is it really that heavy when using/carrying it for longer periods?
How is the feel of that thick paint? Do you like it?
Having just “talked myself down*” from buying a well-preserved Leica Version II Summilux-M 35mm, locally, and from ordering a pre-owned FLE on-line, this discussion being brought to the top is timely. I am back to considering the Nokton II f/1.4, MC or SC, and the Nokton f/1.5. I had a chance to briefly try a Nokton 35/1.4 II MC, at a coffee shop, several months ago. I have yet to see a Nokton f/1.5, in the wild. Of course, the f/1.4 II and f/1.5 Nokton lenses are different optical tools, for different occasions, so, accumulating both remains possible.
*I visited a quite nicely-preserved Summilux Version II twice, at nearby Houston Camera Exchange, the first time with an M Type 246 Monochrom, and then with an M10 “dash nothin’,” which included comparing it side-by-side with their demonstrator first-version 35mm FLE. I decided that I preferred the FLE, in every way, optically and ergonomically. (This does not mean that I will actually buy an FLE, but that I would rather spend ~$3.5K+ US to buy a pre-owned FLE, than spend almost $3K US for a pre-ASPH V. II.)
RexGig0 wrote:
Having just “talked myself down*” from buying a well-preserved Leica Version II Summilux-M 35mm, locally, and from ordering a pre-owned FLE on-line, this discussion being brought to the top is timely. I am back to considering the Nokton II f/1.4, MC or SC, and the Nokton f/1.5. I had a chance to briefly try a Nokton 35/1.4 II MC, at a coffee shop, several months ago. I have yet to see a Nokton f/1.5, in the wild. Of course, the f/1.4 II and f/1.5 Nokton lenses are different optical tools, for different occasions, so, accumulating both remains possible.
*I visited a quite nicely-preserved Summilux Version II twice, at nearby Houston Camera Exchange, the first time with an M Type 246 Monochrom, and then with an M10 “dash nothin’,” which included comparing it side-by-side with their demonstrator first-version 35mm FLE. I decided that I preferred the FLE, in every way, optically and ergonomically. (This does not mean that I will actually buy an FLE, but that I would rather spend ~$3.5K+ US to buy a pre-owned FLE, than spend almost $3K US for a pre-ASPH V. II.)
This is the beauty of that Nokton 35 1.4 II - you can buy the Leica FLE, and for just a little more money get the Nokton and have both. The Nokton is a better lens than the pre-asph anyway.
j/k – Thanks for the clarification that setting the hard stop with a macro adapter only helps with FLE lenses.