rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.6 #8 · Voigtlander 90mm f/2 APO-Ultron Review | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for these samples Fred. Although there is an obvious similarity in the optical performance between the Leica M 90 cron AA and this Voigtlander lens, it is becoming clear that there are some important differences. In the Voigtlander's favor, it has even more contrast and especially microcontrast, even better correction for axial CA, and less susceptibility to flare than the Leica 90 cron AA, which is high praise. In the Leica's favor it has less vignetting which shows up with rounder bokeh balls for more of the frame and a bit more blur at the edges and corners of the frame. In general, I find it easer to tell these two lenses apart than some of the recent comparisons to Leica M lenses (e.g., CV 28 f/1.5 to Leica M 28 lux Asph; Thypoch 50 f/1.4 to Leica M 50 lux Asph).
If all else was equal, I think I would prefer the Leica tradeoffs in optical performance, but all else is not equal. The Voigtlander is smaller, focusses closer, and is much cheaper and given those advantages, for me anyway, it is pretty clear I will opt for the Voigtlander over the Leica.
For years I have thought that my ultimate rangefinder 28, 50, & 90 set of lenses would be the Leica 28 lux Asph, 50 lux Asph, and 90 AA. I have owned all three of those lenses, but never at the same time and really liked the performance of each of them. The problem from my point of view, however, is that the three together start to add a significant amount of size and weight. Together they weigh 1,275 g. What I find exciting is that I can get quite similar performance with the CV 28 f/1.5, the Thypoch 50 f/1.4, and this CV 90 f/2 APO and the total weight of the lenses would be just 866g. That weight is about a third and over 400g less. That to me starts to be a very compelling option even if there was no difference in price, which of course is even greater than the difference in weight....Show more →
Steve, I generally agree. The VM is clearly technically superior in many aspects but there's something about the 90AA's look/character that I slightly prefer for the same reasons you pointed out. Whether that's enough of a difference were I starting over.... probably not because I can't ignore the price/performance difference (though used 90AAs can be found reasonably priced, as I did some time ago, but still nowhere close to the VM new).
I have that Leica trio and agree that the size/weight adds up (especially because my 50 Lux is the silver/brass version). My compromise, for daytime walk around, is the 90/4 Macro in place of the AA most of the time. Size and weight of the 28 and 50 Luxes don't bother me as much and they're pretty much the two core lenses in my M kit, which I supplement with slower options at the wider and longer ends most of the time to balance overall size and weight of the system. The 90AA mostly sees use when I want the look of f/2, or TBH, if adapted to mirrorless where I can leverage IBIS and it's a relatively small lens in comparison to similar mirrorless AF options. For me at least, 90/2 on M does not feel quite "M" if you know what I mean. Somewhat big and somewhat difficult to consistently focus wide open. And I need relatively high shutter speeds to offset camera shake (above 1/250). For low light work I reach for the 50 much more often. The VM makes a lot of sense for how I currently use the 90AA as a supplementary lens, but it did't exist ~10 years ago and I'm not really compelled to swap because the main appeal of the 90AA is its wide open look (despite potential for onion rings in out of focus specular highlights).
|
