RoamingScott wrote:
Yep, things like a 40/2, 50/3.5, or 75/2.8 have plenty of speed, still have great bokeh, and you'd stop a faster lens down to that anyways most of the time.
I basically have fast lenses for film use - to use when light is low and I need to try to maintain a useable shutter speed.
Digital? Just crank up that volume and dance.
Those are beautiful photos, Fred. I’m a little worried that if I buy the Skopar 75mm, I’ll end up taking fewer photos with my Skopar 90mm. What I’m really missing right now is a 35mm lens, and I’m still hoping for a Lanthar 35mm f/3.5 with a minimum focusing distance of 0.3m.
RoamingScott wrote:
Yep, things like a 40/2, 50/3.5, or 75/2.8 have plenty of speed, still have great bokeh, and you'd stop a faster lens down to that anyways most of the time.
Imo there is case for larger apertures the wider the focal length.
I like 85mm f3.2-3.5ish for classic head & shoulder / chest up portraits - keeps the face and both eyes sharp but the tip of the nose and the ears will be out of focus. That’s about a 24-27mm aperture opening and you get about the same with a 75mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8-2.0, 35mm f1.2-1.4. So using the wider lens (without moving closer) allows for upper body or knee up shots with the same DOF and same perspective distortion on the face. Imo that’s quite useful.
But that’s not to say that 40mm f2 or 50mm f3.5 aren’t useful.
fjablo wrote:
Imo there is case for larger apertures the wider the focal length.
This is my thinking too, at least down to 28mm. After that, I'm OK with slower.
I remind myself of this any time I get tempted by a new lens, in order to keep the size of my collection down.
Unfortunately the same logic leads me to the conclusion that both the CV 28/1.5 and this 75/2.8 (adapted) would make a lot of sense in my Sony kit. Would mean two out and two in.
Plzenaak wrote:
Those are beautiful photos, Fred. I’m a little worried that if I buy the Skopar 75mm, I’ll end up taking fewer photos with my Skopar 90mm. What I’m really missing right now is a 35mm lens, and I’m still hoping for a Lanthar 35mm f/3.5 with a minimum focusing distance of 0.3m.
That would be lovely. We now have the slow. small, excellent, trio of the 50 f/3.5 APO Lanthar, the 75 f/2.8 APO Skopar, and the presumably the soon to be released 90 f/4 APO Lanthar. If will be interesting to see if Voigtlander adds to these with a 30 f/3.5 APO Lanthar, and maybe even a 28 f/3.5 APO Lanthar. Those will probably be harder to build especially if they can somehow manage to keep them small enough to not block the framelines like the longer 3.
Voigtlander does have the small 35 f/3.5 Asph Skopar, and the 28 f/2.8 Asph Skopar and they are very good lenses and very small, but I think at these wider focal lengths, so far at least, keeping the lenses small even with slower max aperture has not allowed the lenses to be quite at the level of performance of the APO longer lenses. We will see if Voigtlander can change in the future.
Plzenaak wrote:
Those are beautiful photos, Fred. I’m a little worried that if I buy the Skopar 75mm, I’ll end up taking fewer photos with my Skopar 90mm. What I’m really missing right now is a 35mm lens, and I’m still hoping for a Lanthar 35mm f/3.5 with a minimum focusing distance of 0.3m.
Cosina recently released a 35mm f/3.5 lens (review). It is not an APO design, but it's ultra compact, built from brass, and from my tests, it shows only traces of axial CA (honestly I don't actually see any color error). The main limitation, likely a compromise to keep the barrel so small and compact, is that it isn't a close focus lens.
Mostly wide open at f/2.8. Post processing was kept minimal, with only light sharpening and the Adobe Color (high contrast) profile applied.
No corrections were applied for distortion, vignetting, or chromatic aberration, allowing the lens's native rendering characteristics to be seen more clearly.
Imo, they have a superb balance of modern acuity with vintage transitions. Looking at the lens construction, I can see a hybrid design ... and that they have migrated away from the use of an ASPH elements ... makes for a combination that seems very satisfying to both sides of the sharpness / smoothness paradigm, and is still very well corrected.
Imo, it's been interesting to watch Voigtlander's foray into their Vintage lineup (75/1.5, etc.) and their construction approach over the years. I think some of what they have learned through that lineup has merged with their other lines to bring us to where this lens is ... a nice one indeed, imo. Starting at f/2.8 helps ease things in terms of aberrations (vs. the 1.5's), but still retaining a nice vibe of the Vintage (even if not full vintage). Vintage APO ... yeah, that's a nice trick ... well, done.
jourdan.merritt wrote:
These look great, Fred. How are you liking the handling so far?
It's a simple lens, nothing fancy, but that's part of the appeal. It is made out of aluminum to keep the weight down as much as possible. Everything works well on my copy, with firm aperture clicks and an extra smooth focusing ring that can also be rotated comfortably from the tab. The lens extends a bit at closer distances, and the hood is super compact, not even blocking the framelines.
Imo, they have a superb balance of modern acuity with vintage transitions. Looking at the lens construction, I can see a hybrid design ... and that they have migrated away from the use of an ASPH elements ... makes for a combination that seems very satisfying to both sides of the sharpness / smoothness paradigm, and is still very well corrected.
Imo, it's been interesting to watch Voigtlander's foray into their Vintage lineup (75/1.5, etc.) and their construction approach over the years. I think some of what they have learned through that lineup has merged with their other lines to bring us to where this lens is ... a nice one indeed, imo. Starting at f/2.8 helps ease things in terms of aberrations (vs. the 1.5's), but still retaining a nice vibe of the Vintage (even if not full vintage). Vintage APO ... yeah, that's a nice trick ... well, done. ...Show more →
Although the optical design is on the more symmetric side, which usually does not fully correct all aberrations, I don't think that's the case with the Voigtlander 75mm f/2.8 APO. This is a truly corrected lens, with no noticeable residual spherical aberration or color error. The lack of aspherical elements is not surprising given the longer focal length, where they are often unnecessary for achieving correction.
So far, I don't see anything 'vintage' in its rendering. Even the transitions are smooth, without outlining in highlights. Overall, it has a very modern look.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Although the optical design is on the more symmetric side, which usually does not fully correct all aberrations, I don't think that's the case with the Voigtlander 75mm f/2.8 APO. This is a truly corrected lens, with no noticeable residual spherical aberration or color error. The lack of aspherical elements is not surprising given the longer focal length, where they are often unnecessary for achieving correction.
So far, I don't see anything 'vintage' in its rendering. Even the transitions are smooth, without outlining in highlights. Overall, it has a very modern look.
By "Vintage" ... I don't mean full of aberrations. Rather, I mean NOT that uber-clinical, "Modern" look that we get from modern lenses that can have that uber-corrected / nervous bokeh transition when placing a strong reliance on ASPH elements. I just think they landed this one in a very nice place between the two ... borrowing "some" of the optical construction design from the Vintage line. In front of the aperture looks like one design approach, behind the aperture looks like a different design approach (i.e. hybrid).
Cosina's Vintage Line including 75/1.5 is not designed to be Vintage in terms of optics, but only in terms of lens casing. Only the lenses with "classic" (35/1.4, 40/1.4, 50/1.5 Heliar...) in the lens name are intentionally "traditional/vintage" in some areas of the optical design.
From their site where VM lineup is explained;
...we offer a lens lineup full of individuality that you can choose from to match your shooting subject and photographic expression, including the Vintage Line series with cutting-edge optics and classic styling, the Classic series with traditional optical configurations reconstructed using the latest technology to offer unique imaging not found in modern lenses, and the Apo-Lanthars that pursue ultimate performance using apochromat designs.
I also don’t find the bokeh particularly modern. It’s slightly nervous, yet the transition from sharpness to blur is very smooth and gradual. I really like the way the lens renders.
Rendering comparison to MS Optics 73mm f/1.5 Sonnetar at f/2.8
The main reason I wanted to compare these two lenses is because they are among the smallest 75mm rangefinder lenses I've used, and compact size is one of the biggest advantages of the new Voigtlander 75mm f/2.8 APO-Skopar compared to other 75mm options.
The MS Optics 73mm f/1.5 Sonnetar is well known for its unique rendering wide open, producing a look many photographers love. Since it is a fast f/1.5 lens, and because most of its residual aberrations largely clear up by f/2.8 where it takes on a more corrected look, I thought it would make for an interesting comparison against the new Voigtlander APO lens shot wide open at f/2.8, even though it is not entirely a fair comparison.
Still, the results speak for themselves. The Voigtlander at f/2.8 performs noticeably better than the MS Optics stopped down two full stops. Rendering also differs between the two at f/2.8, with the MS Optics showing slightly more blur at certain distances, which was a bit surprising, along with less optical vignetting, which was expected.
Overall, it's simply fun to see how these two ultra compact lenses, especially considering their very different maximum apertures, compare side by side.
Here are some rendering comparisons between the Voigtlander 75mm f/2.8 APO-Skopar and the MS Optics 73mm f/1.5 Sonnetar, both shot at f/2.8, at various subject distances:
