Finest Voigtländer Macro Ever? (new)

[Michael Erlewine]

This will no-doubt be controversial, so I realize I am perhaps overstating when I say:

Aside from the Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar I cannot think of any other all-around macro lens that I want to use and consider a real "macro" lens, and I have had all the common ones.

Sure, I bend all kinds of other lenses to behave at least as close-up lenses, such as the various Oti from Zeiss, the Noct Nikkor, the CRT Nikkor, and on down the line. I long ago got rid of the two Zeiss macros (the 100mm and 50mm) and don't understand how others find them usable. The same with the Nikon 200mm Macro, and the various 105mm macros, although I sometimes use the 105mm VR for fast-moving insects. The Leica Elmarit-R 100mm APO macro (and the 50mm), when adapted to Nikon mount are worthy macro lenses.

And I am leaving enlarger, scanning, and LF format lenses out of this, the ones I use on a bellows, ALTHOUGH using the Cambo Mini-Actus with various exotic lenses is mostly what I do these days, especially the El Nikkor 105mm APO f/5.6, which is my most-used lens. It would be the last lens I would part with, but it is not easily used in the field, although I have taken it there. 

So, this forthcoming Voigtlander 65mm Macro is eagerly awaited by me, especially since it is wider than the 125mm, and I am a close-up photographer, which may be just pefect.

[NancyP]

But you are looking for the extraordinary, Michael, not merely the "quite good". I have taken many photos I like with lenses that are merely "quite good". My old Canon 180 macro +/- 1.4x extender is an example of "quite good" - and more importantly, "quite far away" when photographing cranky cottonmouths and timber rattlesnakes. 

[Michael Erlewine]

But you are looking for the extraordinary, Michael, not merely the "quite good". I have taken many photos I like with lenses that are merely "quite good". My old Canon 180 macro +/- 1.4x extender is an example of "quite good" - and more importantly, "quite far away" when photographing cranky cottonmouths and timber rattlesnakes. 

As a herpetologist I caught many a diamond-back and copperhead, but not with a camera, but with my hands, some over five feet long and with a girth as thick as your calf.

[Jim Kasson]

Jim, with the Leica 100 apo macro I focus at f/f5.6, then I often stop down to f11. What would you say about this, regarding the focus shift?

f/8 would be safer:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-leica-r-1002-8-apo-macro/

Jim

[NancyP]

Muntanela, I have never handled the Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8 (or f/2.0), let alone tried it at minimum distance. (My one and only, well loved Zeiss Distagon lens is the 21 mm f/2.8, bought used). Field curvature matters less to nature photographers, but used to be a Big F****** Deal when macro lenses were used in slide duplicators and for close-up repro of flat text or flat objects such as coins. (Showing. My. Age. Here. ....) My opinion about lenses is that if the aberration pleases you and doesn't work against the subject, it's your artistic choice. If you are working on scientific / technical / instructional photography where accuracy is paramount and "artistic" approaches are problematic if exaggerated, well, go for the most corrected lens.

Jim Kasson, those are intriguing photos of ??  Layered and pulled-apart fabric? Multiple exposure of old-style screensavers programs? Yes, I think that the black-and-white versions would be more interesting to live with.

Michael, I don't need to handle the snakes for a research project. I am happy to leave both snakes and myself in the non-stressed frame of mind. Though I have wanted to handle a hognose, just to see it roll over and play dead... I just don't feel like hassling it.

[Jim Kasson]

Jim Kasson, those are intriguing photos of ??  Layered and pulled-apart fabric? Multiple exposure of old-style screensavers programs? Yes, I think that the black-and-white versions would be more interesting to live with.

Nancy, I used to tell people what the Fuji GFX shots were of, but I found that it detracted from their enjoyment of them.

I will say that the 120/5.6 Nikkor/Technika/BetterLight shot was of a succulent that Don Worth hybridized. He gave me a cutting when I did this interview:

https://photography.org/interview/don-worth-interview/

Here's the story of how the succulent image was made and a pic of the plant and the gear:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/slit-scans-of-plants/


Jim

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael, I don't need to handle the snakes for a research project. I am happy to leave both snakes and myself in the non-stressed frame of mind. Though I have wanted to handle a hognose, just to see it roll over and play dead... I just don't feel like hassling it.

I was part of an expedition for a university.

[NancyP]

Michael, that sounds interesting and worthwhile.

And Jim K, keep people guessing!

[muntanela]

f/8 would be safer:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-leica-r-1002-8-apo-macro/

Jim

Thanks Jim, I have some problems to focus at 1:2 or 1:1, on the live view of the D800E, at smaller apertures, but I'll try it.

Muntanela, I have never handled the Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8 (or f/2.0), let alone tried it at minimum distance. (My one and only, well loved Zeiss Distagon lens is the 21 mm f/2.8, bought used). Field curvature matters less to nature photographers, but used to be a Big F****** Deal when macro lenses were used in slide duplicators and for close-up repro of flat text or flat objects such as coins. (Showing. My. Age. Here. ....) My opinion about lenses is that if the aberration pleases you and doesn't work against the subject, it's your artistic choice. If you are working on scientific / technical / instructional photography where accuracy is paramount and "artistic" approaches are problematic if exaggerated, well, go for the most corrected lens.

Wise thoughts .
In my close-ups of alpine flowers, I can't say I have full controll of what the lens does. It (rarely) can give me images with blurred and not very pleasant corners, or blurred and interesting, or blurred and perceptively neutral, sometimes they aren't blurred...

[Jim Kasson]

Thanks Jim, I have some problems to focus at 1:2 or 1:1, on the live view of the D800E, at smaller apertures, but I'll try it.

I didn't notice that you were using a D800E. The line-skipping magnified live view on that camera makes focusing difficult. If you can't focus at f/8, then I'd avoid shooting at f/8, and maybe even f/11. When the D850 ships, you can pick up a used D810 on the cheap. Then you'll have a better focusing experience.

Jim

[BJL]

There are some reviews available now: in these forums, by Michael Erlewine and at DPReview