Finest Voigtländer Macro Ever? (new)

[JKoerner007]

Voigtländer 65mm F2 E-Mount

This new VL Macro "rates as one of the finest in the history of Voigtländer," boasting "exceptional correction of chromatic aberration."

This spills into the topic of the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZE/ZF2, and (ironically) this behemoth resembles a large, crude Zeiss ... and yet is a Voigtländer of supposedly epic quality.

This falls right along with the discussion of getting true high-end macro lenses, as well as the limitations of the Zeiss (poor minimum focus distance, only 1:4 reproduction ratio). Almost as if directly responding to the topic, this new Voigtländer has a MFD of 31cm (12") achieving a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2.

Great news for Sony E-mount shooters ... not so much for Nikonians

Would love to see this at 1:1 ... and for the F-mount.

Still, it is an exciting lens introduction, so I would live to hear feedback from those with Sonys who acquire one.

[Paulo Bizarro]

They are also releasing a 35 f1.4 and a 40 f1.2 to go with this one.

Now, if they ever release the 125mm macro in E-mount...

[JKoerner007]

They are also releasing a 35 f1.4 and a 40 f1.2 to go with this one.

Both macros?!

Now, if they ever release the 125mm macro in E-mount...

Even better if in F-mount

Would seriously love to see a new iteration of this lens.

[Herbc]

How big does one print macro shots?  What is the upper limit?  The reason I ask is that IF you are going to limit the print size to say 16x20 or less, using a m 4/3 camera system makes more sense.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Both macros?!



Even better if in F-mount

Would seriously love to see a new iteration of this lens.

No, not macros, see here:

http://briansmith.com/voigtlander-announces-three-new-e-mount-lenses/

Also, these 3 have been launched already and are available:

http://briansmith.com/voigtlander-manual-focus-e-mount-lenses/

[JKoerner007]

How big does one print macro shots?  What is the upper limit?  The reason I ask is that IF you are going to limit the print size to say 16x20 or less, using a m 4/3 camera system makes more sense.

Actually, there have been a few artists printing mammoth-sized macro images for museum display of late, Levon Biss being an exceptional example:

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2016/04/levon-biss-miscrosculpture-insects

[NancyP]

That last photo at the link looks like the common 6-spot tiger beetle, a fun insect to watch.

[Michael Erlewine]

I have the Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm on order for my Sony A7RII. This essentially is the APO-Lanthar in modern form, as I understand it.

[JKoerner007]

I have the Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm on order for my Sony A7RII. This essentially is the APO-Lanthar in modern form, as I understand it.

Would be very interested in hearing your opinion ...

[JKoerner007]

Steve Huff First Look (Review Tidbit)

[Michael Erlewine]

Steve Huff First Look (Review Tidbit)

Not really much information there, but as I expected, it looks like Voiglander is FINALLY starting to exploit their own legacy lenses, like the CV-125. I have this on order and will find out soon.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Not really much information there, but as I expected, it looks like Voiglander is FINALLY starting to exploit their own legacy lenses, like the CV-125. I have this on order and will find out soon.

I had not realized that the lens only does 1:2. In this regard, it will have to be really good versus other 50'ish macro lenses that go to 1:1 or 1:2. With that price and weight, I would rather go for the Sony 90 macro, as the focal length is more useful to me.

[Michael Erlewine]

I had not realized that the lens only does 1:2. In this regard, it will have to be really good versus other 50'ish macro lenses that go to 1:1 or 1:2. With that price and weight, I would rather go for the Sony 90 macro, as the focal length is more useful to me.

Personally I no longer do that much 1:1 macro work, but more and more close-up work because I cannot always get enough "context" at 1:1 to kind of set the mood. So that is fine with me at !:2. There are all kinds of macro lenses and I have had and used almost all of them over the years. Just because it goes to 1:1 is not enough. It also has to have a longish focus throw and most of all it has to be APO -- highly corrected.

Here is a shot with the CV-125 APO Voigtlander and the Nikon D810.

[BJL]

What is the cut-off for counting as a macro lens? 1:2 in 36x24mm format and thus with a minimum field size of 72x48mm (about 3" by 2") seems a bit marginal compared to modern alternatives. Perhaps I am spoiled by the natural "extreme close-up" advantages of smaller formats (or to be pedantic, of the sensors with more lp/mm that smaller formats persistently offer); for example, the far more affordable Olympus 60/2.8 gives 1:1 macro at its minimum focus distance of 19mm, and so with minimum field size of about 17.3x13mm. Even allowing for different pixel counts, that is a lot more "pixels per bug".

(I know; such lenses are often used also just as sharp primes for other purposes than extreme close-ups, and field sizes like 72x48m and up are quite useful, but its seems a bit limited.)

[NancyP]

Definition of "macro" varies according to the user. Some people define "macro" as "can achieve higher magnification than the average lens" and would consider 1:3 magnification to be "macro".  Others insist that only 1:1 and higher magnification is "macro", and that lesser magnifications are "close up". I consider that the major additional characteristic of a "macro" lens is that it is designed to have a flat field of focus and that it is optimally corrected for close work. Just try sticking "any old lens" on extension tubes, and you will find that some lens designs don't work well for close work.

[JKoerner007]

What is the cut-off for counting as a macro lens? 1:2 in 36x24mm format and thus with a minimum field size of 72x48mm (about 3" by 2") seems a bit marginal compared to modern alternatives.

IMO, as someone who shoots macro quite a bit, the range of what I consider to be macro lenses begins at 1:4 (which most people call 'close-up') ... and becomes definite at 1:2 (where every lens of this magnification is defined as a macro lens) ... and finally matures at 1:1 (which is considered the iconic standard, where the majority of macro lenses are found).

As macro work progresses in magnification, 2:1, 3:1, and even 4:1 ... these are considered "super-macro" magnifications levels, and are the inverse of the above-described.

As magnifications get greater still (5:1 and beyond), a person is no longer shooting 'macro' ... but is now getting into Photomicroscopy ... as almost invariably a microscope optic is deployed at this point.

Again, IMO

[JKoerner007]

I had not realized that the lens only does 1:2. In this regard, it will have to be really good versus other 50'ish macro lenses that go to 1:1 or 1:2. With that price and weight, I would rather go for the Sony 90 macro, as the focal length is more useful to me.

1:2 doesn't bother me much. In fact, I think even 1:1 lenses are rarely used at their closest-focusing distance.

1:4 (like the Zeiss 135 Apo) is not very good ... but I would be thrilled if it was a 1:2.

To compare a Sony 90 to this lens is unrealistic IMO.
A 90mm 1:1, AF macro lens, is a dime-a-dozen. Another cheap nothing lens.

If this Voigtländer 60mm macro is Zeiss-quality (or better, considering Cosina makes Zeiss lenses), this would make an incredible lens for flower/larger arthropod photography (esp. for stacks).

However, for moving subjects, or smaller arthropods requiring 1:1 (or more), then I'd have to I agree, some kind of AF macro lens that does 1:1 would be better.

Suppose it just depends on your typical preferences.

[Paulo Bizarro]

To compare a Sony 90 to this lens is unrealistic IMO.
A 90mm 1:1, AF macro lens, is a dime-a-dozen. Another cheap nothing lens.

Suppose it just depends on your typical preferences.

Calling the Sony 90 macro "another cheap nothing lens" is a big exaggeration. Even Kevin here, when he reviewed it, said it was a very high quality lens. I am testing a copy right now, will put it through its paces this weekend.

Anyway, even if the Voigt 65 would be the best lens in the world, its focal length is useless to me.

[scooby70]

To compare a Sony 90 to this lens is unrealistic IMO.
A 90mm 1:1, AF macro lens, is a dime-a-dozen. Another cheap nothing lens.

Wowza. That's quite a couple of sentences there.

I've only ever had one Voigtlander lens, a 35mm f2.5, and I stupidly sold it with the RF it was mounted on. I'd love to have a modern similarly styled lens designed for the Sony system or even for a DSLR as I could use it via an adapter. I love the look of the older Voigtlander lenses and that's the look of the lenses not the pictures you can take with them and I do wish they'd carry the build and styling on instead of changing it for their modern non RF lenses.

[NancyP]

Actually, I consider most macro lenses to be high quality in their intended use. Some are extraordinary, but really, I haven't seen many awful macro lenses, from the standpoint of sharpness and field flatness. I can get some hilarious bokeh out of my old Mamiya-Sekor 60mm f/2.8 preset lens for 135 format - the lens has a straight sided 6 leaf diaphragm, which can lead to a beehive look under some circumstances. But even that fossil is pretty decent, and so are the old AI/AIS Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 1:2  lenses.