Finest Voigtländer Macro Ever? (new)

[JKoerner007]

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.

Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh. I've seen reviews on it, and it is actually pretty good compared to its peers, rated on LenScore as just a hair better then Nikon's older 105 macro, but quite a bit below the Zeiss 100 macro (which itself is rated well below the Voigtländer 125 Apo). Seems as sharp as the Zeiss macro though.

You're right though, we all have our uses and preferences. As far as 'reviews' go, most are done by non-macro shooters, so should be taken with a grain of salt.

For me, the 100mm focal length is too short for great subject isolation, and too long to make the best use of diffused flash.

I prefer either a longer, or a shorter, focal length ... if I am shooting natural light, or with a flash, respectively.

That said, essentially the 100mm macro length is a great "starter length," as an introduction for macro shooting ... but when a person really starts getting into macro, they usually want a longer (or shorter) focal length, eventually, depending on the kind of shooting they do.

Begin a new thread topic on it, and post some images, would be interested to see how you like it.

[JKoerner007]

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.

If you look at The Phoblographer's Post, the lens has very muted colors and is essentially (in his words) "a Jack of All Trades, master of none," which is why most people who shoot this macro focal length abandon it, once they get serious about macro.

They never do anything really, really well ... but they make for "fun" general purpose lenses to hike around with. Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

I believe this Voigtländer 60mm macro will be a great lens for the specific purpose of such things as flowers, and other non-moving macro subjects.

Time will tell, but am interested to see some serious reviews on it.

[Jim Kasson]

Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh. I've seen reviews on it, and it is actually pretty good compared to its peers, rated on LenScore as just a hair better then Nikon's older 105 macro, but quite a bit below the Zeiss 100 macro (which itself is rated well below the Voigtländer 125 Apo). Seems as sharp as the Zeiss macro though.

I'm not sure by what metric the Zeiss is better.

I tested these lenses


    Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE Macro
    Leica 100mm f/2.8 Apo Macro-Elmarit-R
    Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF
    Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor G VR
    Jenoptik 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR Macro

The Sony 90 is sharper on-axis than the Zeiss and has lower LoCA at wide stops:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/resolution-and-loca-comparisons-with-the-coastal-604-macro/

Zeiss focus shift is low:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-zeiss-1002-makro-planar/

But the Sony has hardly any:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-sony-902-8-fe-macro/

There are a lot of additional tests of the two lenses in that series of blog posts. Go to the first page and follow the pingbacks at the very bottom to see them all.

Jim

[JKoerner007]

I'm not sure by what metric the Zeiss is better.

I tested these lenses


    Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE Macro
    Leica 100mm f/2.8 Apo Macro-Elmarit-R
    Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF
    Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor G VR
    Jenoptik 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR Macro

The Sony 90 is sharper on-axis than the Zeiss and has lower LoCA at wide stops:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/resolution-and-loca-comparisons-with-the-coastal-604-macro/

Zeiss focus shift is low:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-zeiss-1002-makro-planar/

But the Sony has hardly any:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-sony-902-8-fe-macro/

There are a lot of additional tests of the two lenses in that series of blog posts. Go to the first page and follow the pingbacks at the very bottom to see them all.

Jim

I am not a Zeiss macro advocate, Jim. Its poor CA is well-known to most.

Essentially, as AF macros go, the Sony is on a par with the Nikon 105, a bit sharper, but with poorer color rendering.

I personally wouldn't buy any of those lenses above, except maybe the Leica (if it fit on a Nikon), but again I don't like that focal length in a macro lens. (I prefer either longer, or shorter, for reasons stated above.)

Others might feel different.

[Jim Kasson]

I am not a Zeiss macro advocate, Jim. Its poor CA is well-known to most.

Essentially, as AF macros go, the Sony is on a par with the Nikon 105, a bit sharper, but with poorer color rendering.

I personally wouldn't buy any of those lenses above, except maybe the Leica (if it fit on a Nikon), but again I don't like that focal length in a macro lens. (I prefer either longer, or shorter, for reasons stated above.)

Others might feel different.

I thought the Nikon was on balance the worst lens in the test, and I sold my afterward.

I have found no essential difference in the colors from the Zeiss and Sony after gray card WB. I would be interested in how you define "poorer".

The Leica lens is a perfect example, as are several Leica lenses, of a lens that doesn't measure very well but has a rendering that is lovely in some circumstances (in my book, lens character is composed of adorable flaws; a perfect lens has no character).

Jim

[JKoerner007]

I thought the Nikon was on balance the worst lens in the test, and I sold my afterward.

I have found no essential difference in the colors from the Zeiss and Sony after gray card WB. I would be interested in how you define "poorer".

I am not a lens-tester, Jim. I go by my eyes. For my sources of info, I go to LenScore, mostly.

Because (once again) a thread topic gets derailed to Sony, I have now read about 4 Sony macro reviews, there is almost not a single image taken that I would have kept, personally.

Every review I have read has been posted by guys who clearly never shoot macro, choosing mundane subjects (piles of leaves, token flowers, etc.), as they walk around taking cursory photos, just so they can fill up the pages of a review. According to my eyes, in every instance there are blown highlights, muted colors, and not-very-good critical focus, which tells me they were taken by-hand, no tripod, no real effort to take a really good macro shot.
 
By contrast, I have seen multiple photos taken by the Voigtländer 125, posted by multiple individuals, that "jump out" to me as simply exceptional: the color, the clarity, the rendering, everything.

I would be interested in seeing your macro photos, as a gauge of your opinion of macro lenses, more so than your blogs about test charts.

The Leica lens is a perfect example, as are several Leica lenses, of a lens that doesn't measure very well but has a rendering that is lovely in some circumstances (in my book, lens character is composed of adorable flaws; a perfect lens has no character).
Jim

I've never shot the Leica, so I can't comment. I have read Michael's (and others') describe the 3D rendering, which I would be interested in myself.

I personally now use the Voigtländer 125 Apo for most 1:1 macro, but also use my 300mm f/2.8 II for long-shots.

Again, would like to see your macro shots, the colors, rendering, etc.

[Jim Kasson]

I would be interested in seeing your macro photos, as a gauge of your opinion of macro lenses, more so than your blogs about test charts.

Probably not what you're looking for, but this is some of the macro work that I'm been doing recently:










Jim

[hogloff]

For my sources of info, I go to LenScore, mostly.

That there says it all.

[BJL]

Because (once again) a thread topic gets derailed to Sony, . . .

This thread is about a new macro lens in Sony E mount, so it seems natural that a the closest Sony lens for the same mount comes up in the comparisons.

[Jim Kasson]

I would be interested in seeing your macro photos, as a gauge of your opinion of macro lenses, more so than your blogs about test charts.

Here's one with the 120 mm f/5.6 Nikkor AM-ED on a Linhof Master Technika with a BL S6K back. Orginal capture is 6000x64000 pixels. I have printed it twice as at 60x60 inches, and I like it at that size, but I have a hard time finding people who want prints that big.



Jim

[JKoerner007]

Jim

Interesting ... I much prefer the color version.

Thanks for sharing.

[Michael Erlewine]

What is interesting to me about this thread is the fact the Voigtlander is bringing out a new APO lens that may or may not reflect what we love about the Cosina/Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar. I wish it was also for Nikon F-Mount. Also, a wide-like macro lens is not very common.The 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar, while pretty nice, is not sufficiently well corrected enough for my work.

[JKoerner007]

This thread is about a new macro lens in Sony E mount, so it seems natural that a the closest Sony lens for the same mount comes up in the comparisons.

True.

However, the main point was a new, high-end Voigtländer macro lens ... reputed to be among the best in the entire brand's history (which is considerable) ... not another 'also-ran' AF macro lens of mid-level quality.

Here's the difference: I could be persuaded to buy a Sony camera, if this precision MF macro lens is good enough ... for some specific macro applications ... but no 'AF macro lens' on the planet could get me to buy another camera, just to use it.

Hope this clarifies.

[JKoerner007]

What is interesting to me about this thread is the fact the Voigtlander is bringing out a new APO lens that may or may not reflect what we love about the Cosina/Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar. I wish is was also for Nikon F-Mount. Also, a wide-like macro lens is not very common.The 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar, while pretty nice is not sufficiently well corrected enough for my work.

Agreed. A new Apo Lanthar macro lens, no less.

Would love to see it in Nikon F mount as well ... but am still very interested to see how it performs on a Sony.

[Michael Erlewine]

Agreed. A new Apo Lanthar macro lens, no less.

Would love to see it in Nikon F mount as well ... but am still very interested to see how it performs on a Sony.

Well, I have the Sony A7RII, so I will find out soon, since B&H has shipped it already. I am not overly fond of the A7RII, but this lens might persuade to pay that camera more attention.

I am also about to receive the new Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4, which is reputed to be highly corrected. We shall see.

[Jim Kasson]

Interesting ... I much prefer the color version.

Thanks for sharing.

The color version is more eye-catching, but initial reaction is in the direction of the B&W ones, which are my favorites. The B&W ones look better printed than they do on the screen. If people are going to put something on their walls, they usually want something in which they can discover new things over time. All photographs are Rohrschahs to some extent, but the B&W ones seem to fulfill that function better. I started out captioning the B&W ones, but it's more fun to see what people come up with on their own, and I think my captions might limit the appeal of the images, just like selling framed work does -- you have to find somebody who likes both the picture and the frame. If I were into commercial markets, like hotels, I'd be going for more of the eye candy, but that requires selling, and I'd rather make pictures than sell pictures, so I'll stick with individual collectors.

Thanks for looking.

Jim

[JKoerner007]

Well, I have the Sony A7RII, so I will find out soon, since B&H has shipped it already. I am not overly fond of the A7RII, but this lens might persuade to pay that camera more attention.

Will be very interested in your findings.

I am also about to receive the new Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4, which is reputed to be highly corrected. We shall see.

I have rubbed my chin about this lens as well, though probably for other reasons.

Right now, I do a lot of reverse-macro work with Nikkor AI-S lenses ... and Otus lenses have far too-large front filter threads to reverse (not to mention the 50mm and 85mm would be pointless to reverse anyway).

While the 28mm Otus is a great wide, its optic is too large to peer through a BR-2A adapter (41mm clearance-width) and its 95mm front filter is not adapter-friendly.

However, the Milvus 35mm has a 72mm front filter which could be reversed via a SenseiPRO 72-52mm step-down ring, and would give me a near-Otus level ability to shoot macro at ~2:1.

When you get the 35 Milvus, kindly shoot me a PM and let me know how wide (hopefully, less than 41 mm) the actual glass is on the front element. Thanks.

[JKoerner007]

The color version is more eye-catching, but initial reaction is in the direction of the B&W ones, which are my favorites. The B&W ones look better printed than they do on the screen. If people are going to put something on their walls, they usually want something in which they can discover new things over time. All photographs are Rohrschahs to some extent, but the B&W ones seem to fulfill that function better. I started out captioning the B&W ones, but it's more fun to see what people come up with on their own, and I think my captions might limit the appeal of the images, just like selling framed work does -- you have to find somebody who likes both the picture and the frame. If I were into commercial markets, like hotels, I'd be going for more of the eye candy, but that requires selling, and I'd rather make pictures than sell pictures, so I'll stick with individual collectors.

Thanks for looking.

Jim

Appreciate you sharing your thinking as regards to the vision.

It's not something I would pursue, but I definitely see the appeal for doing so.

Which lens did you use?

Thanks again.

[Jim Kasson]

Appreciate you sharing your thinking as regards to the vision.

It's not something I would pursue, but I definitely see the appeal for doing so.

Which lens did you use?

Thanks again.

Fuji 120/4 G-mount macro, CO 60/4, Leica 100 R-mount Apo (don't remember which was which) on GFX 50S.

Thanks,

Jim

[muntanela]

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.

Nancy, what do you think about the Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8? Its RR is 1: 2.32 and it has evident field curvature close up... (I like it).

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?