CV 35 1.4 vs 7Artisans 35 f1.4, why the size difference?

[rivi1969]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was intrigued by the 7A until I saw how long it is, I think it looks unbalanced with M bodies, I much prefer the CV small profile. I wonder why the difference in length of these 2 lenses, does Voigtlander knows a thing or 2 more than the Chinese in how to make compact optics?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaeger]

human resources, R&D, raw materials, machinery and culture = quality 

[intangiblethings]

It's not appropriate to just compare the CV 1.4 vs. 7A 1.4 purely on size, especially given the limitations of the CV 1.4. 

You could look at the the Zeiss 35 1.4 which is massive but optically great. 

[pippy]

3 hours ago, intangiblethings said:

...especially given the limitations of the CV 1.4...

What, specifically, are the "limitations" of the new formulation of the CV 35mm f1.4? The old version had a few issues but I've never heard any complaints about the new version.

Philip.

[TomB_tx]

I have the CV Nokton 1.4 in both ver 1 & 2, and the TT (not 7A 1.4 - though both are from the same factory). The Nokton is part of CVs "Classic" line aimed at performance of the '60s generation lenses. It is not as highly corrected for distortion, vignetting, etc. as the "clinical" modern designs, and pays homage to the original Summilux 35. I don't have the old Summilux, but still have a '69 Summicron 35, which has similar vignetting and sharpness wide open (f2) as the Nokton wide open (f1.4). At f2 my Nokton is actually sharper. 

The ver 2 Nokton largely corrects the focus shift of the ver 1, but the distortion and general IQ remains similar: it keeps the intended character of the "classic" design. I happen to like the rendering, and use these lenses a lot, mainly on my M9 where f1.4 is an advantage.

Better corrections generally mean adding lens elements and size, and/or different layout design. You'll note how the Leica 35 Summilux design has gone through a series of significant optical changes, and increased in size pretty much with each, to obtain the performance of the latest FLE version. (And that's with Leica's generations of optical experience.)

The TT and 7A designs are an attempt to compete with the better corrected modern lenses, and performance and build quality are rather amazing for its price. While not huge, I prefer the size of the Nokton, which I use more when I want high speed. Otherwise I prefer the Summarit 25 f2.5, which is the lens I use most on my M10. The Summarit performance is another class.

Edited September 8, 2020 by TomB_tx

[rivi1969]

On 9/8/2020 at 4:08 AM, pippy said:

What, specifically, are the "limitations" of the new formulation of the CV 35mm f1.4? The old version had a few issues but I've never heard any complaints about the new version.

Philip.

Philip, do you know if the CV 40mm f1.4 performs basically the same as the 35mm f1.4 version 1? As far as I know CV never release a V2 of that lens.

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Rivi.

Quick answer is 'Yes'.

Slightly longer answer is...

From various examples of images taken with each (often by the same photographer which tends to level the field) which I saw before I bought the 40 I would say the main difference between them is that the 40 suffers far less from the barrel-distortion which is quite marked with the 35. For folks who are mainly street-shooters, portraitists or landscape snappers then this isn't such an issue, obviously, but as I shoot quite a bit of architecture-y sort of images this aspect was a major factor in my choice of lens. Otherwise, yes, they are very similar.

As Tom said earlier (and I completely believe what he says to be true) the new version of the 35 is more 'clinical' with fewer abberations in comparison to the v1 but I happen to like the character of the older design. Putting it in Leica terms it's probably a bit like a fast Mandler lens from the '60s in a comparison with a fast Karbe lens from the 'noughties'.

Philip.

EDIT : I meant to say that I was mildly surprised that the barrel-distortion thing wasn't mentioned in the review by Matthew Osbourne (posted over in the other thread) where he compared the 35 (v1) and 40 together. That tiny oversight apart I thought that his appraisal of the qualities / quirks of the lens(es) was spot-on and identical to my own findings.

I was also surprised to hear him say in his review (at around the 01:12 mark) that the 40mm f1.4 Nokton has been Voigtlander's higest-selling M-mount lens ever (in terms of units bought). I didn't think many other folks liked the 40mm focal length quite as much as I do!...

Edited September 9, 2020 by pippy

[lct]

48 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

Philip, do you know if the CV 40mm f1.4 performs basically the same as the 35mm f1.4 version 1? As far as I know CV never release a V2 of that lens.

I'm no Philip (alas ) but the 35/1.4 v1 i own has a lot of focus shift and so did the 40/1.4 the last time i used one. Was in 2005 or something though...

[rivi1969]

48 minutes ago, pippy said:

Hi Rivi.

Quick answer is 'Yes'.

Slightly longer answer is...

From various examples of images taken with each (often by the same photographer which tends to level the field) which I saw before I bought the 40 I would say the main difference between them is that the 40 suffers far less from the barrel-distortion which is quite marked with the 35. For folks who are mainly street-shooters, portraitists or landscape snappers then this isn't such an issue, obviously, but as I shoot quite a bit of architecture-y sort of images this aspect was a major factor in my choice of lens. Otherwise, yes, they are very similar.

As Tom said earlier (and I completely believe what he says to be true) the new version of the 35 is more 'clinical' with fewer abberations in comparison to the v1 but I happen to like the character of the older design. Putting it in Leica terms it's probably a bit like a fast Mandler lens from the '60s in a comparison with a fast Karbe lens from the 'noughties'.

Philip.

EDIT : I meant to say that I was mildly surprised that the barrel-distortion thing wasn't mentioned in the review by Matthew Osbourne (posted over in the other thread) where he compared the 35 (v1) and 40 together. That tiny oversight apart I thought that his appraisal of the qualities / quirks of the lens(es) was spot-on and identical to my own findings.

I was also surprised to hear him say in his review (at around the 01:12 mark) that the 40mm f1.4 Nokton has been Voigtlander's higest-selling M-mount lens ever (in terms of units bought). I didn't think many other folks liked the 40mm focal length quite as much as I do!...

Thank you. I doubt it is CV's best selling lens, otherwise it wouldn't cost 200 less than the 35mm f1.4. In fact from the new CV f1.2 lenses (35, 40, 50) the 40mm is the cheapest.

I like 40mm too. I have the Canon pancake 40mm f2.8 and love it!

[pippy]

43 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

...I doubt it is CV's best selling lens, otherwise it wouldn't cost 200 less than the 35mm f1.4...

If I remember correctly I believe it was the lower price in comparison to the others which Matthew Osbourne cited as being one of the reasons WHY it is the highest-volume seller! I don't have the sales numbers myself, obviously, but I'm guessing MO based his statement on something he read / was told.

But yes; I, too, found it a strange statistic.

Philip.

[pippy]

4 hours ago, lct said:

...the 35/1.4 v1 i own has a lot of focus shift and so did the 40/1.4 the last time i used one. Was in 2005 or something though...

Interesting time-frame, lct.

From what I can gather the 40 / 1.4 was introduced late 2004 and the first batch - limited to 500 examples - was released for Japanese domestic market only. It sold out immediately. Second batch - including those destined for foreign markets - arrived on the eve of April Fool's Day(!) 2005. If yours was one of this very early (2nd) batch perhaps some teething problems had still to be resolved?

Just a thought!

Philip.

Edited September 9, 2020 by pippy

[lct]

I always thought it is a well documented issue but i may be wrong.

 

 

 

[TomB_tx]

Focus shift with aperture change is generally a characteristic of the optical design, and not an issue with an individual sample that varies across production. I thought my first (v1) 35 f1.4 did not shift, but after a year or so use and a lot of folks saying the design did, I tested it carefully. Indeed it does have significant shift.

On the other hand, every fast lens I've checked carefully does show some focus shift as it stops down - but the amount varies a lot. I know Sean Reid says some lens designs he tests show virtually no focus shift, but that is rare.

I'd probably still be using my v1 VC 35 happily if I hadn't read the negative comments and tested it myself.

So when I hear someone say their sample of a lens doesn't focus shift, I understand they mean it isn't noticeable the way they use the lens.

My advice: if you like a lens, don't worry about it. Use it and enjoy it, and stay off the Internet.

[lct]

Fact is some lenses have more focus shift than others. The CV 35/1.4 v1 is my worse 35mm lens from this viewpoint but i understand v2 fixed the problem. 

[TomB_tx]

11 hours ago, lct said:

Fact is some lenses have more focus shift than others. The CV 35/1.4 v1 is my worse 35mm lens from this viewpoint but i understand v2 fixed the problem. 

Yes, I have both and the v1 shift was significant. Version 2 is much improved, still has some shift, but won't be noticed by most users.

The CV 50mm f2 Heliar is another design that has a lot of shift. They note it is the first Heliar design stretched to f2 aperture. I have the nickel version, styled like the rigid Summar, and it is a lovely lens, but needs care to use.

[pippy]

13 hours ago, lct said:

I always thought it is a well documented issue but i may be wrong...

No; you're not wrong lct. You are absolutely correct. It IS well documented.

In my case - and as I've posted elsewhere a few times already - I han't noticed the phenomenon in my photographs before I read all the internet-expert stuff simply because the type of snaps I tend to take aren't the sort of images which would invoke the issue. Once I HAD read about it I checked my own lens by doing tests in the studio and, yes, there is focus-shift but not so that it makes any difference whatsoever to my day-to-day snapping. The parameters between which it occurs are so alien to my photography that it really isn't an issue at all. If I can't see focus-shift in any of my images then why worry about it?

So I don't.

Incidentally - and FWIW - just out of innate curiosity I also tested another 17 lenses ranging from 21mm to 90mm which were kicking around using the same technique shown in your post in order to see how good / how bad they performed (it was a quiet day). Having taken all the readings I could (before my patience expired) I then plotted the all results on graph paper (it was a REALLY quiet day!). The result made for intereting viewing. The only two lenses which showed almost no focus-shift at all at close distances and different apertures were the 75mm and 90mm Summarits. All the rest - including Leica offerings from the '30s, '40s, '50s, 70's, '80's and 00's - had a shift to a greater or lesser extent.

Philip.

Edited September 10, 2020 by pippy

[pippy]

13 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

Focus shift with aperture change is generally a characteristic of the optical design, and not an issue with an individual sample that varies across production...

I know, Tom, and their number includes many designs which are considered to be amongst Leica's finest offerings.

The only reason I mentioned the possibility of teething-trouble - or more likely sample-variation - was because I managed to snaffle one of the very early 75mm f1.25 7Artisans lenses and it was shockingly bad. So much so as to be completely unuseable. Since my experience, however, I've read a great many glowing reviews about the lens so the only likely conclusion is that my sample was incorrectly assembled. In light of this I am now considering picking one up again.

Philip.

Edited September 10, 2020 by pippy

[lct]

I didn't do intensive tests and i'm no pixel peeper but as far as my lenses are concerned, focus shift is noticeable at medium distance out of M 35/1.4 pre-asph and 35/2 v4, let alone CV 35/1.4 v1, but not M 35/1.4 FLE, 35/2 asph v1, nor 35/2.5. Same for the CV 35/2 asph BTW.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

As to the headline question - same reason the Leica 35 f/1.4 M ASPHs (both versions) are much larger than the original non-ASPH 35 f/1.4 Summilux-M.

(Or for that matter, why Leica SL lenses are generally larger than M lenses of the same focal-length/speed, not to mention why SLR 35 f/1.4s (Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Leica R) are even bigger yet).

More (or larger, or both) glass elements, for additional corrections, take up more room.

The C/V 35mm f/1.2 is not that much faster than their f/1.4s - but it is about 3x the volume (2.5x, for the newest "compact" f/1.2). And presumably has fewer aberrations - at the cost of larger size and weight.

[pippy]

7 hours ago, lct said:

...nor 35/2.5. Same for the CV 35/2 asph BTW...

Thanks for that info, lct. Most interesting.

Historically I've never really been an avid devotee of the 35mm focal-length but I've been intrigued by the CV asph for a wee while now. As lenses go I greatly prefer Small and Sharp over Large and Fast so the lens in question is very tempting. For 40 years or so I've been using a '54 Summaron-M 35mm f3.5 and, good though it is, on those VERY rare occasions when f3.5 isn't fast enough (for my style of shooting!) I've been considering picking up an alternative. The Voigt. is uppermost in my mind and your positive comments on its behalf are noted and appreciated.

Philip.

Edited September 10, 2020 by pippy