Jump to content

Looking to buy a new fifty. Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 or 1.5 VMII?


Beena22

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/8/2023 at 9:53 PM, hdmesa said:

Separation at f/2 with the CV 50 APO at near distances is incredible. It separates in a different way than an f/1.4 non-APO lens. It doesn't rely on bokeh but on the striking contrast between planes of focus.

Can you post some of your own (not links to other people's work, please) examples to illustrate this?  It's a bold claim on the face of it and I'm interested to understand the point you are making. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Can you post some of your own (not links to other people's work, please) examples to illustrate this?  It's a bold claim on the face of it and I'm interested to understand the point you are making. 

Are you saying you don't believe that an APO lens like the Leica 50 APO or CV 50 APO – with very high contrast and sharpness at f/2 – does not separate the subject differently at f/2 than a non-APO f/1, 1.2, or f/1.4 lens? Did you maybe misunderstand and think I said that the separation made by an APO at f/2 is better? I want to understand what you're expecting to see with examples.

To my eye, there could not be a bigger difference between the style of separation between the lenses here:

CV 50 f/1
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/17#15992642

CV 50 APO
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1743270/0#15863234

Edited by hdmesa
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Are you saying you don't believe that an APO lens like the Leica 50 APO or CV 50 APO – with very high contrast and sharpness at f/2 – does not separate the subject differently at f/2 than a non-APO f/1, 1.2, or f/1.4 lens? Did you maybe misunderstand and think I said that the separation made by an APO at f/2 is better? I want to understand what you're expecting to see with examples.

I never said I disbelieve anything.  I'm curious to understand what you mean.

You said the CV 50mm apo "separates in a different way than an f1.4 non-apo lens.  It doesn't rely on bokeh but on the striking contrast between planes of focus."

 I'd like to see comparisons that you've made that might illustrate what you're saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I never said I disbelieve anything.  I'm curious to understand what you mean.

You said the CV 50mm apo "separates in a different way than an f1.4 non-apo lens.  It doesn't rely on bokeh but on the striking contrast between planes of focus."

 I'd like to see comparisons that you've made that might illustrate what you're saying.

I edited my post to add samples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

...

...separates in a different way than an f1.4 non-apo lens.  It doesn't rely on bokeh alone but on the striking contrast between the planes of in and out of focus."

...

I edited what I said above in bold to make it more clear what I was trying to communicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since apochromatic lenses (at least the excellent ones with no LoCA) focus all visible light at the same exact distance, the transition from focus to out of focus is supposed to be very abrupt. I think this is what hdmesa is saying and seeing. (I take it for granted that we refer to the same aperture, not f/1.4 versus f/2 for instance.)

It could be very interesting to see a controlled test with same scene etc. and the Nokton f/1.0 versus the Apo-Lanthar, both at f/2.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, LarsHP said:

Since apochromatic lenses (at least the excellent ones with no LoCA) focus all visible light at the same exact distance, the transition from focus to out of focus is supposed to be very abrupt. I think this is what hdmesa is saying and seeing. (I take it for granted that we refer to the same aperture, not f/1.4 versus f/2 for instance.)

It could be very interesting to see a controlled test with same scene etc. and the Nokton f/1.0 versus the Apo-Lanthar, both at f/2.

Yes, thanks. I was trying to say that non-APO wide aperture lenses rely more heavily on bokeh to separate the subject, while the APO relies more on sharpness and contrast against what bokeh it does have to separate the subject.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Yes, thanks. I was trying to say that non-APO wide aperture lenses rely more heavily on bokeh to separate the subject, while the APO relies more on sharpness and contrast against what bokeh it does have to separate the subject.

I think separation is based on both resolution + contrast (i.e. sharpness or "micro-contrast") versus degree of blur. If a lens isn't that sharp at the point of focus, it won't have the same pop and separation as a lens with excellent sharpness.

However, since your Nokton f/1.0 is an excellent example of those exotic f/1 (or thereabout) lenses, it would be very interesting to see how your Apo-Lanthar compares in a side-by-side test with both lenses at f/2 and focus at medium distance (like two or three meters away).

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I edited what I said above in bold to make it more clear what I was trying to communicate.

The images you linked to aren't that useful in clarifying your point as they are not a controlled comparison.  I was hoping for a tripod based comparison with a fixed subject in controlled lighting.  I would not argue over the apparent resolution and contrast of the CV 50mm apo due to its physical apochromatic properties, so I assume this is why you made your earlier comment.   However, the CV 50mm apo is not a lens I'm interested in buying but thanks anyway.

Since it was announced, I've been interested in the CV 50 f1, having once owned late a noctilux f1 but didn't like it for a couple of reasons (mainly weight, ergonomics and low contrast 'softness') and subsequently sold it, so from that point of view the linked images from the CV 50 f1 are more interesting to me as a lens that possibly would improve on where the noctilux fell short for my preference. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

The images you linked to aren't that useful in clarifying your point as they are not a controlled comparison.  I was hoping for a tripod based comparison with a fixed subject in controlled lighting.  I would not argue over the apparent resolution and contrast of the CV 50mm apo due to its physical apochromatic properties, so I assume this is why you made your earlier comment.   However, the CV 50mm apo is not a lens I'm interested in buying but thanks anyway.

Since it was announced, I've been interested in the CV 50 f1, having once owned late a noctilux f1 but didn't like it for a couple of reasons (mainly weight, ergonomics and low contrast 'softness') and subsequently sold it, so from that point of view the linked images from the CV 50 f1 are more interesting to me as a lens that possibly would improve on where the noctilux fell short for my preference. 

 

I didn't own both lenses at the same time, unfortunately. But saying an f/1, f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens wide open separates (renders) differently from APO f/2 at f/2 isn't a "bold claim", IMO. That's why I was asking for clarification as to why you though it was such a grand statement.

I agree with you and Lars that it would be interesting to see a controlled comparison. I've been thinking about reacquiring both these lenses, and if I do, I could do such a test and report back.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lct said:

A non apo lens with more field curvature may also show more separation than an apo one with less field curvature in praxis.

At close distance and when left uncorrected. But to clarify again, I wasn't saying an APO lens had more separation, just a different way of separating. Perhaps that's not the way it came across, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Are you saying you don't believe that an APO lens like the Leica 50 APO or CV 50 APO – with very high contrast and sharpness at f/2 – does not separate the subject differently at f/2 than a non-APO f/1, 1.2, or f/1.4 lens? Did you maybe misunderstand and think I said that the separation made by an APO at f/2 is better? I want to understand what you're expecting to see with examples.

To my eye, there could not be a bigger difference between the style of separation between the lenses here:

CV 50 f/1
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/17#15992642

CV 50 APO
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1743270/0#15863234

I took a look at these images in the links, and I’m not going to lie, it’s quite different for me to tell the difference, however I believe you do see a difference. I guess it’s one of those un/trained eye things; I shoot mostly at 28, and can almost always tell when someone shot a 28 or a 35 even though many would argue that they are way too similar.

If I squint, I think I maybe see the difference? It’s not really the bokeh itself, but how quickly the sharp area of the image “rolls off” to the bokeh, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 28framelines said:

I took a look at these images in the links, and I’m not going to lie, it’s quite different for me to tell the difference, however I believe you do see a difference. I guess it’s one of those un/trained eye things; I shoot mostly at 28, and can almost always tell when someone shot a 28 or a 35 even though many would argue that they are way too similar...

The fact that you couldn't see a difference, that means the CV 50 f/2 APO at f/2 was able to compete with the CV 50 f/1 at f/1 for separation. Perhaps that is the bold conclusion to which @Ouroboros refers.

For me, when I look at the two sets, the APO reminds me of the Pentax 67 with the 105 lens shot wide open. But the f/1 lens images feel completely different to me – very somber and something else entirely. Perhaps I read too much into it being I was connected with the experience of shooting both.

Edited by hdmesa
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 28framelines said:

...

If I squint, I think I maybe see the difference? It’s not really the bokeh itself, but how quickly the sharp area of the image “rolls off” to the bokeh, correct?

There is that, but also the fact that to me, the areas in focus with the APO seem almost hyper-real because of the sharpness and contrast. That balance between in focus and out of focus is very high. The f/1 lens has a similar separation, but the balance is more heavily reliant on bokeh blur over subject sharpness and contrast.

 

There's another way to more simply illustrate what I'm talking about. Use a lens like the 50 Lux ASPH and shoot it at f/1.4 (where contrast is lower and bokeh is more prominent) and compare the same shot to f/2 (where sharpness is higher and bokeh is reduced). Images from both should show high separation but for different reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

There is that, but also the fact that to me, the areas in focus with the APO seem almost hyper-real because of the sharpness and contrast. That balance between in focus and out of focus is very high. The f/1 lens has a similar separation, but the balance is more heavily reliant on bokeh blur over subject sharpness and contrast.

 

There's another way to more simply illustrate what I'm talking about. Use a lens like the 50 Lux ASPH and shoot it at f/1.4 (where contrast is lower and bokeh is more prominent) and compare the same shot to f/2 (where sharpness is higher and bokeh is reduced). Images from both should show high separation but for different reasons.

I'd suggest taking one of those 50mm f/0.95 Chinese lenses from TTArtisan, Zhong Yi (Mitakon) etc. shot wide open compared to the 50mm Apo-Lanthar. The amount of blur from the f/0.95 lens will naturally be higher, but since these lenses have quite a bit of spherical aberration and whatnot, the part of the image which is in focus will still be kind of soft; both low in contrast and resolution. This means nothing in the image is really sharp, so the difference between the blurred and the focused parts of the image won't be as striking as it could. This is where the apochromatic lenses will shine: the in-focus parts stand out strongly because these parts are extremely sharp compared to the blurred parts.

For the above reason (as well as its size and weight), I think the Nokton f/1.0 is highly attractive. You ordered it again, right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LarsHP said:

I'd suggest taking one of those 50mm f/0.95 Chinese lenses from TTArtisan, Zhong Yi (Mitakon) etc. shot wide open compared to the 50mm Apo-Lanthar. The amount of blur from the f/0.95 lens will naturally be higher, but since these lenses have quite a bit of spherical aberration and whatnot, the part of the image which is in focus will still be kind of soft; both low in contrast and resolution. This means nothing in the image is really sharp, so the difference between the blurred and the focused parts of the image won't be as striking as it could. This is where the apochromatic lenses will shine: the in-focus parts stand out strongly because these parts are extremely sharp compared to the blurred parts.

For the above reason (as well as its size and weight), I think the Nokton f/1.0 is highly attractive. You ordered it again, right?

Yes, I did order the CV 50 f/1 again, and it should arrive tomorrow along with the LLL 50 Elcan in titanium. Popflash will send via Saturday delivery if you call to arrange.

I was thinking along the same lines – the CV 50 f/1 is very sharp at f/1 and has surprisingly high contrast at f/1 as well. I used the CV 50 f/1 as an example because I quickly knew where to grab some samples I'd posted in b&w to compare with the APO in b&w. 

Probably choosing a non-FLE (like the examples you mentioned) in addition to non-APO would be the proper comparison to show the largest difference. I have the Contax 50 1.4 C/Y I could use, but its painterly bokeh might distract from the comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...