Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 35mm f/2 Aspherical VM

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, Steven said:

I've used the 35 APO. The MFD, to me, is a big deal if you use the lens on an SL body, or more generally with an EVF. On an M, unless you're a macro photographer, which you shouldn't be if you're using an M, I think you will use it scarcely. it's nice to have for the extra versatility, but it's very cumbersome to use. 

Is 30cm on a 35mm lens on a full frame sensor even macro? The Q's 28mm stops at 30cm before you have to switch it to macro mode, so the 35 APO would give just a bit more magnification than that. So maybe "borderline macro" with macro in quotes. Anyway, lots of us using the M have a Visoflex, so it's just another tool available to those of us that like closeup work. It would keep me from having to take Q along with the M since I do like to use the Q for close-up stuff. I guess the standard 0.7m MFD has a kept M users from becoming hipsters and photographing our plate of food while on vacation because it's too close to focus on 😂

As for cumbersome, do you mean having to use the LCD is cumbersome or do you mean that super-long focus throw in the close-up range makes it awkward? I've wondered about how well that super-long throw works versus the Q with it's macro ring twist that lets me keep the same focus throw speed for close up. I wouldn't care for having to use a really long focus arc to go from 0.7m to 0.3m.

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, Steven said:

I've used the 35 APO. The MFD, to me, is a big deal if you use the lens on an SL body, or more generally with an EVF. On an M, unless you're a macro photographer, which you shouldn't be if you're using an M, I think you will use it scarcely. it's nice to have for the extra versatility, but it's very cumbersome to use. 

A video interview I saw recently described how the marketing side coordinates with the technology side within Leica to eventually bring new M lenses to market.  The initial design proposal for the 35 M APO, from the marketing/development side, did not include the .3 MFD; only the typical .7m.  It was only later that the tech side proposed adding it in, given advances in tech, and they went back to the drawing board. I would have much preferred the first design, a simpler, and probably less costly, approach.  Sometimes less is more; just because something can be done, doesn’t mean it should.  But that’s just how I use my gear...M lenses on my M, and SL lenses on my nSL2.  

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[lecycliste]

I've photographed food and Ancestral Puebloan petroglyphs with the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton II VM and Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 Biogon T* ZM at 0.5m on an M10, using the Typ 020 EVF. It's a very light, high-quality location setup if you're not shooting action. I actively look for M-lenses focusing closer than 0.7m. If the capability's there I use it to tell more of the story. 

[Steven]

11 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Is 30cm on a 35mm lens on a full frame sensor even macro? 

Right, macro was not the right term. I should have said "close-up" photographers. 

 

11 hours ago, hdmesa said:

guess the standard 0.7m MFD has a kept M users from becoming hipsters and photographing our plate of food while on vacation because it's too close to focus on 😂

😂😂😂

11 hours ago, hdmesa said:

As for cumbersome, do you mean having to use the LCD is cumbersome or do you mean that super-long focus throw in the close-up range makes it awkward?

Both. The LCD is bad, but can be overcome by the EVF. But even with an EVF, that focus throw is just a huge hassle. It will make you reconsider wanting to take a photo close up ! 

[Steven]

11 hours ago, Jeff S said:

A video interview I saw recently described how the marketing side coordinates with the technology side within Leica to eventually bring new M lenses to market.  The initial design proposal for the 35 M APO, from the marketing/development side, did not include the .3 MFD; only the typical .7m.  It was only later that the tech side proposed adding it in, given advances in tech, and they went back to the drawing board. I would have much preferred the first design, a simpler, and probably less costly, approach.  Sometimes less is more; just because something can be done, doesn’t mean it should.  But that’s just how I use my gear...M lenses on my M, and SL lenses on my nSL2.  

Jeff

I suppose it was a good move from Leica. When I went to the shop, they said "we have the new APO, it costs 8K, do you want it ?" I said "F2? meh...." They said "it has a revolutionary new MFD of 30cm", I said "here's my credit card". 

The photos at 30cm looks so spectacular it could even make some dog poo look good 🤪

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

I suppose it was a good move from Leica. When I went to the shop, they said "we have the new APO, it costs 8K, do you want it ?" I said "F2? meh...." They said "it has a revolutionary new MFD of 30cm", I said "here's my credit card". 

The photos at 30cm looks so spectacular it could even make some dog poo look good 🤪

I agree that this change helped justify the desired high price. Bingo. Beyond that, it does nothing for me on an M, nor do I remember any historically great photos with an M that would have improved with closer MFD.  My SL lenses focus closer if I want to use the SL/2.

Jeff

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think leica have "sold out " somewhat with the convoluted closer focus.

For me they should have simply concentrated on producing a top class rangefinder lens like the 50mm apo is said to be.

[lecycliste]

In an age when almost every new lens between 14mm and 100mm focuses down to 11" or closer, it's time Leica upped their game. Yes, the M-rangefinder camera is more or less a 1954 design, from a time when a lot more imprecision in framing, focusing and exposure accuracy was tolerated. But today's user wants the small size and optical quality of a Leica M and its lenses. If they get modern lens usability and performance, that user is willing to put up with a little extra effort in using the M-camera and lenses. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by lecycliste

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, lecycliste said:

In an age when almost every new lens between 14mm and 100mm focuses down to 11" or closer, it's time Leica upped their game. Yes, the M-rangefinder camera is more or less a 1954 design, from a time when a lot more imprecision in framing, focusing and exposure accuracy was tolerated. But today's user wants the small size and optical quality of a Leica M and its lenses. If they get modern lens usability and performance, that user is willing to put up with a little extra effort in using the M-camera and lenses. 

Which full frame cameras are small though? 

I have no idea myself because its not of interest but from what i have seen they are getting bigger including leica m lenses.

[t00l1024]

14 hours ago, Steven said:

The photos at 30cm looks so spectacular it could even make some dog poo look good 🤪

I was actually tempted to do this, but thought.... eh... not exactly the lasting impression to make as a relatively new person here.

I'm really gonna dig this lens. Light here was super harsh, heavy contrast. f/2.8 on the M10M. I reduced the contrast and attempted to pull back some highlights. My young, 2 year old "subject" doesn't like to stay still either. Makes for some fun focusing.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 11, 2021 by t00l1024
spelling

[otto.f]

5 hours ago, t00l1024 said:

really gonna dig this lens

Are we still talking about APO Lanthar here? 

[250swb]

9 hours ago, lecycliste said:

In an age when almost every new lens between 14mm and 100mm focuses down to 11" or closer, it's time Leica upped their game. Yes, the M-rangefinder camera is more or less a 1954 design, 

Didn't Leica 'up their game' in around 1954 with the OUFRO close up adapter? There's now even a 'M Adapter' if you can't find an original OUFRO. And all your lenses become close focus.

[tgray]

On 4/9/2021 at 10:26 AM, Alan Friedman said:

The Apo-Lanthar is longer, lighter and will leave your wallet seven thousand dollars heavier.

The amount of dollars left over wouldn't even fit in my wallet.

[t00l1024]

9 hours ago, otto.f said:

Are we still talking about APO Lanthar here? 

Yes. Sun is now up here, time to go out and shoot. 

[lecycliste]

15 hours ago, 250swb said:

Didn't Leica 'up their game' in around 1954 with the OUFRO close up adapter? There's now even a 'M Adapter' if you can't find an original OUFRO. And all your lenses become close focus.

When you're in a windy, dusty environment, or there's not much time to get the shot, you don't want to be unmounting a lens to put on extension rings. I have an original 16469Y / OUFRO in my bag, and it's stayed there for years. It was originally designed for use on the Visoflex II / III, the reflex mirrorbox kludge for Leica M film cameras. The Visoflex II and III made no sense in an era of dedicated SLR cameras. The 16469Y became usable with Leica M-cameras with live view, the M Typ 240 and everything after. I've used it for indoor product shots with a 75mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH on an M10 with live view. That's about it.

Again, if I'm going for closeups in a fast-paced or dusty / windy environment, I'm not going to slap on a closeup ring. I want a lens that gets me there to begin with, for general overall use. That's one reason the 16-18-21/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH, 25/2.8 Biogon T* and 35/1.2 Nokton II made a lot of sense for me at those focal lengths. They all focus down to 19"-20".

And most extension rings are way too long for wideangle lens use. You have to be unusably close when you put a 10mm extension on at, say, 21mm. 

Edited April 11, 2021 by lecycliste

[lct]

1 hour ago, lecycliste said:

Again, if I'm going for closeups in a fast-paced or dusty / windy environment, I'm not going to slap on a closeup ring. I want a lens that gets me there to begin with, for general overall use. That's one reason the 16-18-21/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH, 25/2.8 Biogon T* and 35/1.2 Nokton II made a lot of sense for me at those focal lengths. They all focus down to 19"-20".
And most extension rings are way too long for wideangle lens use. You have to be unusably close when you put a 10mm extension on at, say, 21mm.

+1. Leica did it in the sixties with lenses like Super-Angulon 21/3.4. Focusing all the way from 0.4m (even 0.2 or 0.3m on Sony bodies) to infinity can prove quite handy, especially to reduce DoF and get some bokeh with UWA lenses. CV did more or less the same with its 15/4.5, 21/4 and 21/3.5 lenses and even the CV 35/2 can go down to 0.58m.

[250swb]

7 hours ago, lct said:

+1. Leica did it in the sixties with lenses like Super-Angulon 21/3.4. Focusing all the way from 0.4m (even 0.2 or 0.3m on Sony bodies) to infinity can prove quite handy, especially to reduce DoF and get some bokeh with UWA lenses. CV did more or less the same with its 15/4.5, 21/4 and 21/3.5 lenses and even the CV 35/2 can go down to 0.58m.

But you are quoting lenses where focusing can be done based on the DOF scale, and CV lenses they aren't always what they seem, often the M mount lens was originally designed for another camera and simply adapted.

As regards the unsuitability of the OUFRO in post #155 it's an amusing thought that there may not be enough time to mount it, after all the photographer has to get their tripod set up as well, cable release screwed in, and then poof!, whatever it was has crawled away. I never thought the discipline of close up photography could be so frantic, or so habitually unplanned.

Edited April 12, 2021 by 250swb

[lct]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

But you are quoting lenses where focusing can be done based on the DOF scale, and CV lenses they aren't always what they seem, often the M mount lens was originally designed for another camera and simply adapted.

Sure but i'm not sure to see your point. Leica could perfectly make a modern 21/3.4 with the same feature as the S-A. Down to 0.7m with RF and 0.4m with EVF no? As for LTM lenses adapted for the M mount, there are a lot of them including Leica's. Correct me if i'm wrong .

[250swb]

I'm sure Leica could do anything they liked, that they haven't felt the urge if it's apparently so easy maybe you could conclude that it's not so easy? I doubt it's actually difficult to design closer focus lenses, but that would be an increased focus throw of the lens, and for rangefinder users an annoying no-mans-land at the close end of the throw that makes it feel less like a precision camera or lens combination, more a dogs breakfast of design. The 'why don't Leica do.....' question comes up from time to time as a mechanical question but design is also about the overall system and how it works together based on how the camera is intended to be used.

So it isn't an accident that for fast focusing photographers get used to 'calibrating' where the infinity or close focus ends of the range are by hitting the stops and anticipating where and how much to turn the lens barrel from there. But now you don't want them to do that, you want a vague area at one end of the scale just so you can use your EVF and a longer focus throw to accommodate it. OK so you'll now say the new improved focus range can be crammed into the same space so the throw from infinity to closest distance remains the same. But that will mean focus becomes too fast, often under and overshooting the rangefinder especially. And this is so because the focus throw of the lens has to be balanced with the average diameter of the focus barrel so the gearing is neither too fast or too slow. So unless there are going to be switches on the lens to change from rangfinder to EVF the idea of simply adding more focus range is a sure way to bugger up the experience of using a Leica and it's range of lenses.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

54 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I'm sure Leica could do anything they liked, that they haven't felt the urge if it's apparently so easy maybe you could conclude that it's not so easy? I doubt it's actually difficult to design closer focus lenses, but that would be an increased focus throw of the lens, and for rangefinder users an annoying no-mans-land at the close end of the throw that makes it feel less like a precision camera or lens combination, more a dogs breakfast of design.

It is a question i asked myself in the past but now comes the 35/2 apo with 0.3m MFD...