Voigtlander 50mm f/1 VM

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, BastianK said:

On Fredmiranda I actually found a picture of the RF version from the back: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1797443

Looks to me like it has the same small rear element as the M-mount version.

So my guess for the RF/Z versions: not a complete redesign, just adjusted element spacing while using the same
lens elements to accomodate for different filter stacks as best as possible considering these design restraints.
This is not unusual (also makes sense from a business PoV) and has been the case for most of the Cosina
lenses that are available for different mounts (exception: 50mm 2.0 Apo-Lanthar, but you have to go to
the Japanese Cosina page to find this out, as information on German/English Voigtländer page is wrong).

So long story short: I expect very similar performance from the Z and RF mount versions but
I would definitely recommend to get these native ones if you want to use them on those Canon/Nikon cameras,
as the difference in filter stack will make things worse when using the unoptimized M-mount version here.

Perhaps images from the R and Z mount versions will exhibit less optical vignetting due to the wider mount openings.

[BastianK]

vor einer Stunde schrieb hdmesa:

Perhaps images from the R and Z mount versions will exhibit less optical vignetting due to the wider mount openings.

It doesn't matter how wide the mount is, it matters how wide the rear element is and as said: I see no difference here.

[hdmesa]

15 minutes ago, BastianK said:

It doesn't matter how wide the mount is, it matters how wide the rear element is and as said: I see no difference here.

Ok, I thought I remembered reading about a reduction in vignetting that happened with the change from M10 variants to the M11 due to the removal of the old rangefinder meter, so it had me thinking about the space inside the cameras when moving from M to another mount that has a larger space inside the camera between the lens and sensor. Perhaps the M11 is already optimal.

[Ray Vonn]

I thought I read somewhere that the Canikon versions are optically the same (albeit the MFD differences appears to show that they won't be 'exactly' the same).

[Adam Bonn]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Ok, I thought I remembered reading about a reduction in vignetting that happened with the change from M10 variants to the M11

Might (and I mean might) that not be the BSI sensor in action there?

[hdmesa]

5 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Might (and I mean might) that not be the BSI sensor in action there?

IIRC, it was independent of BSI's effect on wide angle lens vignetting, but I can't find the original discussion to confirm.

[LarsHP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, BastianK said:

On Fredmiranda I actually found a picture of the RF version from the back: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1797443

Looks to me like it has the same small rear element as the M-mount version.

So my guess for the RF/Z versions: not a complete redesign, just adjusted element spacing while using the same
lens elements to accomodate for different filter stacks as best as possible considering these design restraints.
This is not unusual (also makes sense from a business PoV) and has been the case for most of the Cosina
lenses that are available for different mounts (exception: 50mm 2.0 Apo-Lanthar, but you have to go to
the Japanese Cosina page to find this out, as information on German/English Voigtländer page is wrong).

So long story short: I expect very similar performance from the Z and RF mount versions but
I would definitely recommend to get these native ones if you want to use them on those Canon/Nikon cameras,
as the difference in filter stack will make things worse when using the unoptimized M-mount version here.

To me, the much shorter MFD (45cm vs 90cm) seems to indicate that Cosina has done more than a minor adjustment for the thicker sensor glass in RF / Z cameras. However, they may have cut some corners regarding the focus mechanism by just moving the whole lens away from the sensor after the 90cm point.

We need to see some real world tests before we conclude how little or much optical difference there is between the M and RF/Z versions.

[J S H]

Nice scene at sunset. This was handheld at F4 and  a 3 shot vertical pano to get the framing I wanted. This lens seems to behave pretty well in backlit situations. 

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!

[Adam Bonn]

Oh something about this lens I keep forgetting to add…

The front element is very convex (if it was a watch the marketing would say triple domed sapphire crystal invokes the feel of plexi shod 1960s divers watches) 

But it’s a lens (and the FE isn’t made from sapphire), so my advice would be, take great effing care about whether the filter you’re using can screw on without hitting the FE… my B+W 2 stop ND is ok… 

[01maciel]

It has become quiet in this thread and around the lens. Surprising really, as I think it does its job quite well.
M10 + Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1:1.0 VM (click to view properly)

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!

[J S H]

I have acquired a Nikon 5T close-up lens in 62mm to use with this lens. It seem like a good fit for 50mm, as there is a decent focus range you can achieve with the filter depending upon the distance you set the focus at. I didn't break out the tape measure, but I would say approximately 1.75-2.5 feet, which nicely complements the close focus distance you can achieve with the lens alone. The Nikon filter is relatively small and works with the lens hood.  Quality seems good, the focus point is sharp wide open, but everything improves a stop down. 

First image is the bare lens focused at MFD. Second image is close to the MFD you can achieve with the Nikon 5T (approx 2 feet). The lens could focus a few inches closer, but I couldn't move the tripod any closer, so stopped there. Both shots are wide open. 

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!

[LarsHP]

10 hours ago, J S H said:

I have acquired a Nikon 5T close-up lens in 62mm to use with this lens. It seem like a good fit for 50mm, as there is a decent focus range you can achieve with the filter depending upon the distance you set the focus at. I didn't break out the tape measure, but I would say approximately 1.75-2.5 feet, which nicely complements the close focus distance you can achieve with the lens alone. The Nikon filter is relatively small and works with the lens hood.  Quality seems good, the focus point is sharp wide open, but everything improves a stop down. 

First image is the bare lens focused at MFD. Second image is close to the MFD you can achieve with the Nikon 5T (approx 2 feet). The lens could focus a few inches closer, but I couldn't move the tripod any closer, so stopped there. Both shots are wide open.

It would be very appreciated if you could do a test with the 5T near MFD with something like black text on white paper (covering the whole frame). That's how I test my (two element) diopters on my lenses because it will reveal both sharpness/resolution and spherical aberration. The latter seems to be a common issue with combinations of various lenses and diopters: One lens will work greatly with one diopter, but that diopter won't perform well with another lens.

[J S H]

Here is a test chart with the Nikon 5T, shot at 18 inches, which is very near the MFD with this combo. Performance actually looks pretty good to me...certainly no glaring issues. I don't think the lens has a very flat field to begin with, but the close-up lens doesn't seem to be creating any major issues. I would never be using this combo for reproduction work, so the performance is more than adequate for my needs. 

Focus on center. Full frame and 100% crop from the left edge at F1.

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!

[J S H]

Focus on center. Full frame and 100% crop from the left edge at F5.6.

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!

[wdshuck]

I had mostly been using this on my SL2S, but focusing at F1 actually isn’t bad on the M10. It does look comically large though 😂

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!

[LarsHP]

21 hours ago, J S H said:

Here is a test chart with the Nikon 5T, shot at 18 inches, which is very near the MFD with this combo. Performance actually looks pretty good to me...certainly no glaring issues. I don't think the lens has a very flat field to begin with, but the close-up lens doesn't seem to be creating any major issues. I would never be using this combo for reproduction work, so the performance is more than adequate for my needs. 

Focus on center. Full frame and 100% crop from the left edge at F1.

Okay, thanks. Since we don't know if the edge is in focus or not, these test shots may not tell how good or bad the combination works in the mid-frame or at the edge.

The way I test my diopter-lens combination is with the target paper at an angle, so even though the plane of focus may bend, I will still be able to scrutinize the performance all the way from the center to the edge.

[J S H]

2 hours ago, LarsHP said:

Okay, thanks. Since we don't know if the edge is in focus or not, these test shots may not tell how good or bad the combination works in the mid-frame or at the edge.

The way I test my diopter-lens combination is with the target paper at an angle, so even though the plane of focus may bend, I will still be able to scrutinize the performance all the way from the center to the edge.

Actually, I learned what I wanted to know  - any part of the frame can be brought into sharp focus with the close-up lens attached, even wide open. My observations tell me that the lens itself is not flat field at MFD, especially at wider apertures. I checked the corners at MFD wide open, both with and without the close-up lens - they could be focused sharply, if desired, but the center would then be soft. I chose to focus on the center for these tests, as that was the most relevant method for me. There aren't many applications which require a flat field at the higher magnification achieved with the close-up lens added, so no real need to try and document the performance across the entire frame.

The way I'm using the lens & close-up filter combo, only the focus point needs to be sharp. Everything else in the frame will be out of focus. If you need a flat field at high magnification, that isn't going to be achievable with this lens...you would normally use a macro lens. 

 

[LarsHP]

53 minutes ago, J S H said:

Actually, I learned what I wanted to know  - any part of the frame can be brought into sharp focus with the close-up lens attached, even wide open. My observations tell me that the lens itself is not flat field at MFD, especially at wider apertures. I checked the corners at MFD wide open, both with and without the close-up lens - they could be focused sharply, if desired, but the center would then be soft. I chose to focus on the center for these tests, as that was the most relevant method for me. There aren't many applications which require a flat field at the higher magnification achieved with the close-up lens added, so no real need to try and document the performance across the entire frame.

The way I'm using the lens & close-up filter combo, only the focus point needs to be sharp. Everything else in the frame will be out of focus. If you need a flat field at high magnification, that isn't going to be achievable with this lens...you would normally use a macro lens.

What you are describing; only the focus point needs to be sharp; is my viewpoint too, when using diopters and fast lenses.

However, the test shots you uploaded doesn't show that. The point I was trying to make is that by having the test chart (or whatever) at an angle, you will be able to find the place where the plane of focus is and check there - right from the center to the edge of the frame. The out of focus areas will also tell you something about how the combo behaves there.

[Adam Bonn]

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!

m10-r

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[J S H]

Wide open on the M11. I continue to be impressed by this lens. 

 

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!