Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 Aspherical II Leica M + Leica M240 - The problem of poor results.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The way to test this: The proverbial brick wall, tripod, parallel alignment, focus bracket. 

[Advertisement]

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

[M Street Photographer]

It would be even better to do it in a room with the same lighting conditions and then photograph a wall of bookshelves.A tripod and self-timer are of course required to prevent camera shake.I'm afraid that the infinity setting on the 240 is out of adjustment.

 

Edited June 2, 2024 by M Street Photographer

[jaapv]

Hard to test the infinity setting in a room 😜

[M Street Photographer]

Sorry, yes, you are right.

[Xavier]

It also sounds like a focusing problem to me. But then, you mention that the 50/1.5 seems fine on both bodies, which goes against a mount issue or a RF issue... so this all needs some more investigation.

If you focus on the A7rii with focus peaking, focusing issues should be non existent on that body. Taking the same photo with live view on both cameras, preferably on tripod (to remove as many variables out of the equation as possible), and posting full resolution pictures would help better diagnose the problem. Even then, resolution difference will need to be taken into account (one has about 35% more linear resolution than the other).

[3D-Kraft.com]

As the images show different parts of the building - were the crops taken from the same part of the sensor area or from different parts?
You should post also links to the full images in order to be able to analyze them correctly.

Generally speaking, the older lenses from Voigtlander are a good match for film and the thinner filter stack and microlens-design of sensors in Leica M camera comes closer to film when the exit pupil is close to the film/sensor pane. The Voigtlander 35/1.2 ASPH went through several iterations but only Version III / SE came with native E-mount and optimizations to better meet the requirements of the Sony sensor.

So if you see better results with your version II on the Sony, I am quite sure, this was caused mainly by you and not by the different cameras.

Most of the Voigtlander lenses have a negative field curvature which you will notice e.g. in the background blur of a shot focused with typical portrait distance. In the center, the background is creamy and in the edges - although also far away - the background seems to be in focus. Some poeple say, this is caused by the thicker filter stack of Sony cameras, but that's wrong. The filter stack amplifies this effect only very little. On the Fred Miranda forum you currently have this discussion about the new Voigtlander 50/1.0 ASPH and there you also find comparison shots that show, that this is mainly a characteristic of that lens design (also on Leica cameras). The E-Mount version of the lens also shows only very little improvements compared to the VM-mount version adapted to the Sony.

So here, in this case, I think, either the field curvature plays a roll and then it is important to see from which parts of the whole image the crops were taken - or the focusing of the Leica shot was not precise at all. Test shots like that should be focused in live view magnification.

Edited June 2, 2024 by 3D-Kraft.com

[RexGig0]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Regarding the lenses involved, I would look into how much field curvature each of your lenses has. I do not have the same lenses that you do, but can name two current-production Voigtlander lenses, both excellent in their own right, but in different ways, that I do have, the Nokton 50mm f/1.0 Asherical VM, and the 50mm APO Lanthar VM. The Nokton has much field curvature, whereas the APO Lanthar has very little field curvature. The APO Lanthar is a “flat field” lens, so, is generally much better than the Nokton f/1.0 for most landscapes, architecture, and most man-made structures, whereas the Nokton comes into its own for portraits, and other images with a centrally-located subject.

When the shooter develops an intimate understanding of the shape of the field curvature of a lens, then, the lens can be used creatively, even for architecture and landscapes, if buildings or other features are located along and within the curves in the depth of field. Lloyd Chambers really gets deeply into this, on his website, which is a paid-subscription site.

OK, now, regarding your posted images, the face of the building is flat, but, is not oriented parallel with the camera’s sensor. This presents a problem with a flat-field lens, unless it is a tilt-shift-effect lens. This also presents a problem with a lens that has substantial field curvature, UNLESS the field curvature closely matches the viewing angle.

I recommend doing the research, regarding the “field curvature” of your lenses. Do the science, please.

Furthermore, I politely recommend a more collegial approach, toward members of this forum, especially the moderators.

[M Street Photographer]

I understand your technical input and respect it, as I also dealt with this topic with the 50-1.0. Even though the examples are two different shots that are difficult to compare, I believe that the blurriness on the m240 has nothing to do with the curvature of the field. I fear there is an adjustment problem with the m240, Although misfocusing cannot be ruled out.

 

[justj]

I had v1 on my M240 before and it is crazy sharp stepping down. Make sure you nail your focus.

[RexGig0]

I just consulted Lloyd Chambers site, regarding the Voitglander Nokton 35/1.2 II. In a comparison with several 35mm M-mount lenses, the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM relegated the other lenses to “distant runner-ups…” These “runner-ups,” include the Summilux 35mm FLE.

Lloyd Chambers also writes that the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 II ”shows a peripheral forward focus shift…”

Being a multi-year subscriber to Lloyd Chambers’ site, I know that he prizes lenses with a “flat field,” which means lenses without significant field curvature. (Notably, Lloyd Chambers has discovered a newer-manufactured 35mm M-mount lens with a flatter field than the Zeiss Distagon ZM. It is not a Leica lens. Technology does move forward.)

I do not believe that it is ethical for me to copy and paste large swaths from a paid-subscription site.

Again, I must emphasize that a lens with significant field curvature can capture a good image, either intentionally, or unintentionally/accidentally.

 

[RexGig0]

8 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

I understand your technical input and respect it, as I also dealt with this topic with the 50-1.0. Even though the examples are two different shots that are difficult to compare, I believe that the blurriness on the m240 has nothing to do with the curvature of the field. I fear there is an adjustment problem with the m240, Although misfocusing cannot be ruled out.

 

True, there may be a problem within the camera body. True, there may be mis-focusing.

It would be helpful if the OP would post images that allowed us to provide better advice.

[M Street Photographer]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb RexGig0:

Lloyd Chambers also writes that the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 II ”shows a peripheral forward focus shift…”

I find that one of the most interesting statements.

[fotografr]

The OP joined this forum just a few hours ago and immediately tried to trash one of the most accomplished photographers in our group. I wouldn't waste the time and energy to respond to him.

[M Street Photographer]

I also think that the OP should definitely follow our recommendations and show new image examples here. He has now received enough information from us and it is up to him to act.

 

[RexGig0]

5 hours ago, jarekzon said:

What does it have to do with it ? Nothing. Such answers are useless.

Well, actually, such an answer can be quite applicable. There may be technology, in the newer Sony, that does not exist in the older M Type 240. Furthermore, a question, posted as reply to a question, may well be a rhetorical question, presented so as to make the initial questioner think, and/or search for an answer, on one’s own. A rhetorical question does not require a direct answer.

I believe that Mr. Barton’s second sentence was posted as a rhetorical question.

This is intended to be a helpful tip, an effort to help one to “read the room.” I am not a moderator, nor have I played the part of a moderator on stage or screen. 😉 Well, OK, I did much conflict resolution, as an integral part of my job, for 33+ years. In retirement, I now crave harmony.

I do not own an M Type 240, so, am not “defending” that camera. As for Leica “magic,” I believe any such “magic” is mostly based upon the optical correction decisions that have been made, over the years, by Leitz/Leica design team members. Cosina, which makes Voigtlander-branded lenses, having purchased or licensed the use of the Voigtlander brand name, is reputedly owned by a lover of specific Leica lenses, which does inspire some amount homage to specific Leica lenses.

Edited June 2, 2024 by RexGig0

[jarekzon]

"When used properly it will be better on the Leica than on the Sony. " - It won't perform any better than the Sony and is very far from what the Sony can do.

In both cases, the lens was set identically, at infinity. On a Leica, an excellent lens performs poorly. I checked this in many other photos. This lens performs simply poorly on Leica, but on Sony it performs great.

There is no Leica magic. With any other camera I can take better photos and have half as many problems. There is no Leica magic, only great Leica marketing and the wild imagination of influencers. The only thing that Leica has good are the lenses, but the lenses showed their full potential, as you can see, they must be used on a camera other than the Leica.

[justj]

6 minutes ago, jarekzon said:

 With any other camera I can take better photos and have half as many problems. There is no Leica magic, only great Leica marketing and the wild imagination of influencers. The only thing that Leica has good are the lenses, but the lenses showed their full potential, as you can see, they must be used on a camera other than the Leica.

Oh dear. 

[jarekzon]

Yes yes, the truth often hurts.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jarekzon]

It's a good thing I bought this Leica, because while researching it, at least I found out about bad things that I never even dreamed of. For example, a trilogy could be written about the defects, shortcomings and warranty returns of Leica cameras. I checked several Leica M8 cameras and all of them had sensor defects. Someone will say, but it's an old camera. Ok, I have a lot of older digital cameras and they all work perfectly mechanically and electronically. My first encounter with Leica cameras showed the sad truth that the king is naked. It would have been better to buy a Leica lens for this money. Well, now that I have it, I'll test it again to see what else is hidden there. Fortunately, it does not lose value because influencers work hard for it.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, jarekzon said:

"When used properly it will be better on the Leica than on the Sony. " - It won't perform any better than the Sony and is very far from what the Sony can do.

In both cases, the lens was set identically, at infinity. On a Leica, an excellent lens performs poorly. I checked this in many other photos. This lens performs simply poorly on Leica, but on Sony it performs great.

There is no Leica magic. With any other camera I can take better photos and have half as many problems. There is no Leica magic, only great Leica marketing and the wild imagination of influencers. The only thing that Leica has good are the lenses, but the lenses showed their full potential, as you can see, they must be used on a camera other than the Leica.

Have you read the thread?  Your “test” is poorly executed on a camera that you don't yet know how to use ( a manual lens cannot be set completely accurately to infinity by slamming it against the stop, it must be actively focused) and your conclusion is spurious and contrary to all conclusions by capable photographers. 
But hey! Instead of indulging in a bit of gear-blaming, use your gear in a way that works for you and put the lens on your Sony. Nothing wrong with that.