Do Voigtlander M lenses adapted on Non Leica bodies (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic) still perform as well as the native mount equivalent?

[petereprice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI all - I'm wondering.  With Voigtlander lenses specifically...do the M mount versions perform as well as their third party mount equivalent?  For example.  If I get a 50mm f1.2 Voigtlander Nokton on M Mount, for a Canon RF camera, with an adapter, will it perform just as well as a Voigtlander Norton 50mm f1.2 RF Mount version?

I know with Leica glass there are issues with color rendition on the edges with wider focal range lenses on Non Leica bodies, but I'm wondering since Voigtlander services multiple mounts, I could still use the M mount to keep them compatible across multiple mounts?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Short answer - no, they will perform better.  M lenses perform best on M bodies with SL bodies short behind, but no other brand camera has any adaptation for the special needs of rangefinder lenses..

 Voigtlander lenses for non-RF camera mounts have been designed to accommodate the specifications of those mounts, like register distance, exit pupil position, etc. even if the optical formula may appear similar.

BTW; which Canon RF camera?? The only digital rangefinders are Leica M (or Pixii, but they are not full frame and the brand appears to have disappeared).

[rogxwhit]

RF is a Canon lens mount type ...   😉

Edited February 26 by rogxwhit

[rogxwhit]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

(or Pixii, but they are not full frame and the brand appears to have disappeared)

Pixii Max: https://pixii.fr/products/pixii-max  😉

Edited February 26 by rogxwhit

[jaapv]

AH In that case the first part stands...

[rogxwhit]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

M lenses perform best on M bodies with SL bodies short behind, but no other brand camera has any adaptation for the special needs of rangefinder lenses..

 Voigtlander lenses for non-RF camera mounts have been designed to accommodate the specifications of those mounts, like register distance, exit pupil position, etc. even if the optical formula may appear similar.

This is your answer as far as I know, so I'd be loth to chance it myself, except in an emergency.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Most if not all will be non-adaptable anyway The register will be too short. 

[rogxwhit]

57 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Most if not all will be non-adaptable anyway The register will be too short. 

No, that's not the issue. It's all the possible rest - edge smearing, etc.  But adaptors can be got:

https://novoflex.co.uk/adapter-canon-eos-r-camera-body-to-leica-m-lenses/?gad_source=1

[jaapv]

Yes you can mount M lenses to RF mount and to most mirrorless - but not the other way around. Most wideangle lenses will have problems, though.

[petereprice]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Short answer - no, they will perform better.  M lenses perform best on M bodies with SL bodies short behind, but no other brand camera has any adaptation for the special needs of rangefinder lenses..

 Voigtlander lenses for non-RF camera mounts have been designed to accommodate the specifications of those mounts, like register distance, exit pupil position, etc. even if the optical formula may appear similar.

BTW; which Canon RF camera?? The only digital rangefinders are Leica M (or Pixii, but they are not full frame and the brand appears to have disappeared).

This is exactly the answer I was looking for.  Sorry for the confusion on RF.  I'm referring to the Canon mirrorless mount which is called RF (coincidentally).  I was mainly curious if those native Canon, Sony and Nikon Voigtlander lenses had any special enhancements to make their lenses more compatible to those cameras, compare to their M mount equivalents and your answer was what I was looking for.

[3D-Kraft.com]

For some Voigtländer lenses, that come in different mounts, Cosina seems to make minor adjustments to accomodate the different sensor filter glass stack sizes, even when the optical lens design is the same. I do not know of a comparison for the Nokton 50/1.2 ASPH but here you find a comparison for the Nokton 50/1.0 ASPH, where the M-mount version of that lens (adapted to E-mount) is compared to the native E-mount version of that lens on a Sony A7RII: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1853920/0

You can see very slight differences in the mid zone and edge areas. But they are so slight (and it is also possible that series variations play a role) that I would still always go for the M-mount version. You then have the more universal adaptation options (I use M- and E-mount cameras) and above all you can then use the M-mount version with autofocus on both Sony and Nikon cameras with the AF adapters from Techart. You don't have this option if you use the version with the native mount.

Edited February 26 by 3D-Kraft.com

[lct]

6 hours ago, petereprice said:

[...] I'm wondering since Voigtlander services multiple mounts, I could still use the M mount to keep them compatible across multiple mounts?

What you can do is buying VM lenses, ie. M-mount Voigtlander lenses and use them on both M-mount (Leica, Pixii) and Sony, Nikon, Sigma, etc. cameras through an adapter. My experience is limited to Sony and Sigma cameras on which i use all my VM (but also ZM) lenses from 12mm to 90mm. No problem on Sigma FPL but the Sony sensors (at least my a7r2's) need to be modded by Kolari vision.

Edited February 27 by lct

[bocaburger]

5 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

For some Voigtländer lenses, that come in different mounts, Cosina seems to make minor adjustments to accomodate the different sensor filter glass stack sizes, even when the optical lens design is the same. I do not know of a comparison for the Nokton 50/1.2 ASPH but here you find a comparison for the Nokton 50/1.0 ASPH, where the M-mount version of that lens (adapted to E-mount) is compared to the native E-mount version of that lens on a Sony A7RII: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1853920/0

You can see very slight differences in the mid zone and edge areas. But they are so slight (and it is also possible that series variations play a role) that I would still always go for the M-mount version. You then have the more universal adaptation options (I use M- and E-mount cameras) and above all you can then use the M-mount version with autofocus on both Sony and Nikon cameras with the AF adapters from Techart. You don't have this option if you use the version with the native mount.

I agree with the latter part. Cosina make their lenses to a price point and them altering each version to play nicely with a different sensor stack thickness would not be as simple as a shim more or less here and there.  OTOH  I have owned multiples of the same C-V lenses and found significant sample variation, which is what I would put my money on being responsible for the anecdotal data.  

Also, I have several Leica M and C-V lenses that are reportedly awful with Sony sensors yet on my two a7rii bodies nary a corner smear nor any other degradation in performance compared to the same lenses on my two M240 bodies.  And that despite the a7rii has nearly double the resolution.  That said, although I have tested  <35mm lenses set to theIr infinity stop and at full aperture and then pixel-peeped the corner detail at 100%, I can't fathom a real-world photo scenario where it would be essential.  But that's just one man's anecdotal opinion and I've only been shooting seriously for 60 years.  Most of that has been with an M camera and that is still my #1 choice 95% of the time. 
 

Edited February 27 by bocaburger

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb lct:

No problem on Sigma FPL but the Sony sensors (at least my a7r2's) need to be modded by Kolari vision.

It depends on lens construction. Also in the wide angle section you find some M-mount lenses that play well enough with thicker filter stacks.

[bocaburger]

7 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

It depends on lens construction. Also in the wide angle section you find some M-mount lenses that play well enough with thicker filter stacks.

Yes that has been my experience as well.  My samples of a 21 Elmarit PRE-asph, a 28 Elmarit V4 PRE-asph and a 35 Summicron V4 display no evidence of additional corner degradation on my stock a7rii bodies beyond what is evident on Leica M bodies where all of these lenses are--and this is noted in Leica's MTF graphs as well--less sharp in the corners wide open and approach parity with the center by f/11.    
 

OTOH I have 2 samples of the C-V 15mm f/4.5 V1 (same optics as V2) which do not play as nicely with the a7rii as the M240 (but less nicely than they did on film); however my V3 is excellent in the corners on both Sony and Leica.  They key there is the telecentricity of the lens' design which was recomputed to work better with digital sensors.  I find that whilst Leica's offset microlenses are nothing less than a genius innovation toward providing backward compatibility with Leica lenses, nonethless like most things they have a finite limit.