CP+ 2017: Hands-on with new Voigtländer E-mount primes

It's a very pertinent question for me. I already have a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 with M42 thread mount. Why would I buy this new 40mm lens? Well, uhh... It's faster, which is not to say that F2 has been any severe limitation to me. It'll be a little more convenient to go on and off the camera (bayonet mount). EXIF data is convenient. Still hard to justify a lot of money for a new lens -- and I'd keep the Ultron anyhow to use on my Bessaflex.

But darn it, I do want. And that's not something to be defined with cold logic.

yeap, I say the same. The camera measures the light with the aperture stopped-down with or without electronic contacts. The photographer can not insert manually the focal lengh of the lens ? If it is possible the IBIS´s calibration this way then the reason for the electronics is even less necessary.

@ Wilight: If you're talking about the "90mm f/3.5 APO-Lanthar SL/SL-II", I've not owned one. But the results I've seen impress the heck out of me and seems to impress a few reviewers to the point that I'd buy one if the price/timing was right. What do you think is wrong with it?

The 125mm apo Lanthar is one of those mythical lenses known for performance and high used sale prices. But it's manual focus. Likely if you compare it to a modern Nikon 105mm macro or Sony's 90mm, it won't be any better. I know AF is supposedly undesirable by macro purists, but when you are dealing with fast-moving insects (as opposed to dead, freeze-dried ones pro macro shooters might use) AF becomes very useful.

@stevo23, probably you are thinking about sharpness, contrast, colors. In these aspects, yes, the 90mm is excellent as well. But so are dozens of other telephoto lenses. For me, what made 180mm and especially 125mm really shine, is the combination of a (relatively) large aperture and the abscence of LoCA, even wide open. I can count on my fingers how many lenses have that kind of performance in this regard, from any brand (Zeiss Otus 55mm/85mm and Sonnar/Milvus 135mm APO, are some of the others. Laowa 105mm STF is also good) unfortunately the little 90mm apo-lanthar isn't in this group, despite having a smaller max. aperture. Don't misunderstand me. It's a very good lens. Just not on the same league of the 125mm and this new 65mm.

Not really interested then and honestly, lenses that can't do 1:1 shouldn't be allowed to call themselves "macro" lenses.

@Wilight - How do we know about the performance of the 65mm? Also, you said, "is not that good". So do you mean it's not very good, or just not as good as xyz?

What "specifications" am I not worried about? Resolution? That should concern any macrophotographer. Some refer to 1:1 imaging as "microphotography" which is wrong as well, given that micro should refer to enlargement beyond life-size.

@stevo23, of course I can't be 100% sure it will be suberb before seeing the reviews, before the realease. But the design of the lens itself indicates it. It doesn't intend to be compact as most of VM rangefinder lenses (and as the other two lenses mentioned on this article - 35 and 40mm), It's designed to have a performance to the likes of Otus series (even if it doesn't break Otus scores on labs, as Sigma did). If 16 years ago Voigtlander was capable of achieving (with the 125mm) a performance that is pretty high even for today's standards, why wouldn't they be able to do it in 2017? Awswering your second question: just not as good as (or close to, regarding LoCA) the others I mentioned.

The 35 1.2 in M mount was really good (one of my favorites for that FOV), but it was much larger & heavier than the 1.4. Even though they were a narrower FOV, I preferred both the Voigtlander and the Leica 40mm f1.4 lenses ... (and the Leica 40mm was even affordable.)

I was interested before I saw this sample image. It looks.... um... full of characters? Not the kind that I want though...
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/minstr3d.jpg

Interesting, based on how little we know about them, its near impossible for me to invest in them?

Because DXO test the lens they can get hands on. Voigtlander doesn't send any to them.

These are more likely to hit Canon's EF-M mount next, as it's nearly identical to Sony's E-mount.

Course, that will probably happen after Canon goes full-frame mirrorless, but *that* will probably happen before Nikon goes >1" mirrorless.

Canon won't go into mirrorrless untill Sony or other mirrorrless weaken their dslr sales. This is not for tomorrow....

Sorry my bad!

I wonder if the phrase "manual focus lenses" was added later. I could swear it wasn't there when I first posted.

@tonybelding I have that same lens for C/Y mount (speed boosted on my Fuji) and it is also my number one favourite lens! I am a liiiiiittle jealous that Sony will get a native mount 40mm from Cosina Voigtlander, and f/1.2 at that! Can't say if it would be similar without seeing the output, but I've been hoping for something equivalent to the Ultron for X-mount for a while.

dansclic I agree. I have a couple of decent m42 lenses, eg a Super Takumar 85mm f/1.9 and a 55mm f/1.8, and I recently tried a converter to use them on my 5DIII. I just didn't think the results were worth the hassle. There was nothing special enough about them on digital to make me want to use them that way.

These old lenses are fantastic with film, less so with high-end digital.

I was trying to figure this too, basic googling didn't return anything about any Voigtlander 1.2/40.

It will compensate yes, gain up. This obviously isn't the same as letting the aperture remain wide open until shutter release in that the image in the vf is grainier and noisier and harder to read as opposed to being fed wide open light and not having to gain up. The argument I've seen is that it's easier to tell precisely where the focus is going to be when the lens is wide open, even if one stops down to f/16 when taking the shot. I don't know if it has to do with the gained up image again or if the in focus spot at f/2,8 is still the noticably most in focus spot at f/16; it isn't my argument, just one I've seen which makes a certain kind of sense.

For an OVF camera there might be a dof preview function and the lens, if using an electronic aperture, will remain wide open when composing. If that's not enough light with such a camera then you are using a tripod and I suppose had better use a torch or something to see what you are doing.

I strongly agree with jensR. It is easier to see the focal surface (a plane, hope, hope!) if the diaphragm is open -- no matter whether you're using focus peaking or magnified view. At the very least these lenses could have been fitted with an old-fashioned preset aperture control at negligible cost.

JensR and AZ Steve: How do you deal with focus shift and background sharpness when using the lens wide open when focusing?