Voigtlander shows off three new lenses including 65mm F2 Macro for E-mount

I had several macro lenses in film days that would work closer using extension rings. I now have a Minolta 35-70mm with a zoom setting at 70mm which works well adapted to a Leica M and permits extension rings if desired.
A point of interest is that macro lenses if of longer focal length than the standard lens might permit a greater distance between the front glass and the subject, so allowing light to get to the subject. Perspective might improve as well.
Phil

Re your second paragraph. I can understand the feeling, especially when you see a particular lens that is getting rave comments but it isn't for your camera! We don't see Canon making Nikon mount lenses, and vice versa. They want you to buy their own, not support a competing manufacturer. And the word "competing" is the crux. This is the field of the independents, and even here they have to be selective in which mounts they make available and, again, you can find a well received lens that is still not available in your mount.

Regarding Fuji, I don't believe it is stupid for them not to have a FF camera. Why try and compete in the FF arena when it is already populated by the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax? I use Fuji (X-Pro 1 and X-E1) and for my needs they surpass my Sony A7. But what has Fuji done? They've jumped the lot of them and gone medium format. Bravo Fuji.

If photography isn't fun, give it up. Fully support you here. :D)

For some time, it used to be easier. With Canon and Nikon having the majority of the market, speciality lens makers used to do lenses for these 2 mounts. So if you wanted to pick from a rich pool of lenses, you probably wanted to get a camera from one of these 2 and you were set (mostly - unless you wanted specialty lenses from the other maker). Sure, Minolta and Pentax got some nice lenses of their own but overall the lens pool was concentrated in the C/N duopoly.

Now it's getting weird. Some are still making lenses for DSLRs, some make them for E-mount, others for m43, it's quite a mess. You pick a camera system and you're cut out from at least half of all the interesting lenses. I feel it's way more difficult to pick a system these days.

The thing about Fuji (or Olympus as I mentioned) is that if you want a MILC system where you could use old adapted FF (such as Leica) lenses with their original FOV, then you have no other choice than Sony. (contd'.)

(cont'd.)

Now, true, Sony having the only affordable FF MILC does make the system more interesting and universal than the others but the issue is that I don't like Sony :)

In short, I'd like more universal options: Fuji FF, Olympus FF, identical lenses made for all those systems and adapters available to use old lenses properly on anything.

Unfortunately since everyone tries to play their own game, the market is too shattered and the most reasonable system to use is the one that I don't like.

I do wonder what happens when Canon or Nikon finally get around to making their own FF MILC systems.

Well, due to Your disliking of the company, You will miss an opportunity to adapt and use almost every 35mm lens ever made. ;)
I do not have that "problem". I used to be Canon DSLR and Olympus Pen shooter for years, after that I switched to Alpha and could not be happier. It really brings me the joy of photography. Loxia and Sony/Zeiss lenses work really good, manual focus is pleasable experience...

Speaking of design, they all look good to me. Alpha series have modern design, unlike Fuji and Oly retro style. The same with Leica, their new SL looks like a bigger A7.

All the best

The problem I see with Fuji and Olympus and FF is that neither of them will have any modern AF lenses. And then one will get the same argument that was aimed at Sony when they launched their E mount - nearly everyone slated Sony because there were exceedingly few lenses. People weren't prepared to wait for the road map to be completed. The main option for Fuji and Olympus initially would be using their legacy lenses with adapters. But, to be honest, even though I can do this on all my Sony E mounts, the performance of these older lenses leaves much to be desired. They were designed for film not digital.

At least Canon and Nikon will start out with an advantages should they bring out a FF MILC. They already have a plethora of digital based lenses for FF and a vast catalogue of legacy lenses.

As for lack of lenses, if it was that critical they could always just have Tamron or some other lens maker build lenses for them, like other companies have done in the past.

Related to that, existing 3rd party lenses would probably very quickly get versions in the new mount too.

Of course, the ideal solution would be to just use an existing mount, such as Sony E since it's so popular with lens makers already.

Besides, Fuji is starting a new mount for MF anyway and they'll have the lens problem either way. Why not just add a FF variant of that? Since the mount is probably larger, it could even host adapters for other MILC mounts.

Fuji's logic that there's no need for FF because they have APS-C and MF is ridiculous. Canon and Nikon both tried putting their mid-end aside and push everyone to high end and it didn't work out because people want them (see 7D, 5D, D500).

One end of the lens is (almost) the same as the other end (mirror image) so it is indeed symmetrical.
If there was a word like TOIOT it wold be a 5 letter symmetrical word.

A TOYOTA is almost symetrical ;)

Yep, I use it all the time. It only works with lenses that don't have the chip and contacts.

While the menu settings vary from camera to camera, it's always the case that a CPU lens must be used with the aperture ring locked and the aperture controlled in-camera. Df may be an exception, I don't know. I can say for sure with D40, D3300, D600:

Cameras with Ai coupler: can use non-CPU lens with manually entered data. CPU lenses will generate an error if the aperture ring is moved from full closed.

Cameras without Ai coupler: can use non-CPU lens unmetered, some cameras needed to be unlocked in the menu to avoid a "no lens attached" error message. CPU lenses will generate an error if the aperture ring is moved from full closed.

The chipped CV lenses behave as Nikkor CPU lenses.

I use the aperture ring to adjust the opening with both ZF and ZF.2 lenses on my D810. Read your manual.

Found it!!

D600: f5 customize command dials - aperture setting - aperture ring

-thanks~

Yep, that's the one. Been using it since the F100.

It's a bit of a pain with AF variable-aperture lenses (since body-controlled aperture maintains when zooming and aperture ring control changes during zooming and I prefer the former, especially when shooting flash) but is a godsend for constant aperture zooms & primes.

Brand new as in this lens has been on the market for 10+ years and Voigtlander keeps changing the barrel but not the optics.

This is the 4th version of this lens, all are optically identical.

Yes, it looks like a Nikon F vintage Nikkors, great lenses, but on the heavy side for sure.

It looks like early non-AI Nikkors.

It doesn't even vaguely resemble an AI lens which would have a rubber focus ring and be all black except for a thin silver cheat ring.

Doesn't even vaguely resemble an AI Nikkor?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/50mm-f12/50mm-f12-KEN_5109-600.jpg

No, the silver ring, the fonts, the colours etc. nothing at all like the 1.2/50 AI-S I'm holding in my hand right now?

Trolls are a laugh, you meant to say it looks more like an AI, but also like a pre-AI Nikkor because of the focus ring grip, but had to take a stab at me. So negative.

I think it resembles a general design from this period, compare the Pentax/Asahi TAKUMAR 55/1.8
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/23/Super-Multi-Coated_TAKUMAR_55mm_F1_8.jpg

Totally dissimilar? What? Check out the late Auto rokkor, early MC rokkors.

http://minolta.rokkor.de/lineup/339_2ndmcrokkorlineup_575.jpg

Auto-Rokkor or Early MC.... both had the knuckle design. So, doesn't really matter. Later MC's switched to the knobbed rubber grip.

Just now i saw: BEST LENS OF THE YEAR Award goes to 2 lenses: Fuji & Voigtlander (58/1.4). For self I always thought: this lens is best lens in the world, i have 3 leica new and very expensive lenses, they are great but this 58/1.4 is better, better then Summilux 50/1.4, equal to Summicron 90/2, and 6-7 times cheaper. After use this 58/1.4 its hard to wsitch to any other lenses. Microcontrast of this lens is maybe also the best in the world. I bought also Zeiss 50/1.4 and back fast, it was worse then even Nikon 50/1.4D and much worse then Nikon 50/1.2. I have also Sigma 50/1.4, which is technically better then this lens but without beautiful picture, without something which make photos great if you can shoot great photos...

I spent an age deciding between the Nokton and the Nikkor 50 1.2. Went with the Nikkor and haven't regretted it. Where do you think the Nokton is better?

Wow I wasn't aware of the Tamron, thanks for the heads up! It would be awesome if they added VC and updated the body to the new SP line. Will keep an eye on it.

If you were an insect, a small reptile or even an amphibian you most certainly would be, if approached too closely with a short focal-length macro.

"It means there is less motion blur/shake when trying to fine-tune focus while handheld"
I am afraid it is not right. What matters, when shooting macro, is the magnification ratio. When you use the same magnification ratio with a 200mm , 100mm or 50mm lens, your subject cover the same area of the frame. So the same "angle of shake" will produce the same amount of shift of your subject throughout the frame and thus the same amount of blur...
Also, as far as DOF is concerned, here too, this is only the magnification ratio that matters. not the focal length.
Not to say that wide angle lenses may have a more pronounced field curvature at short distance that makes difficult to get edge-to-edge sharp reproduction of flat subjects like stamps.

Aside from all the good points that Karroly raised, flower and jewelry shots almost always benefit from the perspective of the longer macro lenses, and the extra distance allows for better lighting setups.

Oh, and the Nokton doesn't look "pretty weird" on either a Sony A7 or an a5100. Been there, done that. It looks awesome.

@Karroly I was not talking about FL related shake/blur. I am talking about how heavy a 90mm FE macro is compared to a smaller, wider macro. It is simply easier to hand-hold a shorter FL lens still close to a subject while in focus zoom than it is with a 90mm. I know because I have owned both and done both. 90mm has its place and shorter has its place, both are extremely useful. That said, if I had to own only one macro, it would be the FE 90mm.

@entoman - Must be a lot of technicians in lens design then, I seem to remember people making 50mm macros for yonks...

Nasty people. Still in your teens and at school?

"Is this a joke, because it's not funny."

If you suck your thumb, you'll feel much better.

Luuuuv....

5 elements at f3.5= 8MP at best. Unless they're using Kryptonite glass and triple surface aspherics.

Not a sharp kit then.Ho ho.

Guffaw! Quote the lens maker itself and then back it up with some random guy on flickr.

Pull the other one.

Anyway, goodluck to them and their 60 pixels. Wheredidthepixelsgomagon. :)

" out-resolves a drum scanner at 2000 dpi which"

Pretty low res then. This is even more absurd than the previous. Those may be impressive sounding numbers, but translated down to 35mm that's not many MP at all. 6.5MP.

I bet you don't even print, I always find folk whining about wanting more MP or lenses that resolve more detail don't really need it for the most part. Another point to note is that all lenses resolve more detail when a higher MP sensor is used. It just shows corner flaws etc a bit more. Time to not loose sleep over such things...

Of course I'm sure you know much more about optics than Voigtlander. Give me a break ha ha...

@The Name is Bond - You've criticized everyone else that disagrees with your absurd notion that "5 elements at f3.5= 8MP at best." Perhaps you'd be so kind as to back up your assertion with some actual data in lieu of criticism of everyone else. I'd love to know where you pulled the 8Mp number from. Sources other than thin air are appreciated.