Planar 85/1.4 and Voigtlander APO Lanthar 90/3.5

[Arctures]

Here is a little comparison of these two superior short telephoto lens. This is not actually a test. Because there was slightly different distance (approximately 2 meters in both cases) and slightly different exposure which mostly affects contrast I believe. Lanthar was used at f/3.5 and Planar - at f/4. No editing has been applied except cropping and re-size.

Voigtlander APO Lanthar 90/3.5 @3.5


Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 @4


I'll proceed with some more test shots as far as I'll get more free time.

[Esox lucius]

Well, I have them both in N/Ai-S mount, ZF & APO-Lanthar. They are quite different lenses, by specs and character.

The Planar 85/1.4 ZF near focusing limit is 1m (goes to 1:10), CV 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar focuses to 0.5m (1:3.5). Planar is fast f/1.4, APO-Lanthar slow f/3.5. Both are free of geometric distortion.

I think the ZF is a dual personality lens. At close focusing distances it becomes soft and dreamy but maintains fine detail even wide open center: clearly a portrait fingerprint. For landscape use (medium to infinity focusing distances) apertures f/2.8 to f/5.6 you will give you bitingly sharp and detailed images. Great for landscapes, but main use I think is portraits.

The 90/3.5 is a very nice walk-around lens, main use landscapes medium to infinity, but should be explored for details due to 0.5m close focusing limit. It goes to magnification 1:3.5 and is thus useful for details, something the Planar 85/1.4 ZF is not as it only goes to 1:10

In landscape work, the 90/3.5 pulls a lead because of absence of axial CA and purple fringing. The Zeiss is not exactly bad in this area but you have to stop it down to sweet spot f/4-f/5.6 (and 90/3.5 has no CA at all at any aperture).

My personal choice: Planar for portraits, APO-Lanthar for landscapes and miniature landscapes.

[Arctures]

Yes, Esox, I am agree with your opinion. When I shot some first pictures I was a little surprised to see almost similar performance on 2-6 meters distance and f-stops 3.5-5.6. But now I can see Lanthar is sharper on f-stops less than 5.6 and more useful for macro shots. However I have some macro shots with macro rings and Planar. And I may conclude it is really awesome. In the terms of best buy I believe the winner is Planar for it's speed, sharpness and macro capability using macro rings. I have an AEG version which is cheaper than ZF. Lanthar's price in my case was the same. Both are very serious tools. Lanthar also shows awesome macro with macro rings and absolutely no chromatic abberation. It is really great to have both the lens.

[Arctures]

This one was shot with Planar 85/1.4 with macro rings:

[Esox lucius]

When weather and time permits, I will shoot identical subject with both ZF 85/1.4 and APO-Lanthar 90/3.5. Right now time is limited, I have deadlines for two product shoots to meet. Sometime next week I think or 1st week of March.

I agree it is like comparing apples with oranges, but both lenses are pretty much at their sweet spot at f/5.6 so I think a medium to infinity subject shot at f/5.6 would be justified.

Other than that use, they are two different lenses for different purposes.

[Esox lucius]

[Arctures]

Vilhelm I am looking forward to hearing from you.

[Esox lucius]

Results can be found here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/medium-teles-infinity-tested-zeiss-voigtlaender-nikkor-t25912.html

[Esox lucius]

Here is a practical example how these lenses differ from each other. I could not have accomplished this job with the APO-Lanthar 90/3.5 because the lens is too slow for the circumstances where I was shooting. (Nikon D3, noise reduction off)

f/2 ISO 2000


f/2.8 ISO 1600


f/2.8 ISO 2000


f/2.8 ISO 2000


f/2.8 ISO 800


f/2.8 ISO 800


f/2.8 ISO 640

[Orio]

Very good concert shots, Vilhelm!

I do not mean to look down on your efforts of the comparison - however, the lenses are so different, that it does not need a comparison to draw the line between the two of them:

- the Apo-Lanthar is best to use for close-ups and for all those situation where you might incur into CA

- the Planar is best to use for low light shooting and for those portraits where you need the lens to draw the background in a way that only a lens faster than f/3.5 can do.

- for those subjects that both lenses can do equally well (such as medium or infinity distance, low-or-medium contrast subjects), the Planar is preferable at f/3.5 for detail, because it gives it's best around f/4, while the Apo-Lanthar is preferable for detail at and around f/5.6, because that is where it's sweet spot is. In neither cases that would be a decisive difference.

- Neither lenses should be used beyond f/8 because diffraction springs in, and in any case, an aperture smaller than f/8 is pretty much nonsense in a telephoto lens for at least 80% of the situations.

In fact, I think the two lenses not only are not in alternative, but really, they perfectly complement each other in a photo bag.

-

[Esox lucius]

Thank you!

[james]

As a side topic I think a more interesting comparison would have been the Leica R 2/90 Summicron (non-APO) version to the CV 3,5/90 APO. Leica authority Erwin Puts evaluated the CV 90 (M mount; optics identical to the SLR version) and deemed it as good as the excellent Leica M 2,8/90 Elmarit: http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/zeiss/page53.html

[Esox lucius]

Shhh... don't wake up the sleeping sentinels. Unless you are Erwin Puts, it's a dangerous thing to do so. Besides, no matter what the outcome it won't change anything because brand image will always weigh more than facts.

Vilhelm

[Siswono]

both are nice lens.
agree with Orio

[dude163]

I like the little heart tattoo on the first pictures lip