Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Voigtländer 90 f/3.5 SL II APO-Lanthar lens test
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Cheapest I've found on ebay (HK): Click here to see on Ebay (444 euros). In Germany lowest ebay price I see is 459,99 euros.

So USD450 is really a good price!

There's a SL I version in Pentax mount on ebay now. So much nicer looking than the SLII. Smile But for Canon shooters the extra money for the SLII is worth it for the native mount (no messing with adapters and auto aperture+correct EXIF).


I got mine USD 395, near mint Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Cheapest I've found on ebay (HK): Click here to see on Ebay (444 euros). In Germany lowest ebay price I see is 459,99 euros.

So USD450 is really a good price!

There's a SL I version in Pentax mount on ebay now. So much nicer looking than the SLII. Smile But for Canon shooters the extra money for the SLII is worth it for the native mount (no messing with adapters and auto aperture+correct EXIF).


That Pentax one on Ebay is mine, and is not recommended to Canon shooters anyway because of the aperture pin mechanism will interfere, and you can't mount it even with an adapter Smile


[Edit] Ah, I guess you were comparing the SLI vs SLII both in EF Smile))


PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let me try to rub some salt: Laughing

Click here to see on Ebay
SL1: Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
That Pentax one on Ebay is mine, and is not recommended to Canon shooters anyway because of the aperture pin mechanism will interfere, and you can't mount it even with an adapter Smile


By the way, I saw some LoCA in the second last picture, is that a hidden jab at other non-Apo macro? Laughing Very nice price and nice lens by the way, the bargain that I posted on the previous post are very unusual. I have been monitoring the price of Apo 90 in various incarnation for the last 5 months...


PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:


By the way, I saw some LoCA in the second last picture, is that a hidden jab at other non-Apo macro? Laughing


Hehehe, definitely easy to see, eh? Smile I believe I used a CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 for that shot. After shooting Apo, everything has terrible CA, even my Distagon 35/1.4 Wink


PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
I don't know about veiling flare (in backlight situations), but it's probably not much of an issue with the small front element.

As for as veiling flare, you have to distinguish between the SLI and SLII models. The SLI has a chrome ring in front of the front element, which can lead to some nasty flare when shooting against the light. The SLII version doesn't have this issue.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
The SLI has a chrome ring in front of the front element, which can lead to some nasty flare when shooting against the light.


So does the Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF, and it's never been an issue as long as you use the lens hood. Btw, isn't front light the reason why hoods should be used anyway? Cool

Vilhelm


PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
Abbazz wrote:
The SLI has a chrome ring in front of the front element, which can lead to some nasty flare when shooting against the light.

So does the Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF, and it's never been an issue as long as you use the lens hood. Btw, isn't front light the reason why hoods should be used anyway? Cool


Yeah but honestly speaking, Voigtlaender's multicoating is miles behind Zeiss' T*
Flaring in backlight is the only real shortcoming of the 3.5/90 apolanthar.
The apolanthar needs the hood nearly always, whereas the 1.4/85 needs it only in extreme situations.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agree Orio, agree. I find the Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF a better lens for most (thanks to fast aperture), but when it's high-contrast CA country I am shooting I'll pick the SL 90/3.5 anytime. I'm partial about price-quality though, I paid the same for both lenses - purchased for 500 EUR each. If I had paid EUR 1190 for the ZF and 400-500 EUR for the 90/3.5 then I'd probably be a little more reserved about the Zeiss 85/1.4 price/quality ratio Cool


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Yeah but honestly speaking, Voigtlaender's multicoating is miles behind Zeiss' T*
Flaring in backlight is the only real shortcoming of the 3.5/90 apolanthar.
The apolanthar needs the hood nearly always, whereas the 1.4/85 needs it only in extreme situations.


Esox lucius wrote:
Agree Orio, agree. I find the Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF a better lens for most (thanks to fast aperture), but when it's high-contrast CA country I am shooting I'll pick the SL 90/3.5 anytime.


sorry to bring the discussion backward for a newbie question

advanced coating of Zeiss T* --> eliminate flare (but Zeiss is CA prone)
APO optic formula of Voigt --> eliminate CA (but Voigt is flare prone)

is that correct ?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They should make some type of fusion. Result would be interesting.
no CA and no flares? with new T*APO lenses Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kopimorning wrote:


advanced coating of Zeiss T* --> eliminate flare (but Zeiss is CA prone)
APO optic formula of Voigt --> eliminate CA (but Voigt is flare prone)

is that correct ?


Well, I wouldn't call the Zeiss Z series prone to develop CA. They compare favorably with fast lenses, but when compared with virtually or factually CA-free Voigtländer APO SL series yes 0.7 pixels is more than 0.1 pixels.

I hold the whole modern Z line in very high regard, only the 50/1.4 ZF I would not qualify in my bag even if I had the excess cash to build a system too large than I need.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:38 am    Post subject: Re: Voigtländer 90 f/3.5 SL II APO-Lanthar lens test Reply with quote
kopimorning wrote:
Recently acquire Voigtländer 90 f/3.5 SL II APO-Lanthar

Here are some boring lens test samples using D40, all wide open

Flowers, ISO 200, 1/250s, f/3.5


Water droplets (with close focus lens), ISO 200, 1/250s, f/3.5


Shocked Shocked Shocked Cool


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kopimorning wrote:

sorry to bring the discussion backward for a newbie question
advanced coating of Zeiss T* --> eliminate flare (but Zeiss is CA prone)
APO optic formula of Voigt --> eliminate CA (but Voigt is flare prone)
is that correct ?


Well, not really - guess who invented the Apo lenses? Wink

anyway - coating (multi-coating) is something that all lens makers do today. But like different restaurants, all have different recipes for it. Zeiss' happens to be the most performing one. Also because Zeiss declares (quite proudly) that they apply different recipes of coating to different glass elements, according to the different types of glass used. This because in a lens there are different elements that require different types of glass (or sometimes of other materials), and every type of glass needs a specific formula of coating to perform optimally. Also, this method allows (also in Zeiss own words) to obtain that colour consistency from lens to lens that is one of the most appreciate features in the Zeiss catalogue.

Apochromatic is a designation that applies to the lenses who offer a (nearly) perfect correction of the focus in all the three wavelenghts of additive light system (red green and blue). Apochromatic was invented by Zeiss, quite a long time ago, and it's a way to build lenses that is more expensive than the normal. For this reason not all lenses are build Apo, and those that are, usually cost more than non-Apo lenses. Today Apo design is also something that many if not most makers do for some of their lenses. The big merit of Voigtlaender's Apo in my opinion is that it brings this important feature within the financial reach of the amateurs - in the past, Apo lenses were priced for professionals only, just make ebay searches for Aposonnar and Tele-Apotessar and see for yourself...


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
[So does the Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF, and it's never been an issue as long as you use the lens hood. Btw, isn't front light the reason why hoods should be used anyway?

The issue with the 90/3.5 is that the les hood uses the external bayonet of the lens, which means the chrome ring is still in front of the lens, even with the hood mounted.

Cheers,

Abbazz


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
The issue with the 90/3.5 is that the les hood uses the external bayonet of the lens, which means the chrome ring is still in front of the lens, even with the hood mounted.


... and the Planar hood attaches in the exact same way, leaving a larger chrome ring in an angle more exposed to the front element.

The center part of the Planar's front element extends to the same height as where its chrome ring starts. The APO-Lanthar front element is almost completely hidden by the inner barrel, as the front element is situated 14mm below the lower edge of its chrome ring. When looking from the side of the lens, with no hoods attached, one can easily see that the angle of attack of light bounced off the chrome ring is unlikely to hit the front element of the APO-Lanthar, whereas the Planar front element is completely exposed to light bounced from its chrome ring - attaching Planar hood does not change it.





The Planar cost 3 times more when new, and has more advanced coating. The differences in flair tolerance are likelier explained by the letters T* than barrel design.

I like them both so much that I'll never sell them, but once again: they are two completely different lenses for different situations - you can't compare apples with oranges.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
... and the Planar hood attaches in the exact same way, leaving a larger chrome ring in an angle more exposed to the front element.

The center part of the Planar's front element extends to the same height as where its chrome ring starts. The APO-Lanthar front element is almost completely hidden by the inner barrel, as the front element is situated 14mm below the lower edge of its chrome ring. When looking from the side of the lens, with no hoods attached, one can easily see that the angle of attack of light bounced off the chrome ring is unlikely to hit the front element of the APO-Lanthar, whereas the Planar front element is completely exposed to light bounced from its chrome ring - attaching Planar hood does not change it.

I like them both so much that I'll never sell them, but once again: they are two completely different lenses for different situations - you can't compare apples with oranges.

Sorry, but I don't really get your point. I wasn't the one who did compare the Apo Lanthar with the Planar. I fully agree regarding the better flare resistance of the Zeiss lens. I love the Apo Lanthar, I just think the chrome ring is a very annoying design flaw on the 1st version. Luckily, it doesn't show on the newer SLII version, or on the 125/2.5 and 180/4 lenses.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kopimorning wrote:

sorry to bring the discussion backward for a newbie question
advanced coating of Zeiss T* --> eliminate flare (but Zeiss is CA prone)
APO optic formula of Voigt --> eliminate CA (but Voigt is flare prone)
is that correct ?


Well, not really - guess who invented the Apo lenses? Wink

anyway - coating (multi-coating) is something that all lens makers do today. But like different restaurants, all have different recipes for it. Zeiss' happens to be the most performing one. Also because Zeiss declares (quite proudly) that they apply different recipes of coating to different glass elements, according to the different types of glass used. This because in a lens there are different elements that require different types of glass (or sometimes of other materials), and every type of glass needs a specific formula of coating to perform optimally. Also, this method allows (also in Zeiss own words) to obtain that colour consistency from lens to lens that is one of the most appreciate features in the Zeiss catalogue.

Apochromatic is a designation that applies to the lenses who offer a (nearly) perfect correction of the focus in all the three wavelenghts of additive light system (red green and blue). Apochromatic was invented by Zeiss, quite a long time ago, and it's a way to build lenses that is more expensive than the normal. For this reason not all lenses are build Apo, and those that are, usually cost more than non-Apo lenses. Today Apo design is also something that many if not most makers do for some of their lenses. The big merit of Voigtlaender's Apo in my opinion is that it brings this important feature within the financial reach of the amateurs - in the past, Apo lenses were priced for professionals only, just make ebay searches for Aposonnar and Tele-Apotessar and see for yourself...


yes I agree but the Contax Apo Lenses live in a different world.
I believe only in the Zeiss' MTF...because it calculates them testing on the lens.
The Canon MTF are liars!
the Sonnar 3.5/100 isn't an apo lens and it is a very sharp lens (specially stopped-down)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2