NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Jim Covello on August 17, 2017, 20:56:12
-
I have the previous version and love it.
-
Same here. Their 58/1.4 has recently been revived, so I am not surprised.
-
Link(s) please :)
-
Look at nikonrumors.com
-
the link ;)
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigtlander/english/e-slr-mount/index.html
-
Nice!
Voigtlander, now reintroduce the 180mm, 125mm and 90mm apo-lanthars.
-
They appear to have deleted the close-up lens, which is a pity but hardly a big deal, and the hood is now an optional extra and a standard shape, which increases the effective price and makes the new lens not quite as pocket-friendly as the old one.
-
They appear to have deleted the close-up lens, which is a pity but hardly a big deal, and the hood is now an optional extra and a standard shape, which increases the effective price and makes the new lens not quite as pocket-friendly as the old one.
The new version can focus up to 25cm on its own, which is way more handy than the accompanying closeup lens, and this would be the reason for the elongated lens barrel (longer travel of the lens for closer focusing).
-
Nice!
Voigtlander, now reintroduce the 180mm, 125mm and 90mm apo-lanthars.
Yes, and make them E-mount native with CPU contacts . . . (and make F-mount versions too of course).
So, since a company like Cosina is putting out re-made F-mount lenses, does this mean that they have a heads up from Nikon that a mirrorless FX camera from Nikon would have the same sensor-to-mount distances, or do these companies not even talk about such stuff and Cosina is just putting out low-effort lens updates for the current Nikon DSLRs?
-
So, since a company like Cosina is putting out re-made F-mount lenses, does this mean that they have a heads up from Nikon that a mirrorless FX camera from Nikon would have the same sensor-to-mount distances, or do these companies not even talk about such stuff and Cosina is just putting out low-effort lens updates for the current Nikon DSLRs?
No, Nikon have already filed some lenses for the full-frame mirrorless system. So, the flange back should be much shorter.
That said, I guess that Nikon has learned the hard lesson from their "failure" by disabling Nikon 1 to meter with the lenses of different makes and from different periods attached via simple adapters.
-
Interesting. The optical formula appears to be very similar, close focus is indeed better (equivalent to earlier versions with close-up lens), but the form factor and weight is no longer panca-kish...
-
I'm a bit skeptical though. On the former version, the close-up lens allows closer focus without quality loss. On the contrary, the Voigt 58/1.4 can focus pretty close without close-up lens, but gets very soft in the process (unless you stop down by quite a bit, which is OK for conventional macro). Extending the helicoid does not guarantee good performance.
Anyway, nice to see a good design being revived.
-
The optical design of 40/2.0 is fairly symmetric, so close-focus performance could be decent without attachment.
I would rather consider the attachment for the previous version as the compensation for the mechanical limitation of the lens travel due to its short pancake barrel. The same goes with Ai-P 45/2.8.
-
I wonder how well it performs at close range. Most unit-focusing lenses are optimised for infinity or far distances, and the near focus distance is limited at the point where optical performance starts to drop off (usually a little less than 10x focal length). Indeed, the older 40mm Ultron focuses to 0.38m, but it comes a dedicated close-up lens to reduce the focus distance to 0.25m. If the the close-up lens is well matched to the lens it could provide improved image quality at close range, compared to increasing magnification purely by extension.
Now the new version focuses to 0.25m without a close-up lens, and the optical design appears unchanged, so we might expect some drop in performance at very close range. On the other hand, sharpness near the center of the image usually remains fairly good, the corners suffer more, and close-ups are often of subjects like flowers which are placed centrally and corners are not in focus anyway. Also, closeups are usually shot stopped down which improves performance, so maybe this is a good compromise. Continuous focusing to close range is certainly far more convenient than fiddling with close-up lenses.
The new lens is not as compact as older versions, but is still very small compared to most other similar lenses such as the AFS 35/1.8 or AFS 50/1.8. It is about the same size, but heavier than the AFD 50/1.8.
I love the classic styling of this lens, and with a modern optical design, CPU, useful focal length and speed, compact design with close focusing, it is a very appealing package... The question is, do I really need another standard lens?? :o :)
-
Yes ! (at least, ex post I'd always find a good justification). Consider the FL, which is unusual but (to me) very convenient...
-
I liked Ai-P 45/2.8 on F100 and D750. But I found two shortcomings. The closest focusing distance was a bit too far (45cm) and, even though it is of a simple 4E3G Tessar design, it is prone to ghosting, unlike more complicated AF-S 50/1.8G.
So, I would consider the ability to focus up to 25cm on its own is more preferable than the attachment solution, especially for such a "handy" all-rounder.
On the other hand, I'm not big fan of the hill-and-dale focusing ring of old Nikkor. I didn't feel the operation is comfortable because its handling changes according to the angle of the ring. I would much prefer the the finely knurled focus ring of, say, Zeiss Classic series lenses, so far as the all-metal focus ring is concerned.
-
The question is, do I really need another standard lens?? :o :)
And the answer is: YES!!
Dave who vicariously enjoys helping others spend their money.
-
What is special about this particular price of glass? Why should I lust after it? ...other than it is the most unwide of wide angle lenses or two millimeters two wide for me to consider it a normal lens.
Why should I lust after the new Voigtlander 40/2 lens?
Dave
-
Thanks Dave. I was playing with the idea of replacing my AFD 50/1.8 with the AFS version, so my wife has an "automatic" lens to use. The AFD is fine but the bokeh isn't great, I heard good things about the AFS, but just can't bring myself to buying a plastic fantastic.
Why should you lust after the new 40/2? It looks cool.
-
The Australian distributor has these here: www.mainlinephoto.com.au/lens/eos-mount-lenses
The new 40/2 is quoted at $A675 (incl 10% GST). This is about $US540. However with the tax off for OS customers this reduces to $US491, and then there is a 15% one off discount off this figure (to $US417) for just this weekend only...... ;D
(I have no business or financial relationship with Mainline Photo; I have however found them good to deal with.)
And the answer is: YES!!
Dave who vicariously enjoys helping others spend their money.
-
What is special about this particular price of glass?
It has a nearly symmetrical design, which means a low level of distortion, coma and lateral colour, which, even if you don't care about distortion and coma for your uses, means better "sharpness" in the periphery than most "normal" lenses. As you say, "normal" for 36 x 24 is 43mm, but there is no lens closer to 43mm except the Nikon 45mm, which gives up a stop and is ergonomically terrible, and in any case sells for as much second-hand as the Voigtlander costs new. The old lens was beautifully made and a pleasure to handle and use; the optical design of the new lens is the same as the old one, and there is no reason to think the build quality will be different.
The people for whom the lens is most special are users of the FM2/3; the size and weight match better than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI-S and it is superior to the Nikon 45mm f/2.8 (the kit lens for the FM3) and the Nikon 50/1.8 E series. The old lens was also a good "normal" lens on modern cameras whenever size and weight were considerations, and for people who just like a looser "normal".
Whether the gain in size and weight with the new model, and the removal of the inverted cone shade, changes anything we will have to handle the lens to see.