NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Macro_Cosmos on March 23, 2018, 06:03:26
-
I consulted an optics engineer that I know and according to him, the CV Apo-Lanthar lenses aren't truly apochromatic, they are however somewhat close, obviously closer to the Sigma FakePO lenses. The simple logic here is that producing an apochromatic lens with high transmission index is way more expensive than the retail prices of these lenses.
I decided to ask about the Zeiss Apo-Sonnar, which he gave the same conclusion above. The Otus however he called "midrange" apochromatic corrected. The really good, truly apochromatic lenses from Zeiss are well known and extremely expensive. There's also the "sapo" which stands for super apochromatic, he showed me a couple from his collection. I'd love to show them here but he kindly asked me not to. Some truly fascinating lenses that I have never seen, and Google yields practically nothing.
The Otus line is truly optically amazing, but favours CA correction instead of the Zeiss characteristic in colour. I used to like many others think colours are all just bogus and can be replicated in post. I was wrong, it's simple. Correcting for CA requires throttling certain wavelengths of light, making them desaturated. This can be fixed in post to some extent. A truly apochromatic lens however retains such colours as well as adequate correction.
Enjoy hunting! :)
-
:o :o :o
-
Too bad you are not allowed to write about the lenses you refer to,,,
We have talked a lot about the APO Lanthar over the years, among many threads this one:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,14.msg25.html#msg25 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,14.msg25.html#msg25)
And also APO'ish alternatives:
Here is a long search for perfection or near perfection
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6728.msg108134.html#msg108134 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6728.msg108134.html#msg108134)
Yes APO is just a marketing hype name in most cases, but for some of us it is a must in some cases or it will take a lot of PP to get a usable image,,, sometimes not even possible,,,
-
Indeed, APO is not a standard, so all kinds of lens are labelled as APO. Within my budget, I collect them, but not to sit them on a shelf, but to use them for photography.
I would like to know the names of the truly-truly APO lenses. Ones we are familiar with must include the UV-Nikkor 105mm, which is beyond my pay grade, but I do know the Coastal Optics 60mm macro. I would agree that the Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar is “somewhat close” to being APO, enough at least for me to use it a lot, but I am aware that it does not compare to the Printing Nikkors, of which I have a few, the 95mm, 105mm, and the 150mm. Of the 150mm Printing Nikkors I have both the common one and the earlier version, which are quite different.
The Zeiss Otus series (include IMO the 135mm) are good enough, IMO, to be called APO and the APO-El Nikkor 105mm is among my most-used lenses. If the super apochromatic lenses are all macro (1:1 and above), even if I could afford them I would not use them much, being a close-up photographer.
If those of you who know would point out what these super APO lenses are, who made them, etc. I would love to study more about them.
-
Oh my, how I love stuff like that, "I saw it and it was soo great, but I cannot talk about it" ;-)
So here a bit about them:
Superachromats are long known and are based on the works of Maximilian Herzberger and his patent(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superachromat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superachromat) about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Herzberger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Herzberger)
He worked for ZEISS, but being Jewish, was forced to leave Germany to the US where he then worked for KODAK.
If someone wants to read about it, here: https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-2-6-553 (https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-2-6-553)
Those Superachromats are difficult to make, since extremely tight tolerances are needed, otherwise the "super-achromaticity" is lost.
ZEISS made some for Hasselblad, the 5.6/350mm for example and later the advanced 2.8/300mm (one currently for sale in DE for EUR35.000).
PS: if you like to buy a CV Makro Apo Lanthar, buy them directly in Japan, they are much cheaper there...got mine for less than 50% of ebay prices :-)
-
Oh my, how I love stuff like that, "I saw it and it was soo great, but I cannot talk about it" ;-)
So here a bit about them:
Superachromats are long known and are based on the works of Maximilian Herzberger and his patent(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superachromat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superachromat) about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Herzberger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Herzberger)
He worked for ZEISS, but being Jewish, was forced to leave Germany to the US where he then worked for KODAK.
If someone wants to read about it, here: https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-2-6-553 (https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-2-6-553)
Those Superachromats are difficult to make, since extremely tight tolerances are needed, otherwise the "super-achromaticity" is lost.
ZEISS made some for Hasselblad the 5.6/350mm for example.
Thanks Klaus: Can you give proper names and descriptions or links as to some of these super apochromatic lenses, so I could start to follow them. You know what lenses I have; what should I be looking for in this regard. Thanks.
-
Thanks Klaus: Can you give proper names and descriptions or links as to some of these super apochromatic lenses, so I could start to follow them. You know what lenses I have; what should I be looking for in this regard. Thanks.
If you plug in "Hasselblad Superachromat" in ebay search, you'll find quite a few. Those are all Tele-Lenses, not optimized and suitable for macro use, I fear (as I know your interest and work Michael). And Hasselblad lenses are a PITA to use (been there, done that with the Habla UV-Sonnar 105mm)
-
If you plug in "Hasselblad Superachromat" in ebay search, you'll find quite a few. Those are all Tele-Lenses, not optimized and suitable for macro use, I fear (as I know your interest and work Michael). And Hasselblad lenses are a PITA to use (been there, done that with the Habla UV-Sonnar 105mm)
There must be other super-APO-chromatic lenses that would be more approachable.
-
There must be other super-APO-chromatic lenses that would be more approachable.
Haven't found any so far...
-
Oh my, how I love stuff like that, "I saw it and it was soo great, but I cannot talk about it" ;-)(...)
Especially if the thread starter chooses to post anonymously on this forum. There is a reason why I registered with my real name and later on changed it. Whenever I see one of these anonymous guys here I wonder what they have to hide... definitely not trust inspiring.
-
Michael I have heard the Takumar Ultra-Achromat 85mm f4 for M42 is a pretty special lens. I think Andrea has got one.
Macro-Cosmos - every so often you get lucky - there have been a handful of Apo-Lanthars 125mm on Gumtree in Oz. A Canon EF mount was for sale in Melb for $1100 for about 3 months without takers. There was a Nikon mount sold for about A$1600. It's a matter of keeping an eye on it.
As Dr Klause writes, they are available in Japan and far more reasonably priced than HKG or Singapore. They are still going up in price despite the Milvus 135mm....
-
Michael I have heard the Takumar Ultra-Achromat 85mm f4 for M42 is a pretty special lens. I think Andrea has got one.
Macro-Cosmos - every so often you get lucky - there have been a handful of Apo-Lanthars 125mm on Gumtree in Oz. A Canon EF mount was for sale in Melb for $1100 for about 3 months without takers. There was a Nikon mount sold for about A$1600. It's a matter of keeping an eye on it.
As Dr Klause writes, they are available in Japan and far more reasonably priced than HKG or Singapore. They are still going up in price despite the Milvus 135mm....
I have the Ultra-Achromatic Takumar 85mm, and as much as I like it, an uncoated 70s lens cannot fulfil Micheasl expectations. It is great for UV though and has no noticeable CA.
-
Indeed, APO is not a standard, so all kinds of lens are labelled as APO. Within my budget, I collect them, but not to sit them on a shelf, but to use them for photography.
I would like to know the names of the truly-truly APO lenses. Ones we are familiar with must include the UV-Nikkor 105mm, which is beyond my pay grade, but I do know the Coastal Optics 60mm macro. I would agree that the Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar is “somewhat close” to being APO, enough at least for me to use it a lot, but I am aware that it does not compare to the Printing Nikkors, of which I have a few, the 95mm, 105mm, and the 150mm. Of the 150mm Printing Nikkors I have both the common one and the earlier version, which are quite different.
The Zeiss Otus series (include IMO the 135mm) are good enough, IMO, to be called APO and the APO-El Nikkor 105mm is among my most-used lenses. If the super apochromatic lenses are all macro (1:1 and above), even if I could afford them I would not use them much, being a close-up photographer.
If those of you who know would point out what these super APO lenses are, who made them, etc. I would love to study more about them.
The ones you've included are on my list of "truly apochromatic lenses" as well. There's also the Zeiss sapo lenses, Ultra-micro-nikkors, and the entire apo-El Nikkor lenses. Really nice stuff. There's a lot of really good Rodenstock, Schneider, and some Leica lenses that are also highly apochromatic. Super APO refers to s-apo lenses, exotic and hard to find. There's also sCCD and sCMOS cameras, S here usually refers to either scientific or super. Really conventional names, but expect to pay an extra zero to get close to them. Lots of the extremely high end industrial lenses and microscope objectives are also apo-corrected, some don't have the letters in their names. The CO 60mm you have despite its small shortcomings is one supreme piece of glass. I wish I could get one as well ;)
Correction: S-apo is a notation he likes to use, to define the high end apochromatic lenses. It turns out that some of the lenses he showed me are under the label of SPlanar. These have a ridiculous pricetag, just like the superchromats: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Hasselblad-S-Planar-T-C-120mm-F5-6-Medium-Format-Camera-Zeiss-Lens-Near-Mint/323035729983?hash=item4b366e103f:g:fZAAAOSwLlVam5GF
Oh my, how I love stuff like that, "I saw it and it was soo great, but I cannot talk about it" ;-)
So here a bit about them:
Superachromats are long known and are based on the works of Maximilian Herzberger and his patent(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superachromat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superachromat) about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Herzberger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Herzberger)
He worked for ZEISS, but being Jewish, was forced to leave Germany to the US where he then worked for KODAK.
If someone wants to read about it, here: https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-2-6-553 (https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-2-6-553)
Those Superachromats are difficult to make, since extremely tight tolerances are needed, otherwise the "super-achromaticity" is lost.
ZEISS made some for Hasselblad, the 5.6/350mm for example and later the advanced 2.8/300mm (one currently for sale in DE for EUR35.000).
PS: if you like to buy a CV Makro Apo Lanthar, buy them directly in Japan, they are much cheaper there...got mine for less than 50% of ebay prices :-)
Yeah, unfortunately. I'd love to show them, but he asked me not to. I did google all of them, yielded absolutely no results, so you'd have to take my word on it. Kodak is also an interesting company, they are seemingly "bankrupt"... but being the frontiers of CCD cameras and holding almost a natural monopoly on them... the amount of money they get paid each year is quite staggering. Nice advice on the CV 125mm :) I do have it on a list of "must buy" when I eventually visit Japan, along with many other exotic/fun things that can't be had in kangaroo land.
Especially if the thread starter chooses to post anonymously on this forum. There is a reason why I registered with my real name and later on changed it. Whenever I see one of these anonymous guys here I wonder what they have to hide... definitely not trust inspiring.
Ehhhh, why do you dislike anonymity? Actually, I'm not anonymous. My screen name "Macro Cosmos" can also be found on flickr and instagram, which links to my real identity.
So yeah, before making such an allegation, it would be a great idea to think of the reasons. The "I wonder what they have to hide" is a notion that really makes me cringe. "If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide", right? I'm sure you know who said it, and I'm sure most people knows what such lines of reasoning ultimately leads to. I'm not angry or anything, I'm just here to share my thoughts and the knowledge I gained from people who I consider teachers. Screen name of not doesn't reflect on the validity of statements. My reason for using a screen name is basically because my name is too generic, and my full name is a tongue twister. The screen name sounds way better. Malicious? No.
My friend who has helped me a lot with my various photographic assignments asked me to not share them, no amount of doubting will make me concede. He has actually been the victim of IP fraud, he buys and exchanges those lenses to study on, so I can totally see the reason and respect his decision. Oh... and aren't you anonymously posting?
Michael I have heard the Takumar Ultra-Achromat 85mm f4 for M42 is a pretty special lens. I think Andrea has got one.
Macro-Cosmos - every so often you get lucky - there have been a handful of Apo-Lanthars 125mm on Gumtree in Oz. A Canon EF mount was for sale in Melb for $1100 for about 3 months without takers. There was a Nikon mount sold for about A$1600. It's a matter of keeping an eye on it.
As Dr Klause writes, they are available in Japan and far more reasonably priced than HKG or Singapore. They are still going up in price despite the Milvus 135mm....
Yeah, you are right here. I've seen those circulating around. To be honest, I can't justify paying $1600 for it. I paid $1000 for my 85mm pc-e, $950 for my 24mm pc-e (shift locking mechanism is broken but I put some nylon screws into a panorama rail which I use anyway to provide support for the lens), I also paid $160 for an ultra-micro-nikkor, which I flipped for $800. There's lots of great deals to be had. Japan's used camera stores are definitely a treasure box to me. I'm still desperately trying to get access to the lab equipment dumpsters of my university, I want some precision equipment that has been replaced/damaged. Sick of hunting them down on fleabay.
-
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cameraphotosupplyonline.com%2Fthumbs%2F152298327901_1.jpg&f=1
Here's an S-biogon.
There's also a lot of S-Planar and 2 S-Distagon lenses I saw. Can't find any information on them.
S-orthaplanar:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-S-Orthoplanar-60-4-Macro-Camera-Lens-M42-Screw-Mount-/301262643261
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2655%2F3867527742_a40cbde0c4.jpg&f=1
https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Zeiss-Opton-S-Orthoplanar-5-6-105mm-/261570807187
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SOP105.jpg
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%83%84%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%82%B9%E3%81%AE%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA%E8%A3%BD%E5%93%81%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7
There's lots of these S-(insert optical setup here type of lenses. Fascinating, I'd love to be able to test one some day.
-
As Dr Klause writes, they are available in Japan and far more reasonably priced than HKG or Singapore. They are still going up in price despite the Milvus 135mm....
The Zeiss Milvus/Apo Sonnar f/2 (same lens, different casing) is a terrific lens, in some ways, but can in no way replace the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5.
I bought and sold the Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar, twice, because (when all is said and done) it is almost useless as a nature lens compared to the Voigtländer 125mm.
The CV 125 has a closer focusing distance, it has 4x the reproduction ratio, it is lighter, it has more than twice the focus throw, and (ultimately, IMO) it produces better, more pleasing images.
I love the images my CV 125 produces ...
I did not 'love' the images I got from the Zeiss Apo Sonnar (aka: Milvus 135).
Yes, the Zeiss is sharp, very sharp, but it over-saturates the colors in my opinion, and its extreme sharpness + almost harsh, over-saturated colors were not 'beautiful,' imo.
It also renders colors a little on the warm side, for my taste.
By contrast, the CV 125 renders colors almost perfectly. There is a "naturalness" to the images produced by the CV 125.
The colors are smooth, beautiful, and it is sharp enough to stand out as excellent, without being so sharp, and so saturated, as to look harsh and unnatural.
I could never justify bringing the Zeiss APO Sonnar with me on a nature hike: too heavy, too limited in what it can do.
By contrast, I would never think about going on a nature hike without the CV 125.
It can do anything the Zeiss Apo Sonnar can do (as well or better, IMO), and there are dozens of field applications the CV 125 can do ... that the Apo Sonnar/Milvus cannot do.
-
To be honest, I can't justify paying $1600 for it.
Then why talk so much about the lens, and other ($4,000 - $9,000) "apo" lenses, if spending $1600 sends you into a tailspin? :o ::)
I paid $1000 for my 85mm pc-e, $950 for my 24mm pc-e (shift locking mechanism is broken but I put some nylon screws into a panorama rail which I use anyway to provide support for the lens), I also paid $160 for an ultra-micro-nikkor, which I flipped for $800. There's lots of great deals to be had. Japan's used camera stores are definitely a treasure box to me. I'm still desperately trying to get access to the lab equipment dumpsters of my university, I want some precision equipment that has been replaced/damaged. Sick of hunting them down on fleabay.
Those lenses are not not in the same league with the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5.
You also don't need to 'go' to Japan to find one, they're on Ebay (listed by multiple Japanese vendors) from $1600 to $2,000 for a pristine copy, maybe up to $2,500 for a mint copy with box, etc.
Personally, I don't need the box, I just need what it can do.
If you only stack dead insects in a studio, then you'll never appreciate the CV 125.
But if you go out and stack live insects (or flowers) in subtle morning light, the 630° of focus throw + the CV's excellent sharpness wide-open, punctuated with its subtle ability to render bokeh/color gradations will captivate you.
As a macro shooter, you'll find it's the best $1,600 you ever spent ;)
-
LOL. Jack sounds exactly like I used to sound, going on and on about the virtues of the CV-125. I totally agree and have had four of them, one for Pentax, but I sold that when I sold my Pentax K3 and K1. I still have some, including one never used.
However, I don’t agree about the quality of the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 and still depend on it for certain kinds of shots that I want crystal clear. I have no trouble with the colors, myself. I include a Zeiss 135mm shots one with the whole shot and a crop. Now, I like this look, myself.
If you want to know where the mother of the CV-125 can be found, it is in the Leica 100mm APO-Macro Elmarit-R, which I had to convert the mount for Nikon, but it is even more lovely than the CV-125 and as something like a 720-degree focus throw. It too can travel, but is a little more fussy than the CV-125.
I dearly love the CV-125 as you know Jack, because I used to tell you about it when you were loving the Sigma 180 Macro. I find that I go through cycles of using the CV-125. I use it a bunch and then get tired of its too-soft approach and yearn to clear all that up for a while, if you understand me. Yes, it is sharp enough, but there is a softness or lack-of-crisp that is what endears me to it, but also which I get tired of. And it’s not my copy, because I have several of them.
Do you know what I’m talking about?
Probably the D810 and the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm
-
LOL. Jack sounds exactly like I used to sound, going on and on about the virtues of the CV-125. I totally agree and have had four of them, one for Pentax, but I sold that when I sold my Pentax K3 and K1. I still have some, including one never used.
Lol, guilty as charged, Michael :)
I will respond to the rest later, as I have to get ready for a court appearance, but the image you posted is one of my favorites from you.
In closing, I will say I've got some incredibly-sharp CV images ... which I will post later in the evening :)
Cheers ...
-
Lol, guilty as charged, Michael :)
I will respond to the rest later, as I have to get ready for a court appearance, but the image you posted is one of my favorites from you.
In closing, I will say I've got some incredibly-sharp CV images ... which I will post later in the evening :)
Cheers ...
I hear you, and I do too, but perhaps you missed the point. It's NOT that the CV-125 can't be sharp. It can. It's that it has an all-around sense of softness that is what endears it to me, but which I tire of. It does not lend itself to all subjects, which is why I use it only for certain subjects.
Unlike you, I am no longer a field photographer, so I no longer am limited by what lenses I can haul with me. I totally was and had everything in a tiny 10"x10" canvas messenger bag. Now I enjoy choosing the lens for the task at hand.
Showing me sharp CV-125 images won't mean anything to me although I'm happy to see them. I know that lens. Understanding what I am pointing out here would impress me.
-
The 125mm APO Lanthar has on top of sharpens,,,;
Color transition and smooth graduations, same as the Noct Nikkor and similar to the AFS f/1.4 lenses as well as 200mm AFS f/2.0
-
The views about how sharp specific lenses are vary - beyond the sample variation.
Not to forget that sharpness is only one part of the multidimensional equation.
I see the CV 125/2,5 a remarkable lens and its rendering unique (very sharp BTW but no "brutal" rendering) , it is worth paying more than 1600$ (which is a bargain for F-mount types IMHO)
Probable we all here share the "lens-cycles" affecting us - can be inspiring if things go well.
-
Just for fun, here is an image taken with the Nikon D850 and the Leica 100mm APO Macro Elmarit-R. The day is rainy and overcast, so there is not the best light. You get some idea of the detail this lens offers. And the Leica 100mm is easy to take into the field and it weighs less than the CV-125.
CV-125 1.75 lb/ ounces (794 gm)
Leica 100 1.67 lb/ounces (760 gm)
And with the Leica, the color takes almost no adjustment, which is not true for the CV-125.
-
The CV 125 has a closer focusing distance, it has 4x the reproduction ratio, it is lighter, it has more than twice the focus throw, and (ultimately, IMO) it produces better, more pleasing images.
The CV 125 has a longer focus throw precisely because it focuses closer and covers a greater range of magnifications. When considering the same focus distance, or same magnification range, I think you will find the Zeiss 135/2 actually has a longer focus throw...
-
I've posted this here before, but it hearkens to when I sat at the shrine of the CV-125, which I still love a lot. If you only have one macro lens and your climbing Mt. Everest, the CV-125 is as good as any, although it is a bit delicate for heavy field hiking. Still, I did it for years.
It is more fun for me to appreciate a variety of lenses, each with their endearing aspects and flaws. It's like which of my kids do I love the most. I love them all, each in their own way.
-
I just got back from my court appearance, and I will finish my response to this post:
However, I don’t agree about the quality of the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 and still depend on it for certain kinds of shots that I want crystal clear. I have no trouble with the colors, myself. I include a Zeiss 135mm shots one with the whole shot and a crop. Now, I like this look, myself.
What you don't realize is the image you posted up top (2nd) typifies why the Zeiss got sold, twice, and that is because ... when it comes to the details of the insects themselves, the Zeiss fumbles every time.
The first image (the FULL image on top, with all the water, the trees, etc.) is one of my favorites from you, as I said, it is truly beautiful :)
However, the crop (just the beetles themselves) is ... meh, something that I would never accept as a macro image of an insect.
The Zeiss only has a 1:4 reproduction ratio, whereas the CV has a 1:1 ratio. This is a massive difference!
More than just 'on paper' ... it truly affects the Zeiss' application potential (even you said, in your book, "It's a hard lens to use.")
IMO, the CV 125 could have taken just as good an image of "the whole" as your Zeiss did ... but the CV would have taken a 10x better image of the insects themselves. That's the point you're not truly acknowledging.
Thus, as I said, Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Macro can do anything the Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar can do (as a telephoto) ... but it can also achieve a level of perfection, up close, that the Zeiss never will.
I know you've seen this one of mine before, as I have yours, but it underscores my point:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4475/37425431370_bbd4e1d663_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z2a7S7)
Honey Bee (https://flic.kr/p/Z2a7S7) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
The Zeiss could never take an image of a bee like that, it would literally be impossible.
That bee is only about 10mm. It's plenty sharp with the CV 125, where it needs to be, totally realistic colors, and fine bokeh elsewhere.
Basic math will help understand why the Zeiss could never take an image like this.
Taken @ 1:1, a 10mm bee fills about 1/3rd the 36mm frame, using the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo. (That's close to 30% of the frame.)
Taken @ 1:4, that 10mm bee only fills 1/14th the the 36mm frame, using the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo. (That's a tiny 7% of the frame.)
There's no way you could crop-in that far and retain image quality. And that's it in a nutshell:
You have to crop so far in with the Zeiss, you render almost any arthropod image useless.
The ONLY time the Zeiss 135 Apo can hold a candle to the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo, is if you're using the entire frame.
And, even here, when used as a telephoto, the CV 125 holds its own, though the Zeiss does have a sharpness edge.
For macro though? The Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo blows the Zeiss out of the water.
Any time you crop-in with the Zeiss, the CV 125 does not have to. And that's the difference: it wins every time.
If you want to know where the mother of the CV-125 can be found, it is in the Leica 100mm APO-Macro Elmarit-R, which I had to convert the mount for Nikon, but it is even more lovely than the CV-125 and as something like a 720-degree focus throw. It too can travel, but is a little more fussy than the CV-125.
I don't have first-hand experience with this lens, but I trust your love for it is well-placed :)
Everything I have read is (yes) the Leica renders wonderfully ... but it doesn't come in Nikon mount ... and isn't all that sharp ... and it only has a 1:2 reproduction ratio, not 1:1.
The CV 125 therefore remains the more useful field tool (imo), as a result.
I dearly love the CV-125 as you know Jack, because I used to tell you about it when you were loving the Sigma 180 Macro. I find that I go through cycles of using the CV-125. I use it a bunch and then get tired of its too-soft approach and yearn to clear all that up for a while, if you understand me. Yes, it is sharp enough, but there is a softness or lack-of-crisp that is what endears me to it, but also which I get tired of. And it’s not my copy, because I have several of them.
Do you know what I’m talking about?
Probably the D810 and the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm
We share the love of the CV 125, no doubt. [BTW, the 300 f/2.8 VR II (a finer optic than any of these) replaced the Sigma 180.]
But let's condense this down to macro, only, and the CV 125 vs. the Zeiss.
There are 2 main reason why we disagree on the Zeiss:
1) You shoot large flowers, whereas I shoot mostly wildlife. This means you get to use THE WHOLE SENSOR with your Zeiss ... so you got to enjoy its ONLY advantage: sharpness.
Whereas I am more interested in the arthropods, which means the Zeiss is an impediment, not a tool, in achieving great detail.
2) You shoot wide-open, whereas I shoot macro @ f/4.
At f/4 the CV 125 is easily as sharp as the Zeiss, and if there's a difference, it's indiscernible.
Here is an example to show why the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo is superior to the Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar as a macro.
Below is the same male Arizona Mantid (Stagmomantis limbata), the first taken with the Zeiss, the second with the CV 125:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4410/37094349032_5f6a89a0cf_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YvUeBW)
Arizona Mantid ♂ (https://flic.kr/p/YvUeBW), taken with Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
Remember, a 1:4 lens means that it will only fit 144mm (5.7 inches) onto a 36mm sensor. Therefore, even with a 2.5" mantid, I had to crop-in more than half to get this framing with the Zeiss.
The Zeiss image quality, above, is much noisier due to the crop.
By contrast, the 1:1 Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo macro, I can fit 36mm (1.4 inches) onto a 36mm sensor. Therefore, I had to step back, and I legitimately filled my frame with the same mantis:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4395/36432074134_60f96f53ad_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XvnUnd)
Arizona Mantid ♂ (https://flic.kr/p/XvnUnd), taken with Voigtländer 125 f/2.5 Apo by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
For this reason, the detail is much greater. I made the same experiment with a female Arizona Mantid on the same bush. Females are larger, so the Zeiss did better, but I still thought the sharpness, color, and bokeh were better with the CV 125. (These are stacks of live animals, not posed dead ones, so they change positions. Still, these were taken of the same animals, on the same day, in the same comparable light.):
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4434/37076285296_a492cdfa72_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YuiDUd)
Arizona Mantid ♀ (https://flic.kr/p/YuiDUd), taken with Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4394/36432071544_73dfbe0a6a_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XvnTAy)
Arizona Mantid ♀ (https://flic.kr/p/XvnTAy), taken with Voigtländer 125 f/2.5 Apo by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
My own stacking imperfections aside, for arthropods, the CV beats the Zeiss every time.
For larger arthropods, the Zeiss is just 'okay' ... for smaller ones, it is literally unusable.
Again, for your purposes, Michael (larger flowers, where you're using the whole frame), the Zeiss makes sense.
For my purposes, where I never use the full frame of the Zeiss ... it demands that I crop ... the few times I took it hiking I immediately regretted not bringing the CV 125 instead.
It's very limited applications happen to suit your style of shooting ... but they sure don't suit mine ... and that's okay :)
Thanks for reading ...
-
The CV 125 has a longer focus throw precisely because it focuses closer and covers a greater range of magnifications. When considering the same focus distance, or same magnification range, I think you will find the Zeiss 135/2 actually has a longer focus throw...
Don't think so Roland.
270° of focus throw (Zeiss) is only 44% of the 620° of focus throw in the Voigtländer.
No way does the CV have 56% of its focus throw tied-up from 1:4 to 1:1.
-
Jack: I’m not going to play back and forth with you. We’ve done that before. I remember when you were feeling the same way about the Sigma 180mm Macro. You are an enthusiast and I kind of like that. As for the Zeiss 135mm being less sharp that the CV-125. You are just wrong, that’s all. All the experts agree about the sharpness of the 135mm, so believe what you will. No point in arguing.
We can agree on the quality of the CV-125. And for the zillionth time, I have not always shot in the studio. Like you, for some sixty years, since I was 6 years old, I have been a dedicated naturalist, one who even contributed to the world of herpetology in my late teens. Where we might also agree is the value of apochromatic lenses. Here is a little of my own history. Also, give me a call when you are 76 years old and we can talk. LOL.
Let’s call this “Down the APO Rabbit Hole.”
For me, it was very easy to fall into apochromatic lenses, as the old saying goes, “The dewdrop slips into the shining sea.” I had been looking to find sharper and sharper lenses and I suddenly I found what to me was the ultimate sharpness not through sheer acuity and resolution, but through correcting color! It never occurred to me.
I went shouting this through the forums, but at that point only a few knew what I was talking about and, as you can imagine, on some of the more popular forums, I got a lot of razzing and hassle for mentioning it. It took me a while to stick to my guns as to what my eyes were showing me. Sharpness is not just a result of acuity or resolution; it’s corrected color that puts the cherry on the top.
Had I known better, I could just have gone and looked at the most expensive industrial lenses and found out the same thing, but I was still a bargain hunter back in those days. I did not recognize that there were bargains in lenses that cost a bundle. You only need one great lens and that’s a bargain over 20 “so-so” lenses, which is why I have many APO lenses now. LOL.
However, because so many of these APO lenses have optimized sharpness wide open, I found myself mixing in with the microscope crowd or those who shoot well above 1:1. Nice, scientific folks, but not my tribe, because I wanted just the opposite, less than 1:1, what we call close-up photography. So, I found myself very much in the minority.
There were very few photographers where I hung out that wanted true fast APO lenses to use wide open. And what separated me from the others (at the time) was that I stacked focus. Focus stacking back then was frowned on, just as HDR is frowned upon. It was as if stacking focus was not really photography, but some vulgar forbidden fruit that only an amateur would play with. I didn’t feel that way. My eyes told me different.
As a naturalist, for me focus stacking was a way to better organize the small worlds and dioramas that I loved to see through the lens. I could see more of what I cared about. In a word, with fast, wide-open, highly-corrected lenses, I could paint focus like on a canvas just where I wanted it and have the background in lovely bokeh.
Of course, I did find myself transforming from taking field-guide nature photos to photos that were, well, “prettier.” Heaven forbid! I was no longer taking snapshots of creatures on the go. Instead, I was composing my little dioramas almost like painting, painting with light and shadow. I felt a bit embarrassed, but I couldn’t help liking the softer effects. After over 60 years of chasing down or sneaking up on critters, I lost my love of “Gotcha!”
Combine that with advancing age and I segued from being a field photographer (I had been one from my teens) to being a still photographer who was happy in the studio or out in the meadows when there was no wind. However, in Michigan (which is flat, flat, flat) we have constant wind or breeze and taking a stacked image of a moving subject is an oxymoron.
I also recognized that, as much as I knew about mother nature (and the field and streams), it was her beauty that captivated me, not just her tooth and nail. And then, what we could call the crowning grace or the tip of the top, I began to realize that the beauty of nature was not just out there before me, but a product of my own mind. That was the clincher, what put me over the top, when I began to realize that it takes one to know one and that all the beauty I saw in nature was a faculty within myself. In other words, if you lack the faculty, you can’t see the phenomenon. And I was discovering the reverse, that if you can see the phenomenon, you have the faculty. And, in this case, that would be me, my ability to see beauty. And that marked a change, the real turning point.
From that point onward, I began more to compose shots, to take whatever time it took to get a shot so I liked it. And with the approach, my whole idea of photography changed. There is more to it, but it would take a book (which I wrote) to properly explain it. From then on, photography became for me more of an art than a craft and it has been that way ever since.
-
> delete
-
I'm not sure
Well, without one it will be harder to be sure, but if I know anything about you, you will get there sooner or later.
-
Jack: I’m not going to play back and forth with you. We’ve done that before. I remember when you were feeling the same way about the Sigma 180mm Macro. You are an enthusiast and I kind of like that. As for the Zeiss 135mm being less sharp that the CV-125. You are just wrong, that’s all. All the experts agree about the sharpness of the 135mm, so believe what you will. No point in arguing.
I'm not sure you read what I wrote, carefully.
(You wrote too much, too fast, to have really read what I put.)
I acknowledge the Zeiss is sharper than the CV when the image fills the frame.
However, when I am cropping in 75% (with the Zeiss), to get what the CV gives me filling the frame (or even 25%), then no, the Zeiss not as sharp.
It's the exact same discussion we had with the D850 vs. D500.
Yes, full-frame, the D850 wins.
However, when I crop-in 15% with the D500 ... that means I am cropping-in 65% with the D850 ... so its advantages no longer exist.
It's the same argument here, only with lenses.
The only time the Zeiss can compare is when photographing objects 144mm (5.7 inches), or greater, with its limited 1:4 reproduction ratio.
Any object photographed, that is ~144mm, or smaller, the CV will have the advantage due to its 1:1 magnification ratio.
-
Well, without one it will be harder to be sure, but if I know anything about you, you will get there sooner or later.
I very much appreciate your passion for Apo ... but also for macro.
Where we diverge, I believe, is in the comparative sizes in the subjects we photograph.
Thus we'll often have different tool preferences.
For artistic macro, arthropods, the CV is it.
For artistic close-up (1:4 and larger), the Zeiss makes sense, though I think the CV does this well also.
-
I very much appreciate your passion for Apo ... but also for macro.
Where we diverge, I believe, is in the comparative sizes in the subjects we photograph.
For me, where we differ is mainly age. I have been at it since the 1940s, natural history and photographing since I was 14 years old.
I believe, in time, we will converge more on APO lenses, of which the CV-125 is a good example. Don't underestimate the Zeiss 100mm Macro Elmarit-R. It is more refined than the CV-125 and there is a 60mm Elmarit that is VERY useful. For me, I got past my interest in 1:1 photos and got more into wider angles. This is done, if I remember, with the D810 and the Otus 55 mm.
-
For me, where we differ is mainly age. I have been at it since the 1940s, natural history and photographing since I was 14 years old.
I'm catching up to you quick in the age department ;D
We do share similarities, yes.
My first 'pets' 5-6 were jumping spiders, black widows, and praying mantids.
In junior high, as a pre-teen, when other kids were ditching school to smoke pot ... I was ditching school catching rattlesnakes 8)
I believe, in time, we will converge more on APO lenses, of which the CV-125 is a good example. Don't underestimate the Zeiss 100mm Macro Elmarit-R. It is more refined than the CV-125 and there is a 60mm Elmarit that is VERY useful. For me, I got past my interest in 1:1 photos and got more into wider angles. This is done, if I remember, with the D810 and the Otus 55 mm.
Beautiful image ... and you're right ... I do appreciate "stepping back" and capturing the scene, which you did wonderfully, here.
Seeing other people's work, such as your own, helps me broaden my perspective.
As a hiker, though, I just can't justify having the Zeiss 135 and the Voigtländer 125 in my pouch, occupying the same niche. One of them had to go.
The Voigtländer takes beautiful images like that also ... and it gets in close when I need it. The Zeiss was too limited.
I have been very curious about the Leica 100mm Macro Elmarit-R ... but the CV 125 is just perfect for its niche ... and I thank you for turning me on to it.
I will probably secure a copy of the Leica, though, if only to see it for myself ...
As you are, I too am very particular with my needs. I can appreciate the opinions and needs of other discriminating lens aficionados, while realizing they don't exactly match my own.
That said, I will bet ... if we were contemporaries ... living in the same proximity ... we'd both be hiking, talking lenses ... and that you'd bring your CV 125 for those hikes as well ;) ;D
Cheers,
-
Jack: Another lens you might like (I do) is the Leitz Wetzlar 60mm Elmarit-R f/2.8. It is not APO, but it is pretty well corrected and it is only 62.3 mm long and weighs only 400 g. I had to convert it to Nikon mount, but it is a very handy lens for hiking and has that nice Leica bokeh. Of course, there is a larger more expensive version that is APO, which I do not have. I have the Otus series.
You can pick it up on Ebay for $400 or so.
http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/pdfs/1943a3777204b6a7fb3a3dd94ab6e811.pdf
-
Jack: Another lens you might like (I do) is the Leitz Wetzlar 60mm Elmarit-R f/2.8. It is not APO, but it is pretty well corrected and it is only 62.3 mm long and weighs only 400 g. I had to convert it to Nikon mount, but it is a very handy lens for hiking and has that nice Leica bokeh. Of course, there is a larger more expensive version that is APO, which I do not have. I have the Otus series.
You can pick it up on Ebay for $400 or so.
http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/pdfs/1943a3777204b6a7fb3a3dd94ab6e811.pdf
That is a beautiful lens, in alignment with my wishes (hopes) that Nikon creates a whole new MF line (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,7246.0.html). Perfect size and look.
That said, of the lenses you've highlighted over the years we've known each other, the two most likely to be purchased by "yours truly" are ... (drumroll, please):
- The Nikkor-O 55mm f1.2 CRT; and
- The Coastal Optics UV-VIS-IR 60mm Macro
These two lenses appear to be exactly in alignment with my own personal needs ... as well as being true "keepers" ... unique in a way no other lens can really touch. Especially #1.
We'll see 8)
Edit: PS: Show me the Apo version of this lens (Leitz Wetzlar 60mm Elmarit-R f/2.8 ), if you have the time. I'd like to see it.
-
- The Coastal Optics UV-VIS-IR 60mm Macro
I agree about the CRT Nikkor. I love it.
But not the Coastal Optics lens. It has such a short focus throw that it has to be used on a focus rail to stack. I could hardly focus it for single shots because touching it turned it too far, etc. IMO. And while the lens was highly corrected, the cheap case and lack of hood, etc. is not up to snuff. And the hot spot is for me, in a macro lens, really a PITA... a serious mistake.
I owned this lens for years and sold to a buyer in China. And what I liked least about it was that in a forest, with mottled light coming from above, the lens did NOT handle the light well, but tended to blow out the highlights. That I could not tolerate, so let me know how you like it. It will make you love your CV-125 even more, although it is not as well corrected.
-
Don't think so Roland.
270° of focus throw (Zeiss) is only 44% of the 620° of focus throw in the Voigtländer.
No way does the CV have 56% of its focus throw tied-up from 1:4 to 1:1.
Actually, the focus throw is more or less proportional to the magnification, especially for lenses which focus by extension such as the lenses in question. So, the CV will have only about 25% of the focus throw between infinity and 1:4, and 75% between 1:4 - 1:1.
You can see this clearly from the pictures ... when focusing to 5m, the Zeiss has more than twice the focus throw than the CV 125:
(http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg4/SL_125_1a.jpg) (https://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/Zeiss_1999_676_135mm_f_2_0_Apo_Sonnar_ZF_2_1357771063000_909191.jpg)
-
I agree about the CRT Nikkor. I love it.
I am zeroing-in on one as we speak :)
But not the Coastal Optics lens. It has such a short focus throw that it has to be used on a focus rail to stack. I could hardly focus it for single shots because touching it turned it too far, etc. IMO. And while the lens was highly corrected, the cheap case and lack of hood, etc. is not up to snuff. And the hot spot is for me, in a macro lens, really a PITA... a serious mistake.
I owned this lens for years and sold to a buyer in China. And what I liked least about it was that in a forest, with mottled light coming from above, the lens did NOT handle the light well, but tended to blow out the highlights. That I could not tolerate,
It's funny, I had the exact same misgivings about the Coastal Optics lens, not from personal experience, but just by looking at the photos: it looks cheesy, unbefitting of the price tag.
I realize the optics are what we're buying, but hey, package a $4500 primo optic with some class, okay? ::)
so let me know how you like it. It will make you love your CV-125 even more, although it is not as well corrected.
Well, to be honest, absolute, perfect correction ... in the field ... isn't really necessary. The CV is plenty good enough.
What matters to me are 1) sharpness, 2) bokeh, 3) exact color replication, 4) subtle color transition rendering, and 5) versatility.
I am a little more dubious about what the Coastal Optics would bring to the table, and a little more excited about the random "wildcard" potential of the Nikkor-O 55mm f1.2 CRT.
I feel I know the CV 125mm, "like the back of my hand" now ... and completely trust it to do me right in any number of ways.
The Nikkor-O 55mm f1.2 CRT seems to be something that you can never truly get a handle on, but that is good in its own way.
It also has an absolutely outstanding build quality (compared to the other), and really compared to any other lens mentioned here.
It's so well-built, it may outlive civilization as we know it ... ;D
-
Actually, the focus throw is more or less proportional to the magnification, especially for lenses which focus by extension such as the lenses in question. So, the CV will have only about 25% of the focus throw between infinity and 1:4, and 75% between 1:4 - 1:1.
You can see this clearly from the pictures ... when focusing to 5m, the Zeiss has more than twice the focus throw than the CV 125:
(http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg4/SL_125_1a.jpg) (https://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/Zeiss_1999_676_135mm_f_2_0_Apo_Sonnar_ZF_2_1357771063000_909191.jpg)
Actually, you have it exactly backwards :)
Unlike you, I don't have to rely on 'pictures' or 'imagination' ... I can directly pick-up my own CV 125 ... and measure its focus throw in person ;)
That said, I personally measured the 1:1 to 1:4 focus throw range to be a whopping ~200° of "pure macro dedication" ...
The remaining 420° of focus throw (covering 1:4 to ∞) far exceeds the Zeiss 135mm's 270° covering the same range ... thus underscoring the absolute usefulness of the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo Macro ;)
(Note: Anyone here, who actually owns this lens, can confirm.)
-
The Nikkor-O 55mm f1.2 CRT seems to be something that you can never truly get a handle on, but that is good in its own way.
It also has an absolutely outstanding build quality (compared to the other), and really compared to any other lens mentioned here.
It's so well-built, it may outlive civilization as we know it ... ;D
The CRT Nikkor, despite it's curvature, is probably the sharpest lens I have. And yes, it is like throwing the dice, but not really. I have taken some of my best photos with it.
-
The CRT Nikkor, despite it's curvature, is probably the sharpest lens I have. And yes, it is like throwing the dice, but not really. I have taken some of my best photos with it.
I have noted all your postings, as well as a multitude of images (yours and others') from this lens ... and I agree ... it is capable of images that no other lens could produce.
Technically-excellent (sharp), when needed, and just a random surprise (often beyond anything hoped) when played with ...
You're about to make my wallet $1000 lighter .. again .. lol
-
I have noted all your postings, as well as a multitude of images (yours and others') from this lens ... and I agree ... it is capable of images that no other lens could produce.
Technically-excellent (sharp), when needed, and just a random surprise (often beyond anything hoped) when played with ...
You're about to make my wallet $1000 lighter .. again .. lol
Before you spring for it, please note. It is only great wide open and it is one of the fastest lenses there are, which means razor-thin DOF, which means you have to use it mounted on your camera, which is mounted on a focus rail. I use it for stacking only. Perhaps you will find another way to use it, but that is how I have to use it. Be sure to understand this. It is not your normal lens. It is not for outside, but you can find out. I just don't want you to be disappointed.
If you do get a copy, be careful screwing in the lens to the mount, so that it does not extend too far into the camera and break the mirror. It is easily done.
It has no helicoid or way to focus.
-
Before you spring for it, please note. It is only great wide open and it is one of the fastest lenses there are, which means razor-thin DOF, which means you have to use it mounted on your camera, which is mounted on a focus rail. I use it for stacking only. Perhaps you will find another way to use it, but that is how I have to use it. Be sure to understand this. It is not your normal lens. It is not for outside, but you can find out. I just don't want you to be disappointed.
If you do get a copy, be careful screwing in the lens to the mount, so that it does not extend too far into the camera and break the mirror. It is easily done.
It has no helicoid or way to focus.
Noted ... and appreciate the insight.
Based on the feedback, I imagine it is either for studio ... or for optimal morning light (on a tripod, focus rail), max moisture/bokeh opportunity.
Hope to share some images within the month 8)
-
Before you spring for it, please note. It is only great wide open and it is one of the fastest lenses there are, which means razor-thin DOF, which means you have to use it mounted on your camera, which is mounted on a focus rail. I use it for stacking only. Perhaps you will find another way to use it, but that is how I have to use it. Be sure to understand this. It is not your normal lens. It is not for outside, but you can find out. I just don't want you to be disappointed.
It has no helicoid or way to focus.
True about fixed focus. But I think it is good to use outside in soft light because it is fast and that makes it easy to handhold. Using it with a tripod outside would be a nightmare. I can see why Michael would not recommend that.
Wide open it has almost no DoF, but it is still good even when stopped down. This is at f/8 I think:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/786/40994628981_17b08b5808_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25sybXX)803_0685 (https://flic.kr/p/25sybXX)
Here is one wide open:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4780/26123697067_359c01088f_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FNsM18)803_0681 (https://flic.kr/p/FNsM18)
Not sure, but this might be at f/2
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4794/40285539694_78b5d199da_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24nTVqA)803_0719 (https://flic.kr/p/24nTVqA)
With fixed angle of view and distance to subject it limits subject matter to things about 5” across and about the same distance away. If you put on an extender you could get higher magnification.
I find myself using it to find soft renderings - but with elements of sharpness which keep them from just being a colorful blur (Heligon I’m talking to you...)
-
Actually, you have it exactly backwards :)
Unlike you, I don't have to rely on 'pictures' or 'imagination' ... I can directly pick-up my own CV 125 ... and measure its focus throw in person ;)
That said, I personally measured the 1:1 to 1:4 focus throw range to be a whopping ~200° of "pure macro dedication" ...
The remaining 420° of focus throw (covering 1:4 to ∞) far exceeds the Zeiss 135mm's 270° covering the same range ... thus underscoring the absolute usefulness of the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo Macro ;)
(Note: Anyone here, who actually owns this lens, can confirm.)
Err, no ... the pictures above are clear evidence. The focus throw from infinity to 5m or 3m is clearly much longer with the Zeiss 135/2 than the CV 125. I have no doubt the same continues further along the focus range.
And it's not "imagination", I don't make things up. For lenses which focus purely by extension, the focus throw is directly proportional to the extension which is directly proportional to the magnification. This is clear with older macro lenses such as the AI 55/3.5 micro or 105/4 micro, they don't get to 1:1, but the focus travel required to get from infinity to 1:4 is only half that required for 1:2.
On lenses with floating elements or internal focusing, the relationship breaks down a little, the focal length usually reduces with closer focus distances, so the focus throw and amount of extension required to achieve a given magnification is reduced. The Zeiss 135/2 and CV 125 both have moderate focal length shortening at close range, the Zeiss is closer to 130mm at 1:4 and the CV 125 is around 95mm at 1:1, but the above is still broadly true.
You are saying the CV 125 has 420° focus throw from infinity to 1:4 (will be near 0.7 - 0.75m) and only 200° for the rest of the macro range to 1:1. I don't have this lens but I warrant that those figures are backwards. Or you are measuring something else ...? (the little x2 and x4 markings on the focus ring are not magnification ratios, they indicate exposure compensation required...)
I'm not arguing about the qualities or usefulness of the CV 125, just trying to get some facts straight.
-
Err, no ... the pictures above are clear evidence. The focus throw from infinity to 5m or 3m is clearly much longer with the Zeiss 135/2 than the CV 125. I have no doubt the same continues further along the focus range.
Err .. no, back at you.
Your cut-n-paste pictures indicate nothing, as far as your understanding of the lens goes.
You are saying the CV 125 has 420° focus throw from infinity to 1:4 (will be near 0.7 - 0.75m) and only 200° for the rest of the macro range to 1:1. I don't have this lens but I warrant that those figures are backwards. Or you are measuring something else ...? (the little x2 and x4 markings on the focus ring are not magnification ratios, they indicate exposure compensation required...)
Your 'imagination' is what's backwards.
It's really this simple: rotate the ring, from closest focus, to 1:4 ... that's about 200° (note: this is the real world, with the real lens, not your imaginations from 'pictures' behind a computer ;) )
Rotate the rest of the way ... that's about 420° (same note as above).
I'm not arguing about the qualities or usefulness of the CV 125, just trying to get some facts straight.
I am glad you're not arguing this, too ;D
But you really should STOP opining about a lens you have neither touched, nor used, nor measured, personally ::)
I invite other CV 125 lens owners to either (1) correct me, or (2) correct you, in this regard ;)
-
It's really this simple: rotate the ring, from closest focus, to 1:4 ... that's about 200° (note: this is the real world, with the real lens, not your imaginations from 'pictures' behind a computer ;) )
* sigh *
What are the focus distances you are measuring? "Closest focus" should be 0.38m, 1:1 right?
What focus distance is 1:4? There are no reproduction ratios marked on the lens so what is the distance you are measuring to?
Another question since you have the lens on hand, what is the focus throw from infinity to 0.8m (the close focus limit of the Zeiss 135) ?
-
* sigh *
What are the focus distances you are measuring? "Closest focus" should be 0.38m, 1:1 right?
*Sigh* returned ... yes.
Here are the facts:
The CV 125 has 620° of total focus throw.
The Zeiss 135 has 270° of total focus throw.
620 - 270 = 350.
You're trying to say that the CV 125 has more than 350° of focus throw dedicated to "1:4 to 1:1" without ever touching the lens.
What focus distance is 1:4? There are no reproduction ratios marked on the lens so what is the distance you are measuring to?
Just shy of 2 feet.
Another question since you have the lens on hand, what is the focus throw from infinity to 0.8m (the close focus limit of the Zeiss 135) ?
Do you mean the first time, or the second time, 0.8m passes on the rotation effort? ;)
-
Please keep discussion on a less personal level.
-
I agree with Bjørn here, let's stick to the lenses.
I have a feeling that the technical terms are not used uniformly in this debate, so let's clear that up as soon as possible.
-
I have noted all your postings, as well as a multitude of images (yours and others') from this lens ... and I agree ... it is capable of images that no other lens could produce.
Technically-excellent (sharp), when needed, and just a random surprise (often beyond anything hoped) when played with ...
You're about to make my wallet $1000 lighter .. again .. lol
Hardly known or fogotten: There are two other lenses which where then made based on a US gov contract with about identical data and performance, when Nikon was no longer supplying this CRT Nikkor lens, those can be had for quite less... (I have them all)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/CRT_sisters.jpg)
(c) Wiki Commons
-
Please keep discussion on a less personal level.
I agree with Bjørn here, let's stick to the lenses.
I have a feeling that the technical terms are not used uniformly in this debate, so let's clear that up as soon as possible.
You're right.
Apologies to Roland for the sarcasm ... made all the more bitter because he was right :-[
I just tested/measured from a tripod, putting a piece of tape at infinity, and taking a photo of a ruler. With my hat in my hand, I report the following:
At the 144 mm mark "filling the 36mm frame" (1:4 reproduction ratio), the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar has approximately 150° of focus throw, from ∞ to 1:4, with a 22" working distance from the front of the lens (hood removed) to the ruler.
I measured the total focus throw of this lens as 630° (one complete rotation + 3/4 of another full rotation, computed as 360° + 270° = 630° of focus throw).
Roland's exercise basically shows (a) that I should authentically measure, not guesstimate, before I type, and (b) why I love the CV 125mm.
It is basically two lenses in one:
- A fine portrait lens, with 150° of focus throw from 1:4 to ∞, with Cosina/Zeiss quality; and
- One helluva macro lens, with 480° of focus throw dedicated to the 1:4 to 1:1 macro magnification range, which blows any Zeiss out of the water, and with which no other macro lens can compare.
The Zeiss gives 270° of focus throw down to 1:4, but is impotent beyond that, which happens to be the most important range for my work.
As a field naturalist's lens, for live subjects which don't require AF, the CV 125mm has no equal in my book.
-
Hardly known or fogotten: There are two other lenses which where then made based on a US gov contract with about identical data and performance, when Nikon was no longer supplying this CRT Nikkor lens, those can be had for quite less... (I have them all)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/CRT_sisters.jpg)
(c) Wiki Commons
Nice :)
-
Then why talk so much about the lens, and other ($4,000 - $9,000) "apo" lenses, if spending $1600 sends you into a tailspin? :o ::)
Those lenses are not not in the same league with the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5.
You also don't need to 'go' to Japan to find one, they're on Ebay (listed by multiple Japanese vendors) from $1600 to $2,000 for a pristine copy, maybe up to $2,500 for a mint copy with box, etc.
Personally, I don't need the box, I just need what it can do.
If you only stack dead insects in a studio, then you'll never appreciate the CV 125.
But if you go out and stack live insects (or flowers) in subtle morning light, the 630° of focus throw + the CV's excellent sharpness wide-open, punctuated with its subtle ability to render bokeh/color gradations will captivate you.
As a macro shooter, you'll find it's the best $1,600 you ever spent ;)
I usually work beyond 2:1, so owning the CV would be more of a luxury than a tool, that's why I can justify spending $5000 on a high-magnification macro setup but not $1.6k on a lens.
With regards to Japan, I've seen some at around $1200, which is a line I'm happy to cross, moreover, considering the resell value, I'm certain that I will end up with more than I paid for.
You have to keep in mind that Ebay robs up to 10% of your sales value, and paypal double-dips 2.9%. These percentages also unjustifiably applies to postage. I understand that need to make money, that's why I personally will look at purchasing a copy in Japan locally -- just to avoid the fees, if that makes sense. Shipping internationally is also something I don't really like, especially if I'm going to drop over 1k on a precise optical item.
Another thing about "those" lenses is that often or not, someone does not know what they are selling. People who would sell a CV 125mm know how much it is worth, people who would sell say some S-biotar lens attached to a scrapped film camera or some weirdo industrial equipment more than often don't know its value. I just picked up 2 thorlabs precision stages from a seller that sells computer parts for next to nothing, the stages are $300+ new. I also purchased a line scanner with a special custom-made nikon rayfact attached. Unlike the printing-nikkors which are optimised for a specific magnification, that one seems to perform extremely well at 1:2 and way beyond. Example:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4721/40130212562_bb8ff735d9_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/249aQ5A)Laowa 25mm 2.5-5x Ultra-macro Size Comparison (https://flic.kr/p/249aQ5A) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
Third lens.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7759/28103052364_bb4df656f6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JPnunA)Daisychaining Bellows… (https://flic.kr/p/JPnunA) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8056/28615307872_f854b46808_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KACW67)Daisychaining 2 PB-4 Bellows: $5 Bill (https://flic.kr/p/KACW67) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
And yes, in terms of sharpness and rendition, those 2 lenses aren't comparable to the CV. In terms of versatility however, easily the tilt shift lenses win. I use both tilt and shift, and it's not for those over done toy effect or whatever people call it. You're spot on when it comes to focus throw -- the 85mm is a pain to focus. I can only guarantee one sharp shot out of 10 when handholding it, the focus throw is so ridiculously short, it's just pathetic. The 24mm goes down to 1:2.2 or something, I'll just round it down to 1:2, you can get some very interesting perspectives that the CV 125mm won't be able to produce, so unless we're talking about pure pictorial qualities, there's no comparison between those 2 and the CV 125mm, they are way too different.
I'm usually not able to "go out in early morning", that's when I sleep. I sleep at 5am and get up at 12am-1pm. I enjoy working in the studio with dead bugs, creating high magnification stacks, sometimes even panoramas.
-
I usually work beyond 2:1, so owning the CV would be more of a luxury than a tool, that's why I can justify spending $5000 on a high-magnification macro setup but not $1.6k on a lens.
With regards to Japan, I've seen some at around $1200, which is a line I'm happy to cross, moreover, considering the resell value, I'm certain that I will end up with more than I paid for.
You have to keep in mind that Ebay robs up to 10% of your sales value, and paypal double-dips 2.9%. These percentages also unjustifiably applies to postage. I understand that need to make money, that's why I personally will look at purchasing a copy in Japan locally -- just to avoid the fees, if that makes sense. Shipping internationally is also something I don't really like, especially if I'm going to drop over 1k on a precise optical item.
I agree, if you're a studio shooter at 1:1, and beyond, the CV 125 isn't much of a choice. I almost never use my own in-studio 1:1; I use a reversed 50mm and wider primes for closer-magnification. (Will be using that Laowa after it ships :) )
Ebay is bad for sellers, but can be good for buyers. You're talking selling.
Regarding buying, the $400 difference between $1200 and $1600 is far less than a trip to Japan, imo (unless you live there, or plan on going there anyway).
Another thing about "those" lenses is that often or not, someone does not know what they are selling. People who would sell a CV 125mm know how much it is worth, people who would sell say some S-biotar lens attached to a scrapped film camera or some weirdo industrial equipment more than often don't know its value. I just picked up 2 thorlabs precision stages from a seller that sells computer parts for next to nothing, the stages are $300+ new. I also purchased a line scanner with a special custom-made nikon rayfact attached. Unlike the printing-nikkors which are optimised for a specific magnification, that one seems to perform extremely well at 1:2 and way beyond. Example:
Comparing studio accessory components to the subject of this thread (the CV 125) seems an invalid comparison.
We're talking lenses here, not components.
If you're a 100% studio shooter, then I agree, there are many options I too would select besides the CV 125.
However, if you decide to go outdoors, then scanners, breadboards, and the like, are complete anachronisms in this type of setting.
And yes, in terms of sharpness and rendition, those 2 lenses aren't comparable to the CV. In terms of versatility however, easily the tilt shift lenses win. I use both tilt and shift, and it's not for those over done toy effect or whatever people call it. You're spot on when it comes to focus throw -- the 85mm is a pain to focus. I can only guarantee one sharp shot out of 10 when handholding it, the focus throw is so ridiculously short, it's just pathetic. The 24mm goes down to 1:2.2 or something, I'll just round it down to 1:2, you can get some very interesting perspectives that the CV 125mm won't be able to produce, so unless we're talking about pure pictorial qualities, there's no comparison between those 2 and the CV 125mm, they are way too different.
Mmmm, totally disagree with the idea the 85mm tilt-shift "easily wins" over the CV 125 in versatility. (IMO, it is exactly the opposite.)
The tilt-shift is, by far, the more limited item ... reduced to only a few useful parameters, in which it does shine ... but is useless for almost anything else (no 1:1, no focus throw, no sharpness/bokeh by comparison, inferior color rendering, etc.). IMO it takes a way distant back seat to the Voigtländer as a naturalist's optic.
I'm usually not able to "go out in early morning", that's when I sleep. I sleep at 5am and get up at 12am-1pm. I enjoy working in the studio with dead bugs, creating high magnification stacks, sometimes even panoramas.
If studio is your thing, using artificial lighting, then I agree the CV 125 is not the right choice (I have one, and even I never use it in my own studio for macro).
However, for authentic nature photography in nature's best light, the CV 125 is close to peerless.
We both enjoy studio macro; where we differ is I am able to get 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x macro stacks ... of many arthropods ... without harming anything.
(I do understand the challenge of dealing with the potential for movement, but that is also part of the reward ... when you're able to succeed with the stack of a live organism ... and can return it, unharmed, where you found it.)
-
Hardly known or fogotten: There are two other lenses which where then made based on a US gov contract with about identical data and performance, when Nikon was no longer supplying this CRT Nikkor lens, those can be had for quite less... (I have them all)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/CRT_sisters.jpg)
(c) Wiki Commons
8) Thanks! I'd like to stalk these lenses!
-
I agree, if you're a studio shooter at 1:1, and beyond, the CV 125 isn't much of a choice. I almost never use my own in-studio 1:1; I use a reversed 50mm and wider primes for closer-magnification. (Will be using that Laowa after it ships :) )
Hope you enjoy the Laowa! I'm certainly enjoying mine :) Great to know people have interest in such a lens, maybe Laowa will make up his mind and make us a 5-10x as well! Goodbye Mitutoyo, I won't miss your consumer-level quality control ::)
Ebay is bad for sellers, but can be good for buyers. You're talking selling.
I can rant on and eat my keyboard about this!
You know what? I just received another warning for providing a buyer with my phone number! Ebay's messaging system sucks buffalo toes. I once missed an arranged pickup due to the notification, offered the item for free to avoid a negative rating. Thankfully it was essentially worthless. The warning message was about selling outside of ebay, sent AFTER the buyer has PAID, AND RECEIVED the item, and left a positive feedback!!!!! Grrrrrrrr... Last time it was because a buyer wanted to arrange a local inspection. I'm calling them up tomorrow (eh, today, it's 3:30 am), I can't take this anymore, all my listings have been disabled and account is banned for a week.
Regarding buying, the $400 difference between $1200 and $1600 is far less than a trip to Japan, imo (unless you live there, or plan on going there anyway).
I plan on visiting Japan anyway :) Not going to specifically go there just for a lens and indulging in Japanese food all day haha.
Comparing studio accessory components to the subject of this thread (the CV 125) seems an invalid comparison.
We're talking lenses here, not components.
If you're a 100% studio shooter, then I agree, there are many options I too would select besides the CV 125.
However, if you decide to go outdoors, then scanners, breadboards, and the like, are complete anachronisms in this type of setting.
Oh, what I meant was I'm strictly a studio worker, actually it's called "digitising specimens". I can justify splurging lots of money on my setup since it's for the field I work in. The CV 125mm however would be a luxury item, rather than a cash maker (well, I'm still learning and gaining skills, not making too much cash yet).
Mmmm, totally disagree with the idea the 85mm tilt-shift "easily wins" over the CV 125 in versatility. (IMO, it is exactly the opposite.)
The tilt-shift is, by far, the more limited item ... reduced to only a few useful parameters, in which it does shine ... but is useless for almost anything else (no 1:1, no focus throw, no sharpness/bokeh by comparison, inferior color rendering, etc.). IMO it takes a way distant back seat to the Voigtländer as a naturalist's optic.
I've used tubes on my 85mm, getting to 1:1, tilt-shift works just fine, and the images are still tact-sharp. The colours aren't the best but realistic enough. Capture One does a great job anyway, the colours produced are snappy to my eye, maybe not to others, but eh, colours is really the realms of subjectivity here. I personally cannot understand why people like those Sigma colours, and even claim that "because it's desaturated, it gives more room for post-processing", this just sounds ridiculous.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4603/40374594392_29395f9e32_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24vLmhq)Nikon D810 Jpeg Fine VS LR Raw and C1 Raw Conversions (https://flic.kr/p/24vLmhq) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
I'm not sure which lens is sharper, I don't have doubts that the CV would win, however I won't be surprised if the 85mm wins either. Bokeh on the 85mm is just fine in my opinion, or perhaps I've never used a CV to truly appreciate its bokeh rendering. The several major problems I have with the 85mm is its ridiculously short (and frankly stupid) focus throw, gruesome LoCA, and the knobs being tiny.
I use mine primarily for landscapes and close-ups. I'm pretty horrible when it comes to landscapes but I do enjoy it however.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4748/25428319027_0bd41cff62_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EK1Mkz)Sydney City Under Blue Hour (https://flic.kr/p/EK1Mkz) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
The 24mm is pretty solid as well, but it does have some problems too. Namely the resolution is just enough for the D810, I'm guessing a D850 will render it unusable, perhaps not, I don't know. The knobs are also tiny. Here's a close-up. I like the bubbly specular highlight balls, some people don't like it. Bokeh though, this is a wide angle lens, so getting any sort of bokeh requires sticking the lens up to the object extremely closely. This is a stack of 8 exposures I believe, at f8 or f5.6.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4768/39126510405_a057927072_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22BtAoZ)Some Spiky Fruit (https://flic.kr/p/22BtAoZ) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
If studio is your thing, using artificial lighting, then I agree the CV 125 is not the right choice (I have one, and even I never use it in my own studio for macro).
However, for authentic nature photography in nature's best light, the CV 125 is close to peerless.
We both enjoy studio macro; where we differ is I am able to get 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x macro stacks ... of many arthropods ... without harming anything.
(I do understand the challenge of dealing with the potential for movement, but that is also part of the reward ... when you're able to succeed with the stack of a live organism ... and can return it, unharmed, where you found it.)
I've actually obtained some 10x stacks of live critters before. It was far from perfect, but good enough I'd say. I'm surrounded by spiders, and find their corpses everywhere actually, I don't have a problem keeping the corpse. As for killing a living critter, I try not to, but sometimes accidents happen :-[ Ehh, forgetting I left it in the freezer is an example, didn't like the feel. But yeah, if I want to work in the field of specimen digitising, it would be strictly dead critters being handled. I like stacking minerals more than I like stacking critters actually. Minerals are very challenging also. Here's a recent one with the laowa :)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/884/40182464095_df1ec142e9_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24dMCD6)Gold Nugget (https://flic.kr/p/24dMCD6) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
-
Hardly known or fogotten: There are two other lenses which where then made based on a US gov contract with about identical data and performance, when Nikon was no longer supplying this CRT Nikkor lens, those can be had for quite less... (I have them all)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/CRT_sisters.jpg)
(c) Wiki Commons
http://collectiblend.com/Lenses/images/Nikon-58mm-f1.0-CRT-Nikkor.jpg
I just saw this, a 58mm f/1 (!!!!!!!) CRT lens, what the?
Never had a clue about its existence :o
Seems like there's only one copy ever made? I'd like to see some images from it, too bad it's in a collector's hands, most likely.
-
http://collectiblend.com/Lenses/images/Nikon-58mm-f1.0-CRT-Nikkor.jpg
I just saw this, a 58mm f/1 (!!!!!!!) CRT lens, what the?
Never had a clue about its existence :o
Seems like there's only one copy ever made? I'd like to see some images from it, too bad it's in a collector's hands, most likely.
Oh damn this is from 2006, i am too late !!!
8700 $ then
How do you know that there is just one sample made?
And yes probably it is now in a collectors shelf - unused
-
Or Dr. Klaus has it? ;D LOL
-
Or Dr. Klaus has it? ;D LOL
Went to Japan, no to me ;-)
-
Oh damn this is from 2006, i am too late !!!
8700 $ then
How do you know that there is just one sample made?
And yes probably it is now in a collectors shelf - unused
"Seems like", I'm actually not sure.
If it had more than 2 made, I would have known about it. The fisheye nikkor 6mm f/5.6 or something, an engineering test sample lens for instance, only 3 copies were ever made. One is owned by a forum member here :O Can't tell off my head which one, this is his site: http://redbook-jp.com/redbook-e/index.html
-
For the Nikkor lenses just check Roland's pages :)
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#Fisheye
Some of the Fish are very rare to say the least,,, 6mm 6.2mm and 6.3mm
-
For the Nikkor lenses just check Roland's pages :)
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#Fisheye
Some of the Fish are very rare to say the least,,, 6mm 6.2mm and 6.3mm
Last time I looked, which was 2 years ago, those fish weren't included I believe :o
Nice to see even more information! ;D