NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on December 28, 2022, 23:32:06
-
The Voigtlander 65mm-APO Z lens Compared
I’m not so much comparing the new 65mm Voigtlander APO lens for the Z Nikons to the Voigtlander CV-125 APO-Lanthar of legendary usefulness, but rather comparing the Z 65 Voigtlander APO lens to the Nikon Z 105 MC S lens. Actually, I’m doing both.
Some time ago I checked, and aside from its lovely style, the CV-125 APO-Lanthar does not measure up, IMO, to the Nikon Z 105 MC S. lens. It’s a matter of taste, as well, but strictly speaking the Nikon Z 105 MC is more useful for my work, and I appreciate being able to auto-focus stack with it.
Now, I have had for a long while the Voigtlander 65mm APO lens for the Sony E-mount, but with an adapter to Nikon Z (I have several types of adapters), yet I wanted to see if the mount of the new 65 APO for the Z cameras has any appreciable difference compared to the older adapted new Z mount to Sony-E.
I can’t really see much difference, and there probably should not be any, but I like the extra security of having a Z mount, although you folks interested in getting a copy, don’t imagine this new Voigtlander 65mm Z mount is a rebuilt larger lens to fit the size of the Z mount. Not needed, it appears. All they did was affix what essentially is their own adapter to the lens, hopefully a more secure adapter than I have been using up to now.
I can see at a glance that the Voigtlander 65mm lens is indeed, as the rumors suggest, sharper than both the old CV-125 APO-Lanthar and the new Z 105 MC S lens.
Whether we need that extra bite, will depend on what each of us are doing with it. As for me, yeah, I’m a sucker for sharpness, so I will use that, yet not exclusively. I’m too lazy. And, on the downside for me, the Voigtlander 65mm APO does not go 1:1, and that is a very real limitation, and it is manual to boot. No easy focus stacking. But works find on a rail, with manual stacking.
And since it is a manual lens, which means no auto focus stacking with the Nikon Z cameras, yet the new 65mm has a nice long focus throw, so that helps, and it works smoothly but firmly, which is good.
I am now selling my Sony version of the 65mm Voigtlander, with an adapter for Nikon S, if anyone is interested. I don’t need two of these, but this 65mm APO lens is a keeper, IMO.
There is not a lot of use in my showing you a bunch of photos, since my work is so limited to focus stacking, etc. Yet, I will post a couple shots if that helps.
I may find problems down the road with this new lens, but my estimate is that these three lenses as for sharpness can be ordered, from sharp to less sharp.
Voigtlander 65mm APO
Z 105 MC S
CV 125 APO-Lanthar
In order of usefulness, which is personal, the order probably is:
Z 105 MC S
CV 125 APO-Lanthar
Voigtlander 65mm APO
I hope some of the rest of you will join in evaluating these lenses for your particular type of photography. I am interested in hearing reports.
The first imagine is the Voigtlander 65mm, the second the Nikon Z 105mm TC lens
-
Thank you Michael for sharing your impressions of this new Z mount lens.
At $US799 (at B&H), this lens looks like good value as well. Whether its floating lens elements will let it realistically utilise extension tubes or bellows to get beyond x1/2 magnification will be interesting.
Looking out further, I wonder if we will ever see a new version of the much loved F mount 125mm Lanthar in a Z mount version. Time will tell as they say.
-
I noticed the 65mm z- mount version a bit more expensive versus the Sony e- mount, then there is the 110mm but not in z- mount.
-
Yes, a 110mm Lanthar in Z mount would be enticing if if can go to x1.
I noticed the 65mm z- mount version a bit more expensive versus the Sony e- mount, then there is the 110mm but not in z- mount.
-
Yes, a 110mm Lanthar in Z mount would be enticing if if can go to x1.
I also have the 110mm, but so far am not impressed with it. Just my 2 cents. They left out the 'special sauce', IMO.
-
Just for kicks, here is the Z version of the Voigtlander 65mm, followed by the Sony version of the Voigtlander with adapter to Z.
I can't see any difference of importance. These are just as out of the camera, with no touchup, single frames.
About the only difference is the adapter version does not seat as securely, but can be moved around or jiggled, and the Z version fits solid and tight as a lens should. I like the later.
-
The only thing I notice is that the Sony is a bit darker.
-
The only thing I notice is that the Sony is a bit darker.
Well, it was natural light, an overcast sky, but it could easily change in the time it takes me to change lenses and get the second adjusted. I would ignore that. I tried to make sure the histogram was the same, but it could have easily changed, or there is a difference, but not much.
As mentioned, I just don't like the lack of 'seat' in the adapter lens and the fact that you can jiggle it. Enough, to get the Z version and will sell the other with adapter.
My next step is to see if I can place the fierce sharpness in a sea of Bokeh and calm, and thus hold back some of the sharpness where I don't need it.
-
OK, here is stacked photo, with what I call a short stack, just around the center of this Cyclamen flower, so the rest of the image has fairly extreme bokeh or blur, but the part in focus is carefully stacked.
What this shows me, obviously, is that we can select one or more points of extreme focus, stack them, and have a soft background. This lens seems to have no trouble with that. Check it out. Not sure that I want to do this that often, but there it is. This lens is wickedly sharp. Tell me a lens that is sharper? Not sure I have one.
-
Do you do these stacks at the lens max. aperture?
It could be interesting to see the same small stack made with e.g. the old Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 compensation type. Just to see what an old 5-lens design can do compared with this exotic 65mm APO lens.
It would probably require the 55/3.5 to be stopped down to 5.6 or 8.
-
I think 55/3.5 compensating type should be good enough wide open. It was optimized for close distance.....as far as I know opposed to the other 55/3.5 micro lenses.
-
I think 55/3.5 compensating type should be good enough wide open. It was optimized for close distance.....as far as I know opposed to the other 55/3.5 micro lenses.
Be my guest. I'd like to see it.
-
I have the lens but no experience in stacking :-)
I am quite sure I would need a faster computer than the 10 year old I am using......and then a lot or hours work to learn the technique......I need to buy a flower also.....
If you had the lens it could be fun just to see the difference......
Apart from that "closeupphotography" mention that the 65mm is probably best APO amoung "consumer" lenses and only industrial lenses can compete with it.
There are some Nikkor scanner lenses that are also sharp and APO corrected like the one for CS8000 og CS 9000. These should be quite identical to the printing Nikkors.
I know that you had some of those and they are sold. But these had at least same performance as the 65mm APO?
-
I have the lens but no experience in stacking :-)
I am quite sure I would need a faster computer than the 10 year old I am using......and then a lot or hours work to learn the technique......I need to buy a flower also.....
If you had the lens it could be fun just to see the difference......
Apart from that "closeupphotography" mention that the 65mm is probably best APO amoung "consumer" lenses and only industrial lenses can compete with it.
There are some Nikkor scanner lenses that are also sharp and APO corrected like the one for CS8000 og CS 9000. These should be quite identical to the printing Nikkors.
I know that you had some of those and they are sold. But these had at least same performance as the 65mm APO?
It I find the time, I will look into it. Mostly I am just trying to sort out which lenses I will use a lot, etc. I willprobably use the Z 105MC a lot, which is sharp enough and well enough corrected.
-
I have a copy of a I think 55/3.5 compensating Nikon. Will try to find some time to test it out.
-
Interesting...... :-)
The compensating type has the "scalloped" (hill and dale) focus ring.
-
This is what I have.
-
That is the one :-)
Maybe you can check first with a single frame is you are satisfied with 3.5 or 5.6 is better.
Probably at high magnification 3.5 will give higher resolution.
-
It it easy to check if it "compensates" if set to e.g. f/8 and lens is at infinity the aperture will open up when lens is focused closer.
At 3.5 it will just stay at 3.5.
-
It it easy to check if it "compensates" if set to e.g. f/8 and lens is at infinity the aperture will open up when lens is focused closer.
At 3.5 it will just stay at 3.5.
Please explain more just how "compensating" works in a lens.
-
As far as I know this is the only F-mount Nikkor that compensates the aperture when focused closer.
It will compensate for the loss of light which occurs when magnification gets higher (focused closer).
It the old days where you did manuel measurement of the light you only need to do it once at one magnification and the lens will make the adjustment when focused (but not at 3.5).
Nikon may explain it a bit different but that is the idea. If camera has light measurement through the lens like modern camera bodies it is not at problem.
Richard also like the lens (the compensating mechanism is showed):
https://richardhaw.com/2017/01/18/repair-micro-nikkor-p-55mm-f3-5-auto/ (https://richardhaw.com/2017/01/18/repair-micro-nikkor-p-55mm-f3-5-auto/)
-
An easier way to explain the light loss with higher magnification is that the length of barrel increases when focused closer so light has to travel longer.
-
Here are three photos.
(1) 55mm f/3.5 COMP stacked on center and finished as the others.
(2) 55mm f/3.5 COMP untouched single shot
(3) 55mm f/5.6 COMP untouched single shot
-
Thank you very much for this comparation.
It confirms that it is a fine lens?
There is a difference in background blur. Not that the 55/3.5 looks bad but with 65/2 it is more "blurred" like "vaseline".
Also it looks like with 55/3.5 the front red leaf of the flower has a bit more DOF so more of it is in focus?
-
The resolving power of the 55/3.5 may be a bit higher at 5.6 if I look close to the monitor with +2 glasses.
It seems the 65/2 does this already at f/2.
Still I am impressed by the old 55/3.5 with only 5 lens elements.