Voigtlander APO-SKOPAR 90mm f/2.8 SL II S lens for Nikon F-mount

[Roland Vink]

A successor to the 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar, with faster aperture:

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/10/14/coming-next-month-new-voigtlander-apo-skopar-90mm-f-2-8-sl-ii-s-lens-for-nikon-f-mount.aspx

I couldn't find any additional specifications. At one time I considered buying the 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar (I got close to winning a couple on ebay) but I always felt that f/3.5 was too slow for this focal length, f/2.8 will be more useful. If it is a semi-macro lens like the older version it will be hard to resist! A nice companion for my Voigtlander 40mm SLIIS ultron

[Hugh_3170]

Roland, thanks for the link.

f/2.5 would have been even nicer, but I must say that the traditional Nikon-esque styling looks rather nice - in keeping with the 58mm f/1.4 lens from this manuafacturer.

[richardHaw]

very tiny

[Hugh_3170]

It appears that the new lens will only focus down to 0.9m, whereas the Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II focuses down to 0.50m.  In part this helps account for the small size of the new optic.

A successor to the 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar, with faster aperture:

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/10/14/coming-next-month-new-voigtlander-apo-skopar-90mm-f-2-8-sl-ii-s-lens-for-nikon-f-mount.aspx

I couldn't find any additional specifications. At one time I considered buying the 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar (I got close to winning a couple on ebay) but I always felt that f/3.5 was too slow for this focal length, f/2.8 will be more useful. If it is a semi-macro lens like the older version it will be hard to resist! A nice companion for my Voigtlander 40mm SLIIS ultron

[Roland Vink]

It appears that the new lens will only focus down to 0.9m, whereas the Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II focuses down to 0.50m.  In part this helps account for the small size of the new optic.

That was for the Leica M mount. Rangefinder lenses usually don't focus close, I'm hoping the F-mount version gets a bit closer.

[jborg]

Unfortunately it seems that the optical design is the same for the Nikon mount and the Leica mount according to comments on Nikon Rumours see attached image. Lens minimum focusing is 0,9 m
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb60a86f0d0ab0d679b5f6e862915a34e24bd1025bbeb7a6853606ecf805bc64.png

[Bill De Jager]

I saw this at nikonrumors.com just before I saw it here, and it definitely got my attention.  I like the faster speed but dislike the longer minimum focusing distance (MFD).  Sometimes on a walk I'll want the option of doing flower closeups that aren't true macro, and having a decent MFD really helps with that. 

After reports are in on the optical quality when shooting real subjects, I may or may not get one.

[longzoom]

Minimal shooting distance is somewhat disappointing. It means they were not able to fight the barrel distortion up close. Really, 7 elements optical formula is not able to, in this particular case. We will see, let us wait. LZ

[Hugh_3170]

Yes, that is my understanding also.  A pity about the MFD.  I think that I will stick with my f/3.5 version.

Unfortunately it seems that the optical design is the same for the Nikon mount and the Leica mount according to comments on Nikon Rumours see attached image. Lens minimum focusing is 0,9 m
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb60a86f0d0ab0d679b5f6e862915a34e24bd1025bbeb7a6853606ecf805bc64.png

[Akira]

The minimum focus distance of 90cm is rather normal for a 90mm lens.  The semi-macro capability of the f3.5 version was an added bonus.

The focus throw of the M-mount version seems to be too short which could make the focusing on a mirrorless body tricky.

[Airy]

Would a close-up lens be an option ? I sometimes use the one delivered with the 40/2, and optical performance is not significantly degraded (and probably better than without, in the area where the focussing ranges overlap).

[longzoom]

Would a close-up lens be an option? I sometimes use the one delivered with the 40/2, and optical performance is not significantly degraded (and probably better than without, in the area where the focussing ranges overlap).

  Yes, why not. It is an MF lens, anyway. Even on my 80-400, the Canon 500D delivers a stunning result! LZ

[Akira]

Would a close-up lens be an option ? I sometimes use the one delivered with the 40/2, and optical performance is not significantly degraded (and probably better than without, in the area where the focussing ranges overlap).

  Yes, why not. It is an MF lens, anyway. Even on my 80-400, the Canon 500D delivers a stunning result! LZ

Sorry to say, that may not be likely.  Cosina discontinued that closeup lens for the 40/2.0 by allowing the current model to focus closer on its own.  Alos, I guess that they want to keep the "APO" performance in the entire focusing range by keeping its range rather normal for a short tele.

[David H. Hartman]

Would a close-up lens be an option ? I sometimes use the one delivered with the 40/2, and optical performance is not significantly degraded (and probably better than without, in the area where the focussing ranges overlap).

Close-up lenses can be useful if image performance isn't greatly affected but they create a shorter focal length (combined) and shorten the free working distance. When possible it makes more sense to use a true macro lens.

Dave

[longzoom]

20160616-119 by 20160616-119-2-2 by longzoom, on Flickr/l1ra]20160616-119-2[/url] by 20160616-115 by longzoom, on Flickr.        The 80-400 AFS, at 400mm, Canon 500D screw-up, my wrist watch. 3 crops.  LZ