Voigtländer lenses for Z-mount

[aerobat]

Many thanks for your explanation Michael - I have the Z 105 MC and love it

[Roland Vink]

I have had the Voigtlander 65mm (Sony mount with adapter to Nikon Z) for some time, and also have the new Z version. I love sharpness, yet this lens is, IMO, so sharp that I don't use it because it is too sharp in many cases.

Thom Hogan has just reviewed this lens:
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/third-party-lenses/reviews-of-third-party-z/voigtlander-65mm-f2-macro.html
"I'm just not feeling the significant gain over the 50mm f/2.8 MC other than that one stop. Sure, the 65mm f/2 is just a much better build quality..."

On the other hand, most comments here suggest this lens has exceptional sharpness. Of course, Thom only reviewed one lens, and while it didn't appear to have any obvious flaws like decentering, can we blame sample variation for a less than perfect example?

[Birna Rørslett]

Perhaps there is sample variation amongst reviewers?

[Michael Erlewine]

I like Thom Hogan's lens reviews, at least his Nikon reviews, but can't agree with him here. I find the Voigtlander 65mm very sharp and I have two versions of this lens, the one that fits the Nikon mirrorless and the Sony version with an adapter, and both are, IMO, tack sharp. And just to make this more confusing, I feel the Nikon 50mm f/2.8 MC is NOT sharp enough and fine enough. I have that lens too but never use it for the reasons I mentioned. Lloyd Chambers finds the Voigtlander 65mm ultra sharp as I do. So, as they say, go figure.

Thom Hogan has not reviewed Voigtlanders, and Chambers has, although Chambers never looked into the Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar, although I pointed it out to him a couple of times.

And so, I have no explanation for Hogan's review of the Voigtlander 65mm.

[Erik Lund]

Perhaps there is sample variation amongst reviewers?

[Birna Rørslett]

Any lens performing nearly APO with flat field and excellent sharpness even wide open at f/2, plus having high contrast as well, is exceptional. The 65/2 APO-Lanthar belongs to this exquisite class of lenses.

[BruceSD]

.
I don't own any Voigtlander lenses in the Nikon Z mount, but I do own the Voigtlander Nokton 75mm f/1.5 aspherical lens in M mount.   It's about the same price as the V65mm f2 lens in Z mount.

The V75/1.5's M mount is easily adapted to any mirrorless camera - I love how it looks on my Nikon Z6 and Fuji XE2 digital cameras.

My V75 is sharp enough for my use, but what I especially love about it is it's stunning bokeh and 3D like pop (the orange and red blobs in the photos' background are an orange & an apple on my kitchen countertop).

I'd love to see a shootout between these two excellent lenses.  From what I've read, I suspect the V65 is probably sharper, but the V75 might have better bokeh.

[Michael Erlewine]

.
I don't own any Voigtlander lenses in the Nikon Z mount, but I do own the Voigtlander Nokton 75mm f/1.5 aspherical lens in M mount.   It's about the same price as the V65mm f2 lens in Z mount.

The V75/1.5's M mount is easily adapted to any mirrorless camera - I love how it looks on my Nikon Z6 and Fuji XE2 digital cameras.

My V75 is sharp enough for my use, but what I especially love about it is it's stunning bokeh and 3D like pop (the orange and red blobs in the photos' background are an orange & an apple on my kitchen countertop).

I'd love to see a shoot out between these two excellent lenses.  From what I've read, I suspect the V65 is probably a bit sharper, but the V75 might have the better bokeh.

Yes, in my experience the V65 does not have that bokeh.

[BruceSD]

Thom Hogan has just reviewed this lens:
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/third-party-lenses/reviews-of-third-party-z/voigtlander-65mm-f2-macro.html
"I'm just not feeling the significant gain over the 50mm f/2.8 MC other than that one stop. Sure, the 65mm f/2 is just a much better build quality..."

On the other hand, most comments here suggest this lens has exceptional sharpness. Of course, Thom only reviewed one lens, and while it didn't appear to have any obvious flaws like decentering, can we blame sample variation for a less than perfect example?

Thom says in this review:  "Optically, the Voigtlander 65mm f/2 is somewhat unique, having a concave front element."  That's not "unique".   I happen to own two lenses (Zeiss Milvus 85mm,  Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4) that also have concave front elements.   Also, don't some of the Zeiss Otus lenses have them?  Maybe Thom is not familiar with Zeiss lenses?
.

[MEPER]

It has been used before:

[MEPER]

And here:
https://lenslegend.com/carl-zeiss-ultron-50mm-f1-8-lens-review/

[MEPER]

More:
http://forum.mflenses.com/concave-lenses-list-t36591.html

[Erik Lund]

Thom says in this review:  "Optically, the Voigtlander 65mm f/2 is somewhat unique, having a concave front element."  That's not "unique".   I happen to own two lenses (Zeiss Milvus 85mm,  Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4) that also have concave front elements.   Also, don't some of the Zeiss Otus lenses have them?  Maybe Thom is not familiar with Zeiss lenses?
.

You need to read the whole sentence or at least the word before "unique" ie. he states: "somewhat unique"

[MEPER]

.......but it looks like that lenses with concave front element is quite special. It could be a goal to collect all lenses made with concave front element :-)