This is how much a new Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar Costs

[JKoerner007]

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?

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

[Michael Erlewine]

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

[JKoerner007]

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 ...

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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

[MILLIREHM]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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...

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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:


Honey Bee by John A. Koerner II, 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:


Arizona Mantid ♂, taken with Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo by John A. Koerner II, 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:


Arizona Mantid ♂, taken with Voigtländer 125 f/2.5 Apo by John A. Koerner II, 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.):


Arizona Mantid ♀, taken with Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo by John A. Koerner II, on Flickr


Arizona Mantid ♀, taken with Voigtländer 125 f/2.5 Apo by John A. Koerner II, 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 ...

[JKoerner007]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[JKoerner007]

> delete

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.