« Random Excellence: The Glass Plates in the Attic | Main | Sunday Support Group: Pictures with Heart (and the Baker's Dozen Deadline) »

Saturday, 07 August 2021

Comments

I wish they (anyone) would make an X mount 18mm (28mm equivalent) f2/1.8 that's better optically than Fuji's f2, and lighter/cheaper/smaller than their 1.4- w/AF!

Is it an existing design modified with a new mount? That seems to be a path used by 3rd party lens makers (and how m4/3 finds itself with a Sigma 56/1.4). I assume it's a relatively low-cost way to get sales from a new market.

The Voigtlander f:0.95s have passionate fans in the m4/3 world and maybe they can cultivate some of that among the Fujinauts. Not a perfect comparison, as there are no sub-f:1.0 lenses for m4/3, but a toe in the water.

Voigtlander lenses render beautiful sunstars.

To Stan B: I bought the ttartisan 17mm f/1.4 for my Fuji cameras, and I already have the excellent 16mm Fujifilm XF lenses, both f/2.8 and f/1.4. For me, it fills a slot that I miss from my manual focus time, that is the ability to zone and hyper focus. It will never equal the Fujis wide-open, but at f/8 and set via the DOF Mark's I can immerse into crowds and shoot from the hip without needing to assure the focus point is on the subject.

There are many reviews on YouTube, take a look.

Regarding the Voightlander, I was happy to see it, until my rational mind took over. The Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4 is so good optically and on my modern cameras the autofocus has never cost me a shot. I have two excellent Voightlander lenses for my full frame Nikons, so I know they are a cut above the rest, but $700?

As an experiment, I bought the sub-hundred dollar ttartisan 35mm f/1.4 and enjoy using it on my older sensor X-E2s for a real retro look. I could not add 600 dollars to the price of this lens to get the Voightlander and expect any improvement over the XF Fuji.

"I do see the advantages of real manual focus lenses, although I've never photographed with one on an autofocusing digital camera long-term." My "rangefinder shape" Fuji X-Pro usually has a legacy lens mounted. The rendering of the particular lens is the top consideration.

Indeed a bad choice. Would make more sense to use their new Ultron 28mm f/2, possibly making it lighter for APS-C, or a bit faster like f/1.7. That lens seems to be stellar and would be an interesting choice on a not much crowded space (only the slowish tiny Fujinon 27mm and a big heavy manual Kamlan 28mm f/1.4).

For lower price you just go third party downscale, way downscale. TTArtisan has a manual focus 35mm f1.4 for the Fuji-X mount for $73!
Seventy three dollars! You can’t even get an oil change for that price.
Iffin I had me one of them fuji’s that would be a no brainer purchase.

My Leica M 240 is really only practical for me via old LTM lenses and Cosina Voigtlander. So I have a quite modern digital body that I have
VC 35/1.7 aspherical Ultron LTM
VC 50/1.5 aspherical Nokton LTM
Chiyoko 50/2 C Super Rokkor LTM (~1956 Summitar clone from what would become Minolta)
Leica 90/4 Elmar LTM
plus the usual suspects from the FSU.

As you mention, for something like your Fuji, or the ones they make for Sony mount, I'm not sure I get the reasoning. But for me and my digital rangefinder, Cosina is my go to. I hope to add one more - the 75/2.5 Color Heliar - as well. Or maybe the 25/4 Color Skopar? Then again, there's the 28/2 Ultron...

In the end, CV gives options that I love and if Fuji, Sony, etc users can enjoy them too, well, so much the better.

The market appears to make a clear distinction between ƒ/1.4 and ƒ/1.2 lenses.

So I am not sure that the Fuji ƒ/1.4 really does cover the new Norton, in the market’s eyes.

Cheers

I use the Voigtländer/Lowa 65mm lens for astrophotography (Sony e-mount). It has the best pinpoint stars of any lens I've tried. I do exposures of 10-300 seconds on a tracker.

I've been a dedicated Fuji addict since 2015. I love my Fuji gear to pieces and completely get you point. But, I must admit I have a sweet tooth for Zeiss lenses ... a hangover from 17 years with a Rolleiflex 3.5F with a 75mm Sonnar. There's something about the way they handle light and colour. Never bought the Zeiss lenses for Fuji though ... only three available, too expensive for what you get I'm a zoom lenser.

Carrying an f1.2 lens over an f1.4 is less about shooting in lower light, and more about the qualities of the image produced.

If the argument you wish to make is that the Voigtlander doesn’t offer anything that the XF doesn’t already provide, then show readers:

1. that the f1.2 doesn’t deliver noticeably better separation wide open than the 1.4 does

2. that the f1.2 doesn’t give a softer focus wide-open than the f1.4 can achieve

3. that the f1.2 doesn’t deliver a creamier bokeh

4. a comparison of the diaphragm constructions

Those are factors that will help photographers decide — not that they weigh about the same and one is autofocus and the other isn’t, Readers can glean that info from the labels on the boxes.

Tell readers how the lens handles, is there anything distracting or interesting about it’s design?

There are very good performance and value-based reasons why experienced photographers choose manual lenses over auto-focus lenses. Maybe look into those, and then do a comparison. You might realize comparing other manual focus options delivers an article of more value and interest than comparing the slower autofocus lens.

For example, an f1.2 that weighs the same as an f1.4 —very IMPRESSIVE to someone carrying around a legacy f1.2.

[You seem to have mistaken this post for a review. It's not. (The new lens isn't even out yet.) The purpose of the post was to mention that Voigtlander has made a lens chipped for Fuji cameras, and, secondarily, to provide a link to Stephen's site as a courtesy to him and to anyone who might be interested in the new lens.

I won't be reviewing this lens, because I'm perfectly happy with the Fuji 35mm and have no intention of giving it up no matter what the new lens does or doesn't offer. I'm not in the market. The only comparison I was interested in doing was comparing the f/1.4 to the f/2 XF lens, which I've already done. --Mike]

"It's always nice to see alternatives, for those who might want them.”

That slogan might be engraved on a stone panel in Voigtlander‘s headquarters. (In German, of course.). Back in the day I understood their business strategy: Be Leica’s Sigma. But with fewer Leicas in play they seem to have this strange strategy to sell primitivism to 21st century amateur photographers bored by the technological bounties of today’s cameras. I’ve owned five Voigtlander lenses: two for Canon EF and three for Leica M. (I still own two M-mounts.). They all were very well-built. They all also shared a certain warmish/softish “look”, and they all were rather just-okay to me; soft corners, lateral c.a. But it’s clear that Voigtlander still sees opportunities “… for those who might want them.” so good luck with this new product.

Seems like a great lens for the XPro range where the compactness, speed, and manual focus benefits its use on that model. Perfect for those considering adapting a similar Voigtlander M lens. I'm sure it will find an audience.

For anyone that might not be familiar with the quality of results from the Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4 lens, the link below is the web post that allowed me to pull the trigger on this lens after convincing myself that my f/2 lens was fine.

This is a pro model shoot in Italy with just an X-Pro2 and the 35mm at full aperture for most shots.

I ordered the lens, but for some reason, the model never arrived. Still love the lens though.

https://www.alessandromichelazzi.com/one-lens-one-camera-portrait-fujifilm-x-pro2-35mm-f-1-4/

Personally I see manual focus and a manual aperture ring as a desirable feature. It forces me to work in a particular way. It removes choices. It keeps me incredibly focused on my practice of art making. I take constantly better photos with a manual lens. My own exception is portraits where I use eye detect autofocus.

The other big advantage, well advantage is the wrong word, feature perhaps, is choice. Buyer choice. The more lenses for a mount the larger the buyer choice. The wider the possibilities.

I hate that the manufacturers lock each other out with thier mounts. It was something that attracted me to four thirds all those years ago. Open mounts. Unfortunately just a pipe dream.

I have a Voigtlander 40 mm f2 Ultron which has become almost permanently attached to my Nikon D3 - a very odd looking but highly effective combination. But as my photography has drifted into printing for exhibition with most of the demand for A2 size prints, with which the 12 mp struggles for resolution, I am debating between grabbing a D850 while I still can (prices are beginning to get very low), or a D7 (ditto). On the one hand, I do like OVFs but would be happy to ditch the additional weight and also doubt the Nikon "green dot" will be accurate enough for manual focus at 45 mp without a specialised focus screen (now hard to get and with lots of metering issues). Mirrorless would fix these issues but as far as I know, no mirrorless camera offers Auto Aperture Stop Down. Although I could, of course, open the aperture to focus and close it again to shoot, the extra step does take away a tiny bit of the joy of the manual focussing process. As I recall, other reviewers have pushed for Leica to introduce AASD to the SL series for native M mount lenses- but if they've had no success, I doubt anyone will listen to me. Just in case anyone important enough is reading this - please note that if any one of the camera manufacturers were to introduce AASD for MF lenses as a mirrorless feature - it would be that one significant feature that would cause me to adopt their whole system regardless of everything else (in Oz slang, Dinki Di - meaning, I promise.)

I thought that manual focus lenses on an EVF mirrorless camera would be a great combination.

However having to focus stopped down ruins it for me. I guess that is because I remember how cameras are supposed to work.

I tried, and gave up for anything but slow work. And for slow work it is my first choice, and only with real manual lenses.

A shame no manufacturer has figured this out, and only one has any incentive to do so.

As others have mentioned, one advantage of a mechanical lens is for street or from-the-hip photography, and such photographers would care about things like focus throw and damping, ring direction, DOF, minimum focus distance, the smoothness and feedback of the aperture ring, legibility of barrel markings...

For all I know, both lenses could be equal on all these fronts, if not necessarily in the same way. Just saying that these are things that might justify an all-mechanical lens for some.

Mike, you pointed to a marketplace deficiency of the new Voigtlander 35mm: It doesn't have auto focus.
As a former owner/user (for a brief time) of the Fuji 35/1.4, I will take a different tack: Because the 'by wire' motor focus of the Fuji 35/1.4 is so slow and unresponsive, the Fuji can be described as not having manual focus, or at least as having poorly performing manual focus.
At the same price, I'd instinctively select the Voigtlander 35 because it [presumably] has properly performing, mechanical manual focus.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007