The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

Hmm seems the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 may not be all that great, first review from Phillip Reevevaayinga it's no way competitive to modern 35mm lenses.. might need to hunt out a 40mm...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/fir...reeve-lens-no-way-competitive-modern-designs/
“With the “classic” in the name and based on what I have seen from the M-mount version my expectations were rather low. As it seems so far for good reasons: this lens is in no way competitive to modern designs. Sharpness is anything but great, corners never reach the quality of most other primes and many aberrations like Coma or Astigmatism are not well corrected.
So for now I think this is a lens mostly for people who just like the look of the harsh and nervous bokeh, but still want to enjoy some modern features like Exif data and decent coatings or do not want to get into adapting legacy lenses.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
Hmm seems the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 may not be all that great, first review from Phillip Reevevaayinga it's no way competitive to modern 35mm lenses.. might need to hunt out a 40mm...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/fir...reeve-lens-no-way-competitive-modern-designs/
Click to expand...

I'll read that link later but from the clip you've posted it does seem disappointing... but I'll hope for better real world results as there were reports of problems with the 40mm f1.2 but since I took my first picture with mine I've thought it was near enough perfect.

If the 35mm is as good as an FD, Rokkor or Zuiko I'll be more than happy :D

Fingers and toes crossed for the 35mm f1.4 :D

PS.
It's just struck me that "modern 35mm lenses" may mean the new lenses we've seen in the last few years... Sigma Art sort of quality and Sigma Art sort of size and weight... If that's the sort of lens the reviewer has in mind I wonder if he really expects Sigma Art type quality in a lens this compact? I wonder if that's the problem?

I'll give mine a good work out when I get it :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'll read that link later but from the clip you've posted it does seem disappointing... but I'll hope for better real world results as there were reports of problems with the 40mm f1.2 but since I took my first picture with mine I've thought it was near enough perfect.

If the 35mm is as good as an FD, Rokkor or Zuiko I'll be more than happy :D

Fingers and toes crossed for the 35mm f1.4 :D

PS.
It's just struck me that "modern 35mm lenses" may mean the new lenses we've seen in the last few years... Sigma Art sort of quality and Sigma Art sort of size and weight... If that's the sort of lens the reviewer has in mind I wonder if he really expects Sigma Art type quality in a lens this compact? I wonder if that's the problem?

I'll give mine a good work out when I get it :D
Click to expand...

Well I've read possibly hundreds of this guy's reviews, he's usually spot on the mark.

Having read it he's not comparing to the Sigma Art glass or even the Loxia but other Leica Mount glass (Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM & Voigtlander 35 f1.7 Ultron)
 
chrism_scotland said:
Well I've read possibly hundreds of this guy's reviews, he's usually spot on the mark.

Having read it he's not comparing to the Sigma Art glass or even the Loxia but other Leica Mount glass (Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM & Voigtlander 35 f1.7 Ultron)
Click to expand...

As far as I can see the review isn't buy PR as there's another guys name at the bottom but I suppose the pictures speak for themselves regardless of who's taken them.

Looking at my own pictures with newer and older lenses the stand out lenses for what I'd describe as technical excellence are the Sony 55mm f1.8, the 35mm f2.8 and the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 and the latter shows the most character. Looking at the lenses that I like most the list changes to, in no particular order, the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2, Rokkor 35mm f2.8 MC, Rokkor 55mm f1.7 MC, Rokkor 55mm f1.2 MD, Rokkor 45mm f2 and Canon FD 85mm f1.8. So, I seem to like character more than the technical excellence of a really well designed modern lens and although I do look at 100% crops it's the final image that holds sway :D

I may not like the 35mm f1.4 but I may just think it's very very nice :D Time will tell :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'll read that link later but from the clip you've posted it does seem disappointing... but I'll hope for better real world results as there were reports of problems with the 40mm f1.2 but since I took my first picture with mine I've thought it was near enough perfect.

If the 35mm is as good as an FD, Rokkor or Zuiko I'll be more than happy :D

Fingers and toes crossed for the 35mm f1.4 :D

PS.
It's just struck me that "modern 35mm lenses" may mean the new lenses we've seen in the last few years... Sigma Art sort of quality and Sigma Art sort of size and weight... If that's the sort of lens the reviewer has in mind I wonder if he really expects Sigma Art type quality in a lens this compact? I wonder if that's the problem?

I'll give mine a good work out when I get it :D
Click to expand...


You’d really be happy if an $800 lens was as good as a £30 lens?

I’d be bloody fuming.
 
Tom Green said:
You’d really be happy if an $800 lens was as good as a £30 lens?

I’d be bloody fuming.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not really what I meant... and film era 35mm f1.4's aren't £30 but where else and for how much do you get a manual focus 35mm f1.4 lens with end stops and a distance scale that'll mount direct to the camera for that price? Viewed like that it's a positive bargain :D

Without looking I don't know how much a RF Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 is and although you can get cheap adapters I'd want a close focusing helicoid one as the RF lenses often have a longer closest focusing distance. TBH I have been thinking about getting a M mount f1.4 or maybe replacing the f2.5 I had years ago but I bet the price of one of these lenses plus a decent close focusing adapter isn't a million miles away from the cost of this new lens :D

I'll see what it's like in coming days but if the issues that guy in the link is talking about are the worst of it I may be happy enough for the direct to camera mount, closer focusing and good build :D

One disadvantage with this lens is that being FE mount it isn't as portable as my old film era lenses and if Nikon bring out something brilliant my old lenses will work on it but my 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2 FE lenses may not... that's possibly one advantage in going for M mount ones. Anyway, we'll see.

I'll report back and let you all know how I get on :D
 
Last edited:
A nokton 35 is 400 and helicoid around 80-100. Benefit being all your lenses would have closer focus via that method.
 
twist said:
A nokton 35 is 400 and helicoid around 80-100. Benefit being all your lenses would have closer focus via that method.
Click to expand...

The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 MC is £499.99 at Robert White and the helicoid is £129 making a total of a smidgen over £600, a few £ more than the new FE jobbie.

Used lenses and cheaper adapters may be available but as I paid in the region of £100 each for my Novoflex adapters maybe I'd be tempted more towards the better adapters than the evil bay specials. Plus there's the fact that I don't own any M mount lenses so my Rokkor, Zuiko and FD's wouldn't benefit.

Anyway, it's only a few quid.

I'll report back on how excellent the lens is :D
 
Last edited:
So it would seem I'm "all in" with Sony at the moment and rapidly building a collection of lenses. I'll be looking to add a longer zoom in the near future but it's not a lens that will get a huge amount of use. When it does it will mostly be landscapes. I'm not sure whether to go for the 70-200f4 or 70-300 or to just save a ton of cash and look for a decent older manual lens, Canon 80-200f4L? It's use will be on the A7RII.

Any thoughts/experience appreciated.

Also thinking of upgrading the 28-70 to the 24-70 f4 but again not sure for some landscape use it would be worth it, I'm covered up to 35mm with the 16-35 already.
 
Looks like it could be a good option especially if it's quite compact but I doubt I'll ever get one as I have the kit lens but still haven't used it outside of the house and garden.
 
Yes there was a Sony 20mm rumour but the f2 of tokina makes it really interesting for shooting stars or in low light.

If this tamron is good and reasonably priced, I could upgrade my fe85/1.8 to the 85mm GM with the money I save :D

Or should I buy the voigtlander 40mm/1.2... choices choices :D
 
I keep thinking back to the Sigma 20mm f1.8 I had for my Canon DSLR's, that was a nice lens, not brilliant but useable at f1.8 for general stuff (but maybe not for stars) and excellent stopped down and reasonably priced too from what I remember.

One thing is that I've been a bit spoilt by my Tokina 17mm and losing those 3mm by going for a new AF/MF Firin type lens or a Sony 20mm could matter. Any new lens will probably be easily better than my old Tokina but for whole pictures viewed normally no one will notice so that's something to think about as will having AF with the new lens.
 
My Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 has arrived and.... drum roll.... I'm very happy! :D

I'll do more tests later but for now based on shots of Mrs Woof Woof, a brick wall, my alarm clock (for close focusing) and next doors roof (for middle distance stuff) here are my findings... note that I can't as yet comment on night time pictures including bright lights :D

- Build is excellent as is the weighting of the focus and aperture rings.
- There's vignetting at wider apertures but it's easily within the range of CS5 to correct and hardly there by f2.8.
- There's CA in the centre at f1.4 but it settles at f1.6 and seems to be gone at f2.
- It's sharp enough at f1.4 in the centre area of the frame and very sharp at f2.
- It's sharp across the frame at f5 but with weaker corners.
- The very corners are the weakest area but by f5 I'd say they're good and at f8 I'd say very good. So this should be fine for whole picture sharpness.
- Bokeh is subjective. I'd describe it as busy and pretty much what I'd expect from a 35mm f1.4 but much less so by f1.7 and I have no complaints at f2. YMMV.
Edit - added point -
- At f1.4 I expected some blooming on brighter objects but I'm so far not seeing any.

I'm very happy with this lens and my A7+this fits in the same small bag that the A7+35mm f2.8 or Panny GX80 and 17mm f1.8 fit in, so I'm pleased.

If anyone is interested I'll post pictures and 100% crops.

:D

Can't resist posting a couple :D

F1.4.

p1-4-1.jpg

f1.4 at 100% with the focus on her left eye.

p1-4-2.jpg

!00% at f2, left eye again.

pf2.jpg

Note that these may suffer a bit for being posted on line, the f1.4 shot is ok for me and the f2 shot looks sharp to me.

PS.
I just used my default sharpening on these so there may be the possibility of tweaking for those who want a sharper picture.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
My Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 has arrived and.... drum roll.... I'm very happy! :D

I'll do more tests later but for now based on shots of Mrs Woof Woof, a brick wall, my alarm clock (for close focusing) and next doors roof (for middle distance stuff) here are my findings... note that I can't as yet comment on night time pictures including bright lights :D

- Build is excellent as is the weighting of the focus and aperture rings.
- There's vignetting at wider apertures but it's easily within the range of CS5 to correct and hardly there by f2.8.
- There's CA in the centre at f1.4 but it settles at f1.6 and seems to be gone at f2.
- It's sharp enough at f1.4 in the centre area of the frame and very sharp at f2.
- It's sharp across the frame at f5 but with weaker corners.
- The very corners are the weakest area but by f5 I'd say they're good and at f8 I'd say very good. So this should be fine for whole picture sharpness.
- Bokeh is subjective. I'd describe it as busy and pretty much what I'd expect from a 35mm f1.4 but much less so by f1.7 and I have no complaints at f2. YMMV.
Edit - added point -
- At f1.4 I expected some blooming on brighter objects but I'm so far not seeing any.

I'm very happy with this lens and my A7+this fits in the same small back that the A7+35mm f2.8 or Panny GX80 and 17mm f1.8 fit in, so I'm pleased.

If anyone is interested I'll post pictures and 100% crops.

:D

Can't resist posting a couple :D

F1.4.

View attachment 120778

f1.4 at 100% with the focus on her left eye.

View attachment 120779

!00% at f2, left eye again.

View attachment 120781

Note that these may suffer a bit for being posted on line, the f1.4 shot is ok for me and the f2 shot looks sharp to me.

PS.
I just used my default sharpening on these so there may be the possibility of tweaking for those who want a sharper picture.
Click to expand...
Shoot at f1.4 bruv
 
Er...
Two. Honest :D

Voigtlander f1.4.
Sony f2.8 AF.
Minolta Rokkor f1.8 and f2.8.
Olympus Zuiko f2.8.
Canon FD f2.8.

Only 6.

I have to buy some more.

I also have a 17mm f1.8 for MFT.
 
woof woof said:
Er...
Two. Honest :D

Voigtlander f1.4.
Sony f2.8 AF.
Minolta Rokkor f1.8 and f2.8.
Olympus Zuiko f2.8.
Canon FD f2.8.

Only 6.

I have to buy some more.

I also have a 17mm f1.8 for MFT.
Click to expand...

Don’t know how you cope. I personally only like having one lens at each FL - feel like I’m wasting money that could be spent elsewhere otherwise. We are all different though and that’s understandable!
 
Tom Green said:
Don’t know how you cope. I personally only like having one lens at each FL - feel like I’m wasting money that could be spent elsewhere otherwise. We are all different though and that’s understandable!
Click to expand...

Sold that a7 yet?
 
woof woof said:
Er...
Two. Honest :D

Voigtlander f1.4.
Sony f2.8 AF.
Minolta Rokkor f1.8 and f2.8.
Olympus Zuiko f2.8.
Canon FD f2.8.

Only 6.

I have to buy some more.

I also have a 17mm f1.8 for MFT.
Click to expand...

Wow I wasn't even exaggerating, one each for - f1.4, f2... F/11

Do you still have the voigtlander 40mm f1.2? It's not exactly far off in terms of focal length...
 
Tom Green said:
Don’t know how you cope. I personally only like having one lens at each FL - feel like I’m wasting money that could be spent elsewhere otherwise. We are all different though and that’s understandable!
Click to expand...

jonneymendoza said:
Why?
Click to expand...

They may all be 35mm but they're all slightly different in the look they give and in use.

nandbytes said:
Wow I wasn't even exaggerating, one each for - f1.4, f2... F/11

Do you still have the voigtlander 40mm f1.2? It's not exactly far off in terms of focal length...
Click to expand...

Yes I still have the 40mm f1.2. They're not far off but I think that 5mm does make a difference at this wider end. I'll give the 35mm a good try out and see how I feel but I think that I'll probably keep both. The 40mm f1.2 is I think (so far) the better lens and I think it gives a bigger image at closest focusing distance so those are points in its favour whilst the 35mm is much smaller and a bit wider.

I'm a bit surprised you lot think it's unusual to have different lenses of the same focal length, doesn't everyone? :D They are all different enough to justify keeping.

I have maybe 9 50/55mm lenses and just like the 35mm's they all have their different charms and give a slightly different look.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top