Cosina officially announces the Voigtlander NOKTON RF 75mm f/1.5
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Well, I have EF lenses on my R5 and the fact someone manufactor manual lenses does not bother me as much. I am not a "fan" that demand a company I don't own (unfortunately) to make lenses that I would probably not buy (related to the previous reason). And by the way, many times I shift to manual focus cause these little ones move so fast that the AF can't capture them, so place the focus on where I expect them to come and then when they do....
Attachments
Upvote
0
Nice! It's like shooting a soccer (football) game; you pre-focus on the keeper and take a shot only when they score.
Upvote
0
I hope that the games you shoot ends in better score than 0:0... But have to admit that sometimes the birds jsut don't want to cooperate with that setting.
Upvote
0
Just like the EF 1,4/85, which is additionally AF, IS and weather protected.
And not much more expensive when you buy a used one in mint condition...
Upvote
0
I do own Zeiss 50mm 2.0 "Macro" and the Voigtländer 50mm 1.2.
Both are very different but on high quality.
The Zeiss is the rational lens (weather sealing and things), but the Voigtländer is the fun lens triggering creativity and picture styles no Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Sony can offer.
Upvote
0
You forgot about the Voigtländer Norton 40mm 1.2
Try it, you will love it!
Upvote
0
Cautious!
Don't ever think of adapting a Voigtländer, Zeiss or Leica M wide angle to an EOS R, in case the lens has a leica M bayonet. You'd get an ugly magenta/green cast on the sides.
WAs should be specifically offered for RF, the ones with Leica M bayonet are mechanically compatible, via an adapter, but not optically. Except the ones above 35mm focal length. I'm using with great pleasure M lenses from 35 to 135mm, the 35mm being one of very few WAs usable on R. The 35mm Zeiss (maybe the 1,4/35???) and Voigtländers usually aren't.
Anyway, test on YOUR body before buying, different sensors react differently!
I was always wondering what that was, can you explain?
Both a DIY pinhole lens and infrared filters produced strong color shifts in the corners on the RP but not my R6.
Upvote
0
Among other things, the thickness of the cover glass on the sensors (optical stack thickness) and the angle of the microlenses play a role.
The ‘old’ lenses were designed to project straight onto film, with nothing in between. The angle of the rays didn’t really matter, especially on monochrome film.
But with angled micro lenses and a thick piece of glass between the sensor and the lens, it does matter how the rays are angled.
When these lenses became popular on Sony cameras, with their thick optical stack, a number of solutions popped up, like plugins for photoshop. I don’t know if those are still available and still work.
Upvote
0
I find the helicoils on these Cosina manufactured lenses something of a disappointment compared with those of manual focus lenses in their hay day. To someone who’s only ever used AF lenses the manual focus is going to feel good, but they don’t compare with the silkiness of say Canon FD, Takumar and Pentax SMC lenses of the 60’s and 70’s where the smoothness almost defies mechanical connection.
Manual Nikkor lenses were also as good, but the grease Nikon used doesn’t age well at all, and I think Nikon used aluminium to aluminium helicoils whereas certainly Takumar were brass to aluminium.
Manual Nikkor lenses were also as good, but the grease Nikon used doesn’t age well at all, and I think Nikon used aluminium to aluminium helicoils whereas certainly Takumar were brass to aluminium.
Upvote
0
2 reasons.
1: Leica M cameras have specially oriented microlenses on the sides of the sensor, since Leica M lenses (WA) enter deep into the body.
2: M cameras and lenses use a mechanical/optical coding, in order to "read " the lens, thus are able to compensate such aberration ("Italian flag". Named so since one side can have a magenta cast, the other one a greenish cast.
Canons, Sonies, Nikons cannot read the lens' coding, that's why they display, when using WA lenses that reach deep into the body, these ugly phenomenons.
Leica SL 2/3 etc. use a "code reading" adapter to use such lenses. But, in any case, digital Leicas NEED coded lenses, unless you're using focals above 35-40mm. The back-focus of these lenses is usually longer, coding needed mostly if you want the metadata.
Upvote
0
As a long term canon user, somehow I have a feeling that the holy trinity of zooms are more than enough with the 10+ years ago ISO capability in the 5D mark II era to take sharp enough and technically perfect photos. now after all these years and switching from a 5D3 to a R6 II, I somehow just use back all those EF lens and the only manual prime that I seeked after, was the Zeiss ZE classic 50mm planar, which have the character and not only large aperture and ultimate sharpness in every aperture with optical perfection..
Upvote
0
The Zeiss Classic 50mm F2 Planar is the "king" of flare. Otherwise a very nice lens, but better close than at infinity. At least, this applies to mine (sharpness, not flare).
Upvote
0
I am more eyeing on the F1.4 ver. flaring at aperture larger than F2.8 is reducing the contrast quite a bit and have very high CA, but that after these years I would actually add one of these lens in my collection, sometimes that flare "glaring" and soft focus is an advantage in the dreamy look, hoping this 75mm F1.5 could have more of a character than yet another huge chunk of glass and metal that produce beyond meaningful sharpness and technical perfection.
For me personally, when you want technical perfection, better go for the latest and greatest (or at least, lens after like 2010?) and then for MF only lens, the slowed down creation of a artistic photo is what I would sort after
Upvote
0
Similar threads
