small 135mm lens

[bensonga]

Not many folks mention the Nikkor AI/AIS lenses.....such as the 85mm f2 or 85 f1.4. I've always thought the Nikkors were well made and optically quite good...and not that expensive on the used market. There should be quite a few folks who have owned (or like myself, still own) manual focus Nikkors. I realize they are not as small as the Voigtlander with a screw mount adapter.

Any reason why these don't seem to be as popular for legacy glass on micro 4/3rds?

Another option, slightly longer....the final version of the 90mm Leica Elmarit is very compact and according to Erwin Puts review it is "the best 2.8/90mm ever in the Leica history (R and M).

Gary

 

[seakayaker]

Thanks for all the comments.
So we have two candidates;
- Oly Pen 70/2
- Voigtländer 75/2.4

Sounds good. I'll do more research on the two. I guess the CV would be easier to find.

I have the Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 and it is a very nice lens on the GF1. It is a screw mount so it required the 'M' mount adaptor and the 'screw' mount to 'M' mouny adaptor. Pricing for the lens can be found at http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm as well as B&H and other places.

If you pay full price for a new Voigtlander lens and two adaptors you will be sitting around $565.00.

This is what it looks like on the GF1 with adaptors.

. . . . . and few images taken with the lens . . . . .

Life is Grand!

Dan
~

 

[Jonas]

Hmm. There are LTM-->µ4/3 adapters, no need to pay for two adapters.

 

[Jonas]

I think you're the only person I've come across who ever said they felt the 70/2 was anything other than very sharp, Jonas. It's not quite as contrasty as some lenses, but nothing that can't be easily dealt with. Kirk Tuck seems to like his too:

Hi Godfrey,

Maybe I am. Do you know a lot of people having used both these lenses?
There may have been something wrong with my copy but I don't think so.
I remember when I posted some negative critique about the FA77/1.8 Limited in the DPR Pentax forum. Everybody raved about that lens as if it was the best thing ever made in Japan. I took quite some flack. Some Canon guys also dislike my opinion on the EF35/1.4L. That's how it can be.

I later sold my Pen 70/2 to a well known member here and I should really have expected it to come back if there was anything wrong with it. I would say the buyer knows about Zuiko Pen lenses.

Anyway, I attach an image here, the size is about 500kB, showing the apparent differences between these two lenses. Hopefully the image shows parts of what I meant with contrast and rendering differences. The Pen images can certainly look better with some simple PP.

In my, be it humble or not, opinion I don't see any reason to find an expensive second hand Pen lens when the CV75/2.5 is available at a lower price.

Jonas

 

[Stuart Richardson]

That is funny. The pen actually seems like it gets sharp at f/2.8, but it is so much lower contrast. Have you compared how it looks when you adjust for contrast?

 

[Vivek]

Jonas,

A few elementary things:

1. Could you show the adapters (front/rear) that you used for the pen F and Cosina lenses? What I would like to know here is if the adapters were properly lightproofed.

2. The rear element of pen 70/2 sits way inside the lens barrel. Did anyone clean it before they sold it to you? How do you notice "haze"?

You know the Ricoh GXR eliminates all such such problems.

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

In my, be it humble or not, opinion I don't see any reason to find an expensive second hand Pen lens when the CV75/2.5 is available at a lower price.

Jonas

Cameraquest lists the Voigtlander 75/2.5 at USD 329.

LTM to m4/3 adapters are available on eBay and Amazon for around 40 USD (Amazon also has one for USD 26). Pen F to m43 adapters are available on eBay from around 50 USD.

I paid USD 230 for my Pen F 70/2 six months ago, so I'd hardly describe it as an "expensive" lens. Maybe I got a bargain. Perhaps a used CV 75/2.5 will be available at a lower price.

Pen F 70/2 + adapter: USD 280+ (used)
CV 75/2.5 + adapter: USD 355-379 (new)

That said, I agree that the CV 75/2.5 probably offers better value for money, given that you're buying a modern lens with newer coatings and a warranty. Still, I love the way the Pen F lenses render. To each his own.

 

[Jonas]

That is funny. The pen actually seems like it gets sharp at f/2.8, but it is so much lower contrast. Have you compared how it looks when you adjust for contrast?

It gets better and I don't doubt the lens can be used with success. Some contrast loss is usually not critical and I used several low contrast with my 5D cameras. With our small sensors however I like to minimize any level adjustments in Photoshop.

Increased contrast is good but it doesn't really help with internal flare reducing the edge contrast in some parts of the images.

There are other differences as well between these lenses. The CV is contrasty and produces some fringe (can be taken care of) while the Pen makes less of that. There may also be little more LoCA in the CV images, I don't recall really. Lateral CA is a case for pixel peeping but as I remember it it can be corrected with both lenses.

I know some like low contrast lenses claiming they retain more shadow details, or being better for portraits. As I'm a mediocre photographer and not very good at PP so I leave that area for those more skilled.

regards,

/Jonas

 

[Jonas]

Jonas,

A few elementary things:

1. Could you show the adapters (front/rear) that you used for the pen F and Cosina lenses? What I would like to know here is if the adapters were properly lightproofed.

2. The rear element of pen 70/2 sits way inside the lens barrel. Did anyone clean it before they sold it to you? How do you notice "haze"?

You know the Ricoh GXR eliminates all such such problems.

Hi,

1) I used my RJ Pen-->µ4/3 adapter. It works fine with my Pen 42/1.2.
2) Our well known seller at the American West Coast did not say anything about cleaning. When checking for haze I put reading glasses on, hold the lens against a strong light source in different angles, prety well angled actually, and then I have a good look trying to see anything abnormal, sometimes comparing to a well known and good lens. I didn't see anything strange with the Pen lens, as said. Maybe I didn't look good enough?

I don't know about the Ricoh GXR eliminating any haze problems with their lensors. I would think that if the problem surfaces you'll have to replace the complete package. Hmm, I can image a long list of other problems, or at least peculiarities, with the GXR. Their 1.5 crop 50mm lensor seems fine.

Cameraquest lists the Voigtlander 75/2.5 at USD 329.
(...)
Still, I love the way the Pen F lenses render. To each his own.

Is Stephens price competitive? I think you got your Pen 70/2 for a good price. And I fully agree about liking a way a lens renders.

regards,

/Jonas

 

[Vivek]

The Pen F 42/1.2 is a very "special' construction. One of the (two to be critical) elements of the front group tends to de glue and the Canada Balsam used looks very unpleasant when that happens(It/they can be glued back using more modern versions).

That isn't the case with the 70/2.

So, you have more faith in the "well known west coast dealer"? Good for his business!

If a (any) 42/1.2 is more contrasty than a 70/2, there was definitely something very wrong with that 70/2 sample. Good that you sold it. [I have only one sample of the 70/2 and several samples of the 42/1.2]

The Ricoh GXR modules avoid all this lens/adapter, light path, haze, etc complications. Plug them in and you are good to go.

 

[Jonas]

So, you have more faith in the "well known west coast dealer"? Good for his business!

If a (any) 42/1.2 is more contrasty than a 70/2, there was definitely something very wrong with that 70/2 sample. Good that you sold it. [I have only one sample of the 70/2 and several samples of the 42/1.2]

The Ricoh GXR modules avoid all this lens/adapter, light path, haze, etc complications. Plug them in and you are good to go.

Vivek, I didn't say anywhere the 42/1.2 is more contrasty than the 70/2. Where did you get that from? But OK, comparing these two, different, animals I can say the 42/2 is soft and has low contrast at f/1.2 and f/1.4. From f/2 my copy is as sharp (IMA-test) as any other real good lens in the focal range (comparing to for example the Contax Zeiss 45/2 or the OM50/2 Macro).

But how did we go from the 70/2 to decemented and flary 42mm lenses? And what about that So, you have more faith in the "well known west coast dealer"? Good for his business! part?

I trust what I see. Sometimes I miss something as I'm not perfect. I also trust you (yes, so it is) and some other. The far away dealer is not on my list.

/Jonas

 

[Godfrey]

I've mentioned Nikon and Nikkor lenses several times but they do tend to be fairly bulky. The nikkor 85/2AI-S is indeed a very good lens.

 

[Godfrey]

Hi Godfrey,

Maybe I am. Do you know a lot of people having used both these lenses?
There may have been something wrong with my copy but I don't think so.
I remember when I posted some negative critique about the FA77/1.8 Limited in the DPR Pentax forum. Everybody raved about that lens as if it was the best thing ever made in Japan. I took quite some flack. Some Canon guys also dislike my opinion on the EF35/1.4L. That's how it can be.

I later sold my Pen 70/2 to a well known member here and I should really have expected it to come back if there was anything wrong with it. I would say the buyer knows about Zuiko Pen lenses.

Anyway, I attach an image here, the size is about 500kB, showing the apparent differences between these two lenses. Hopefully the image shows parts of what I meant with contrast and rendering differences. The Pen images can certainly look better with some simple PP.

In my, be it humble or not, opinion I don't see any reason to find an expensive second hand Pen lens when the CV75/2.5 is available at a lower price.

Jonas

Have to wait til I get back to my desk to look at your examples.

I do know a number of folks with experience using the 70/2. Not too many with experience using the CV75. I'd planned to buy one of them when I still had Leica M gear but fell into a deal on the Summilux 75 instead.

Will look in again later.

 

[Jonas]

Now that I look at the series of test images again and re-reading your comments I can't help to wonder if the lens was hazy anyway. This is strange. I understand Vivek's question. The short answer is MagLite. What I do not understand is how I could miss it, if it really was there. Oh well.

A 75Lux Godfrey? That's heavy stuff, and Mandler's favourite (maybe I got that from Putz, I'm not sure).

regards,

/Jonas

 

[pcb_dpi]

I'll just pipe in that I can't really judge optical condition of a lens without use of a _very_ bright flashlight. I've held many lenses up to seemingly-bright room lights or windows and seen only clear glass, only to find haze or other flaws when using a truly bright flashlight. If the light source isn't bright enough to momentarily hurt my eyes if I look at it directly, it isn't bright enough to reveal flaws.

That said, if Jonas used a MagLite and the glass looked clear, there might be something else impacting optical performance. That said (that that said??), more than once, I've used flashlights with weak batteries, not realizing light output was lower. Lenses looked clear with weak batts, then I found haze after changing the batts.

The key is the light has to be bright enough to hurt your retina. The trick is figuring out how to ascertain this without actually hurting your retina. :^)

 

[Jonas]

pcb_dpi (?!),

Yup, I first check using my desk top lamp (60W Halogen) and then A MagLite (the standard size with 2 AA/LR6 batteries). That's why I'm puzzled. Maybe I need to switch my MagLite bulb and the batteries...
Or, it might have been something else with the lens, but what?

 

[shadzee]

Could you guys explain the differences (IQ) between the new Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 and the older(?) F/2.4 version?

 

[Jonas]

Could you guys explain the differences (IQ) between the new Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 and the older(?) F/2.4 version?

I don't think there is a 2.4 version. That was just my typo.

 

[Godfrey]

@ pcb_dpi:

You don't need to hurt your eyes to examine a lens for haze or optical defects in the elements' glass. You simply need a collimated point source light and a focusing optical loupe designed with the correct range to inspect lenses, like one uses with an optical bench.

@ Jonas:

I just did a quick test using a Color Checker and an electronic flash setup for stable illumination. I set up the G1 with the Olympus Pen 70mm and made exposures at f/2, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6. I then set up the L1 using the Olympus 50 Macro + EC14 (an effective 70mm f/2.8 lens with known excellent contrast and resolution) and made the exposures at f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6.

All exposures were brought into LR. I adjusted exposure on each frame in Lightroom such that the white patch in the grayscale section read 91-92%. I then checked the percentages on the black patch. The Olympus Pen 70 averaged ~18.2% where the 50+EC14 averaged ~16.5%.

My conclusion is that the Olympus Pen 70mm is slightly less contrasty than the Olympus 50+EC14 combination. However, the difference is indeed pretty darn small, percentage-wise, and is very easy to eliminate entirely with a small adjustment to the blackpoint setting or tone curve.

Here's the range of exposures as processed above, cropped and arrayed to the same size as a JPEG composite.

http://homepage.mac.com/godders/70mm-composite-u.jpg

And in this version, I set the L1 and G1 white balance (using LR's eyedropper on the middle gray patch) and then adjusted the black point on all until each black patch showed ~10% in Lightroom.

http://homepage.mac.com/godders/70mm-composite-c.jpg

The small loss of contrast in the Olympus Pen 70mm lens is really of very little consequence with just the smallest amount of image processing. It could likely be eliminated with in-camera JPEGs by bumping up the contrast or saturation setting by one notch.

 

[woodmancy]

@ pcb_dpi:
. . . . . . .
@ Jonas:

My conclusion is that the Olympus Pen 70mm is slightly less contrasty than the Olympus 50+EC14 combination. However, the difference is indeed pretty darn small, percentage-wise, and is very easy to eliminate entirely with a small adjustment to the blackpoint setting or tone curve.
. . . . . . .

Nice test Godfrey

I just checked my 70/2.0 library and I like them a lot. Here is a flower

Keith