From: Paul Furman on
Wilba wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> Wilba wrote:
>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>> ... there are now ... good pancake lenses for the 5D2 ...
>>> I didn't know that. Brands? Models? Thanks.
>> The Voigtlander 40/2.0 is real sweet.
>>
>> Sample FF image: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/120719456/original
>>
>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-06-blog.html#_20080601Voigtlander
>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-04-blog.html
>>
>> The 20/3.5 is as good as any 20mm for Canon except the Zeiss 21/2.8.
>>
>> http://cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm
>>
>> If you don't need the 58/1.4, a 20, 40, 90mm kit weighs under 800 gm.
>
> Manual focus... how about fixed focus? -
> http://www.lensinacap.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=35&product_id=49
> :- )

Ha!

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: stephe_k on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Oh, RANGEFINDER cameras.
>>>
>>> But that isn't the subject, is it?
>> Did you look at the threat title? ^_^
>
> The one that was created 23 posts ago?
>
> You're new to this whole usenet thing, aren't you? Or are you just
> incapable of responding to what people actualy write?
>


Read back through the posts Ray, EVERYONE was talking about rangefinder
cameras except you.

Stephanie
From: Ray Fischer on
stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Oh, RANGEFINDER cameras.
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't the subject, is it?
>>> Did you look at the threat title? ^_^
>>
>> The one that was created 23 posts ago?
>>
>> You're new to this whole usenet thing, aren't you? Or are you just
>> incapable of responding to what people actualy write?
>
>Read back through the posts Ray,

Read the post you responded to, idiot.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bruce on
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:16:53 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Wilba wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>> ... there are now ... good pancake lenses for the 5D2 ...
>>>> I didn't know that. Brands? Models? Thanks.
>>> The Voigtlander 40/2.0 is real sweet.
>>>
>>> Sample FF image: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/120719456/original
>>>
>>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-06-blog.html#_20080601Voigtlander
>>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-04-blog.html
>>>
>>> The 20/3.5 is as good as any 20mm for Canon except the Zeiss 21/2.8.
>>>
>>> http://cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm
>>>
>>> If you don't need the 58/1.4, a 20, 40, 90mm kit weighs under 800 gm.
>>
>> Manual focus... how about fixed focus? -
>> http://www.lensinacap.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=35&product_id=49
>> :- )



I'm interested in the comments about the Voigtl�nder lenses, having
tested both the 40mm f/2 and 20mm f/3.5.

The 40mm f/2 is sharp but the background bokeh is very harsh indeed,
giving distinct "bright line" rendition of out-of-focus highlights. It
improves by f/4, but I wonder what is the point of designing a lens
that performs so badly wide open. It is a very poor replacement for
the 45mm f/2.8 Nikkor AI-P.

The 20mm f/3.5 is not sharp. It is a particularly poor effort given
the claim of three aspherical surfaces. It also has the worst case of
"moustache" or "wavy line" distortion that I have ever seen, which can
only have been caused by inept basic optical design.

The Voigtl�nder 20mm makes the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF look good, and that
is a considerable achievement. Both of them are considerably bettered
by any of Nikon's current pro *zoom* lenses plus the discontinued
20-35mm f/2.8, which was one of my previous favourites.

Over the years I have bought and used several Voigtl�nder lenses. They
have always offered reasonable value for money, but each one (with the
possible exception of the 15mm f/4.5 Heliar) has displayed at least
one significant optical weakness. I ended up selling all except the
15mm.

I have heard good reports of the 58mm f/1.4, which I believe is a
near-copy of a Topcon design, but I have yet to test it. Given my
previous experiences with Voigtl�nder, I won't be investing any of my
own money in one, so I'm hoping someone will lend me a copy to try.

From: Paul Furman on
Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:16:53 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Wilba wrote:
>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>>> ... there are now ... good pancake lenses for the 5D2 ...
>>>>> I didn't know that. Brands? Models? Thanks.
>>>> The Voigtlander 40/2.0 is real sweet.
>>>>
>>>> Sample FF image: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/120719456/original
>>>>
>>>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-06-blog.html#_20080601Voigtlander
>>>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-04-blog.html
>>>>
>>>> The 20/3.5 is as good as any 20mm for Canon except the Zeiss 21/2.8.
>>>>
>>>> http://cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm
>>>>
>>>> If you don't need the 58/1.4, a 20, 40, 90mm kit weighs under 800 gm.
>>> Manual focus... how about fixed focus? -
>>> http://www.lensinacap.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=35&product_id=49
>>> :- )
>
>> The 90/3.5 close focus is very small and sharp, unique, beautiful image quality, nice build. Overpriced for Nikon mount though, I got a Leica screw mount version for much less though it only works around 0.5x focus range. Should be useful on micro-4/3. Then I got a 125/2.5 macro with Pentax screw mount that I mounted to focus from 20 feet to a bit more than 1:1 (also overpriced for Nikon mount). I just ordered a 40/2 pancake to replace my stolen Nikon 45/2.8. I'm sure it'll come in handy.
>
> I'm interested in the comments about the Voigtl�nder lenses, having
> tested both the 40mm f/2 and 20mm f/3.5.

I like the 90/3.5 APO Close Focus. Really well behaved for bright OOF
highlights though it can produce purple fringing in the most extreme
cases. Sharpness does not hold up beyond 0.5x but is real clean and
sharp there. Apparently there's another version coming out soon.

The following test crops are all at f/4 and 1x magnification. I never
really got them organized properly, if you click all sizes, they're a
tad larger and there are 3 crops, mostly matched, I'm just showing one
of those crops here:
85/2.8 PC Micro:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4451062172/
90/3.5 V/C:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4450291907/
105/2.8 VR:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4450289545/
105/4 bellows:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4451064332/
125/2.5 V/C:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4450288845/
180/2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4451065462/

full scene:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4450309979/


> The 40mm f/2 is sharp but the background bokeh is very harsh indeed,
> giving distinct "bright line" rendition of out-of-focus highlights. It
> improves by f/4, but I wonder what is the point of designing a lens
> that performs so badly wide open. It is a very poor replacement for
> the 45mm f/2.8 Nikkor AI-P.

Well the 45 Ai-P wasn't exactly a cream machine in my experience but
we'll see. I like that it's a tad wider and supposed to be more
comfortable to focus.

> The 20mm f/3.5 is not sharp. It is a particularly poor effort given
> the claim of three aspherical surfaces. It also has the worst case of
> "moustache" or "wavy line" distortion that I have ever seen, which can
> only have been caused by inept basic optical design.
>
> The Voigtl�nder 20mm makes the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF look good, and that
> is a considerable achievement. Both of them are considerably bettered
> by any of Nikon's current pro *zoom* lenses

Those are all huge though. I really like my 20/2.8 although yeah, it's
got flaws but it's really wide on FX, super small, and (reasonably)
priced, so I'm not real interested in the V/C.

> plus the discontinued
> 20-35mm f/2.8, which was one of my previous favourites.
>
> Over the years I have bought and used several Voigtl�nder lenses. They
> have always offered reasonable value for money, but each one (with the
> possible exception of the 15mm f/4.5 Heliar) has displayed at least
> one significant optical weakness. I ended up selling all except the
> 15mm.
>
> I have heard good reports of the 58mm f/1.4, which I believe is a
> near-copy of a Topcon design, but I have yet to test it. Given my
> previous experiences with Voigtl�nder, I won't be investing any of my
> own money in one, so I'm hoping someone will lend me a copy to try.
>


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam