Great channel. Thank you for your detailed no BS approach. Looking forward to more reviews. We are in the best time for optics now with the compatibility of mirrorless cameras.
An absolute perfect test subject for a lens , bark, which can make some of the best lenses look like toys. Thank you for taking the time to do this!... bravo.
I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8g and the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4, and they are both incredible lenses for different purposes. For everyday use, I'll go for the 50mm, and for serious portrait photography, art photography, and professional work, I'll go for the Voigtlander 58mm.
Very educational video, thank you. Btw, some people claim that the latest version of the Nokton has better CA control. It would be interesting to establish.
It's only normal for the more modern lenses to have better CA control. If you are in manual focus lenses, the new Voigt 50mm 1.2 is an excellent lens, better than the old 58 Nokton in all aspects. Avoid the new 60mm Voigt (problematic focus creeping).
Great video! I own 50 1.8G af-s which is cool easy to use lens. Recently I bought Nokton 58 1.4 and I think it's amazing - it's harder to work with but gives you amazing picture and a lot of fun. I also have 105 2.5 AI which I strongly recommend, currently looking for 85 1.4 Zeiss / 85 AIS or Nikkors 200/4 180/2.8 This old primes are great, maybe not that great like latest Zeiss, but it cost much, much, much less.... :)
I would avoid the Nikon 200 Ais, too soft. On the other hand, the 200mm f/4 MACRO is one of the best lenses around. I had the 105 Ai, sweet little lens, I replaced it with the Voigtlander 125 APO.
@@CameraMystique 200mm is extremely cheap, and with 24mpix I think It can be fun. V125 cost ton of money - as an amateur I don't think it makes sense for me. I have also 105/4 AI Micro for macro shots but honestly I dont do macro to often. Recently i bought AI 28/2 but i'm lookin towards 35/2 or maybesomeof Zeiss 25-28-35 lens Plus - you're absolutleyright about focusing V58 for a geen dot - it's almost impossible which is smooth with 28/2 and 105/2.5 I couldn't understand why it gives me sucha hard times.... ;)
I have a big soft spot for the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton, it isn't perfect but it has character and is fun to use. It is one of my most used lenses, in studio stopped down it is amazing and you can get some wonderful portraits. I also use it a lot on my Fujifilm X-H1 and whilst it isn't as good as my Fujifilm 90mm f/2 it is just a fun lens to take out and shoot. The 50mm f/1.4 Milvus should also be a consideration, it is newer design than the 50mm f/2 Milvus in design (the 50mm f/2 is more of an upgrade than new design).
I have bought the Zeiss 2/50 recently and got it for a steal. I love it. It is great wide open. I replaced my older Planar 1.4/50 after dropping it. Zeiss offers a rebate of €350-400 now and my steal is gone. :-) never mind.
I never owned or tested the 1.4D, but the 1.8D is a great lens for its price and size, with very low to non-existent chromatic aberrations and distortion.
very detail explaination and review on the 3 lens. Are those picture taken at the same time for the 3 lens? I see huge difference in their color tone, the milvus mp50 has vivid and warm and more saturated color tone, which look more pleasing to my eyes. Voigtlander looks a bit on cooler for the autumn leaves, and octus sit im the middle. I own both voigt 58 and classic mp50, but I havent noticed such big difference in colors.
Same time/conditions. Different lenses have different tint values, which cause the camera to shift its white balance. Theoretically one should test lenses with locked white balance, but my purpose here was to also show this shift with the D850, since most users let the camera decide on the white balance. The Milvus 50 though has indeed a bit more saturated (vibrant) colors than others. The Voigt 58 always shifts. The Otus is neutral (as it should be) with excellent finer separation between colors, and if you want a lens for Nikon that will give the most clean (lifelike) and impressive colors, that's the 135 sonar.
Wow! Absolutely AMAZING review. Superseding, literally everything, that I’ve seen so far online, by miles. Thank you so very much! P. S. If I may... Is there anything you can share about Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZF.2?
The Zeiss Planar Classic 85/1.4 has a lot of CA and focus shift. I had the Zeiss Planar Classic 50/1.4 with the same high CA and focus shift. It became very difficult to use for me, using electronic focus aids, split screen or even my eyes. I always got fooled. I upgraded to Milvus 2/50 and Milvus 1.4/85. Both are sharp. Real sharp. I am just waiting to get the film back - since I work analogue most of the time. Since the classic 1.4/85 is an older design too, I expect a similar behaviour to the Zeiss 1.4/50. Not easy to focus.
@@oliverlison Yeah, I know. It has strong CA wide open, which trick the focusing dot and any other focusing system. Although I have been more lucky than I deserve with the 85 Planar, it's a lens to be used with liveview and not at 1.4 or 1.8 for modern standards. You will find apochromatic lenses much easier and more accurate to focus. Still though, I like its rendering style from 2.0 and above, it's got classic character.
@@CameraMystique Being honest, I like to work with manual lenses and my photograp[hy has benefited from that. However, when doing an assignement on film, I need to be 100% certain that things go right. With the Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 it was working in the dark and I couldn't trust my vision. The Milvus 2/50 provided me a much higher success rate. I don't know the Milvus 1.4/85 yet because I just bought it (showroom model + Cashback) for a very low price. I am getting film back today that needs to be scanned during the next few eveings. Then I can tell how good it is. Focussing the Milvus 85 on the digital Nikons is more than simple.
@@oliverlison You'll get good results with the 85 Milvus too. The more apochromatic, the better. From all the Milvus line, the one that I kept and it because my favorite portrait (!) lens, is the Milvus 35 1.4, which has the most 3D and best bokeh lens of the Milvus line in my opinion. And when you ever try the 135 f/2.0 APO Sonar, you will probably buy another one the same day (by how easily it focuses), and the results will truly amaze you by how realistic, vibrant and pure the colors are. Things change though in longer distances from the subject in viewfinder cameras, in which case a viewfinder magnifier will help. And extra care is needed, because the more APO a lens is, the more the focused area distinguish itself from anything that's not perfectly in focus, even at f/4. In good quality prints, it shows! I have various examples in other videos. Thank you for watching!
I am so pleased I found this video. I am a film user. I use a Nikon F2, I was thinking of buying the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton f1.4. Would this give better overall results than the Nikon 50mm F1.4 AIS lens do you think? Thank you for your advice.
If I had the F2 I'd be shooting with the Nikon 55 2.8 macro. This lens is so good (and far easier and more precise to focus!) that it's still in current production. Strong recommendation. For film it's better than both lenses you suggest (almost zero chromatic aberrations - which makes it a lot more precise in focusing), unless you are addicted to wide open apertures. If you can't live without wide open apertures, the Voigtlander has an unforgiving field curvature which requires "LiveView at the intended aperture", otherwise you will miss focus most of the time. Since you don't have LiveView in film cameras, stick with the Nikon. And if you can sacrifice the wide open apertures, get the 55.
I am almost at the end of my capture one trial and still couldn't made up my mind. Sometimes LR renders my raw images better sometimes C1 I don't know if should switch or not. What's your thoughts on capture one?
Personally I ended up with ACR/Photoshop, using ACR 99%. I have a video about the subject, but even the newer version is better for me. It's cheaper too, for now, and easier to use (intuitive controls, no crappy "catalogues" etc). And unsurpassed chromatic aberration module. Now, Lynda (dot com) has an excellent professional yet very easy (step by step) full guide on ACR. Another thing: Though the last version is heavy/slow, but after a full download of the entire suite, you can go download ACR ver. 11.4 and just install it on top of the newer one. No problems, works perfectly. My first quick vid was at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZMqs6IE6smA.html Then I referred to the issue by showing testimonies from a blog at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M9xCAU9INWw.html time point 9.20
It's a very good lens. You can use it for indoors sports, general scenes, everything. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bDdfr4zXD5I.html
@@CameraMystique The old manual masters, micro Nikkor 55 and 105 2.8 would be a great review, I just discovered your channel, seems like the last place (on RU-vid) for serious Nikon photography...
Thank you for the video. I thought i was doing something wrong with my voigtlander 58/D500 combo cuz it kept missing focus at 1.4 all along. Until I saw your video and understood the confirmation dot in nikon bodies getting tricked. Is there an easy or a hard way to overcome this?
Try focusing in live view with the aperture at 2.8 or so... but before that, if you prefer focusing with the viewfinder, try this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Yj6fsyZh2wU.html Then, every time you get a pic, make sure the focus point is indeed at your target (sometimes we forget it all over the place), and semi-press the shutter button a couple of times to ensure confirmation while slightly turning the lens ring. When I point at a face, I move around the area of the eyes (high contrast areas), and semi-press and release the shutter button 3-4 times to make sure the confirmation dot stays indeed confirmed. This is a 2-3 second process. The video above may help, do it first with an AF lens, and then also with an MF lens, this permanently reduces the tolerance of the "dot". FINALLY, there is a "preview depth of field" button on your camera. When you press it, the aperture in the lens closes down. This also reduces aberrations, and the focusing dot becomes more accurate. However, there must be enough light, so don't close it more than 2.8. After you do that, leave the focusing ring alone, and just open the aperture back to 1.4 with the camera's dial, and take the shot. At any rate though, the high CAs of the Voigtlander at 1.4 will never yield a clean image, it will be color-polluted. This lens in reality is a 2.8 lens for good performance. I would suggest trying the Nikon 50mm 1.8D or 1.8G at 2.0 or 2.2. Excellent focusing and performance. Or even better, the 85mm 1.8G, at 2.2 or 2.8, it's excellent, you'll probably like it more than the Voigtlander on the D500 (the Voigt cropped doesn't say much really... it needs the full frame to reveal all its rendering).
@@CameraMystique Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will try this and get back to you. I eye-balled through your playlist and I guess I have to check all of them starting later this evening. Also, I am planning to get the D850 but caught up between i) spending the money now ii) investing in a prime-telephoto (used/decent condition) and iii) getting the D850
@@ledpaige In other more recent videos I make several comments about various issues for D850 owners, with the biggest one being high chromatic aberrations with uncorrected lenses (three times as high as with the D750). Check out this one ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZxM2e0nebvE.html and go in the previous ones too. The D850 will force you to MAJOR expenses with lenses, emphasis on apochromatic ones and shaken image cases. In all my tests, the D810 with a better lens is better in resolution than the D850 with an average lens. Look at Exhibit 2, testimony from a true professional reviewer (subscription site owner) here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4td7gmhNQ-g.html
@@ledpaige Nikon itself, for example, sacrifices lens sales by recommending only very few models for the D850. If they wanted to sell lenses, they would say "sure, use any lens you want". But they can't recommend the older/lesser ones. The same do experienced Nikon professionals who have dropped most of their Nikon lenses for use with the D850. Of course I'm talking about actual pro photographers, and I also trust my own eyes. Older or lesser lenses do not have the degree of telecentricity and acutance needed to avoid chromatic aberrations and color spillovers ("crosstalk") on the D850 sensor's tiny photosites. If you buy the D850 and expect to use it with average lenses, I'll come by with a D810 (or even D750 in some cases) and my Zeiss lenses and take better images with higher resolution every single time no matter what you do. To give you an idea, I use the Voigtlander with the D850 only between f/5.6 and f/11. At f/5.6 I still get CAs but correctable. Below f/4.0, screw it, I have to use my APO lenses. Above f/11, I get high diffraction. Examples: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vkf5KitFvH8.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e8XFO5FqCnw.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L-yLsgeP1JY.html Unless you spend major $$ in Apochromatic lenses, you won't enjoy the D850, after a couple of months it'll be collecting dust. The D810 has far less issues and is more stable handheld (and more silent too), while displaying the same resolution as Lloyd Chamber admitted after insanely detailed results even with RawDigger at pixel level: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4td7gmhNQ-g.html&t=75
Yes, agree. One of best lens review video. Do you have experience for Milvus 50mm 1.4? I am interested in it but there are not many reviews for it. Thanks,
I do mention the 50mm 1.4 briefly in other videos and a little more here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8I8ZVm18NTc.html For Nikon, I found it to have very high CAs, in some cases unusable pics. I was not the only one - pro reviewers (Lloyd Chambers) have reached the same conclusion but phrase it differently to downplay it. The f2 is a lot more corrected and usable, but at the end of the day it'll puzzle you why pay so much more than the 50 1.8G... If there are three lenses to avoid in the Milvus line, it's the 35 f/2, the 50 f/1.4, and the 100 f/2.
@@CameraMystique why do you think that 100/2 should be avoided? As I understand this is quite unique lens which can be used for a portraits and some occasional macro shots with good sharpness, color rendering etc. Am I wrong with these assumptions?
@@gyrdin a) On high res body you'll get high CAs in all apertures that matter and render "muddy whits/greys" which results to less micro-contrast compared to any APO lens, b) straight aperture blades (not rounded) will give you ugly polygons in the bokeh speculars right after f/4.5 or so, c) big, expensive and heavy. The only thing that saves it is the bokeh from f/2 to f/4. For less money I'd definitely go for the 135 f/2 Sonnar (better color), for the same money I'd pick the Nikon 70-200 FL (all around useful, stabilized, AF, equally sharp). I know that the experts love to praise expensive lenses (because it's a safe bet), but the Milvus 100/2 was one of the worst money losses for me. At the end of the day, think in terms of traveling. You start filing up a bag with the essentials, and there's no room for a heavy/fat 100 prime unless your entire trip is shooting up-close flowers from f/2-4.
I’m debating between this 58 and the 50 apo for my Sony ff. I have had the 58 so I remember how nice lens it was , but the new apo has really good reviews
The new Voigt 50 Apo is better in optical performance than the 58. But the Sony platform has a couple of really good AF 50mm lenses from what I know, so I don't see the reason for a manual lens with the same focal. The only scenario where you might see a small difference is if you shoot a forest scene at f8-f11 and you want all the many leaves in the scene, front to back, as sharp as possible for a very large print, in which case the new Voigt will help you get there easier. For online/electronic copies or small prints there is no difference to be seen, and a tiny error in manual focusing will quickly give the advantage to the Sony AF lens. For Nikon DSLR users the 58 was a good choice for its interesting "drawing" in some scenarios and its impressive sharpness at f/5.6, but Nikon DSLR users didn't have a great compact 50mm AF alternative at the time (Nikon was not interested at the time about 50mm, they kept selling the old cheap lens). That's why the Voigt 58 became so popular: Nikon's platform was incomplete in that focal range. Their new Nikon mirrorless 50 AF mops the floor with the old Voigt 58 and has the same optical performance with the new 50 APO Voigt, at half the price and AF.
How do you think the voigtlander 58mm compares with nikkor 105mm 2.5? I love this lens and I get amazing results with it, thinking about either buying a second copy of this or the voigtlander.
If one compares both lenses at f/3.2 and smaller (4, 5.6, etc), the Voigtlander will appear sharper and more contrasty, it resolves better, and the corners will also be a bit better with the Voigt (a lens designed for both film and digital, vs. the old Nikon which is a film design). Below that f/3.2, both of them have CAs to deal with. So optically the Voigt is the better lens between these two. But it won't make a difference if your subject doesn't depend on that. For landscapes the Voigt is much better, but for portraits I'd stick with the old Nikon, because in my experience it's far easier to fix CAs through white balance with Nikon lenses on Nikon bodies somehow.
@@CameraMystique Also my experience with the nikkor, at 2.5 I don't really get that much CA. I use a color checker card for portraits and comparing two edited images with the color checker and one without, the one with the color checker is somewhat sharper and more contrasty without that much CA.
@@CameraMystique I really like the striking 3D look of voigtlander but yes I also like longer focal lengths more. I was thinking the 135mm 2.8 is another good option, but the 105mm 2.5 just has something special to it.
The 85 is more predictable in its rendering and bokeh, while the 55 more "dramatic" and a bit more dimensional. In certain cases the 55 can have nervous bokeh, in most cases cinematic - it requires more practice. The 85 is more optically refined.
Straight Out of Camera I do agree with you on the 55 having a more dramatic cinematic effect based on the photo galleries I’ve seen, whereas the 85 is a bit more “well behaved” sort of lens. I bought the Otus 85 a few weeks ago and I love it but I’m considering getting the 55 or the Sonnar 135. Anyways I was under the impression that the Otus 85 was the “King of the hill” of the the entire Otus line when it was released and seemed to get the most praises, but recently many users on some forums have reported that the 55 is actually the sharpest of them all. Any thoughts on that ? Lastly what are your thoughts on the Otus 100 and do you plan to make a video on it ?
@@wilhelmrosenthal1305 The 85 is sharper than the 55 wide open, though I find it impossible to distinguish over the internet. After f2.2 they' re all the same. The 100, also clinically sharp as the 85, but from pics I've seen it's more geared towards "purity of the bokeh".
I do mention the 50mm 1.4 briefly in other videos and a little more here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8I8ZVm18NTc.html For Nikon, I found it to have very high CAs, in some cases unusable pics. I was not the only one - pro reviewers (Lloyd Chambers) have reached the same conclusion but phrase it differently to downplay it. The f2 is a lot more corrected and usable, but at the end of the day it'll puzzle you why pay so much more than the 50 1.8G... If there are three lenses to avoid in the Milvus line, it's the 35 f/2, the 50 f/1.4, and the 100 f/2.
@@stratoszafeiriou7147 Για αλλού το πήγαινα εγώ.. . λέω Ελλαδάρα τώρα, τι να κάθεσαι μέσα να βλέπεις βίντεο σε μια τόσο όμορφη χώρα. Τώρα, όσον αφορά Ελληνικά βίντεο, θα έπρεπε να κάνω άλλο κανάλι, μακάρι να είχα καιρό.
@@CameraMystique τώρα με την καραντίνα δεν βγαίνουμε και πολύ έξω είναι περιορισμένες οι μετακινήσεις και εδώ. Δουλειά από το σπίτι και καμία βόλτα το τετράγωνο δυστυχώς.
Thank you for your video & I revisit this video for reference. I am currently owning many manual SLR lens, I am considering to slim down my collections as i don't like to mount heavy lens on my Nikon df and Nikon F3 camera. I have 18mm/f3.5 distagon, 28mm distagon, 50mm Makro planar, voigtlander 58mm, 100mm marko planar. The 18mm, 28mm and 58mm are likely to stay. But the 50mp focal length overlap with Voigt 58mm and is heavier, so i seldom bring it out. I am stuggling to sell the 50mp but keep the 100mp for telephoto portrait and makro work, but 100mp is also very heavy. I would like to hear your thoughts. :)
I have no idea what you want, but generally speaking, if I wanted to keep such a 3-lens kit for these cameras and keep the weight down, it would be: -- Distagon 28 f/2 (not the 2.8) -- Nikon 55mm 2.8 Macro -- Nikon 135mm f/3.5 Ais
Which of the Nikkor AiS lenses (or of the ones you've tested) do you consider to be world class? The 105 2.5, 135 2.8 and 105 1.8 are ones I've considered as mid tele for portraits.... once i get a camera that can meter non CPU MF lenses. Im a budget kit guy (considering a D300 because I may not be able to afford a D7100!) Edit: I've seen in a previous video you like the 135 2.8 when comparing to the Milvus and Meyer Optik Orestor
I actually just sold to Roberts a 105 2.5. It's a great lens, I just have no use for a 100 generally. The 135 2.8 is a fantastic lens. I wouldn't call it "world class" but it's fantastic for the price!
I don't see what the metering problem is though. The camera meters from the sensor, why would you have any problems with manual lenses? The only inconvenience is that you have to manually adjust the ring, and the f value won't appear in your EXIF file. Metering is not affected.
@@CameraMystique Not so. One can actually see the aperture change in the viewfinder/live view when one turns the aperture ring of whatever AI/AI-S lens is attached. No chipping required :)
Exactly what I was looking for! Thank you. Would like to know your opinion or test results on Sigma 50 and 35 1.4 ART in terms of dimensionality and aberration. I don't shoot at 1.4 and usually at 5.6. Thank you for the detailed videos.
Both of these lenses are low on aberrations, average "dimensional" rendering, nothing that jumps out of the ordinary other than sharpness. For me to carry heavy/complex primes, they must have something exceptional in rendering, otherwise there's no point. Also, you can create a more dimensional effect by the interplay of light and shadow, as I have explained in other videos, regardless of the lens. Finally, with the recent developments in lenses, if you are planning to go to mirrorless, the Nikon 50mm beats them all (except the Otus), and is cheaper, lighter, more durable. The same applies with all other manufacturers as well, which makes the oversized Sigma "ok if you already have it and use it, but not the best purchase in 2022".
@@CameraMystique thanks for the reply. I have the D lenses 28 and 35mm and the nikon 50 1.8. I recently picked up Nikon D850 and bought up cheapest lenses but for some reason which I understand now, I like the cheaper "in price" lenses than the newer ones like 50 1.4 (full of issues, color fringing etc). I shoot fashion and street and 99% the widest aperture is not important to me. As long as I get the good rendition and the "pop" or as mentioned in your videos "dimensionality", and the light weight. Reason why I was looking was to get the best lens I can afford which I think I would go for Otus if I had the cash. One thing I don't understand is that why manufacturers make 55mm and 58mm and not the normal 35 and 50? Is that a compression/pop matter?
@@BandariVahab a) A D610 with good lenses mops the floor with the D850 with insufficient lenses. More pixels does not mean "sharper". It just means "larger image". If the lens is blurry you'll get a large blurry image. The D850 is high pixel pitch and requires the best of the best if I can put it this way, or at least lenses with low or zero chromatic aberrations. I have two videos with lenses recommended for the D850: a) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2r2TeQ3Pn1k.html and b) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bDdfr4zXD5I.html
@@BandariVahab As far as 55 and 58, in today's cameras doesn't mean anything other than a different compositional choice that it forces on the photographer. It had to do with percentage coverage in the viewfinder, irrelevant today. And you'll get a lot more dimensional rendering by the interplay of light and dark shadows than by the choice of any lens. I have many videos on the topic, check out for example ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gyPh_t8F_sA.html
@@CameraMystique thanks. I watched them both. The tables are very helpful in making the decision based on technical understanding of what makes a lens stand out. I think I'm good for now with I have and maybe one day get the Otus 55.
Based on the lenses the first writer was talking about, the "community of experts" in question is likely the Angry Photographer. Those are all lenses he raves about.
I’m curious to know what your thoughts are when the angry photographer says the zeiss Otus lens is bad. Actually I also found the micro contrast to be lacking compared to Fuji glass.
But the tests you see in this video prove otherwise. Do you have proof to the contrary? For *Micro-Contrast,* the most complete 3-video series on RU-vid (along with the actual definition), is: Part 1: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Cy0fq0FHXDM.html Part 2: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TPu4N6CnkGg.html Part 3: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qFPfcQ62PZ4.html
PS. The "Angry Photographer" is not a photographer, and I have not seen any tests of him (with images at least), nor does he reveal any testing protocols. You can use the "Search" option in my channel (or the playlists) to see more complete tests, although this video is one of the most detailed I've made, omitting other parameters such as focus shifting, specular behaviors etc. The Otus is one of my 3 "always in the bag" lenses. In most trips in the last 2 years it's one of the 2 lenses I carry, and in short trips the only one.
@@CameraMystique I did a detailed comparison for video but not for photos - I feel the results were partly affected by Fujiflm's in-camera adjustments. I found new fujifilm glass to be on par with the Otus very minimal differences but my eyes are are not trained as well as yours also I found it very difficult to nail focus with such shallow DoF
Great video 👌 does a lens with a low element count provide more micro contrast than a lens with more elements? And will a lens with better corrected aberrations give better micro contrast and 3d pop ? I have both voigtlander nokton 50mm 1.2 and the f2 apo 50mm but the 1.2 lens seems to have better sharpness at infinity and more 2d pop than my apo lens
a) No. I have made other videos about the topic on "lens elements". b) Chromatic aberrations kill micro-contrast, so generally a better corrected lens has better micro-contrast. c) "3D" pop is irrelevant to micro-contrast. But it's relevant to lens design and light. Explained in detail with examples at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8ArcZd9FBQA.html
My 3-video micro-contrast series was and is the only one on RU-vid with such detail *and* with the actual *definition* of it. Part 1 is here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Cy0fq0FHXDM.html
@@CameraMystique I’m after a new lens and the zeiss distagon 35mm f1.4, zeiss 25mm f2.8 , zeiss 50mm f2 planar, zeiss 50mm f1.5 sonar or Voigt 28mm f2 or Voigt 35mm f1.2 ?? I’m buying 2 new lenses and zeiss lenses are sharper than Voigt lenses but Voigt lenses have more character in the image I believe
This is the video and comparison I have been looking and waiting months for, although with the Milvus 50mm f1.4 not the Otus as the latter is out of budget. I currently own a Nikkor 50mm f1.8G (for faster shoots) and the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 for both a D610 and a Nikon F3. I have been shooting film more often recently and I cannot decide if I should be switching the Voigtlander for the Zeiss Milvus Makro Planar 50mm f2 to maximize image quality on film. The better sharpness and colors are enticing but I am worried about the focus shift and its worth with the higher price. I shoot mainly portraiture but of course a lot of "general photography" pictures on film as well. I really do appreciate the dimensionality of the Voigtlander but I do not know if it is worth keeping in exchange for the Milvus. Also, I do use the newer metal focusing grip Voigtlander and have had no trouble with sharpness. However, on the digital camera, the aperture closes inaccurately. f1.4 is still f1.4 but when f2 is displayed on screen, it's actually shooting at f1.6. To get true f2, I have to place it at f2.5. For f2.8, it needs to be placed on f3.5, etc. Basically a 2/3 stop issue. On the Nikon F3, or just using the aperture ring, it is accurate. I do not know if you have experienced this with your copy. I do hope for your reply! Great video nonetheless. I thoroughly enjoyed watching.
a) I have not experienced this aperture anomaly with my copy of the Voigt. What I have experienced is an over-exposure by about half a stop. *b) The Voigt 58 is still better than the Macro Planar f/2, unless you need macro.* It's also better than the Milvus 1.4 (the latter has stronger chromatic aberrations than the Voigt, I have a video about it). Sharpness-wise they' re the same. I'm not kidding. No need to change lenses. The only 50 lens I have found to be better than the Voigt is the Otus, and between apertures 1.8-3.5, the Nikon 1.8G has better CA behavior. I shoot the Voigt from 4 to 11 on the D850 (if you move up to D810/D850, you'll see far more CAs than you' re seeing now). c) The Voigt 58 does not have any problem with focus shifting. However, it's not easy focusing with the "dot" because of high CAs wide open which trick the contrast-based AF system. Happens in mirrorless cameras too. But I've rarely missed focus with it, I have plenty of examples in my other videos. The reason is that the Voigt has negligible field curvature. Still though, it's a little getting used to it. c) For the Voigt, get an off-brand metal hood, as long as it does not cause vignetting. I have found that slightly longer metal hoods than the Voigt hood greatly improve the image quality (the Voigt is VERY sensitive to flaring etc). I'm using the "JJC 58mm Screw-in Mount Standard", $9 at Amazon. For this hood, you'll need a different lens cap too, to go on the outside. d) Finally, do not use any filters on the Voigt 58 (other than maybe a Nikon clear filter). They all degrade it - especially the Hoya and Tiffen.
@@CameraMystique That's good to hear. I believe you've saved me a $1000 Haha! In regards to the overexposure, if you have the time, you can check the size the aperture blade closes in the DoF preview and compare it to the lens off camera with the aperture ring set to the identical aperture! I believe there is something wrong with the Voigtlander CPU programming. For what reason, I do not know but definitely the number on the aperture ring does not match what the DSLR will say. I recently purchased a Nikon HS-9 hood, actually. I believe it was made for the 50mm f1.4. I haven't been having too much issue focusing with the Voigtlander on the Nikon F3. I believe the difference in ease may be due to modern DSLRs' focusing screens being only accurate up to f2.8. I've read that they did this to prioritise brightness as most people would shoot AF anyway. Thank you again for the very quick and lengthy reply. Keep up the astounding work!
@@m.andre824 I will. One thing to bear in mind, besides the variations in the chip, is the correct white balance. The Voigt hates cooler white balances: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vkf5KitFvH8.html
@@m.andre824 Oh, I forgot: If you are using Adobe Camera Raw, when you go into the lens module to correct for CAs, turn OFF the "distortion correction" (move slider to zero). It destroys the lens rendering.
Well they're not 'crappy', but let's say that at the time manufacturers were operating under the assumption that a 1.4 lens should not be that good at 1.4. Something which users had accepted for decades. Modern high resolution sensors reveal all these problems. At any rate, in terms of sharpness, micro-contrast etc the Voigtlander 58 is good at 1.4 for lower res sensors, but on the D850 it's really like a "2.8" lens. One RU-vidr tried to convince people that you can judge micro-contrast by de-saturating a color image (turn it into B&W, or I should say "pseudo B&W"), which is what the "bullshit" word was referring to.
You mention chromatic aberrations and color fringing. I used to think they were the same, but from my research that doesn't appear to be the case. Can you explain the difference? There is purple fringing that shows purple and green fringing that shows green. What are chromatic aberrations? I thought chromatic aberrations would also show purple. How are they different than color fringing?
Chromatic aberrations is a huge category and even includes internal lens reflections - practically anything that affects colors and is the fault of the lens (and/or sensor sampling sometimes!). Fringing is one kind of "lateral" aberrations, and although it's the most annoying one, it's not the most severe. Purple (blue and red combined) will appear from the focus point and closer to wards you (the photographer), and green will appear from the focus point to infinity (away from you). You can find long or short articles on the internet on the topic. The problem is not only that you get wrong colors and smeared look, but also that the focusing system of the camera gets confused because it can't find any area of clean contrast. That is why I generally recommend apochromatic lenses or "as apo as possible".
The Voigt is better in all aspects than the old 50 Planar. The Planar may give the impression of more "brilliant" colors in good light conditions, but has higher CAs too which are visible in high res bodies on the Nikon version (weirdly enough, CAs are less on the Canon version of the lens). If you already have the Planar though, and a body 24mp or less, it's not worth spending the money to replace it.
@@richardrawson3160 Fixing CAs means changing colors. That's what software does - it changes RGB values of each pixel. When you, let's say, "increase exposure" in lightroom, the only thing you' re doing is changing RGB values towards white. So, you can make the CAs less visible or invisible in high contrast areas, by changing RGB values away from certain colors, but CAs are everywhere in the image. Check: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lVuyS8Ut8eM.html And: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L-yLsgeP1JY.html
@@richardrawson3160 Having said the above, removing and/or re-coloring pixels to make CAs invisible, destroys micro-contrast. Better to avoid it than having to fix it.
Superb discussion. One tech Q pse. Did you try a 3rd New Type Voigt. for accuracy compared to your older model... .If so was it good? Regards from Siam.
Hi from a fellow Greek here. Just typing in english, in order to be relevant to your subscribers. Total comfusion here between z6/z7 and d780/d850 as a choice. Would you suggest an investment in a z or f system? Regarding f, I will go with an Otus somewhat soon. Thank you for your videos!!!
@@CameraMystique I just ordered the Zeiss Milvus 50mmF2.0 macro after you recommendation. The next lens will be a 24-70mm F2.8 E VR and then a 70-200mmF2.8 E VR for handhold use. I will stay in the F-system and get a used D850. Not sure that I will get the Z8 because of the limited useful aperture range. Better to switch to the Fuji GFX system or stay with the D850 45 Mix...
@@CameraMystique The depression have hit me hard. Food prices 50% and mortgage loan 150% increased, I will get the D850 new in a about one year time. I vill check the Tamaron again. Lots of people recommend it but when I checked it last time the Nikon was sharper..
Sirs, I would really appreciate to hear from you what you think of the following: My following thoughts are solely based on reading reviews and watching bloggers telling me all kinds of things about APS-C/FF sensors, theirs lenses and so on. Leaving aside camera bodies finishes, ergonomics and specs on EVFs,, menus, etc., this is what I think about how to yield an optimal IQ result from any APS-C sensor camera: use a lens engineered for FF sensors! Why? Well, it is an universal fact that ALL lenses, regardless their focus length, are curved made. As a result, the light rays passing through the outer surface of the lens tend to bend, thus deteriorate, the captured image on the flat sensor, compared to the rays passing through the central area of the lens, less curved. The farther from the real world imagery produced by a lens the more occurrence of "aberrations". Optical aberrations occur when points in the image do not translate back onto single points after passing through the lens - causing image blurring, reduced contrast or misalignment of colors (chromatic aberration). Lenses may also suffer from uneven, radially decreasing image brightness (vignetting) or distortion. Also, the wider the focal length, the more susceptible to aberrations. To minimize such inevitable events under the law of optical physics, camera manufacturers developed a number of optical counter-measures by adding ingenuous and costly engineering solutions via complex computerized experiments. Yet, none of them has, so far, zeroed the threshold balance between the real world imagery and its transportation onto digital photography sensors. Some have come close and cost a fortune. How about, then, through a simple and also ingenuous economic trick, to achieve the same similar results yielded through the above costly laboratory processes? Mount a lens meant for a full frame sensor onto a smaller one, such the APS-C. By doing this, the APS-C sensor will capture the light rays coming from the less curved surface of the FF lens, its central area, leaving out all those annoying bent rays susceptible to cause the above mentioned aberrations. This same thoughtful exercise of pure ancient Greek syllogism could be applied on the correlation between large to medium, medium to full frame and APS-C to Micro 4/3 formats. As I said in my opening remarks, all of the above is just an empirical theoretical logic exercise. Therefore, in the real world of real photographers like you, I may be completely off the track from sanity thinking. If that is the case, sorry for wasting your time.
People have been doing that for years (using FF lenses on crop bodies). And it's fine. But you are then missing the intended rendering of the lens, which happens mostly at the edges. See for example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-S1sURL3G52Y.html Photography is an art, not an exact science. You can't have realism if you are projecting a 3D environment on a 2D surface anyway.
I found out, by accident, that the Voigtlander 58 f/1.4 comes in a more recent edition, labelled as v.II and currently available at Amazon for $549.00. I wonder whether this latest version adds any sort of improvement over its predecessor.
It's the same. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-C2hJiZS0ges.html Bought it back then because it looked smaller, it had a little shallower DOF up to around 5.6 (which also reduced some color moire of the previous model), but I didn't keep it. Way too many lenses.
The thing with the Voigtlander 58 is that if it's used at the proper distance (almost full body portraits, or ordinary "50" scenes), it has a slightly different look than the others, it leaves a different impression. My impression is that it's the perfect lens for "legacy" family images (tripod and pose), you have to stop it down though, 2.8 or so, and it's also difficult for casual shooting. I ended up keeping the Otus as I preferred its very dramatic rendering, and the Nikon 50 1.8S for normal and the 1.8G for indoors sports. That's already too many normal lenses.
@@CameraMystique Gee, after reading your comments on the Voigt 58 1.4 and a few others, all praising its qualities on bokeh, 3D pop up, crispness, micro-contrast, inexpensive and so on I was about to get one myself. However, your latest comment turned me off to further pursuing it. I am about to buy a Fujifilm XT4 camera and despite its APS-C mount I want to use a FF lens with the old film charachter which, to the best of my knowledge, is achieved with either manual focus Voigts, Leicas and Zeiss. Of course an adaptor will be needed in all these options. Comparatively speaking, although the "natural" Fujifilm lenses for the XT4 are auto-focus and modern, they are heavier and expensive. My main objective is to get two lenses for the XT4. One for street photography (needs to be light and fast (minimum f/1.4) and another for portraits. The FF Voigt 58mm, in this case, would yield approx 80mm in FF equivalency, the classic portrait lens. Well, I will start my search all over again. Can you help me on this, please?
@@ricardoduarte6589 You won't get any film character with lenses: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--OFSz019TV0.html ...and the Voigt 58 is not an old lens, nor is it a retro design. It's great landscape lens for its price, very sharp stopped down. The "film look" depends on color grading, not lenses.
Could it be the camera is set for canon lenses to over come aberrations. Not set up for the Voigtlander lens. I have never seen such bad aberrations from this lens ever
Noone asked about Sigma art lenses in comments. They do top the MTF charts but a lens is more than numbers and I'm curious about your thoughts. Especially on lenses like Sigma 40mm, 135mm (50mm is weaker I believe but would be good comparison)
The Sigma 135 is a good lens but with a "pincushion" feel in the center as I remember, without there being true distortion. Very clean image, but I couldn't get over that "compression" in the middle when comparing it with the Sonnar 135. Otherwise I would have kept it. My main problem with 3rd party AF lenses is that they often lose their focusing accuracy, depending on the copy you have. It's bad cooperation between manufacturers I think. Also high sample variation. As far as the 50, Kai had a review ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AB0-h-wXju8.html which summarizes my findings. It's a nice lens but not sure it's worth the weight and complexity for nothing special in the image. At least with the Otus you get the cinematic drama (as I've pointed in other videos).
Think about it this way: Instead of the Sigma Art 50, you can get the Tamron 24-70 G2 (similar weight, size, and price). Because it you want to put something heavy on the camera, at least it should do more than just a 50 with busy bokeh.
@@CameraMystique I have zeiss 15mm, 25mm, 50mm macro, 55mm otus and 135mm. Have used many old Nikkors and also used Sigma 35mm for a limited time but sold due to accuracy reasons. It was a very fine lens and opened my eyed to what could be optically possible with good stuff. 15 zf2 is new but looks exceptional and field curvature helps with vertical shots but makes f5.6 not enough for distance shots with foreground elements. I needed a widefield astro lens and sigma art 14mm was too big and expensive compared to a used zeiss 15mm. 25mm is beautiful but not perfect for landscape as you mentioned in a video. 50mm macro I don't like it for mid distance. It's fine for close up and infinity but otus beats it anyway with extension tubes. 135mm is brilliant as well. I feel that Zeiss usually makes artistic decisions in their lenses. The old planars are not good due to color correction but the new lenses have something special. I'm sure some Sigma art lenses have thay as well
@@nat-lj8kt If I were doing night sky photography, I would have kept the Zeiss 25 1.4 Milvus. But only for landscapes, though perfect, it's too heavy to carry around a single-purpose lens. Alternatively though, the old Nikon 14-24 is very good for night sky (very low coma). I wonder if their new one for Z mount holds that tradition.
@@CameraMystique i still have the 25mm but it's th3 distagon f2. Milvus is hard to find used but it's something on my radar. 25mm f2 is a beautiful street lens too however. 90% of the performance for 50% of the size. We all need to make compromises in photography :)
To be fair, I doubt very much if anyone is going to use this lens at wide apertures for landscape or product photography. In a portrait situation the CA does not show itself as strongly as in the scene photographed. Nonetheless, the lens is by no means perfect at wide apertures. Perhaps the use of ED glass could have helped, but for the price.
Biggest problem of this lens is not the CAs, which I have shown in more recent videos how to dramatically reduce with just one control (WB). The biggest problem is field curvature, which makes focusing through viewfinder a problem.
@@CameraMystique That is a serious shortcoming. Thank you for the heads up. Although CA can be corrected, it has a cost in the shape of loss of edge contrast, otherwise there would be no need for the very expensive and highly corrected APO lenses.
@@lensman5762 that is why the first step in fixing CAs is to try another picture profile (in which they are far less visible) and fix white balance. These are non-destructive. Though to tell you the truth I have only been using APO lenses for the last 3 years.
The new one? No. But I have read very good things about it. If you are on the Nikon mirrorless platform, I don't think that on balance you'll find anything better right now than the Nikon Z50 1.8.
@@CameraMystique I'm on Panasonic at the moment. I'm also considering the Zeiss Sonnar C 50mm 1.5 for the classic look with modern sharpness and the nice 3D pop. I'm looking for a fun lens for mirrorless. I was about to buy an Otus 55 for way below the market price, but when I saw it in person it had a lot of micro scratches and coating damage, no next time will be... The only DSLR Nikon I have is the D700 with the 80-200 2.8 MKI and it is also a fun combo, but heavy, so I don't use it a lot. Thanks for the reply.
@@BK-it8ht The "classic look" is a result of the camera's color palette. Lenses won't do a thing about it. Zeiss lenses with "3d pop" (which means very sharp edges and very sudden focus drop) are, in order of "poppiness": i) Makro-Planar 100 f/2, ii) Milvus 35 f/1.4, iii) Otus 55, iv) Milvus 100 f/2, v) Planar 85. But with your crop sensor you are never going to see the periphery of the lens image, you will only see the center of the lens projection, so half of your "pop effect" is gone right there.
I apologize for the error with the "crop" sensor deal. I thought you were talking about the D7200. At any rate I have a segment for your comment in my next video.
Thank you for your answer. Yes it is M/F, but so is Milvus and even ungodly expensive Otus. The good think is that I’m privileged to have photography as a hobby (actually a very recent one), and I have a luxury of choosing the settings where I’m comfortable taking my shot, no matter how long it takes to get them in focus. Well.., sometimes objects, or light don’t agree with that statement :). In addition, since I’m all for learning new things, manual focus would be just another one of those. With that being said, the comfort and flexibility of having A/F is obviously still very appealing. Therefore if there is anything with A/F that can produce the results even somewhat close to what Zeiss deliverers, I would gladly go for it. Is there anything for my D810, that you would recommend choosing for the scope of photography that 85mm is usually being used for?
The closest 85mm AF Nikon with a "Zeiss 85 Planar look" is the 1.4G. But it does suffer from focus-shifting (the Planar does too), so you have to chose a favorite open aperture and take it from there. Or carefully adjust it at 1.4, and then study its behavior in the other values. The newest 50Z (the 1.8s) I hear and see it's excellent, so is the new 85Z.
Straight Out of Camera Thanks the response. I really didn’t plan to go mirrorless just yet. I think my D810 still has plenty for me to explore. It will take some time before I outgrow it. Other than that, yes, I hear you. I’ll definitely check out 1.8G. The 1.4G is just ridiculously expensive, so that one I’ll pass. I did hear some good reviews on Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD also. Anyway, will see how it works out moneywise... So far 1.8G looks like a winner. Thank you very much for your advice! All the best in 2020!
@@19motya69 Yeah, that Tamron is one of the forgotten stars. Problem with that generation was inconsistent focusing over time (correctable if it happens and you' re patient) but at 85mm it's the sharpest!
I believe that Otus and Milvus have really big weights and are not acceptable for everyday use in reportage. What about carl zeiss planar lens? Did you try this lens?
The old planar series on the D850 causes rather annoying and/or problematic chromatic aberrations (like the Voigtlander in this video), which also contribute to frequent missed focusing. For reportage I would recommend auto-focus lenses. The lenses that I have tested in detail are in large tables with all details in these videos: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2r2TeQ3Pn1k.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bDdfr4zXD5I.html
@@helthuismartin I haven't tried the Sigma 50 extensively. From 12-14 pics I took once with it, it had good micro-contrast but somehow "rough sharpness", an uneasy feel of the image, kind of like "the opposite of Leica", the bokeh was unattractive and the lens was big and heavy without offering substantial benefits. My copy also missed focus (later I found that there's sample variation... but I have no time for things like that...). Generally when I look at third party lenses, I must have a very good reason. Otherwise I stick with natives.
There are different ways black and white can be achieved and those give different results. simply sliding the saturation slider is not true black and white.
I know. That's what some do to prove "more tonalities", in reality they' re just showing the greyish tonalities of the chromatic aberrations. Moving the slider is just desaturating a color file. *True b&w films or sensors are different.* You can achieve a very similar look with various editing methods from a color RAW file, but it's not exactly the same as true b&w.
You can't just claim that hyperfocal distance should never be considered again because we have high res cameras. Utter nonsense. It's the way to geet as much as possible in focus. Plenty of times in a landscape you want to get as much as you can the close and far both in focus, so you do your best. You are insulting everyone who tries to do this.
All new generation cameras, starting from the D850, have a function called "focus stepping" (Nikon calls it "focus shifting"), so that the camera can take multiple pictures focused on different points, which then the user combines in software. The *REASON* they have this function, is that in high resolution cameras, the areas that are out of perfect focus look a lot more different than they did in the old low-resolution days. Camera companies would never incorporate such a function, which requires expensive modifications in their firmware, if the old hyperfocal distance calculations were still relevant. *Even Zeiss admits that their hyperfocal charts are made for a circle of confusion of 33 microns (they actually post it on top of the charts!), which is 5-6 times larger than in a 45 megapixel FF sensor.* This makes only their wide angle lens charts relevant for hyperfocal distance calculations. And this is something that anyone can see when they examine all details of an image, including significant texture variations, at 100% on a high-resolution monitor (over at least 110ppi) or large print. Which basically means that *while hyperfocal distance is still a good recipe for "the least possible compromises to get a lot more in acceptable focus with only 1 shot", the actual recipe to get great focus throughout the scene is multiple shots with different focus points.* Unless you're aiming only for small prints or social media posts or you are using only lenses wider than 35mm all the time. *I am not telling people what to do and what not.* I'm just pointing out a problem, which wasn't a visible problem in the old low-resolution days.
Not everyone knows about focus stacking, and you didn't even mention that while you were talking about this! Maybe another video about this issue... Also, people in film days still printed big and got good results. You can still get good results without focus stacking if you are careful and understand your lens and it's plane of focus. And actually you can get much better results than they used to because lens quality has increased so much along with sensor tech.@@CameraMystique
