90/3.5 Lanthar review finished

I am sorry to disagree, but I think the review is poor. Statements like the below

"This lens is razor sharp corner-to-corner at every aperture. In fact, its virtually just as sharp wide open as it is stopped all the way down. This means that diffusion is almost nonexistent, even at f32!"

indicate that either one or more of the following:
  • The reviewer lacks the understanding of the basic physics involved in a lens
  • The reviewer lacks the means to examine critical sharpness
  • The lens is rubbish, because it isn't sharper at F5.6 than F32
Top quality lenses for 35mm start to show a loss of performance due to diffraction at the latest at F8, see e.g. the lens tests at http://www.photozone.de. Lenses which (at least in the centre) do not perform perform better at F5.6 than F8.0 are in my view not worth the money CV is asking for the 90/3.5. Despite being a Zeiss user myself I always assumed the Apolanthar was worth it's money.
 
joachim,
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
************************

BrianPhotog,
Thanks for the review, it helped me choose between the 75 & 90.
 
joachim said:
I am sorry to disagree, but I think the review is poor. Statements like the below

"This lens is razor sharp corner-to-corner at every aperture. In fact, its virtually just as sharp wide open as it is stopped all the way down. This means that diffusion is almost nonexistent, even at f32!"

indicate that either one or more of the following:
  • The reviewer lacks the understanding of the basic physics involved in a lens
  • The reviewer lacks the means to examine critical sharpness
  • The lens is rubbish, because it isn't sharper at F5.6 than F32
Top quality lenses for 35mm start to show a loss of performance due to diffraction at the latest at F8, see e.g. the lens tests at http://www.photozone.de. Lenses which (at least in the centre) do not perform perform better at F5.6 than F8.0 are in my view not worth the money CV is asking for the 90/3.5. Despite being a Zeiss user myself I always assumed the Apolanthar was worth it's money.
Click to expand...
Actually, I *do* understand the physics of a lens. I also know that as a technical matter virtually any lens (not all lenses, such as dedicated macro lenses) will be softer as you stop down.

As I explain in the first paragraph of most of my reviews, I base them on practical usage and not MTF charts. As a practical matter, this lens is almost (I did say "virtually", not "exactly") as sharp midway down as all the way down in my 8x10 and 11x14 blowups. If I went any larger I'm sure the difference would be more noticeable, but I'm not in the habit of printing larger then that from 35mm.

If numbers turn you on more then practical usage and results, then don't read my reviews (I've explained this before, I think). Anyway, at the least read the first paragraph explaining that it's a applied usage review and not a theoretical one.
 
Interesting reviews Brian. I concur with your appraisal of the difference in size between the CV 90 and 75. The 90 is so much larger than the 75 that I think I would have to go with the 75. One of the most significant advantages of rangefinder cameras, IMO, is that the lenses are so compact--so, the 90 is just not worth the extra 15mm of focal length.

Kevin,
 
That photozone.de site is also problematic. It describes a Canon 85/1.8 as "The lens performed OUTSTANDING in the lab and that's at ALL aperture settings." And, " If you're looking for a near-perfect portrait lens - well, stop here - you've found it!"

The Nikon equivalent 85/1.8 is described thus: "The AF 85mm f/1.8 D was able to show exceptional resolution figures in the lab." And, "The Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D was a very boring lens during the tests simply because it showed a exceptional performance in all tested categories. ... Highly recommended!"

Reading these two reviews, you don't get any real clue of how the resolution numbers compare. The Nikkor shows 7 to 10 percent more resolution at every f/stop on the MTF charts. It has lower chromatic abberations and less vignetting.
 
Last edited:
joachim said:
I am sorry to disagree, but I think the review is poor. Statements like the below

"This lens is razor sharp corner-to-corner at every aperture. In fact, its virtually just as sharp wide open as it is stopped all the way down. This means that diffusion is almost nonexistent, even at f32!"

indicate that either one or more of the following:
  • The reviewer lacks the understanding of the basic physics involved in a lens
  • The reviewer lacks the means to examine critical sharpness
  • The lens is rubbish, because it isn't sharper at F5.6 than F32
Top quality lenses for 35mm start to show a loss of performance due to diffraction at the latest at F8, see e.g. the lens tests at http://www.photozone.de. Lenses which (at least in the centre) do not perform perform better at F5.6 than F8.0 are in my view not worth the money CV is asking for the 90/3.5. Despite being a Zeiss user myself I always assumed the Apolanthar was worth it's money.
Click to expand...


I could have been accused of being stupid when I delared on another forum that my 150 rodagon is as sharp at ALL apertures from f5.6 (wide open) to f22 when printing a 5x4 neg to 20x24. I know the physics but let my eyes do the judging; I could see no difference whatsoever! This might be the same, where using the films he used nalong with rodinal he saw no difference. Thats fine as he does not hide the fims and devs used. I strongly suspect like you that at f5.6 vs f32 there would be a difference clearly visible using a film such as Delta 100 and well enlarged. If we are not experienced enough to have picked up on these things we are unlikely to be experienced enough to notice in our own practical use. Those that would detect the differences in use would likely have detected that his film and dev likely prevented the resultion differences being visible. So all in all, there were no major injuries!
 
i like the first shot. Personally, i had the lens and never liked it. It didn't seem to work for me and the contrast was too high. The images always looked flat to me for some reason.
 
Thank God there are true photographers on this forum with reviews that are meaningful to other photographers who don't care about the theoretical performance of a lens or minor differences at smaller apertures.

Thanks for the review and shame on that one person who obviously is having a bad day - hopefylly tomorrow ill be a better one for you:D
 
Is 'Lanthar' a brand name, or some kind of special glass?
I'm wondering why a lens this relatively large and slow needs special glass to do what it does. The contax G mount 90/2.8 is about the same size and as far as I know has no magic glass, other than whatever magic Zeiss normally uses..
I have one of these APO-lanthar by the way and found it not to be sharp at all--- until I fixed the mis-calibrated rangefinder on my bessa T!

Another good thing to mention about the 90/3.5-- it is one of the few lenses when fitted to the bessa bodies that is long and massive enough to prevent the damn body rotating backwards when hanging from the neck strap.
 
Last edited:
clintock said:
Is 'Lanthar' a brand name, or some kind of special glass?
I'm wondering why a lens this relatively large and slow needs special glass to do what it does. The contax G mount 90/2.8 is about the same size and as far as I know has no magic glass, other than whatever magic Zeiss normally uses..
I have one of these APO-lanthar by the way and found it not to be sharp at all--- until I fixed the mis-calibrated rangefinder on my bessa T!

Another good thing to mention about the 90/3.5-- it is one of the few lenses when fitted to the bessa bodies that is long and massive enough to prevent the damn body rotating backwards when hanging from the neck strap.
Click to expand...
It's a brand name only derived from the original Voigtlander Lanthars, which had special glass in them :)
 
RF-Addict said:
Thank God there are true photographers on this forum with reviews that are meaningful to other photographers who don't care about the theoretical performance of a lens or minor differences at smaller apertures.

Thanks for the review and shame on that one person who obviously is having a bad day - hopefylly tomorrow ill be a better one for you:D
Click to expand...
Thanks. :)

Some people don't get the kind of reviews I write...I think they are more Putts review kind of people :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom