Voigtlander 50mm APO-Lanthar VM on Film

[the_jim]

Generally speaking, I am not 50mm on rangefinder shooter. I like the focal length on SLRs and realize its utility, but have struggled with 50's on my Zeiss Ikon. Part of me (the part that likes buying gear) is convinced that I hadn't found the right lens yet. My other two 50's (Canon Serenar 50mm 1.5 and Nokton 1.5 Ver 1) have their pro's and cons, but in-truth, I didn't feel that I had a lens that I could comfortably use in all situations.

Enter the APO-Lanthar...

After finding a screaming deal on Craigslist, I picked one up in August. In-hand and on the camera it is the most comfortable lens that I own for m-mount. It's not super small (which is a plus), it's the perfect size for my hands with a wonderfully smooth focus throw. You can just use it and not have it be in the way. Based on that alone, I really want to like it , but...I am not sure that I am sold on the images. Or rather, I am not sure that the image quality speaks to me. Yes, it is sharp, but on 'grainy' film like tri-x or double-x some of the lenses jaw dropping-sharpness is lost (I say that after comparing images shot with the e-mount version on a Sony A7rIII). Also, I can only assume operator error, but I have a very difficult time nailing focus. I don't have a lens that has challenged me in this way. I have good eyes...I swear. Otherwise, there is no relevant amount of chromatic aberration or distortion. It is a technical marvel, no doubt. Still...the urge to move on is lurking in my mind.

I really want to like this lens. Please share some images that you have taken (ideally on film) to help convince me to keep trying. I'll share some of the few that I have taken that are actually in focus.

Jordan by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Dad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Ross by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

 

[bluesun267]

Your images look great and leave nothing to be desired from my perspective. But lenses are a very funny thing. If they don't gel properly, all bets are off, and their on-paper performance is (nearly) irrelevant. On B/W film in particular, I've never found a CV lens that felt "right" to me. Something wrong with their tonality to me. Not that I've tried every lens they've made, but enough of them to develop such an opinion of them generally. Furthermore, it's something I could only identify in my own pictures, so take it with a grain of salt.

Here are the 50s I personally love for B/W film: Summitar, Topcor-S, Nikkor-S (F2 or F1.4), Summicron DR, and Summicron-R (version 2). By no means an exhaustive list, but just the ones I've had the most meaningful relationship with!

 

[the_jim]

But lenses are a very funny thing. If they don't gel properly, all bets are off, and their on-paper performance is (nearly) irrelevant.

I think this really gets tot the heart of the matter.

If I were to try and put my finger on it, it’s mostly the out-of-focus draw and the tonality that don’t totally jive with me.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I don’t own that lens, but the biggest accomplishment of the recent VM APO lenses, such as the 50 here, is that they are very very sharp, and the differentiator is that they are sharp all the way across the frame. Not easy to do for a lens designer. This trait is a huge bonus for landscapes, maybe less so for other things, depending.
Film, on the other hand, unless you are using Tech Pan, isn’t sharp across the frame, or in the center either, so most (but not) of the hard to design stuff that you are paying for you will only see on a digital camera which is capable of resolving the extra lpmm.
What you are left with, on film, is mostly the rendering, and a lack of CA and spherical aberration. Which might or might not be enough, depending on who you are and what you want.
On digital it is probably easier for it to play to its strengths, not only due to the fact that the recording medium is more capable of resolving what the lens does, but because, with peaking, it’s a lot easier to focus it precisely enough WO to get the resolution where you want it, in the first place.
I like your images, but I did not buy one originally because it was more technically perfect than I needed, and I liked the rendering of some other lenses more, for my biases.
But, they are exceptional lenses.

 

[the_jim]

On digital it is probably easier for it to play to its strengths, not only due to the fact that the recording medium is more capable of resolving what the lens does, but because, with peaking, it’s a lot easier to focus it precisely enough WO to get the resolution where you want it, in the first place.

This is absolutely true. The e-mount version of this lens on a high resolution Sony sensor is just bonkers.

I guess I was just hoping that the APO-Lanthar would have some of the magic of the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM…which is a similarly ambitious concept…that manages to look amazing on both film and digital…and be blazingly sharp and then artfully soft in its out-of-focus rendering.

 

[Freakscene]

What is your hit rate for focus? It is an art, but as Izaak Walton wrote of angling, it is an art worth your learning. These high resolution modern lenses have very sharp drop-off in focus away from the plane of sharpness, so missing by a bit often makes it look like you are missing by a lot. Have you checked focus with a lens align? The lens and camera might need adjusting to match. I not only find this necessary every time I buy a new M mount range finder, I find it is necessary every 2-4 years after that because through use everything gets out of whack*. At least with digital M mount cameras that have live view you have an alternative way of focusing them. The photos you have posted look great, maybe if you haven’t checked focus do that and if there is a problem fix it, and otherwise keep practicing.

Marty

* For some time I have been assembling a long article about the real cost of using an M rangefinder, which includes this ongoing maintenance.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

The lens looks like a keeper to me! I don't see anything wrong with your images.

 

[cboy]

Could it be there's some issue with your copy? Perhaps a focus test chart. Perhaps your rangefinder is the issue?

Then again imo I wouldnt be using a Apo lanthar for any portrait work unless they have model like skin or you are one who likes pp retouching.

For everything else its an awesome lens!

All the best

 

[helen.HH]

Simply ADORE shot #3 ... Beautiful and the oof is smooth !

Love shot # 4 for the wonderful play of light and colour, though the oof is slightly busy

Overall the 50 apo is not for Me due to it's pull towards jumpy, busy
background/oof ...

I much prefer in the voigtlander line the 50 Nokton v1 and v2 VM
or the v3 summicron, 50 canon 1.4, 50 Elmar M, Summitar

 

[the_jim]

Could it be there's some issue with your copy? Perhaps a focus test chart. Perhaps your rangefinder is the issue?

As a human, I'm (unfortunately) generally inclined to believe that I'm not the problem (so I desperately want it to be the lens of rangefinder)...but in this case, only a faulty worker blames their tools. I think the lens is fine and my rangefinder is also good. It's as others have said above, that the lens is so incredibly sharp (and there is no spherical aberration at close-up to soften depth-of-field). It's like you're in-focus...and then bam... you're not. So any small movement from me or my subject results in a miss. Oh well, it's a good challenge.

 

[the_jim]

Simply ADORE shot #3 ... Beautiful and the oof is smooth !

Love shot # 4 for the wonderful play of light and colour, though the oof is slightly busy

Overall the 50 apo is not for Me due to it's pull towards jumpy, busy
background/oof ...

I much prefer in the voigtlander line the 50 Nokton v1 and v2 VM
or the v3 summicron, 50 canon 1.4, 50 Elmar M, Summitar

Thanks, Helen!

I have the V1 VM Nokton in chrome. It's an absolute gem of a lens - especially the build quality. The rendering is nice, as well. I strongly dislike it's ergonomics.

I had the Canon and loved that as well...but it's gone now.

The draw of the APO can be nevous, for sure, but the strongest element of my enjoyment of the lens is how it feels. The ergonomics of it are absolutely perfect. The weight of the focus throw is (chef's kiss emoji). The size, seems big, but mounted on the camera, it disappears. It's really so nice...which is helping me to overlook the elements of its draw that I don't really care for...or forcing me to learn to love it.

 

[the_jim]

I'm coming around to learn to like the draw of the lens. (no duh) At f/2.8 the rendering calms down.

Brian by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Cherry Blossoms by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Slightly buzzed the focus here...whoops

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar, Kodak T-Max 100, Xtol 1:1

Additionally, you can solve any concerns about recording too much detail in your subjects skin by accidentally over-exposing by a stop and change 🙄😎

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar VM, Eastman-5222, Xtol 1:1

 

[bluesun267]

Sometimes I feel the key to getting along with a lens (or camera) is to just get one phenomenal roll out of it. If you enjoy using it, that's half the battle. You just have to make sure it is with you when the time is right. And if in case you end up loving it, that still doesn't mean you have to marry it. It's not a moral failing to use a piece of equipment for awhile and then move on. Nor is it more honorable to keep it forever out of a sense of duty or gratitude.

 

[jc031699]

I just got from KEH a M240 and a CV Apo Lanthar 50/2. When using the rangefinder, I find that it back focuses at 1m wide open. However, all of my other lenses seem to focus on the M240 exactly like they do on my M2. Any evidence of back focusing at f2 on anyone else’s copy? Infinity focus seems to be fine.

 

[Freakscene]

I just got from KEH a M240 and a CV Apo Lanthar 50/2. When using the rangefinder, I find that it back focuses at 1m wide open. However, all of my other lenses seem to focus on the M240 exactly like they do on my M2. Any evidence of back focusing at f2 on anyone else’s copy? Infinity focus seems to be fine.

The lens needs adjusting. It should focus spot on throughout the range.

 

[jc031699]

Thanks, it's going back. The rangefinder cam also does not drive the rangefinder anywhere close to infinity, even though infinity focus is ok. So I think there is a problem with how this lens was set up in the factory. It looks like it needs to have the infinity stop moved for the helical, and then more shims added to fix near (and then infinity once the stop is moved) focus. And then the focus ring moved to match infinity. Way beyond what I would be willing to do on this fancy new lens...

 

[jc031699]

A second lens also did the same, so I just adjusted infinity on my M240 and M2 to match it. Used a bright light in the clear night sky as a point infinity light source (think it was Venus, conveniently). Now all is good, just had to go through and tweak all the lenses I had adjusted myself. Simple with the M240. (It was a total pain when I only had the M2, although I had a bag of expired film to lessen the pain.)

 

[WJJ3]

The CV APO-Lanthar 50/2 on Kentmere 100 in D-76. This film-developer combo turned out grainier than I was expecting.

IMG_0760