New Voigtlandar Apo-Lanthar 65mm f2 Z Macro

[mike_halliwell]

https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/z-mount/macro-apo-lanthar-65mm-f2-aspherical/

Somewhere in the text mentions 'Developed and manufactured under a licensing contract with Nikon.'

Nice to see more Z collaboration. It's a 1:2 macro, so no competition to the Nikon lens line-up.

Edited October 17, 2022 by mike_halliwell

[ilkka_nissila]

2 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/z-mount/macro-apo-lanthar-65mm-f2-aspherical/

Somewhere in the text mentions 'Developed and manufactured under a licensing contract with Nikon.'

Nice to see more Z collaboration. It's a 1:2 macro, so no competition to the Nikon lens line-up.

The Apo Lanthars are quite famous macro lenses. It is nice to see that Nikon are making licensing arrangements with third-party lens manufacturers. Sony seem to be doing something similar in that they have opened up the mount details to selected lens manufacturers and many companies do produce lenses for their E mount system, whereas Nikon and Canon's apparent closed mount policy has drawn criticism online. Canon recently blocked Viltrox from making and selling autofocus lenses for the RF mount (while those lenses continue to be available for Z mount). I guess Canon can afford to do that due to their huge market share; people will continue to buy their cameras even if limited mostly to their own lenses.

 

The lens has a 65 mm focal length (not 60 mm).

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by ilkka_nissila

[rodeo_joe1]

Manual focus and manual aperture; what was there for Nikon to license I wonder? And it only goes to 1:2!

Save your money and get a dumb F-to-Z converter for your old 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I doubt you'll see much improvement from this Apo Lanthar. Because who needs f/2 at macro distances? 

If Sigma had announced their 105mm f/2.8 'Art' macro in Z mount, then that might be worth taking notice of. 

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, ilkka_nissila said:

The lens has a 65 mm focal length (not 60 mm).

Thanks Ilkka. I managed to EDIT it to help future web searchers!

5 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

f Sigma had announced their 105mm f/2.8 'Art' macro in Z mount, then that might be worth taking notice of. 

I'd second that, but I suspect Nikon won't allow any 'competition' lenses to be built!

[Dieter Schaefer]

4 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Somewhere in the text mentions 'Developed and manufactured under a licensing contract with Nikon.'

It's not a new lens - it's been around in Sony E-mount for a few years already. Comes with a stellar reputation.

 

39 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Save your money and get a dumb F-to-Z converter for your old 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I doubt you'll see much improvement from this Apo Lanthar. Because who needs f/2 at macro distances? 

Maybe the total lack of chromatic aberrations tilts the scale towards the Voigtlander? Newly designed Voigtlander lenses tend to be be on the higher price side though. I was considering the 65/2 but in the end settled for the 50/2 Apo Lanthar because I didn't want to deal with the weight and bulk of the macro lens and for macro generally prefer longer focal lengths anyway. The 50mm Apo-Lanthar sure is expensive for a 50mm lens - but it clearly performs even better than my previous favorite the bulky and heavy Sigma 50/1.4 Art.

[Rob Davies]

Personally, I'm waiting for the 40 1.2 nokton in Z mount.

[mike_halliwell]

6 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

It's not a new lens

From their press release...

"Designed exclusively for Nikon Z mount

Equipped with an optical system optimized for the image sensor of a mirrorless camera that uses the Nikon Z mount. This lens has a full-size image circle and can be used with both full-size (Nikon FX format) mirrorless cameras and APS-C size (Nikon DX format) mirrorless cameras."

I think you're right, they're being a bit disingenuous!

Looks nice for Focus Stacking @ f4/5.6

[mike_halliwell]

7 minutes ago, robert_davies2 said:

Personally, I'm waiting for the 40 1.2 nokton in Z mount.

Way too SLOW......!

Voigtlander Nokton 42.5 mm f/0.95

😱

[Rob Davies]

Oh that's just showing off 😀

[Dieter Schaefer]

3 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

I think you're right, they're being a bit disingenuous!

Yep - I think the "designed exclusively" for Z-mount might just refer to the communication between the lens and the camera. Though since there's a 2mm difference in flange-to-sensor distance between Sony E-mount and Nikon Z-mount, some optical design adaption might have been necessary; at a glance, the optical formula seems identical to the E-mount version.

[mike_halliwell]

22 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Newly designed Voigtlander lenses tend to be be on the higher price side though.

Who knows what ¥125K is in £s, $s or Euros.. they're all worth about the same at the mo'!

[Dieter Schaefer]

10 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Who knows what ¥125K is in £s, $s or Euros.. they're all worth about the same at the mo'!

E-mount version sells normally for $999 but currently has a $50 discount. The Z-mount will likely cost about the same.

[mike_halliwell]

 

Very similar, but not identical MTF graphs. Probably within experimental error?

Edited October 17, 2022 by mike_halliwell

[Dieter Schaefer]

3 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Very similar, but not identical MTF graphs. Probably within experimental error?

I'd be surprised if those are actual measured MTF curves - most manufacturers publish only calculated/simulated ones.

[mike_halliwell]

10 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

most manufacturers publish only calculated/simulated ones.

So they should be exactly the same then...?

🙂

[roland_vink]

Quote

Save your money and get a dumb F-to-Z converter for your old 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I doubt you'll see much improvement from this Apo Lanthar. Because who needs f/2 at macro distances? 

The venerable 55/2.8 micro is a fine lens although it is not without flaws - the background bokeh can be harsh and it flares wen shooting into the sun. The 65mm Apo-Lanthar appears to be an improvement in both areas (based on reviews I have read - I have not used this lens). At 1:2, the Apo-Lanthar has 6cm more working distance than the 55mm micro (0.31m vs 0.25m). The increased working distance would be very useful, sometimes the working distance of the 55 micro is too short for shy and hard-to-reach subjects. It's not often I would use f/2 for macro images although sometimes it's useful for creative effects. The faster aperture aperture does make the Apo-Lanthar more versatile as a general purpose lens. I like "long standard" and"short portrait" focal lengths for general photography, portraiture, landscapes etc, most manufacturers skip from 50mm to 85mm but I find 60-75mm lenses very useful. And finally, being a highly corrected lens, it should be sharper at wide apertures and more color-corrected than the 55mm micro. But of course, if you can work comfortably within the shooting envelope of the 55 micro, then there is no reason upgrade.

Quote

Very similar, but not identical MTF graphs. Probably within experimental error?

The cover glass thickness over the sensor is different between Sony and Nikon Z cameras. That would account for differences in the MTF.  Even if Cosina has tweaked the optics to optimize for the Nikon Z, I would still expect there to be some difference.

[Dieter Schaefer]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

So they should be exactly the same then...?

Don't know what goes into these calculations/simulations.

 

32 minutes ago, roland_vink said:

The cover glass thickness over the sensor is different between Sony and Nikon Z cameras. That would account for differences in the MTF.

Assuming there were measured using images recorded with the actual camera and not a test station with the lens only. Of course, those differences between cover glass thicknesses could also be a parameter entered into the simulations; I just don't know what the procedure actually is.

[joseph_smith3]

I see that the Sony version is 1:2. Is that the source of info the the Nikon version?

Here is a link :

 

https://nikonrumors.com/2022/10/14/cosina-announced-a-new-voigtlander-macro-apo-lanthar-65mm-f-2-aspherical-lens-for-nikon-z-mount.aspx/

 

It lists other Cosina lenses for the Z mount Nikons. 

 

[mike_halliwell]

2 hours ago, joseph_smith3 said:

Is that the source of info the the Nikon version?

Nope. The link in my original post gets you everything you need to know about the 65mm macro for Nikon Z Mount.

And this link takes you to the other Z lenses.

https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/z-mount/

[joseph_smith3]

Mike, Thanks. I found the 1:2 at your link. I hope I can rent one or more of these lenses one of these days to try them out. 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 10/17/2022 at 10:14 PM, roland_vink said:

The venerable 55/2.8 micro is a fine lens although it is not without flaws - the background bokeh can be harsh and it flares wen shooting into the sun.

I suppose if the main subject isn't interesting enough then one's eye may wander to the out-of-focus stuff in the background. But I speculate that outside of us photo-geeks, the public at large doesn't give two hoots about 'bokeh'. Otherwise zoom lenses and phone cameras wouldn't be in the majority of use. 

And why would you include the sun in a macro shot? 

Of all Nikon's older primes the 55mm Micro-Nikkors definitely showed the least colour aberrations, and had a very high resolving power - enough to out-resolve a 60 Mp sensor, and not be shamed by a 240 megapixel sensor-shift combo either. 

So, apart from a few mm more working distance, what does that Apo Lanthar bring to earn its keep or warrant its outlay, practically? 

[mike_halliwell]

20 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

and phone cameras wouldn't be in the majority of use.

The ones that can deduce a depth map, have an AI powered (!) background blur tool.

[ilkka_nissila]

Why would one shoot into the light source? To increase contrast in the subject, lighting from behind is a basic technique. This can happen with or without the light source in the frame. Placing the out-of-focus light source in the frame can add visual interest in the photo. A basic reproduction of how a subject looks without any effort to make the photograph visually interesting is not going to be noticed in the flood of images today.

 

I don't have a 55 mm Micro-Nikkor but flare, colour rendering and contrast of the details are factors where the newer high-end macro lenses tend to shine in comparison with old lenses. I like Nikon lenses but mostly the modern nano-coated ones, the 105 MC is brilliant but I also like the 60 mm AF-S Micro a lot. The 60 has beautiful out-of-focus rendering which makes the background less distracting than older Micro-Nikkors. Today, if a lens produces distracting out-of-focus rendering, viewing those images feels like it hurts my eyes. Out-of-focus rendering is not something that only experienced photographers notice, but photography novices may not know how to pin-point the issue, but they still tend to favor images with the nice out-of-focus rendering, in my experience. I am not commenting here about the out-of-focus rendering of the 65 Apo Lanthar as I have not used it personally. I briefly used the Zeiss 50 mm f/2 Makro-Planar and sold it because I disliked its bokeh at intermediate distances (such as objects of 50-100 cm in size). After an image which rendered the background in an irritating way I simply did not use that lens again and eventually realized it's best to sell it.

[mike_halliwell]

Humm, as it's a totally manual lens, if I don't need EXIF etc., I guess you could save a few £s by buying a 2nd hand Sony E mount lens and a £15 adapter.

 

or am I missing something?

[roland_vink]

11 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

And why would you include the sun in a macro shot? 

...

So, apart from a few mm more working distance, what does that Apo Lanthar bring to earn its keep or warrant its outlay, practically? 

I don't think I have ever taken a macro shot with the sun in the frame. But it is theoretically possible, for example, a closeup of the underside of a flower silhouetted against the sky. However, I use my 55 micro for more than just macro. The aperture is fast enough (just) that I use it as a general purpose standard lens which happens to focus very close. It's light, compact, and affordable with good optical qualities. I don't often use it as a dedicated macro lens because the working distance is so short, I use my 105mm micros for that. As a general purpose lens there have been many occasions when I do shoot into the sun, and the AIS 55 micro flares badly, even the ones with SIC coatings.

The 65mm Apo-Lanthar has 60mm extra working distance which makes it much more practical as a macro lens. Plus the extra stop is useful for low light and shallow DoF effects, which widens its shooting envelope considerably. I'm sure it is better color-corrected and sharper at wider apertures, and review suggest it handles flare reasonably well and has relatively good bokeh. It would be an excellent general purpose long-standard/short portrait lens which can double as a macro lens. Compared to the AIS 55 micro the only downsides are it is much bigger, heavier more expensive.