The most curious new E-mount lens got tested at DSLRmagazine (google translation here). It’s actually an M-mount lens designed specifically to be used on E-mount cameras with the VM-E close focus adapter. The reviewer findings are:
– Center resolution is very high
– Corner resolution is only “sufficient”
– It has surprisingly little chromatic aberrations
– The lens value is not the performance it delivers but the unique kind of image quality and small size.
There are some image samples posted on that DSLRmagazine page. And DC.Fever also tested the same lens on the new A7II.
The new Voigtländer Heliar 40mm 2.8 for FE cameras is in Stock in [shoplink 30996 ebay]Germany on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink] and [shoplink 30997 ebay]Hong Kong on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]. It’s also available for preorder at BHphoto (Click here) and CameraQueest (Click here).
49 Responses
Makes a great conversation piece.
Paper weight too.
What’s the point of this lens, the small size? The performance is abysmal.
What if people underdstood hat lenses can create a look, and not just perform. But then you already call yourself a troll, hopeless..
Exactly my point of view, Hans. And it seems that some people don´t care to read the contents
In this case the “look” is hopelessly bad.
About one would expect with an adapter. But that’s what the e-mount is all about! Get a great lens and impair its quality with an adapter.
Uhmm, yes, the small size. And performance is not “abysmal”.
Why “uhmm”? Did you need to think a lot to write that?
Tried to be funny? “Uhmm” has quite many uses.
LOL, that thing is hideous
And expensive. Like, they want you to pay real money for it….pass.
what seems to be amazing is that no acromatic aberration (very nice to have!) on e-mount doesn’t in practice mean to have champion of perceptive sharpness, even if I’ve not seen any MFT about resolving power / contrast / bokeh. Don’t you think so? any MFT by Voigt?
Hipsters are gonna be all over this retro steampunk glass, yo.
Stop complaining about a choice you don’t have to make so much. You’re clearly not going to be happy until you have an IQ180 and the whole set of Schneider LS lenses so you can pixel peep all day long from your mountain of snobbery.
Stop telling me what to do. And stop judging me, yo.
These “3rd party” lenses are, so far, pathetic, and create more confusion than actual interest in potential buyers of the cameras.
Still hoping to see enough good primes from Sony (or Zeiss, or Sigma) to justify the hype around this new system. So far the zooms (f4, not that bright) make the system appear not-so-small-after-all.
A good f 1.8 portrait lens would already be enough to justify buying into the system.
Who wants to carry a big, honking 2.8 zoom? I shot with a 5d and a Canon 24-70 2.8L. I did not want to carry that thing around. I rented the A7s and Zeiss 24-70 F4 and I loved it. In modern cameras where ISO 800 is indistinguishable from ISO 100, I fail to see the need for 2.8 zooms. That’s so Velvia 50 old school film.
I beg to differ, there is a marked difference between 100 and 800 ISO.look at the image closely,you’ll see it.why are we taught to keep The ISO as low as possible ?
Bird feathers will show you the difference
I’d buy one, for instance. Going mirrorless is not just for size, remember. It’s about making more capable cameras (possibly for more affordable price as a bonus).
Shooting a bunch of portraits for album covers at the moment and end up using old Nikon 2.8 and 1.2 glas because I like the shallow DOF. F2.8 isn’t about light, I really like the 70-200 sony but love my old nikon F2.8. And the colours of the old glas are very different as well, lots more detail in the low and mids because well the coating is a bit sh#t 🙂
That’s not more colours, it’s flare…
Hehe…that may be true.
hehehe off course someone was going to say that. They also flare really nice yup. The ones I use have less contrast compared to the Sony lenses so they tend to look more flat, giving a bit more detail in the mids and lows without editing. Have several 50 F1.4, ranging form ancient to pretty recent, compared them to the $1K Sony / zeiss, for now I’m sticking to the Nikkors, unless they half the price. Might just get a speedbooster for the A6000 🙂
f/1,8 and for/2 primes are good and so are other lenses. The 70-200 though f/4 is really outstanding lens. 16-35 at least in current reviews shows very decent performance and is compact. The 24-70 may be needed more attention than it got from Sony engineering. Other than the 24-70 the rest of the FE lenses are stellar and priced accordingly
Which “3rd party” lenses? Loxias are great. Even this looks fine for what it is.
I would like to learn more about the updated 15/4,5 super wide Heliar. 40mm is interesting but there are better alternatives. Voigtlander 40/1,4 being good example. Zeiss Planar 2/45 being another outstanding lens.
+1
meh. 700 euro is too much for this gimmick
It’s not like a M-Rokkor or a C-Summicron 40mm would be much bigger. And both of those are brighter and cost as much as this thing. If it had been cheap as chips, maybe. But this way it’s just an expensive gimmick.
Yeah about $250, otherwise we might as wel use a lensbaby or handmade pinhole.
But will the pinhole deliver that “look” that the demanding photophile desires?
Can’t be worse then the Voigtlander? For this kind of money I would suggest: get yourself a nice cheap E-mount Nikon-F adapter and score some classic F1.4 / F1.2 Nikkor goodness.
Quality with an adapter would be the same as the Voigt. To really appreciate that Nikkor goodness, one could put it on a Nikon.
Nikkor already has the answer to the Voigtländer Heliar 40mm f/2.8 but it must be used exclusively on Nikon cameras.
The AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G:
Decidedly soft wide open, especially on DX format cameras.
Relatively bulky (compared to Nikkor 50mm F1.4s).
Inconsistent autofocus.
Renders as good as the Voigtländer Heliar 40mm f/2.8!
Only $1695.00!
Since cutting and pasting from dpreview suffices for that post, here’s some more, from the same page nonetheless:
Produces lovely-looking images almost all the time
Very low chromatic aberration
Lower-than-usual vignetting
Minimal coma
Lovely bokeh
Generally resistant to flare
Relatively fast, near-silent autofocus
Decent construction but lightweight
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g/6
Used my trusty 50mm F1.2 on many Nikons, from nikon F all the way up to D700, loved them all, but video made me switch to Canon and now to Sony. Which sort of brings me back to the same sensors Nikon is using anyway. the 50 F1.2 stil rocks and yes if Sony doesn’t come up with a true pro body I might just get me a D750 just for kicks, got two pelicases full of Nikkor glas so…
While I’m sure there is a market for these retro-looking lenses, I *really* wish Voigtländer would make a line of Loxia-style lenses, with a simple no-frills black design and with electronic contacts. That would be amazing.
I think they just support too many line ups right now to really invest in a whole new system for the E mount. They have the SLII lenses, the M lenses, the M4/3rds .95 lenses, and their OEM lenses a la ZF.2/ZE. They don’t even use electronics for their M4/3rds lenses. You could try adapting the SLII glass. The 40 is crazy sharp, the 58 renders beautifully, and the 20 is not super sharp but high contrast and beautiful for travel.
I like how if any other lens had this kind of corner issues it would get crapped on but because it’s a Voigtländer we call it a “unique kind of image quality”
Extended and mounted on camera and adapter it has pretty much the same height as FE 35/2.8 and it costs not much less (again, given the adapter).
Uh… If you want a collapsable lens why not get an old Leica screw mount and adapter… better picture and it wouldn’t cost any more than this.
Never been a fan of trying to create retro looking stuff simply for the sake of making it look retro. If it has some functionality, then fine…. but this is more form than function.
It’s got a great rendering. I have the 40mm Ultron for my Df and it’s a crazy good piece of glass. I think a 40 normal should have an F2 aperture though. Maybe I’m spoiled with mine, but it’s nice to have.
Sufficient…..unique quality lens…..in other words, it sucks.
It “renders” even better if you don’t extend the lens, most neophytes will not appreciate this level of quality and art.
Only the well healed, dyed in wool photophile can begin to appreciate the stunningly poor performance of this optical masterpiece.
You mean well heeled.
Of course, how clumsy of me.
I love VL lenses, but let’s not get crazy here.