I don’t have this lens so it was great to see this nice review. I am all in with Voigtlander lenses on my Z7II. I have the 35/2, 50/1, 65/2 & 75/1.5; I very much like the separate aperture ring (I shoot M or A-priority) and prefer MF for landscape photography. What I REALLY like is that it’s what-you-see-is-what-you-get with regards to depth of focus. Now if they only would come out with a 25mm lens so I replace my Zeiss ZF.2 adapted lens…
A 25mm or thereabouts would be perfect. I’d also be interested in something around the 18mm range that prioritizes image quality, as frankly, the only Voigtlander lens I’ve used so far that has not impressed me as much is the 15mm f/4.5 Heliar (still not bad, and super tiny, but room for improvement optically).
John Taylor
May 18, 2025 4:53 pm
Very good review Spencer. I have, for some time, used Voigtlander lenses with a Sony A7r and would suggest that using “focus magnifing” in the viewfinder, will always give superior focus results to “focus peaking”. The lack of autofocus does limit the lens for some situations, however the overall image quality of the Voigtlander lenses, I have used, is always very pleasing and certainly stand out. Regards, John Taylor.
I fully agree about focus magnifying! Even with autofocus lenses, I’m constantly magnifying to make sure that my focus point is optimal. With manual focus lenses, it’s an essential tool.
pedro
May 18, 2025 11:35 am
– “The “APO” in the lens name signifies, accurately, that there is no meaningful level of color fringing in blurry foregrounds and backgrounds. ” . Kind of… Apochromatism is a specific form of color correction. The traditional form, derived from the “achromatic doublet,” involves shifting/moving around only two wavelengths into focus (traditionally those at the extreme end of the visible range: red and blue (“C” and “F” lines)). So you have red (C) and blue (F) together (that’s primary spectrum correction), and the green (E) is a slight distance away (microns range). That difference between red/blue – green is the “secondary spectrum”. A typical “fast” classic telephoto lens (400 2.8; 500 f4, etc.) shows a minimal residual secondary spectrum, the green (E) will be a couple of microns off (there are some true apo designs of course, especially now with mirrorless) So, an “ideal Apo” design corrects both the primary and secondary spectrum (i.e., it joins blue, red, and green). In real life, thjere’s always a mininum secondary spectrum, negligible for practical purposes. Spherochromatism is not just “color fringing”, it means the amount of spherical aberration in each color is different (and for physical reasons, it’s pretty hard to correct 3 wavelengths in focus and also have the spherical aberration of each color at 0). What we are looking for is to achieve a nice balance between the main aberrations (and many times it’s achieved by “cancelling out” each other). That’s why we have several examples of “Apo” lenses -even from Voigtlânder_ that have some color fringing in out-of-focus areas, or some spherical aberration in red, blue, etc., some problems with color coma/astigmatism, etc. The designation (Apo) only indicates the way of treating color (3 wavelengths in focus), not necessarily the level of correction achieved (but of course, an Apo lens “should be” better corrected than a common “Achromatic” one).
True, I should have phrased that better. I’ve definitely used APO lenses with a little background fringing. In this case, I was trying to get at the fact that this particular lens eliminates them almost completely, not just ideally but in practice.
Richard Handler
May 18, 2025 10:56 am
Pixel peeper’s delight and unique aperture blades which give bokeh at f/2.0 and f/2.8, sunstars at smaller apertures, intriguing!
Indeed it is excellent for astro. Last keeper from mine (Sony E) was a night landscape featuring Neowise. By adding a Marumi Achromat magnifier it can become a very precise macro.
But I sold both my CV 50 and its larger sib the 65mm macro Apo-Lanthar. CV lenses are totally without seals, even at the mount, plus have externally telescoping focusing and are magnets for pulling dust, pollen and water into the lens barrel and risk camera damage from moisture in even a trivial drizzle.
It’s a very interesting lens indeed! Your mention of Neowise brings back good memories. I do think anyone considering this lens needs to weigh its potential use in very bad weather conditions, and that could be another factor in favor of first-party autofocus lenses.
Nick
May 18, 2025 10:18 am
The complete lack of weather sealing needs to be called out much louder. Even a basic gasket on the mount. There’s literally no reason for Voigtlander to continue excluding this basic, essential feature when they charge as much as they do. It completely turns me off.
That’s fair, maybe I should have spent more time on it. I expected it to be more of a problem than it was, frankly. The lens struck me as being built with a higher degree of precision than what we typically see, to the point that I wasn’t nervous to use it in bad weather.
I’ll give a specific example. I brought this lens and two other Voigtlanders with me on a long hike, more than a week through some very humid and rainy conditions. I didn’t experience any fogging or other issues with these lenses, whereas the Hasselblad 28mm P lens did fog once in the same conditions. Of course, it’s possible I was just lucky. I don’t think it would survive being dunked underwater (unlike a few lenses I know that probably would)!
Tom
May 18, 2025 10:02 am
Like the 35 mm f/2 APO Lanthar, the lens has *similar* characteristics to the equivalent on other mounts, and is close to version I, but they’re technically not the same, and some features have changed (like the minimum focus distance and the diameter).
Based on the specs on B&H, the minimum focus distance of 45 cm / 17.7 inches is the same for this Version II and the Sony, which is still on Version I. It also looks like a couple of older reviews of the Nikon Z lens, before Version II came out, reference the same figure.
In any case, the optics are the same between the two versions. As far as I can recall, the only pure feature that was added was the ability to reverse the lens hood. The weight and diameter did slightly change.
Steve
May 18, 2025 9:49 am
It looks like it will probably be sharper, but how would this lens compare to a Nikkor 50mm f/2 AI-S manual focus lens? The Nikkor would be a LOT cheaper! (As would any number of 50mm AF and AI Nikkors, which can be used with adapters on the Z-mount cameras.)
In my experience testing Nikon’s AI-S lenses on their 45 megapixel cameras in the lab (previously the D850, now the Z7), they just don’t hold up to modern optics where sharpness and chromatic aberration are concerned. It’s not particularly close, either. Even a budget lens like the Nikon Z 40mm f/2 wipes the floor with the AI-S lenses in a lab.
This doesn’t mean that they’re bad lenses or unusable, but they’re going to give more of a gentle effect rather than a more modern, high fidelity / high sharpness images. Totally depends on what you’re trying to achieve. I’ve enjoyed using some AI-S lenses for shallow depth of field “intimate landscape” photos, especially in aspen forests with fall colors, in order to get photos with more character and less clinical sharpness.
John C.
May 18, 2025 8:48 am
I can add that this lens is excellent for night sky photography. Nebula’s really “pop” and for me it’s the best focal length and weight for panoramas and stable tracking (and carrying to a destination).
50mm is supposed to be a great focal length for that sort of thing, which always surprised me – I figured that you’d be at super long focal lengths to capture some of those nebulae or distant galaxies. Are you shooting with a different spectrum modified camera, and compiling tons of images throughout the night to bring out those faint details?
Nightjar
May 18, 2025 8:39 am
Not a lens for me, but I really love the bokeh. And WOW, those are some great sample shots!
Thank you, Nightjar! Glad you enjoyed the photos, and yeah, the bokeh is pretty sweet here.
Till
May 18, 2025 6:57 am
Loved reading this article! Got into the Voigtlander world recently with the 40mm 1.2 for my Nikon Zf. I’m still improving my focus technique, but it’s so much fun!
This Apo lens looks amazing! Pretty tempting, to be honest!
Thanks for the review Spencer! Always a joy to read. I was quit anticipating your comparison against the Z lineup. By the way, have you forgotten the sunstars? Atleast the design of the 35 Apo is quit unique, because you have nice sunstars even at lower f-numbers. I believe thats also the case for the 50?
The sunstar point you bring up is a good one – this lens actually doesn’t have great sunstars at f/16, because the aperture goes back to being nearly circular. However, the sunstars at intermediate apertures are actually quite good on this lens! It’s the only lens I’ve ever tested that has better sunstars at f/8 than f/16.
So if you use it for landscapes, don’t thoughtlessly set it to f/16 when you need good sunstars. It is capable of a nice effect, just not at that particular aperture.
They keep multiplying in ones bag, when you ever dare to touch one 😄 I also love the 40 1.2 on the Zf. Yes 1.2 takes a little practise but the focus recognition is so great.
I don’t have this lens so it was great to see this nice review. I am all in with Voigtlander lenses on my Z7II. I have the 35/2, 50/1, 65/2 & 75/1.5; I very much like the separate aperture ring (I shoot M or A-priority) and prefer MF for landscape photography. What I REALLY like is that it’s what-you-see-is-what-you-get with regards to depth of focus. Now if they only would come out with a 25mm lens so I replace my Zeiss ZF.2 adapted lens…
A 25mm or thereabouts would be perfect. I’d also be interested in something around the 18mm range that prioritizes image quality, as frankly, the only Voigtlander lens I’ve used so far that has not impressed me as much is the 15mm f/4.5 Heliar (still not bad, and super tiny, but room for improvement optically).
Very good review Spencer.
I have, for some time, used Voigtlander lenses with a Sony A7r and would suggest that using “focus magnifing” in the viewfinder, will always give superior focus results to “focus peaking”. The lack of autofocus does limit the lens for some situations, however the overall image quality of the Voigtlander lenses, I have used, is always very pleasing and certainly stand out.
Regards, John Taylor.
I fully agree about focus magnifying! Even with autofocus lenses, I’m constantly magnifying to make sure that my focus point is optimal. With manual focus lenses, it’s an essential tool.
– “The “APO” in the lens name signifies, accurately, that there is no meaningful level of color fringing in blurry foregrounds and backgrounds. ”
.
Kind of… Apochromatism is a specific form of color correction. The traditional form, derived from the “achromatic doublet,” involves shifting/moving around only two wavelengths into focus (traditionally those at the extreme end of the visible range: red and blue (“C” and “F” lines)).
So you have red (C) and blue (F) together (that’s primary spectrum correction), and the green (E) is a slight distance away (microns range). That difference between red/blue – green is the “secondary spectrum”. A typical “fast” classic telephoto lens (400 2.8; 500 f4, etc.) shows a minimal residual secondary spectrum, the green (E) will be a couple of microns off (there are some true apo designs of course, especially now with mirrorless) So, an “ideal Apo” design corrects both the primary and secondary spectrum (i.e., it joins blue, red, and green). In real life, thjere’s always a mininum secondary spectrum, negligible for practical purposes. Spherochromatism is not just “color fringing”, it means the amount of spherical aberration in each color is different (and for physical reasons, it’s pretty hard to correct 3 wavelengths in focus and also have the spherical aberration of each color at 0). What we are looking for is to achieve a nice balance between the main aberrations (and many times it’s achieved by “cancelling out” each other).
That’s why we have several examples of “Apo” lenses -even from Voigtlânder_ that have some color fringing in out-of-focus areas, or some spherical aberration in red, blue, etc., some problems with color coma/astigmatism, etc. The designation (Apo) only indicates the way of treating color (3 wavelengths in focus), not necessarily the level of correction achieved
(but of course, an Apo lens “should be” better corrected than a common “Achromatic” one).
True, I should have phrased that better. I’ve definitely used APO lenses with a little background fringing. In this case, I was trying to get at the fact that this particular lens eliminates them almost completely, not just ideally but in practice.
Pixel peeper’s delight and unique aperture blades which give bokeh at f/2.0 and f/2.8, sunstars at smaller apertures, intriguing!
Indeed it is excellent for astro. Last keeper from mine (Sony E) was a night landscape featuring Neowise. By adding a Marumi Achromat magnifier it can become a very precise macro.
But I sold both my CV 50 and its larger sib the 65mm macro Apo-Lanthar. CV lenses are totally without seals, even at the mount, plus have externally telescoping focusing and are magnets for pulling dust, pollen and water into the lens barrel and risk camera damage from moisture in even a trivial drizzle.
It’s a very interesting lens indeed! Your mention of Neowise brings back good memories. I do think anyone considering this lens needs to weigh its potential use in very bad weather conditions, and that could be another factor in favor of first-party autofocus lenses.
The complete lack of weather sealing needs to be called out much louder. Even a basic gasket on the mount. There’s literally no reason for Voigtlander to continue excluding this basic, essential feature when they charge as much as they do. It completely turns me off.
That’s fair, maybe I should have spent more time on it. I expected it to be more of a problem than it was, frankly. The lens struck me as being built with a higher degree of precision than what we typically see, to the point that I wasn’t nervous to use it in bad weather.
I’ll give a specific example. I brought this lens and two other Voigtlanders with me on a long hike, more than a week through some very humid and rainy conditions. I didn’t experience any fogging or other issues with these lenses, whereas the Hasselblad 28mm P lens did fog once in the same conditions. Of course, it’s possible I was just lucky. I don’t think it would survive being dunked underwater (unlike a few lenses I know that probably would)!
Like the 35 mm f/2 APO Lanthar, the lens has *similar* characteristics to the equivalent on other mounts, and is close to version I, but they’re technically not the same, and some features have changed (like the minimum focus distance and the diameter).
Based on the specs on B&H, the minimum focus distance of 45 cm / 17.7 inches is the same for this Version II and the Sony, which is still on Version I. It also looks like a couple of older reviews of the Nikon Z lens, before Version II came out, reference the same figure.
In any case, the optics are the same between the two versions. As far as I can recall, the only pure feature that was added was the ability to reverse the lens hood. The weight and diameter did slightly change.
It looks like it will probably be sharper, but how would this lens compare to a Nikkor 50mm f/2 AI-S manual focus lens? The Nikkor would be a LOT cheaper! (As would any number of 50mm AF and AI Nikkors, which can be used with adapters on the Z-mount cameras.)
In my experience testing Nikon’s AI-S lenses on their 45 megapixel cameras in the lab (previously the D850, now the Z7), they just don’t hold up to modern optics where sharpness and chromatic aberration are concerned. It’s not particularly close, either. Even a budget lens like the Nikon Z 40mm f/2 wipes the floor with the AI-S lenses in a lab.
This doesn’t mean that they’re bad lenses or unusable, but they’re going to give more of a gentle effect rather than a more modern, high fidelity / high sharpness images. Totally depends on what you’re trying to achieve. I’ve enjoyed using some AI-S lenses for shallow depth of field “intimate landscape” photos, especially in aspen forests with fall colors, in order to get photos with more character and less clinical sharpness.
I can add that this lens is excellent for night sky photography. Nebula’s really “pop” and for me it’s the best focal length and weight for panoramas and stable tracking (and carrying to a destination).
50mm is supposed to be a great focal length for that sort of thing, which always surprised me – I figured that you’d be at super long focal lengths to capture some of those nebulae or distant galaxies. Are you shooting with a different spectrum modified camera, and compiling tons of images throughout the night to bring out those faint details?
Not a lens for me, but I really love the bokeh. And WOW, those are some great sample shots!
Thank you, Nightjar! Glad you enjoyed the photos, and yeah, the bokeh is pretty sweet here.
Loved reading this article! Got into the Voigtlander world recently with the 40mm 1.2 for my Nikon Zf. I’m still improving my focus technique, but it’s so much fun!
This Apo lens looks amazing! Pretty tempting, to be honest!
Great photos as always!
Thank you, Till! Glad you’re enjoying the 40mm f/1.2. It’s still on my list to test, but Voigtlander is definitely turning me into a fan of theirs.
Thanks for the review Spencer! Always a joy to read.
I was quit anticipating your comparison against the Z lineup.
By the way, have you forgotten the sunstars? Atleast the design of the 35 Apo is quit unique, because you have nice sunstars even at lower f-numbers. I believe thats also the case for the 50?
The sunstar point you bring up is a good one – this lens actually doesn’t have great sunstars at f/16, because the aperture goes back to being nearly circular. However, the sunstars at intermediate apertures are actually quite good on this lens! It’s the only lens I’ve ever tested that has better sunstars at f/8 than f/16.
So if you use it for landscapes, don’t thoughtlessly set it to f/16 when you need good sunstars. It is capable of a nice effect, just not at that particular aperture.
They keep multiplying in ones bag, when you ever dare to touch one 😄
I also love the 40 1.2 on the Zf. Yes 1.2 takes a little practise but the focus recognition is so great.