RobertOToole wrote:
What we need is an modern 1:1 macro lens shootout including Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm. I owned the APO-Lanthar 125mm and the 180mm and they were impressive in IQ and build but, I sold them since I was too worried about getting them wet or dropping one so I sold them and made a nice profit. Also the APO-Lanthars don't us IF (internal focus) to focus close so for me they were not so easy to use in the field because of the long physical length of the lens and the working distance was really long! Too long in some cases.
Roger that, sir. I would love to see this as well. Photozone tested the Voigtländer macro on a Canon 350D, so I really don't take their results seriously.
Also, the majority consensus of most lensmen is the Voigtländer
180 generally is
not has highly-regarded as the
125 Macro.
I had similar concerns as yours, regarding the weather sealing, but having shot it under a multitude of field conditions, for over a year now, I am not worried about it anymore.
For AF purposes (making sure I nail a shot, before the butterfly leaves, e.g.), I rely on my Nikkor 300 VR II ... so any advantage the Sigma had in AF is dwarfed compared to the AF of the Nikkor (not to mention the reach).
For intimate 1:1 images, such as you posted, I rely on my Voigtländer Apo.
For pure macro pleasure,
the 630° of focus throw is just so much more precise, so much more intimate, than flipping a joystick dot and pressing the shutter, that it's almost another world, really. Joystick-flipping is erratic at best.
With the Voigtländer,
I use my eye to decide where to focus, and then gradually turn the smooth-focusing element, little-by-little, and it's just a 100x more pleasurable, precise field macro-shooting experience compared to the Sigma. Moreover, the 630° of focus throw lends itself to
being able to produce stacks, right there, with its subtle gradations of focus-turning.
By contrast, even when I try to use my focus ring on the 300mm (or the 180 Sigma before), it's just a joke focus-ring compared the exquisite precision of the Voigtländer.
Here is a stack with the Voigtländer on a D810:
52 images @ f/4
Here are some single images:
Single Image @ f/5.6
Single Image @ f/5.6
Single Image @ f/16
The subtle colors, gradations, micro-contrast, and ephemeral bokeh just blow the Sigma out of the water IMO.
(Even @ f/16 there is much, much better color/contrast detail, et al, again imo).
Here are pixel-level images of the butterfly compared to yours (with the butterfly itself already 1/3rd the size of your posted damselfly):
(I now just added some pixel-level images of the bee as well, again much smaller than your damselfly):
Again, having used both (on both Canon and Nikon, actually), I don't think the Sigma can, in any way, shape, or form, compare to the Voigtlander 125mm Macro in resolution, subtle color rendering, micro-contrast, bokeh, etc.
The Sigma's color-rendition is much more basic, harsh, and it totally lacks the realistic subtlety (again, imo).
RobertOToole wrote:
The only site I have ever seen that compared the APO-Lanthars is Photozone.de. From what I recall when I owned the lenses, the 125 and 180 were very low lateral CAs, very good, and just about LoCA free, the 90mm was about double CAs and had purple fringing.
Resolution, low CA, subtle color nuances, and
exquisite bokeh are the mantra of the Apo 125. (The 90 is not in the same league.)
I agree, they cannot be compared. Putting a Zeiss-level lens, like the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar, on an 8mpx Canon 350D to run a test is a joke.
The 50D, where they put the Sigma, isn't much better, but it has twice the mpx as the 350D, yet both are very low-grade sensors.
These tests mean nothing IMO.
RobertOToole wrote:
I would like to see these re-done on modern high pixel count body, Nikon D850 or Sonly A7RII anyone?
First the Voigtlander 125mm.
Than the Sigma 150 OS.
The Sigma has better correction, great sharpness, AF and OS.
Again, the tests mean nothing, testing the Voigtlander on a dog 350D and the Sigma on a dog with twice the mpx.
We agree the tests should be run again, on high-end cameras, in order to reach a definitive conclusion.
One thing you omitted from your comments, was the 10-year-outdated opinion on
bokeh:
The Sigma lens delivers good results here but it is no "cream machine".
By contrast,
the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm Macro is "The Cream Machine"
RobertOToole wrote:
Hope this helps.
Robert
Not really.
I have used them both and would
never use the Sigma instead of the Voigtlander. (Really, not ever ... unless I didn't have my 300mm and needed AF.)
If I have the time to compose and focus in optimal light, I would choose using Voigtlander 125 f/2 Apo Macro
100% of the time over the Sigma.
(However, I would choose the Sigma over any Canon / Nikon / Sony AF macro!)
The best way to try to underscore my original point can be found at
LenScore. (Click Scores > Primes.)
Here is a chop-job of their ratings with my summary below:
First of all,
LenScore tests all lenses on the same, custom 200 MPX sensor, so the results actually mean something.
(Testing one lens on an 8mp dog, another on a 15 mpx dog, and another lens on a modern 36 mpx optimum sensor is a ridiculous way to compare lens performance.)
LenScore bridges that gap by testing all lenses across the same sensor. The above represents where the Sigma stands in relation to some of the best lenses ... as well as where the lowly Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF stands ... as well as where the sublime Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II stands.
That said, here is my personal breakdown based on actual experience:
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II:
Simply out of the league of any macro lens. Not even in the same ballpark. Resolution, Contrast, Bokeh, and CA handling is between 20%-to 50% superior to lowly macro lenses ... and is 3x to 10x more expensive. A totally different-level optic.
Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*:
Not a true macro lens, but at 1:4 it is in the ballpark. This is a truly great lens, "The bridge," separating the best in the world from the 'almosts' ...
Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm: (
LenScore did not actually test the Voigtlander.)
I subjectively-place the Voigtlander (with a green arrow) because of the 100% unanimous view of lensmen who rate this lens above the Zeiss Makro, but below the Apo Sonnat T*. It's not quite at the level of the legendary Zeiss 135mm Apo, in sharpness or in contrast, but the Voigtlander is considered to have creamier bokeh and more subtle color gradation, with similar CA control. It beats the Zeiss Makro Planar virtually across the board.
All 3 lenses are made by Cosina.
Every knowledgeable lesman I have ever known rates the Voigtlander Apo at some point between the Zeiss 135 APO and the Zeiss 100mm Macro Planar.
And the Voigtlander Apo has the advantage of being the only true 1:1 between them.
Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 Makro Planar:
A legendary lens for resolution and bokeh, at the macro level, the Zeiss nontheless disappoints and is not considered 'world class' due to its sub-optimal CA rendering.
Sigma 180mm f/2.8 'Apo' Macro:
A good, consumer-level AF macro lens. Does not really qualify for 'Apo' status, as it is nowhere near truly color-corrected. Respectable resolution, contrast and bokeh, the Sigma 180mm macro is superior to its Nikon and Canon counterparts, but it falls short of being a truly world-class lens.
Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR:
Budget-level 300mm field lens. Has nowhere near the Resolution, Contrast, Bokeh, or CA correction of Nikon's elite 300mm f/2.8 VR II lens.
With these scores, and with this perspective in mind, it is easy to see why the O/P handicapping the bottom-level 300mm f/4 PF lens with a 1.7 TC ... and testing against the Sigma 180 macro ... produced unfavorable results.
I reiterate that, with 30% better Resolution, Color, and Contrast ... and up to
50% superior Bokeh and CA correction ... the elite-level Nikkor 300mm VR II can be cropped-in close and produce better images than the Sigma 180mm macro ... and the Voigtlander for that matter ... @ 1:4 (likely 1:2 compared to the Sigma).
I will post visual results this weekend.
Cheers,
Jack