• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Lens screening testing / Examples / Good 65 mm FF lens

Good 65 mm FF lens

On this page, I show a test of a Voigtlander 65 mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar lens on a Sony alpha 7R Mark II (a7RII) body. The lens turned out to be good,

We want to test the lens wide open. We consult the minimum distance chart:

At f/2, we need to be at least 46 meters away. I set up at 49 meters, with EFCS off, ISO 100, manual focusing, IBIS off, and a shutter speed of 1/8000.

Checking the target size:

We can see that a 410 mm target will be a bit over 100 pixels on the sensor. That’s acceptable, but a bit small. I used a 22.5 inch target.

It was windy and the easel kept blowing over, so I taped the target to the side of the pumphouse. I lined up quite a bit off perpendicular. As you’ll see, that didn’t hurt the test.

All the crop I’ll show you were originally 184×174. They are enlarged for this post.

Center

Very sharp. The target isn’t round because of the camera not being perpendicular to it. The ellipsoidal shape of the target means that the east-west spokes are further apart than the north-south ones, but that doesn’t seem to affect the symmetry of the false color and aliasing much. There is enough of both to indicate that the camera was well focused. I took three series, and they were all about the same, except for the last one where I must have touched the focus ring two-thirds of the way through.

If we consider the images in opposite pairs we can look for differences that aren’t radially symmetric. If sufficiently bad, these departures from symmetry are indicators of improper assembly. 

Upper left

 

Lower right

These opposed corners are plenty sharp for a macro lens at distance wide open. There is some aliasing. The upper left is very slightly softer than the lower right.

Top

 

Bottom

The bottom is slightly sharper than the top. Both are quite sharp.

Upper Right

 

Lower left

The bottom is slightly sharper.

Far right

 

Far left

 

The left is a little sharper.

None of these small differences are anything to worry about.

 

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.