p.2 #1 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
JonasY wrote:
No no no, it's not a bug it's a feature - called Leica glow
Right! Yeah, it's a nice feature and I like the glow a thousand times better than the "mess" that the 35/1.2 makes wide open. At f/2.8 the Summicron is far ahead already and that's much more important than shallow DOF, especially considering the huge difference in size and weight.
If you can afford it, the Summarit 35/2.5 is even better, with some of the very special "color definition" that the 28/2 Summicron ASPH has a ton of. I can't explain it, but I guess those who have used these lenses know what I'm talking about.
sebboh wrote:
hmm, my copy is actually quite sharp wide open, but with a fair bit of spherical aberration (i mean 'glow' ) that makes it difficult to focus at medium to long distances.
Sure, it's just that I don't mean the same thing with "sharpness" as with "resolution".
p.2 #2 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
Maybe because we shoot different things, but the 1.2 II is the best 35 I've tried for people at short-med distance. If I remember correctly, you don't like the C-Sonnar much either?
Anyway, if size is important and if CV 40/1.4 is so good (got to overcome my memory of 35/1.4 and try it some day), I think the OP is all set?
p.2 #3 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Maybe because we shoot different things, but the 1.2 II is the best 35 I've tried for people at short-med distance. If I remember correctly, you don't like the C-Sonnar much either?
Yeah, probably. I never use large apertures at close distance (or shoot people ), and that's where the 35/1.2 shines. I didn't like the C-Sonnar either, but for a different reason. While very sharp and nice in the middle from MFD to infinity even wide open, most of the frame was just not even close to unsharp. I had to stop down to f/11 to get sharp corners, and that was on APS-C! The 50/2 Planar is sharper in the corners at f/2 than the Sonnar is at f/2 in the middle. The bokeh is not quite as good, but very close, and I like the "roll-off" better as well.
Anyway, if size is important and if CV 40/1.4 is so good (got to overcome my memory of 35/1.4 and try it some day), I think the OP is all set?
If the longer FL is not a problem, I think I agree. But for me, 40 mm on APS-C is no mans land.
p.2 #4 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Anyway, if size is important and if CV 40/1.4 is so good (got to overcome my memory of 35/1.4 and try it some day), I think the OP is all set?
seems like he's not completely happy with the cv 40/1.4 though (he has had it for a while). maybe a good question is what he'd like to improve on with the cv 40/1.4?
p.2 #5 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
sebboh wrote:
seems like he's not completely happy with the cv 40/1.4 though (he has had it for a while). maybe a good question is what he'd like to improve on with the cv 40/1.4?
I really like my CV 40 1.4, but it's not a lens with a lot of micro-contrast or Zeiss-like pop. It's sharp, but not so in-your-face (though I'm always impressed how Jacob manages to extract a lot of detail out of his shots.) If that's what the OP is looking for, then I can see the CV 40 disappointing somewhat. The obvious alternative if that's what you're looking for is the Contax G45, if it's not too long a focal length.
p.2 #7 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
Since you already have the 35 skopar, I dont think you should try the summarit because it is more less the same thing besides some rendering differences. I agree with Makten that the summarit has excellent color capabilities though, like it more than my 35 cron ASPH.
As for 40 1.4, I really didn't find the rendering interesting, the bokeh is harsh and wide open sharpness is not impressing either. Why Jacob could produce fantastic results with it still is a mystery for me
I think IIRC I've seen comparison between 40 1.4 Nokton and 35 1.4 Nokton, the 35 was better WO with more smooth background so I think it's a good option also..
p.2 #8 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
frezeiss wrote:
I think IIRC I've seen comparison between 40 1.4 Nokton and 35 1.4 Nokton, the 35 was better WO with more smooth background so I think it's a good option also..
From what I've read, the 40/1.4 is sharper WO than the 35/1.4, but yes, it does have some busy bokeh. I've never found it objectionable.
p.2 #9 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
possibly of some use to the OP – on my walk home i took some sample shots of a nice high contrast scene at different apertures with the 40 cron + NEX-7 at medium focus distance.
here is the processed shot at f/2.8:
here are links to the full sized shots with no processing other than lightroom 4 defaults and white balance matching: f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, f/11.
note: the shot at f/11 is at iso 400 while all the others are at iso 100. i don't carry a tripod.
edit: flickr must do some compression, because my original size photos are never as sharp as they look in lightroom.
p.2 #11 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
alwang wrote:
Sebboh, this is a little offtopic, but I'd love to hear a little more about the PP you did on this shot. Was it all in Lightroom?
yup, all in lightroom:
exposure: -1.00
shadows (fill light on the old lightroom): +100
blacks: +15
saturation: -2
tone curve highlights: +25
tone curve lights: +11
tone curve darks: -25
tone curve shadows: -5
(i moved the tone curve points to 10, 23, and 33 to fit the histogram properly as well)
sharpening amount: 0
lens vignetting amount: -35
lens vignetting midpoint: 0
all other settings were lightroom default. i downsized the photo using a photoshop algorithm phillip posted a while ago.
p.2 #12 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
Jacob D wrote:
I'm an advocate for the Nokton 40 so I would have to address that and say 'no' the 35/1.4 is not in the same class as the 40. I think the 35 gives the 40 a black eye on it's reputation.
I too own the 35/2.5 and it's a very nice little lens. Stopped down, it's got to be one of the best lenses across the frame in that lens-size group. It is a bit slow at night, and I don't like shooting it wide open. Most of the time I don't shoot the Nokton 40 wide open either, but I do use f2 quite a bit. My wager is that f2 on the Cron vs. f2 on the Nokton will be very similar in terms of sharpness.
Night photography is not exactly my forte, but here are a few images I made with the Nokton 40 f2 - f2.8
Thanks for writing Jacob - I've always enjoyed your work especially with the CV 35 2.5. I may have bought it based on a few images you posted in the past. On the images, if I recall when you maybe originally posted some these - I think iit was the first photo a few months back, you wished you had your CV 35 2.5 instead. Do you still feel the same?
p.2 #14 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
frezeiss wrote:
Since you already have the 35 skopar, I dont think you should try the summarit because it is more less the same thing besides some rendering differences.
Yeah, thx I had looked at the summarit as well, I like the skopar.
p.2 #15 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
sebboh wrote:
possibly of some use to the OP – on my walk home i took some sample shots of a nice high contrast scene at different apertures with the 40 cron + NEX-7 at medium focus distance.
Very kind thanks for posting these... What you had mentioned about the 40 cron and landscape photography is illustrated pretty clearly here. Though the tops of the Golden Gate - look pretty sharp to me.
p.2 #16 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
Calidreamin wrote:
Very kind thanks for posting these... What you had mentioned about the 40 cron and landscape photography is illustrated pretty clearly here. Though the tops of the Golden Gate - look pretty sharp to me.
bear in mind focus in all these is at medium distance (the closest chair), so the golden gate is never (even at f/11) fully in the dof. you can see the field curvature to some degree at f/5.6 in the sample. had i focused on the golden gate it would be much sharper at all apertures than it is in the f/11 shot. it's the lens's inability to focus both the corners and the center at the same distance that make it a poor landscape lens.
p.2 #17 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
You guys are funny. It makes me wonder if my CV 40 got sprinkled by some magic fairy dust when it came off the line I do process my photos in LR, but I assume that most everyone here does that, so somewhat moot point.
To address some of the comments above Re: the CV 40...
- Microcontrast? I dunno, but I feel like this lens *does* have something there that some of my other lenses do not. It doesn't have the blatant 3 dimensional rendering of, say the G45, but for me I feel it can give a feeling of depth that I don't get with my other lenses.
- Aperture star at f2.8? Hmm.. I'm not sure now. I wish I had exif. I can test this. From memory that shot was @f2.8
- WO sharpness... both Noktons are glowly wide open. These are not modern designs. The CV 35/1.2 (and 35/1.7) are better for technical sharpness at wide aperture. The Nokton 40 is better (to my eye) than the 35 at all apertures, especially wide open. At f1.4 it's a very nice portrait lens. At f2 same thing, but it starts to get a little more detailed. By f2.8 it's very sharp, maybe not to the extent of some of the more clinical lenses out there.
- Field Curvature? Yep CV 40 has some. Not sure how it compares to the Cron 40.
- Do I wish I had used my 35/2.5 for those night shots? Maybe. (Good memory on that comment by the way ) I think I have finally realized something about the CV 40. For organic subjects (including landscapes) I really like it. For more clinical subjects, the CV 35/2.5 might be a better choice.
Until I have a chance to shoot them side by side, I think the Nokton 40 and Cron 40 are pretty similar in terms of performance. Me and Sebboh don't live too far apart, maybe we can get together one of these days for some alt fun.
p.2 #19 · CV 40mm 1.4 vs Pen F 42mm 1.2 vs Summicron-C 40mm 2.0
Jacob D wrote:
Until I have a chance to shoot them side by side, I think the Nokton 40 and Cron 40 are pretty similar in terms of performance. Me and Sebboh don't live too far apart, maybe we can get together one of these days for some alt fun.
sounds like a plan, be nice to compare them on the 5N versus 7 to see it there's a difference too. send me a pm next time your in SF and want to shoot.
) that makes it difficult to focus at medium to long distances.
The 50/2 Planar is sharper in the corners at f/2 than the Sonnar is at f/2 in the middle. The bokeh is not quite as good, but very close, and I like the "roll-off" better as well.
