Hi SharpContrast,
I just bought a M version. But I can not open flickr here. Can you please send me the above compare pictures of the E and M version?(my email: [email protected]) Thank you very much!
Figure this thread could use more images. This lens is a great walk around lens--very versatile. These are from today (some cross posted in the FE images thread)
GMPhotography wrote:
The last shot with your wife is why I love this lens. It has really nice 3D pop in a extremely busy scene. Great separation. My guess F2
Exactly right it is F2. Easy to nail focus (easier than F1.2) and a bit better pop. Only downside is shape of OOF highlights asi would like them to be round, but you cannot have everything! Really enjoying this little lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
From your sample, the difference is not small. Here is the center, mid-zone and extreme edge comparison crops:
Hi Fred,
Okay you may be right on the corner sharpness with the VM mount compared with E-mount.
I think the centre sharpness is similar, (the colours confuse things in the images). I've included the 40mm 2.8 collapsible in the comparison.
The pictures are repeated as I adjust the exposure in post of the lighter ones.
There is one shot taken wide open and one taken at f5.6 of each lens.
Used a tripod and a delayed shutter this time.
Feel free to work your magic on cropping them, there named accordingly.
Thank you for such a nice reply when I complained... I appreciate it! I also notice the length difference between the E and M versions isn't that big - but the M version surely feels smaller (and lighter until the adapter is mounted). It's interesting that Voigtländer made them so different. I guess it's the space needed for the electronics in the E version making it bigger.
Thanks again.
SharpContrast wrote:
Hi Fred,
Okay you may be right on the corner sharpness with the VM mount compared with E-mount.
I think the centre sharpness is similar, (the colours confuse things in the images). I've included the 40mm 2.8 collapsible in the comparison.
The pictures are repeated as I adjust the exposure in post of the lighter ones.
There is one shot taken wide open and one taken at f5.6 of each lens.
Used a tripod and a delayed shutter this time.
Feel free to work your magic on cropping them, there named accordingly.
I think we can see that the E mount is definitely better suited for the Sony compared to the M mount. Looking forward to seeing Fred's opinion on the matter (thanks in advance!).
I'm still on the fence, I'd like to use the m-mount so that I could use it with Voigt's close focus adapter but I since the E mount already has a good MFD I may not even need to do that at all.
SharpContrast wrote:
Hi Fred,
Okay you may be right on the corner sharpness with the VM mount compared with E-mount.
I think the centre sharpness is similar, (the colours confuse things in the images). I've included the 40mm 2.8 collapsible in the comparison.
The pictures are repeated as I adjust the exposure in post of the lighter ones.
There is one shot taken wide open and one taken at f5.6 of each lens.
Used a tripod and a delayed shutter this time.
Feel free to work your magic on cropping them, there named accordingly.
I still see the E-mount having a substantial edge in resolution throughout the entire frame. At this closer distance, they are similar at center (although the E-mount is still better). At mid-field and extreme corners, the VM version falls apart wide open on the Sony body.
If one is mainly using this lens on a Sony body, I would recommend the E-mount version.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the tests and comparisons!
I still see the E-mount having a substantial edge in resolution throughout the entire frame. At this closer distance, they are similar at center (although the E-mount is still better). At mid-field and extreme corners, the VM version falls apart wide open on the Sony body.
If one is mainly using this lens on a Sony body, I would recommend the E-mount version.
Huh! So they really did optimize the versions differently! I guess with a lens this fast you have to ....
Obviously there is a reason, why some of the best educated optical engineers worldwide @cosina have designed two different lenses for M and E mount.
I've not yet understood why (advanced) FM members believe both versions could have close to same performance on a Sony body...
I don’t understand it either to be honest. The M is for Leica sensor stack and the E is optimized for Sony. Right out of the gate we know we would have to use a front filter like other M lenses to work properly on a Sony body. We’ve been talking about this for a long time. Someone needs to figure out what PCX filter is needed if you want to go between Sony and Leica. Fine for the TAP I get that but your going to need a front filter and screw around with getting infinity.
leetmode wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to do this!
I think we can see that the E mount is definitely better suited for the Sony compared to the M mount. Looking forward to seeing Fred's opinion on the matter (thanks in advance!).
I'm still on the fence, I'd like to use the m-mount so that I could use it with Voigt's close focus adapter but I since the E mount already has a good MFD I may not even need to do that at all.
Indeed. And also, the performance of this lens (certainly the E version, but this is a respect in which I would expect the M to be similar) is pretty poor at it's (as you say, quite close) MFD - it would only get worse if you extended the lens more with an extension tube or helicoid adapter.
With lenses that are already performing not so well at MFD further extension is not a great idea unless it's an emergency. If you want to get a bit closer you could try a fairly strong achromatic diopter (3-5 diopter; Raynox makes a great set of multi element diopters that work without vignetting at close distances, but it's expensive) or a weaker achromatic diopter (Fred has tested the Leica Elpro 4 with good results) not to get closer but to improve performance at closer distances...
Addendum to my previous post:
Those of us who have commented on the poor performance of the 1.2/40 at MFD (at least me in my review at Phillip Reeve, @Fred Miranda, @Matken and I'm sure others) and shown workarounds (thanks to @matken for starting this) may have done the community a disservice:
It's all true, but consider: companies often limit the close focus of lenses not because they couldn't design the helicoid with more travel (though doing that with good throw throughout the range is an issue, less so for AF). Rather, they are worried about performance at close distances, and don't want the reputational hit from people complaining about it.
But I'd *much* rather have the option of close focus with poorer performance. Please, Cosina, in the unlikely event that you have people monitoring these threads, don't take it as reason to have a longer MFD in your next lenses!
I am more worried about the price difference between the VM and the E mount versions. Despite having a RF coupling, the VM is cheaper! Cosina should address this and drop the price of the E mount version by €100 or more.
DavidBM wrote:
Addendum to my previous post:
Those of us who have commented on the poor performance of the 1.2/40 at MFD (at least me in my review at Phillip Reeve, @Fred Miranda@, @Matken and I'm sure others) and shown workarounds (thanks to @matken for starting this) may have done the community a disservice:
It's all true, but consider: companies often limit the close focus of lenses not because they couldn't design the helicoid with more travel (though doing that with good throw throughout the range is an issue, less so for AF). Rather, they are worried about performance at close distances, and don't want the reputational hit from people complaining about it.
But I'd *much* rather have the option of close focus with poorer performance. Please, Cosina, in the unlikely event that you have people monitoring these threads, don't take it as reason to have a longer MFD in your next lenses!
i personally like having the close focus option that degrades iq. honestly, i actually like image degradation most of the time. i'm generally annoyed by the perfect direction manufacturers are going these days though...
The m-mount lens is great for portraits, has the autofocus option, is smaller, cheaper, looks better and is superior to use.
If I was a landscape photgrapher who liked to shoot below f4 then i wouldn't go for it, I would choose the e-mount, but for what I use my camera predominantly for , this m-mount is a great option!
Just like the very popular C-Sonnar that's used heavily on the A7 series.
Having said all that, if someone works out what PCX filter works best for this lens, I would get it 😀
i personally like having the close focus option that degrades iq. honestly, i actually like image degradation most of the time. i'm generally annoyed by the perfect direction manufacturers are going these days though...
My wife strongly wishes I shared your taste in this respect, Sebboh! It's good for the finances.
