Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              49      
50
       51              288       289       end
  

Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review

  
 
imagesfromobjects
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #1 · p.50 #1 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Oops. Forum noob here. That was supposed to be a reply about Meyer Optik. Not sure how the "quote" vs "reply" features work here.

Carry on...



Dec 09, 2017 at 12:19 AM
linnil
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #2 · p.50 #2 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review




received VM today. Will test over the weekend. Initial observation is amazing.



Dec 09, 2017 at 03:47 AM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #3 · p.50 #3 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


SharpContrast wrote:
M-mount Vs E-mount on an A7RMKII

https://www.flickr.com/photos/143385549@N02/albums/72157663439909988


I'm seeing two things:

#1: The VM gives A LOT more vignetting, which must mean the E is getting some sort of in-camera processing. Were these JPG:s or RAW?
#2: The VM gives harsher bokeh towards the corners, probably because of the added curvature of field.



Dec 09, 2017 at 05:01 AM
SharpContrast
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #4 · p.50 #4 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


http:/ /https://flic.kr/p/22gaFDG



Dec 09, 2017 at 06:23 AM
Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #5 · p.50 #5 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Makten wrote:
I'm seeing two things:

#1: The VM gives A LOT more vignetting, which must mean the E is getting some sort of in-camera processing. Were these JPG:s or RAW?
#2: The VM gives harsher bokeh towards the corners, probably because of the added curvature of field.


Another observation is that there is a more pronounced cat's eye effect in the images taken with the M-mount version. I have seen that in some earlier samples as well. More mechanical vignetting? Looking at the images taken in the wood we can also see there is more blur towards the edges and corners in the E-mount images. It's probably the same mechanical vignetting involved here.

@ SharpContrast: Thank you for the comparison, again!



Dec 09, 2017 at 06:37 AM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #6 · p.50 #6 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Jonas B wrote:
Another observation is that there is a more pronounced cat's eye effect in the images taken with the M-mount version. I have seen that in some earlier samples as well. More mechanical vignetting? Looking at the images taken in the wood we can also see there is more blur towards the edges and corners in the E-mount images. It's probably the same mechanical vignetting involved here.


The optical cell is probably identical except for the curvature of one or two surfaces, so I think it's only due to the difference in curvature of field. The cats eyes will transform to a completely different shape if you change the focus distance on any lens. I also think that's the reason for more blur in the corners of the E version.



Dec 09, 2017 at 06:49 AM
SharpContrast
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #7 · p.50 #7 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Not problem Jonas.

The M version is really pretty good when stopped down!
Have a look at some of these I took this morning, all of which are out of camera JPGs.


https://flic.kr/s/aHsksL2YRd



Dec 09, 2017 at 07:02 AM
Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #8 · p.50 #8 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Makten wrote:
The optical cell is probably identical except for the curvature of one or two surfaces, so I think it's only due to the difference in curvature of field. The cats eyes will transform to a completely different shape if you change the focus distance on any lens. I also think that's the reason for more blur in the corners of the E version.


You are probably right. "To a completely different shape (...) " yes, but not because of a change of focus but by altering the aperture opening.

What ever the reason we are back to observations telling me the E-mount version is better than the M-mount version when they are compared mounted to an A7(x) camera. Of course, by now we know my opinion not necessarily is the voice of the majority.

By the way, not only is the Cat's eye effect more pronounced, the shape of bokeh balls also take the form of comets earlier (at shorter distances from the optical axis) than they do with the E-mount version. This can be seen in the image with the trash can (?) and the blue car SharpContrast provided.

As I haven't been into rangefinders since the Leica M5 it would be for fun only for me, but it would be interesting to see comparisons between the M and E versions when used with cameras they are intended for.



Dec 09, 2017 at 08:34 AM
Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #9 · p.50 #9 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


SharpContrast wrote:
Not problem Jonas.

The M version is really pretty good when stopped down!
Have a look at some of these I took this morning, all of which are out of camera JPGs.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsksL2YRd


Thanks again. Let's say it's a good thing it works well stopped down. I don't hesitate using it stopped down at distances for cityscapes and such. (No, I'm not getting rid of my E-mount copy - I decided not to give up that easily.)
I don't think there is anything wrong with the M version. The images Fred Miranda used for his 100% crop comparisons were yours, weren't they? I still suspect the differences in the center part of the images there were due to an unfortunate mishap while focusing? Can that be right?



Dec 09, 2017 at 08:38 AM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #10 · p.50 #10 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


The middle will also be affected by the sensor filter stack, if the exit pupil is large (and close) enough. Just imagine what angles that the light will fall on the sensor from the peripheral parts of the exit pupil. I suppose a thin filter stack with a lens optimized for it, would be the sharpest solution in this case. So VM on a Leica M or or thin filter modded a7X could be even sharper in that case.

----------

Just came home from a little walk. Like you I do find the bokeh to be problematic at times, but it has never ruined an image (yet). The properties that we connoisseurs are aware of, wouldn't ever bother a non-photographer.
Something that helps in my case is that I often crop my images to ~4:3, so I get rid of the worst corner stuff.


Svindersvik by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr


Svindersvik by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr


The second one is at f/2 and I'm very happy with the performance there. Very much better than the Loxia, and it looks more like f/4 or so.



Dec 09, 2017 at 10:44 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Luvwine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #11 · p.50 #11 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Here are a few more from a recent trip to Florence. Most or perhaps all of these have all been posted previously to the FE images thread, I think, but figured adding images here makes sense...

Makes a good museum lens:







And cityscapes, of course:





Or even landscapes:




Dec 09, 2017 at 10:57 AM
Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #12 · p.50 #12 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Makten wrote:
The middle will also be affected by the sensor filter stack, if the exit pupil is large (and close) enough. (...)

That may explain it. I have to think a little about this considering the good results I've seen from other fast lenses, including fast M-mount ones, when used on Sony's A7 cameras. I'm talking about the center only now.

I'm not into optics and forum psychology is also a puzzling area. What about a CV 35/1.7 being bitingly sharp wide open yet not performing as well as the CV40/1.2?

What we all like, can stand or detest differs a lot. Not talking about you now but about forum posters as a bunch of humans. I very much dislike bokeh balls shaped as comets. Maybe non-photographer don't see it. I don't know. I know I don't like them. Despite that I'm happy with a couple of my CV40/1.2 images - but they are cropped to 1:1 or 4:5. Most cityscapes and a lot of other images work fine of course.

I didn't know you had this kind of patience... Regards!






Dec 09, 2017 at 11:49 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #13 · p.50 #13 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Jonas B wrote:
Makten wrote:
That may explain it. I have to think a little about this considering the good results I've seen from other fast lenses, including fast M-mount ones, when used on Sony's A7 cameras. I'm talking about the center only now.

I'm not into optics and forum psychology is also a puzzling area. What about a CV 35/1.7 being bitingly sharp wide open yet not performing as well as the CV40/1.2?

What we all like, can stand or detest differs a lot. Not talking about you now but about forum posters as a bunch of humans. I very much dislike bokeh balls
...Show more

I have both lenses and here are my personal thoughts:

1) Resolution/contrast: The CV 35/1.7 is one of the sharpest 35mm lenses on the market. It's already amazing wide open at center while the CV 40/1.2 needs to be stopped down to f/1.7 to match it. This is at infinity though. At closer distance and MFD, the CV 40/1.2 never approaches the CV 35/1.7's performance.

2) Specular Highlights quality: The CV 35/1.7 has asphericals but no traces of onion ring pattern, so its bokeh balls are pretty clean. That's not the case with the 40/1.2.

3) OOF smoothness: I consider the CV 35/1.7's rendering smooth even at mid-distance. They pretty much match each other at f/1.7 but the CV 40/1.2's bokeh balls won't be rounded anymore. (polygon)

4) Aberration control: The CV 35/1.7 is better control for LaCA, LoCA and coma wide open.

5) Blur will be noticeably higher with the CV 40/1.2 wide open from its 2/3rd stop wider aperture and longer in FL compared to the CV 35/1.7. That's really the main reason to get the CV 40/1.2 instead. However, the CV 35/1.7 is so sharp wide open, that there is pop and subject isolation even though it's a slower lens.

6) The CV 35/1.7 'needs' a corrective lens to perform best with the stock Sony sensor. I've tried many PCX front lens (2.5, 4m, 5m) and the best is 5m. Field curvature is corrected without any loss of sharpness at center.

7) The CV 35/1.7 + PCX + adapter is still lighter (by 100g) and skinnier than the CV 40/1.2. However it's a bit longer. See first post.

8) They both perform similarly at infinity when stopping down to f/5.6. Optimum aperture is about f/6.3 for both (center to corner resolution)




Dec 09, 2017 at 12:09 PM
linnil
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #14 · p.50 #14 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


It will be nice if we could find out what pcx works best with 40 1.2 vm.


Dec 09, 2017 at 01:05 PM
SharpContrast
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #15 · p.50 #15 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


linnil wrote:
It will be nice if we could find out what pcx works best with 40 1.2 vm.


It sure would! Who knows where to start?
Can we learn from other lenses that have well suited PCX filters?
What similarities are we looking for? Or is it just not that simple?
I have a Optima Sigma PCX 2500 courtesy of GMPhotography, that's probably worth trying, right?

Edited on Dec 09, 2017 at 01:27 PM · View previous versions



Dec 09, 2017 at 01:25 PM
Luvwine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #16 · p.50 #16 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


For me, using a lens with a PCX filter is not worth the hassle. I recently sold my Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 for this reason. I like to have the option of using ND and polarizing filters and the use of PCX filters makes this more challenging. With the loss of the SR app for the A7riii, the use of ND filters is even more important for my shooting. Therefore, for my purposes, I prefer using native mount solutions. Obviously, TAP use is a consideration and may make the inconvenience of using a front filter worth it in many circumstances. All this is to say that I am quite happy with the native mount CV 40/1.2 and would not trade it for a non-native 35/1.7 or 1.4 at this point even though there might be some very slight optical gains (maybe more than slight at MFD). I did like using the ZM 35/1.4 on TAP, by the way, but also found the CV 40/1.2 slightly sharper across the frame at infinity (which surprised me) and that was with the front filter on the ZM.

Another side note, Fred mentioned that the best place for focusing the CV at infinity once stopped down to F4 is at the hard stop. My lens behaves very slightly differently in that at F4 the best infinity focus is still a gnat's hair short of the hard stop. However, at F5.6 and smaller, the hard stop it is.



Dec 09, 2017 at 01:25 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #17 · p.50 #17 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


SharpContrast wrote:
It sure would! Who knows where to start?
Can we learn from other lenses that have well suited PCX filters?
What similarities are we looking for? Or is it just not that simple?
I have a Optima Sigma PCX 2500 courtesy of GMPhotography, that's probably worth trying, right?


I would guess, it will work best with the PCX 5000. (5m)
I may get one and test it out.
Fred



Dec 09, 2017 at 01:32 PM
SharpContrast
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #18 · p.50 #18 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Luvwine wrote:
For me, using a lens with a PCX filter is not worth the hassle. I recently sold my Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 for this reason. I like to have the option of using ND and polarizing filters and the use of PCX filters makes this more challenging. With the loss of the SR app for the A7riii, the use of ND filters is even more important for my shooting. Therefore, for my purposes, I prefer using native mount solutions. Obviously, TAP use is a consideration and may make the inconvenience of using a front filter worth it in many circumstances. All
...Show more

At what aperture is the CV40MM 1.2 shaper at infinity than the ZM35?



Dec 09, 2017 at 01:33 PM
Luvwine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #19 · p.50 #19 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


SharpContrast wrote:
At what aperture is the CV40MM 1.2 shaper at infinity than the ZM35?


I would have to go back and look at my testing. I want to say at F6.3 or thereabouts, and the differences were not huge. It may have been the effect of the PCX filter exacerbating a bit the midfield dip in the ZM 35. I just remember being surprised as I expected the ZM 35 to be superior and that the 40/1.2 not to work as well at infinity but I found the 40 to be more than acceptable at infinity and to more than hold its own against the ZM across the frame. up close, I did not test, but would think the ZM would be better--especially on center at large apertures--at close to minimum focusing distance. Understand the ZM is a first rate lens--probably one of the best 35mm lenses ever made. I have just come to value lenses that are native to the sensor and don't want to fool with PCX filters anymore for my shooting. The CV 40 also has issues the ZM does not in the form of more CA in OOF highlights that often have to be dealt with in post processing. All lenses are compromises and one has to choose the particular set of compromises one is willing to accept. If I could have had the performance of the ZM 35 without the need for a PCX filter to get it, I would have kept the ZM. Maybe Zeiss will make a ZM 35 for FE mount someday. Pretty please?



Dec 09, 2017 at 01:48 PM
kaioyang
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #20 · p.50 #20 · Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton Review


Luvwine wrote:
Another side note, Fred mentioned that the best place for focusing the CV at infinity once stopped down to F4 is at the hard stop. My lens behaves very slightly differently in that at F4 the best infinity focus is still a gnat's hair short of the hard stop. However, at F5.6 and smaller, the hard stop it is.


My copy behaves the same as yours Stephen. Best infinity is just a touch from hard stop until f/5.6.



Dec 09, 2017 at 02:50 PM
1       2       3              49      
50
       51              288       289       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              49      
50
       51              288       289       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.