You know, I was going to say yes. But I can't prove it. I don't have the 50 anymore but it just seemed less sharp than the 35/1.2 -- I have plenty of pictures from both, but I can't guarantee I nailed the focus on every one.
But they definitely have different looks to them. The 50 is more overall-dreamy, the 35 has wonderful bokeh but at the same time doesn't impart such a strong signature on the picture. It has a "look", for sure, but it's one closer to reality. I think the 50 color is different, and I didn't correct for it.
Some examples, wide-open (apologies if I've already posted them in this thread)
Great shots, all of them! How the heck did you get that red ring flare?! Going to take it out for some experimenting.
From my limited use, I've found it really hard to get blended out of focus areas on the 40mm, even when shooting fairly bland and non-contrasty backgrounds (though stopping down to 2.8 helps a bit). Wide-open, I often get bright bokeh circles in the oddest places, sometimes seemingly at random! It can be a really cool effect, as you've demonstrated in that last photo, but sometimes it just detracts from the subject.
Thanks joxang! The flare shows up only in extreme conditions (sun in the shot etc.) at first I wasn't sure what to think of it but now I've learned to like it.
Errz wrote:
would like to check, those who have the Voigtlander 35mm/f1.2 Nokton Aspherical II on NEX-7, is the CA very bad when shoot with F1.2 on a Nex-7?
It depends on the scene, but there can be strong purple fringing on specular highlights, yes.
