frezeiss wrote:
Xavier, excellent shots..love the clouds on #1
Is the corners ok stopped down?
I can't speak for Xavier, but my experience with the CV12 on the 5N was that corners will be good, if you have a good copy of the lens and a good adapter. My copy on the 5N appeared to be slightly off, which resulted in blurring on the left edge, but the right edge was very good. That said, my CV12 seems to be happier on the GXR. Not sure if it's due to the lack of AA filter or the lower resolution not quite resolving the problem with my lens (which might have also been in part due to the adapter, though it worked great with the CV15 on the 5N).
Makten wrote:
Nope, the very reason that the lens exists in its small format is the Leica M bayonet and the short register distance. Lenses for F mount must clear the mirror and hence they have to be more towards the telecentric regime, which means huge and heavy.
Thank you Makten, maybe i should thank to the producers since it would cost me another fortune
There is a theoretic solution but it's kinda self defeating. Corrective magnification. If you mount the lens on an adapter which corrects the light rays for convergence/projection onto the sensor at the specified distance (of F in this case) it works. But I haven't seen this without increased magnification and you're also at the mercy of the optical quality of the adapter optics. In the end it's usually just better to use a different lens.
I'm not sure if such an adapter already exists or not tho.
Frezeiss, the corners are good, I think, but I need some more tests. I was hoping that when I got home yesterday I would test the corners, but I'm afraid it didn't happen. I got derailed by the CV21/4 that I got on the mail…
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I think it's a very nice and small lens. I used it today on my Canon body. Well worth it's rather low price. Good IQ and rather sharp wide open
I love the CV 40 SL-II. I pair it up with my D700 for casual photos mostly. I find it to be sharper than the ZF.2 35/1.4 at f/2, though it loses ground beyond f/2.8. The rendering is pleasing, good colors, slightly lively bokeh. Here are a few from a "cappuccino tour" my wife and I took one day while visiting Vienna to give a decent idea of the rendering, with normal Flickr caveats. Had to stock up before heading home to the US, where the smallest cappuccinos are 12 oz By the end of the day, there was plenty of blur at normally safe shutter speeds
GXR with CV15, though some might also be with the 12... These are already almost a month ago, so don't remember which might be the 12, well, the first one is for sure...
Very nice images, Ron. I like how your images have a lot of contrasts but without blowing the highlights or shadows. Do you selectively enhance the contrast? Or dodge and burn?
Smridevan wrote:
Very nice images, Ron. I like how your images have a lot of contrasts but without blowing the highlights or shadows. Do you selectively enhance the contrast? Or dodge and burn?
Thanks! It depends on the image, but I do work on each individually. In the order they're presented above, the degree of tweaking complexity increased considerably between the top few images, which were basically just certain slider settings, to the second from last, which because I was shooting into the bright sky, meant use of some gradation and selective burning and dodging. When I shoot I try not to clip highlights and will then recover shadows in post. The GXR is quite similar to the M9 in that you can pull quite a bit from the shadows. In post I keep an eye on highlight values and set overall contrast with both the contrast slider (I'm working in Lightroom) and tone curve. Most images also have some fill light applied, which is then pulled back somewhat with the tone curve. Depending on the image there is also some clarity applied, either globally or just in certain spots. Clarity is a personal preference and can be easy to push a bit too far, which I'll admit I've certainly done at times... The nature of my post is somewhat based on getting a similar to film look. Untouched digital images have a tendency to look kind of flat, especially in the mid tones. If you look at a lot of film images, particularly color transparencies, you'll see that shadow values are typically quite compressed. It's easy in post to try to preserve a lot of tonal values, or open up images, but sometimes it just looks better if one does the opposite. In the end I fiddle around on each until I get to where I'm pretty happy with it.
Does anyone know if there are any major differences (in the result/images) between the 35/1.2 which comes in two versions, now II and an older "version I"?
(..and yes, Goleez is to blame for my interest in this lens.. :-)
Regarding the 35 f/1.2 versions.. that's a good question and seems to be somewhat debatable. Some seem to feel the new version is clearly better - sharper, higher contrast - while others say there is little variation in image quality. Jeff Hapeman's comments in some of his version II images on Flickr seem to imply that there could be more copy variation in the first version. But I have seen very nice images from the first one.
I have only a year or so experience with various Voigtlander lenses, and currently have 6. My impression is the 35 f/1.2 II is by far the best built of the group, and definitely up there for best image quality (the 15mm is also really nice) from the Voigtlander line.
In case you're wondering why he's on the other side of the railing... he was messing around with the really long, straight sheet of ice you can kind of see floating in the water.
wfrank wrote:
Does anyone know if there are any major differences (in the result/images) between the 35/1.2 which comes in two versions, now II and an older "version I"?
By the end of the day, there was plenty of blur at normally safe shutter speeds 
