turnstyle wrote:
One last unresolved question: anybody happen to know if the CV 35 1.2 performs equally well on the A7r as it does A7? Or does the color cast creep in on the A7r?
I tried it on a7R before I bought the a7, and saw no or very little color shift.
waterden wrote:
I'm not too sure about searching for lenses either. If I am too specific I get no results and a search term like CV 35 1.4 for message body, whole phrase just finds 35, etc. So can anyone point me to any threads for this lens on the a7 - it's a much more manageable size than the CV 35/1.2 II and only half a stop slower?
I sold my 35/1.2 because I didn't like its character and weight (it's freakin' 470 grams!), and I'm looking for something smallish for low light. If I find a 35/1.4 at a reasonable price, I think I will try it again (used it on the M8 for a while).
My understanding is that the CV 35/1.2 II isn't just a bit faster than the CV 35 1.4 -- my understanding is that the overall IQ is better too (otherwise, I'd also prefer the lighter, smaller, cheaper, but tiny bit slower lens).
turnstyle wrote:
My understanding is that the CV 35/1.2 II isn't just a bit faster than the CV 35 1.4 -- my understanding is that the overall IQ is better too (otherwise, I'd also prefer the lighter, smaller, cheaper, but tiny bit slower lens).
Throw out the preconceptions when it comes to the A7r. It LOVES the Cv 35/1.4 mc.
Was a big surprise to me.
I highly doubt any sane shooter with a good copy will ever complain about the CV 35/1.4 IQ on this camera-- if they own the lens.
Now I'm going to try the 1.2
BTW another myth is the v2 1.2 is in any way superior to the V1. The V1 was stopped because the glass could no longer be sourced, so if anything the reverse is true.
uhoh7 wrote:
(...)
BTW another myth is the v2 1.2 is in any way superior to the V1. The V1 was stopped because the glass could no longer be sourced, so if anything the reverse is true.
I agree the two versions of this lens behaves more or less the same. I was never able to see any differences between my v1 and v2.
But... do you have a reliable source about the reason for the V1 to be stopped?
Goodrich wrote:
Try the 10-18mm sony lens, in full frame mode. Works much better than I expected, with the added flexibility of a few extra millimetres and image stabilization.
I've tried that lens on the NEX-7 and wasn't too impressed to be honest. I'm trying a Canon 24mm f/1.4 FD L and if that doesn't work I'll probably go to the 12mm Touit lens in crop mode until Zeiss releases a wide angle that works properly...
waterden wrote:
I'm not too sure about searching for lenses either. If I am too specific I get no results and a search term like CV 35 1.4 for message body, whole phrase just finds 35, etc. So can anyone point me to any threads for this lens on the a7 - it's a much more manageable size than the CV 35/1.2 II and only half a stop slower?
+1 to this
CV 35/1.4 MC is one of the lenses I'm honestly most interested in on the A7(r) simply due to the compact size and useful focal length, not to mention its modest price tag.
CV 21/4 and 35/1.4 could make for a really great little combo that doesn't break the bank and that also maintains a great walk around size/weight
Jonas B wrote:
I agree the two versions of this lens behaves more or less the same. I was never able to see any differences between my v1 and v2.
But... do you have a reliable source about the reason for the V1 to be stopped?
I heard the same thing, probably from the same site somewhere, something about some glass not able to be sourced. I have not heard anything about v1 being better than v2, if anything I've heard of modest improvements with v2 (but of course I expect to be be getting v2, so I am only capable of hearing that it is the better one. )
uhoh7 wrote:
Throw out the preconceptions when it comes to the A7r. It LOVES the Cv 35/1.4 mc.
Was a big surprise to me.
I highly doubt any sane shooter with a good copy will ever complain about the CV 35/1.4 IQ on this camera-- if they own the lens.
Now I'm going to try the 1.2
If the CV 35 1.4 really does compare favorably against the CV 35 1.2 (obviously from 1.4 on), in shapness and oof, I'd be very interested to hear that -- but I'm expecting the 1.2 to be better overall, and not simply for being a tad faster.
p.127 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Jonas B wrote:
I haven't tried the 35/1.4 together with a FF camera. When used with 1.5 crop cameras the only thing better with the 35/1.4 was its smaller size.
Just to clarify, should I also be interpreting that to mean you thought the 1.2 generally outperformed the 1.4? (As I could also read your comment to mean they were equal.)
p.127 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
When I had my NEX5n and also I think 7, I found the CV 35/1.2 to be quite stellar across the entire reduced frame. It was a pretty fantastic lens, though the size/weight obviously didn't balance too well on the tiny NEX body
The CV 35/1.4 MC, was a great size, but the IQ was always pretty crappy. Not "character" crappy either IMHO, just all and all a bit soft all over.
I wouldn't of even given the 1.4 a second though on the FF A7(r) although Uhoh's reports are certainly worth checking out
p.127 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Is the 35/1.4 a bit less nervous then on the A7r ? I always found the OOF area was a bit nervous or jittery, opposed to a smooth and creamy Leica 35/2 or 35 Lux like way of rendering
p.127 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I personally have the 35/1.2 II and do not have experience with the other two. But I researched and read reviews on the net and the general opinion seems like this: 35/1.4 have classic rendering, some people like it, more but is technically not as good as 35/1.2. Generally people seems are impressed by the IQ of 35/1.2 more. And I myself certainly like it a lot. For the v1 vs v2, what I heard is v2 is slightly better but not very noticeable. The opinion seems like if you already have v1 you don't need to upgrade but if you don't then one should buy v2 (since the price difference is not a lot, unless you get a great deal)
For the size, I think 35/1.2 II and 21/1.8 are not big. Of course they are bigger and heavier than the 35/1.4 and 21/4, but coming from a DSLR background it is so light and manageable. But it is really personal so one should try both and see if you can handle the extra weight.
p.127 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
millsart wrote:
Is the 35/1.4 a bit less nervous then on the A7r ? I always found the OOF area was a bit nervous or jittery, opposed to a smooth and creamy Leica 35/2 or 35 Lux like way of rendering
I feel the oof is way different, but you be the judge:
p.127 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
The Voigtlander 35/1.4 has always been a great performer for portraiture and a not so great performer in terms of field curvature when pixel peeping, whether on aps-c or FF. I doubt that has changed with the A7/R, but it is good for some applications.
p.127 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
douglasf13 wrote:
The Voigtlander 35/1.4 has always been a great performer for portraiture and a not so great performer in terms of field curvature when pixel peeping, whether on aps-c or FF. I doubt that has changed with the A7/R.
Everything has changed, and I'm speaking from real experience, not speculation.
Differences have shocked me.
Obviously the sensor and processor are in another league.
p.127 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
Everything has changed, and I'm speaking from real experience, not speculation.
Differences have shocked me.
You're saying it's better than even on the M9/m240? Post a planar landscape raw at infinity and f8. I'm sure it's better than the 5N, but I'm having a hard time believing it's like a ZM 35/2 or something acrossed the field.
Wait, are you using camera jpegs and the anti-diffraction effect?
p.127 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
douglasf13 wrote:
You're saying it's better than even on the M9/m240? Post a planar landscape raw at infinity and f8. I'm sure it's better than the 5N, but I'm having a hard time believing it's like a ZM 35/2 or something acrossed the field.
I have no idea, I don't own a M9, but I know the character and rendering and multiple aspects of performance are different with the A7r, wth varying degrees depending on the lens.
Obviously with RF wides the M9 is better sooner--maybe way sooner on the edges. I do not think any M can match the sony centers for IQ--but I don't know this for a fact.
I think many will come to think there are a number of RF lenses which are hands down "better" on the sony, but that remains to be seen.
The only point I'm making here is that I think the CV 35/1.4 is outstanding on the A7r. I will take it into the backcountry for landscape work without hesitation. I do not think the CV 35/1.2 is any sharper at infinity past 100 meters.
I could be proven wrong, and will be happy to admit it. But my own testing supports this view at the moment.
)
