I have A7II, Voigtlander 40/1.4 and the Voigtlander close focus adapter. My keeper rate is very poor.
At the minute i am just viewing as jpegs as I have a new computer on order, they look way better on the camera than on my computer.
I understand manual focus as I have had a 5d and Zuiko lens in the past. Even using the C2 button and pressing the centre button and doing the fine adjustments there my keeper rate is rubbish. Has anybody had a bad Voigtlander CF adapter or a really bad lens, I do realsie that its a small area to get in focus using f1.4. Its driving me mad and with the other problems as asked about i want to sell both to be honest. Any ideas or tips wuld be appreciated. It my be user error.
I have A7II, Voigtlander 40/1.4 and the Voigtlander close focus adapter. My keeper rate is very poor.
At the minute i am just viewing as jpegs as I have a new computer on order, they look way better on the camera than on my computer.
I understand manual focus as I have had a 5d and Zuiko lens in the past. Even using the C2 button and pressing the centre button and doing the fine adjustments there my keeper rate is rubbish. Has anybody had a bad Voigtlander CF adapter or a really bad lens, I do realsie that its a small area to get in focus using f1.4. Its driving me mad and with the other problems as asked about i want to sell both to be honest. Any ideas or tips wuld be appreciated. It my be user error.
Now that I've had the 40/1.4 and A7RII for a few weeks I find that I have mixed success at f/1.4 and wide open - most likely due to two things: Very thin DOF + high MP and the low contrast of this lens wide open, especially off center.
Wide open at a good distance or closed down a stop or two it's just fine.
Thanks for the info, maybe i excpected a little to much, more practice and think about changing to the other Voigtlander 40mm f2. The jpegs just seems so soft looking on my computer than on the camera.
Here's an image of my daughter at or near MFD that came out quite good. Below that is a 100% crop with my standard (light) sharpening. I have another similar image that is slightly better for sharpness which I think I just nailed the focus better. This lens seems to demand super accurate focusing at f/1.4, not just because of the lower DOF, but also it doesn't have high contrast to help out the apparent sharpness.
Looking at that foto it looks like you missed focus as there is a band of the pebbles in front of her that seems sharper than her face. Maybe (most probably..) I am wrong but a 100% crop of that area would show that one way or the other.
jhinkey wrote:
Very thin DOF + high MP and the low contrast of this lens wide open, especially off center.
These are my observations as well, which is one reason why I seldom use the 40/1.4 on my A7r.
---------------------------------------------
Desmolicious wrote:
Looking at that foto it looks like you missed focus as there is a band of the pebbles in front of her that seems sharper than her face.
I don't think there is enough information in the photo to judge solely based on where the plane of focus intersects - e.g. we don't know the degree of tilt involved, nor how much field curvature (if any) is involved.
Based on guesswork though, I'd say that this was shot pointing up, the "pebbles" is in fact a wall, and the girl is looking down -- so there is a significant degree of tilt that will make the plane of focus cut through the pebbles in front of the girl, rather than perpendicular to her.
Edit: Examining the 100% crop further, I can now see her skin texture well-defined on a plane that cuts through the eyes; they become blurred out in front, towards the nose, and also behind, towards the ears. So -- focus is spot-on.
Desmolicious wrote:
Looking at that foto it looks like you missed focus as there is a band of the pebbles in front of her that seems sharper than her face. Maybe (most probably..) I am wrong but a 100% crop of that area would show that one way or the other.
Nope - it was a very tilted photo and the plane of focus ran through her eyes (or very close to them) and through that band on the concrete as well.
jhinkey wrote:
Nope - it was a very tilted photo and the plane of focus ran through her eyes (or very close to them) and through that band on the concrete as well.
Sry no offense, but her eyes are clearly out of focus.
Despite the various aids, to MF focus a fast lens at full speed is hard with the EVF and the LCD does not confirm well. Just tonite I missed several shots with my Sonnetar just past f/2 on the A7, and they seemed fine on the LCD
That close at f/1.4 the slightest movement will loose an eye.
Here is the CV 35/1.4, closely related, but less sharp WO, on the A7r, unmodified, wide open:
This lens has a lot of spherical aberration wide open that only increases at near distances. Using it with a close focus adapter will only increase this.
My suggestion is not to obsess over absolute sharpness with this lens. It can have nice drawing when looking at the overall image, but it won't necessarily hold up to the same scrutiny as sharper lenses.
The lens is actually pretty sharp by f/4 and very good at f/8 too. Underrated. But you are right, huge FC WO.
Here again wide open with the CV 35/1.4 DSC02326 by unoh7, A7.mod
Look at the top of the front tire and the radiator. Not bad for a tiny 400USD 35mm lens at 1.4
Shooting at F/1.4 with MF is not for the faint of heart, or those who expect consistent results. That's why the first Leicas had a 50/3.5. Faster than that and people would miss the focus and blame the camera
Zeiss did not feel the same way.
Add to this, you have an RF lens with a very short throw compared to SLR glass.
uhoh7 wrote:
Sry no offense, but her eyes are clearly out of focus.
Despite the various aids, to MF focus a fast lens at full speed is hard with the EVF and the LCD does not confirm well. Just tonite I missed several shots with my Sonnetar just past f/2 on the A7, and they seemed fine on the LCD
That close at f/1.4 the slightest movement will loose an eye.
Here is the CV 35/1.4, closely related, but less sharp WO, on the A7r, unmodified, wide open:
I've also managed to miss the focus here but you should get some idea....Show more →
No offense, but as a previous poster pointed out her eyes are clearly the most in-focus parts of her face. It doesn't get any better at MFD with this lens.
jhinkey wrote:
No offense, but as a previous poster pointed out her eyes are clearly the most in-focus parts of her face. It doesn't get any better at MFD with this lens.
Clear as day on my screen none of her face is in critical focus. I miss it all the time myself. Do a careful test, with a tripod at MFD and multiple objects at slightly different distances, if you really want to know. You might be surprised. Or you can prove me an idiot. Win Win
It's not an FLE but it's alot better than your sample, as plenty of flickr samples show.
Lee, I shoot almost every day with a fast 35 and a close-focus adapter. As said before, you or I can run into 2 problems. One is the very thin DOF. At close range, with the helicoid extended, for example, don't even think of "focus and recompose", because that is easily enough to miss focus every time. Your keeper rate may not be great, well, mine isn't either. And, yes, pics look sharper on the LCD when chimping than they do on the computer.
The other issue is the use of a helicoid. Not all lenses look great when use well below MFD. Some do, some don't, and it is a bit of a crapshoot. Except, if yours does sometimes look real good, then it is user error, if it always looks crappy, then maybe you are trying to force your lens to do things its design doesn't let it do.
jhinkey wrote:
No offense, but as a previous poster pointed out her eyes are clearly the most in-focus parts of her face. It doesn't get any better at MFD with this lens.
Clear as day on my screen none of her face is in critical focus. One give away is the little hair in front of her left eye. If you had her eyes we would not have that sharp. I miss all the time myself. Do a careful test, with a tripod at MFD and multiple objects at slightly different distances, if you really want to know. You might be surprised. Or you can prove me an idiot. Win Win
It's not an FLE but it's alot better than your sample, as plenty of flickr samples show.
^^^ I see it the same way, Charlie; focus area is clearly [yes, tilt taken into consideration] between John daughter's face and hair locks. Case of miss-focus, which is not unusual at f/1.4
Sony A7xx gives WYSIWYG in a viewfinder and using EVF magnification should make precise focusing with manual lenses very easy, with practice.
Note x5 magnification issue with A7RM2 that Lloyd Chambers mentioned days ago; it really sucks and I hope Sony will fix it soon or allow a quick programmable jump to x12.5 magnification.
The 40/1.4 is my favorite and most used lens. The DOF is so tiny that it's obviously going to be hard to hit precise focus in the specific area you want.
Honestly, I'd never shoot a portrait at f1.4 with the helicoid adapter fully extended. The chance of one of the eyes getting OOF is simply too high and so much of the face detail will completely disappear.
I think f1.4 works amazing between 2-5 meters for isolating subjects and getting a lot of 3D pop out of it.
days ago i bought the 40mm m-rokkor.
than i was offered this lens for small money so i decided to buy it and to compare.
the VM is little better in every aspect. plus 1,4. minus weight and size.
for me working aperture is 2.0.
1.4 only if it its necessary somehow.
its a very great lens but you (i) have to learn where to use it and how.
