Phillip Reeve wrote:
If it is strictly a landscape lens then the Lox would certaibly be a simpler solution. Personally while my focus is on landscape I would prefer to have a very able allround lens which doesn't perform worse for landscape use.
+1
I love the CV 35 1.7 all around, different qualities of it, not just f8 and landscape.
jlehet wrote:
K&F you say? Off to ebay with me right now. I've got the front filter and have tried about 4 different <$20 off brand adapters and couldn't get it to work at infinity
I had been hoping to get the CV 35 1.7 tweaked before my Iceland trip, but I didn't manage that. Then I got the C/Y 35-70 3.4, which seemed pretty good at 35, so that was going to be the Iceland 35. When that lens went wobbly on the trip I was glad I brought the CV35 along. I almost didn't. The CV 35 without the front lens at f8 did just fine. I haven't printed anything or really worked on anything, but I think that lens did fine. ...Show more →
With those cheaper adapters there is always some variation but yes: K&F Gen I
I explored some third-stop apertures this morning. In an image with bokeh balls showing, F2.2 is a good compromise between cats eyes and the aperture shape showing, though it's a trade off. I'd say that in an important image wide open it's probably worth trying at f2.2 as well as f2. Aperture shape is apparent after f2 when it is going to show up in the bokeh balls, but it is quite variable. Sometimes you don't get much strong aperture shape and sometimes it is very clear. The cats eyes are always there at f2 near the edges though, so worth trying f2.2. The cats eyes are well controlled even at f2.2.
Also at the smaller end, the bokeh balls are round at f8, but they also start to get rounder in the partial stops before f8.
Overall in terms of aperture shaped bokeh balls, it's quite variable. Sometimes the shape is very strong and they look structured, while in other situations at the same aperture they are rounder. At least they are a regular polygon, which is a bit less distracting than the Loxia 50's pointed-polygon shape.
jlehet wrote:
K&F you say? Off to ebay with me right now. I've got the front filter and have tried about 4 different <$20 off brand adapters and couldn't get it to work at infinity
Almost all cheap filters are too thin for "100% sure infinity", try K&F it won't cost much. In addition to adapter "brand" there are variances from batch to batch. If I remember correctly the K&F adapters I have are too thin as well (maybe more thin than many others), but I did not make any systematical study, just tried different adapters with different lenses randomly when I was doing the shim removal process.
Another factor is camera; A7-series cameras allow quite big tolerance for sensor to lens mount distances. I have 4 cameras: 2xA7, A7r and A7v2. Before I sent the A7 cameras for Kolari to thin filter conversion all of them had different infinity position. Now after Kolari conversion both converted have exact same infinity position, so I would assume Kolarivision did calibrate to tighter tolerance when they replaced the thick sensor glass to thinner one. This is quite ridiculous with lenses reporting focus distance e.g. my FE 1.4/35 @ 50m (150 ft) the display says 8-10m in A7r and in A7v2 the distance is larger (both mentioned cameras have standard thick sensor cover glass).
So even if you would use Philip's K&F-adapter in your camera you still might not get infinity focus with 1.7/35 w/ 5000mm PCX.
I ordered a K&F. That was one brand I hadn't tried. Yep, there could be camera variation, and of course these cheap adapters are probably variable.
My post above, the f2.2 and bokeh balls and all was about the CV 65, not the 35 we had been talking about. Though I think it's also true (would have to check) that the CV 35 cats eyes are gone with 1/3 of a stop.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Sure you won't be able to use a helicoid adapter but my 20 bucks K&F works well with it and still focuses a little behind infinity. Since it focuses to 0.5m that isn't a big pain in my eyes.
I remember your link to this adapter. I bought the exact same one (2 copies) and could not focus at infinity with the 5m front lens + CV 35/1.7 lens. None of my other cheap or expensive M to E adapters worked either...
I know there is variance with these cheap adapters but unfortunately this was a no-go for me.
It would great to get a native CV 35/1.7 E-mount optimized for the Sony sensor. Their new 35/1.4 does not seem to follow the same mold.
jlehet wrote:
One usability issue I'm seeing with this lens is that the magnified view on the a7r2 is a bit skittish with this lens. It tends to pop out of magnification, especially when I'm turning the dials to move it. I have "magnify when turning focus ring" or whatever the setting is called turned OFF. I magnify by pushing a function button (probably the most pressed button on the camera, counting the shutter). At first I thought it had to do with the slightest touch of the aperture ring while focusing. But even taking my hand off the lens altogether (and just turning the dials to move the magnification area causes it to happen sometimes. Anyone else seeing this? Doesn't happen on old lenses with dumb adapters or the Loxias....Show more →
Not sure if this is the same issue but when first using the CV 15/4.5 I was having issues with the magnification being too short in duration. Under number 1 of the gear options under menu you can change focus magnification time to 5 seconds or unlimited. Mine was set to 2 seconds by default.
Crap. In all truth I have been afraid to spend the money on a Loxia 35 not knowing whats next. I had the lens wide open its not great and I was hoping it was. I have the FE 35 1.4 on hand so I have a really great copy but it travels like shit. I had the CV 35 1.7 and really liked it but was trying to make too much of its capabilities . If I stay within reason even without the front filter its still a nice fun city type lens and can be pressed into landscape. Soooooooo having just seen a used one for 599 i grabbed it. I figure if something hits the streets soon the worst case scenario I can get at least 500 for it. So I took the risk. I also just grabbed a FE 28mm as really a fill grip and grin lens for work. I have 12-24 than FE 35 so a 28mm will handle those stupid shots I have to do of people talking and drinking cocktails at events.
The nice thing is the CV will stack well in a bag. Thats what i really wanted and the FE 35 i just hate manual focusing that lens. Im freaking sick in the head
More the point I could not find a Loxia 35 for less than 979. 00 and thats too much
jlehet wrote:
I ordered a K&F. That was one brand I hadn't tried. Yep, there could be camera variation, and of course these cheap adapters are probably variable.
My post above, the f2.2 and bokeh balls and all was about the CV 65, not the 35 we had been talking about. Though I think it's also true (would have to check) that the CV 35 cats eyes are gone with 1/3 of a stop.
I wish you good luck with it. Hopefully Fred's experience was the outlier and not mine. My many K&F adapters in other mounts are all significantly too short.
About the cat-eyes: those are a function of optical vignetting and certainly not gone by f/2.2. I measure two stops of vignetting at f/2, 1.2 at f/2.8 and 0.7 at f/4. So stopping down to f/2.2 certainly reduces the issue a bit but not that much. The CV 1.7/35 has pretty strong vignetting. 2.7 stops at f/1.7 if memory serves me right and about 1 stop at f/5.6 and beyond.
Guys, where can you purchase the filters in the U.S.? If it's already been posted my bad - just can't seem to find it. I just read in Bastian's article on Phillip's site that it can take quite a while to have one shipped.
Also the K&F adapters are on Amazon with Prime shipping for less than $20 if you want to get it in a hurry. I personally have had nothing but great experiences with all of their adapters so far.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I wish you good luck with it. Hopefully Fred's experience was the outlier and not mine. My many K&F adapters in other mounts are all significantly too short.
About the cat-eyes: those are a function of optical vignetting and certainly not gone by f/2.2. I measure two stops of vignetting at f/2, 1.2 at f/2.8 and 0.7 at f/4. So stopping down to f/2.2 certainly reduces the issue a bit but not that much. The CV 1.7/35 has pretty strong vignetting. 2.7 stops at f/1.7 if memory serves me right and about 1 stop at f/5.6 and beyond.
Phillip, if you measure vignetting using A7/A9 camera, please take into account the "digital vignetting". CV 1.7/35 has so steep ray angle that large part of vignetting is caused by light not hitting the "well".
Optical vignetting and cats eye boke shape are relevant, but "digital vignetting" is not at all relevant to cats eye boke shape.
EDIT: Also this varies a lot by A7 model; the backlit CMOS of A7r mkII has least "digital vignetting" (and color issues) due to ray angle. I have no knowledge of A9, I have not seen anyone mention it in the forum, but I don't subscribe all threads and I'm generally not interested of A9 as I try to avoid all shooting requiring autofocus...
Yeah, not gone, but it seems to be a trade-off that starts to kick in -- noticeably less distracting cats eyes for more aperture shape.
For example
At f 2 cats eyes in the corner and that one down from the corner, then at f2.2 the corner ones are still there but the one in from the corner is quite a bit rounder (though stopping down increases the brightness and obviousness of the bokeh balls, so again a trade off)
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Phillip, if you measure vignetting using A7/A9 camera, please take into account the "digital vignetting". CV 1.7/35 has so steep ray angle that large part of vignetting is caused by light not hitting the "well".
Optical vignetting and cats eye boke shape are relevant, but "digital vignetting" is not at all relevant to cats eye boke shape.
It was actually 2.8 stops and those were measured by Bastian on his a7rii. Now I am curious how much what the value changes on my a7ii, will check that as soon as I have access to it. Or can you quantify how much of a difference there is with some of your lenses between a7/a7ii and a7rii?
jlehet wrote:
Yeah, not gone, but it seems to be a trade-off that starts to kick in -- noticeably less distracting cats eyes for more aperture shape.
For example
At f 2 cats eyes in the corner and that one down from the corner, then at f2.2 the corner ones are still there but the one in from the corner is quite a bit rounder (though stopping down increases the brightness and obviousness of the bokeh balls, so again a trade off)
