Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 7

9 10 end

Archive 2017 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

dumplinknet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #1 · p.8 #1 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Hey Fred, can you elaborate on this 5mm PCX lens that you speak of? I'm curious. My ZM 35/1.4 has significant field curvature while using it on my a7ii and techart pro adapter.

Fred Miranda wrote:
Although it's exciting to see new CV natives, there is nothing out there that beats the ZM 35/1.4 on the A7RII in terms of contrast/resolution, aberration control, sunstar and flare resistance. Granted, it's bigger and more expensive than the new offerings. I was really hoping for a native and optimized CV 35/1.7 to better compete with the ZM.

I'm not sure about copy variation but my ZM 35/1.4 copy is very sharp from wide open in the center/mid and throughout the frame when adding a PCX 5m lens in front on it. With the front-lens, its field curvature becomes negligible...Show more →

Mar 01, 2017 at 08:06 PM

Taylor Sherman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #2 · p.8 #2 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Well, I know they are just quick shots from a show floor but the 40/1.2 pics don't get me too excited. Not great colors, nothing really grabs me. Kind of just makes me think I should pick up a 40/1.4, which has character.

Mar 01, 2017 at 08:28 PM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #3 · p.8 #3 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

dumplinknet wrote:
Hey Fred, can you elaborate on this 5mm PCX lens that you speak of? I'm curious. My ZM 35/1.4 has significant field curvature while using it on my a7ii and techart pro adapter.

Here is the thread about it:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834

Some links related to the ZM 35/1.4:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/12#13842674

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/13#13843876

Mar 01, 2017 at 08:38 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #4 · p.8 #4 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Jonas B wrote:
Hey Juha - Thank you for all the 40/1.2 images!

Exif, distance reporting and such is nice to have. The image quality, judging by the samples is pretty good. Good enough? Maybe. In my opinion they should have made the lens a little slower focusing more on micro-contrast and chromatic aberrations than on speed. Perhaps the f/1.2 is about bragging rights and a high price tag?

The 40mm focal length is one where I think f1.2 is actually useful.

For longer lenses, f1.2 is about bragging rights, because the DOF and background blur is all you could possibly need at f 1.4, or (IMHO) even f1.8 or smaller.

For shorter lenses (maybe the very similar 35 is an exception) the kind of images you take tend not to benefit from thin DOF, which is in any case impossible at those FLs without absurdly fast lenses.

But 40mm is an interesting FL; it's one at which you can take images similar to ones you might take at 50 but with a bit more of the environment. If you want that environment blurred as much as it would be on a 50mm f.14 (or maybe 1.8 - I haven't done the numbers) you need -- guess what -- f1.2.

An f1.2 40 gives you a wider standard with no compromise in DOF for when you need it.

Of course the question is what other compromise has been made to get there. If the lens is fine centrally at wide apertures, and matches the 1.7/35 from, say, f2.8 or even 4 I'll be happy.

If the compromise (especially if it is in flare and contrast) is throughout the aperture range, I'll be less happy.

Mar 02, 2017 at 01:00 AM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #5 · p.8 #5 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

The Bokeh looks weird on the 40 . Look on SAR

Mar 02, 2017 at 09:46 AM

artur5
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #6 · p.8 #6 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

I see what you mean, but let's wait for more samples. With only a couple of images is hard to say anything definitive. But yes, considering that the cost of these new Voigtlanders is quite steep (for Cosina standards) I expect that many prospective buyers will be quite demanding, performance wise, before taking the plunge.

Mar 02, 2017 at 11:13 AM

Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #7 · p.8 #7 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

DavidBM wrote:
The 40mm focal length is one where I think f1.2 is actually useful.

For longer lenses, f1.2 is about bragging rights, because the DOF and background blur is all you could possibly need at f 1.4, or (IMHO) even f1.8 or smaller.

For shorter lenses (maybe the very similar 35 is an exception) the kind of images you take tend not to benefit from thin DOF, which is in any case impossible at those FLs without absurdly fast lenses.

I agree. For me it's all about separation, having just enough blur to make your subject stand out from the background.

Pretty much all lenses can do this wide open at their minimum focus distance. However the faster the aperture, the further away you can focus and still maintain this separation. Wider than 24mm and there's not much point trying to go for a faster aperture as the distance at which you can get separation is still too close to be useful for most things (e.g. photographing people). Likewise longer than 60mm and you can get separation at typical distances even with a slow lens.

So I'm generally interested in fast lenses in the 24mm - 60mm bracket (as far as separation is concerned). Of course there are still advantages to fast lenses in terms of light gathering at all focal lengths.

DavidBM wrote:
But 40mm is an interesting FL; it's one at which you can take images similar to ones you might take at 50 but with a bit more of the environment. If you want that environment blurred as much as it would be on a 50mm f.14 (or maybe 1.8 - I haven't done the numbers) you need -- guess what -- f1.2.

I did the numbers as soon as it was announced... the 40mm f/1.2 has almost exactly the same entrance pupil size as the Sony 55mm f/1.8, meaning if you crop the 40mm image you'll get the same depth of field and background blur as the 55mm, likewise if you shoot a couple of portrait images with the 55mm and stitch them you'll get something resembling the 40mm.

DavidBM wrote:
An f1.2 40 gives you a wider standard with no compromise in DOF for when you need it.

Exactly, I see it is a wider 55/1.8 (which I really like in terms of bokeh and DOF). However I'm unsure about MF only at this speed I'd honestly rather it was M-mount so you could use the TAP.

Mar 02, 2017 at 12:21 PM

virtualrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #8 · p.8 #8 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

The difference between 40mm and 50mm is a few steps forward or back isn't it? If so, why not get the even faster Mitikon 50mm f/0.95? I guess if you want ultra small and light, the new 40 is the better choice but if you want a speed demon, the Mitikon would seem like the way to go.

Mar 02, 2017 at 03:53 PM

JimUe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #9 · p.8 #9 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

it's not just the size of field for a particular plane but the angle of view for both in the foreground and background. before FF, a 28mm which was equivalent to 42mm just felt right whereas a 35mm equivalent to a 53mm was just a tad to tight for most things.

Mar 02, 2017 at 03:59 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #10 · p.8 #10 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Juha Kannisto wrote:

Thanks, Juha. I only just got a chance to download the RAWs and have a look.
It's much more promising than some have thought, I think.
It seems at very close distances the wide open resolution is moderate, but even a tiny bit further away - probable portrait distances, it seems very good centrally. And I'm seriously impressed by the contrast at all apertures.
And I like the bokeh; it seems excellent at normal apertures, and I don't mind if there's some slight funk at f 1.2 occasionally.

So far so good. If it turns out to be a great infinity performer at f5.6-8 it'll be a no brainer; but if not I'm still tempted for the sorts of things that a 1.2/40 is best at...

Mar 02, 2017 at 06:06 PM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #11 · p.8 #11 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here and maybe I should not but I gotta say it. The bokeh is awful and honestly I would buy that VC 35 1.7 over it in a heart beat. I like that 1.7 but the question really is do you need 1.2. Just saying. Okay be nice on your replies.

Oh was speaking of the 40mm

Mar 02, 2017 at 08:23 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #12 · p.8 #12 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

GMPhotography wrote:
I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here and maybe I should not but I gotta say it. The bokeh is awful and honestly I would buy that VC 35 1.7 over it in a heart beat. I like that 1.7 but the question really is do you need 1.2. Just saying. Okay be nice on your replies.

Oh was speaking of the 40mm

Ok I'll bite!

Actually the bokeh seems great on a lot of the images Juha posted!
I agree there are other images around showing worse bokeh; but it's going to depend a lot on circumstances. So I'll need a lot more samples to get a sense of how it behaves.

Two objective things about the bokeh are emerging:

One is that it has onion rings, which is only to be expected for a fast asph. lens. I know you hate that a lot, Guy! I can live with it.

The other is that there is a bit of mechanical vignetting leading to non-circular bokeh balls in the periphery wide open. Also inevitable on a fast but compact lens.

Mar 02, 2017 at 08:58 PM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #13 · p.8 #13 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Guess the mechanical is bugging me more. I agree we need to see more no question.

Mar 02, 2017 at 09:03 PM

Juha Kannisto
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #14 · p.8 #14 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

DavidBM wrote:
Thanks, Juha. I only just got a chance to download the RAWs and have a look.
It's much more promising than some have thought, I think.
It seems at very close distances the wide open resolution is moderate, but even a tiny bit further away - probable portrait distances, it seems very good centrally. And I'm seriously impressed by the contrast at all apertures.
And I like the bokeh; it seems excellent at normal apertures, and I don't mind if there's some slight funk at f 1.2 occasionally.

So far so good. If it turns out to be a great infinity performer at f5.6-8...Show more →

Thanks! I agree with your findings. I hope that this 40/1.2 will make my Nokton 35/1.2 v1 redundant and if it's as good or better as 35/1.7 (VM) at f5.6-8, it could also go a long way to replacing that as well. 35/1.7 is pretty lovely with TAP though so I could keep using it when AF is nice to have.

Mostly I'm hoping for this 40/1.2 to be a good day-to-day walkaround lens that can handle nice close ups at wide apertures and infinity cityscapes in any light at f4-f8. 35/1.7 does that well at f8 but has too much field curvature at wider apertures. I don't mind having some character with the bokeh at f1.2 either. I'm expecting it to meet these goals nicely.

Mar 03, 2017 at 06:59 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #15 · p.8 #15 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Strange how the interest for these lenses died so quickly! I expected lots of samples in just a few days, but there is still nothing out there.

Mar 14, 2017 at 05:53 AM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #16 · p.8 #16 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Makten wrote:
Strange how the interest for these lenses died so quickly! I expected lots of samples in just a few days, but there is still nothing out there.

I don't think the interest died; it's just that Cosina haven't let any samples out in the wild yet...

Mar 14, 2017 at 06:00 AM

Juha Kannisto
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #17 · p.8 #17 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Yeah, all the shots so far were from CP+ where Cosina had some samples for trials, but that ended on 2/26.

Mar 14, 2017 at 06:17 AM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #18 · p.8 #18 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

Bespoked wrote:
I would have bought one of these (the 40) in a heartbeat but now I'm easing away from what I'm realising would have been an impulse buy.

My heart is still beating for the 40; I love a good 40mm lens.
But the jury is out until more samples and tests happen, unless I decide to do what Guy calls taking one for the team.

Given it's size, it can't possibly (I think) be sharp across the field at f1.2. That's OK
But it needs to hav a decent zone of really good sharpness in the centre at environmental portrait distances wide open for the f1.2 not to be a heavy and xpensive gimmick. But if it does, tick.

Next thing it needs (for me) is for it to deliver across the frame sharpness by f4 or 5.6 at the latest, with nice sunstars and good flare control. If it can do all that, they've got my money.

Mar 14, 2017 at 06:45 AM

rsrsrs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #19 · p.8 #19 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

for me a 40 is a typical street or a discrete portrait lens with environment.
therefore it should a pancake and no lightmonster.

What a pity that they did not not pimp there existing 40mm 1.4 or 40mm 2.0.

Mar 14, 2017 at 06:48 AM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #20 · p.8 #20 · Voigtlander E-mount 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.2, 65mm f2 in Development

rsrsrs wrote:
for me a 40 is a typical street or a discrete portrait lens with environment.
therefore it should a pancake and no lightmonster.

What a pity that they did not not pimp there existing 40mm 1.4 or 40mm 2.0.

Hmm the existing 1.4/40 would need t pimped out of existence to be other than a ,character' lens.....

And the 2/40 is designed for a mirror box, so no design based on it makes s sense on mirrorless.

So they had to design from scratch. Whether f1.2 was a good idea will depend on whether the f1.2 performance is decent, and if not much price is paid for that in stopped down performance. If both of those things I'm happy with f1.2 and a bit of extra bulk, though I can totally see why some would prefer smaller and f2 (It's usually me that's arguing for smaller slower and better!)

Mar 14, 2017 at 07:22 AM

1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.