JohnDizzo15 wrote:
(...)
Personally, I haven't seen that anyone has actually done a true comparison of the two versions with regard to differences in the amount of FC, other aberrations and/or general optical performance.
We have discussed that. You can look for posts by SharpContrast who posted A/B comparisons.
To everything Fred mentioned it should be added that the E-mount version also communicates distance data to the camera making for a more efficient IBIS action compared to when using the M-mount version.
So, if intended to use the lens with a Sony camera one really should consider the M-mount only if one really needs the AF or use both Leica and Sony cameras. Well, that's miy 2 cents.
Jonas B wrote:
We have discussed that. You can look for posts by SharpContrast who posted A/B comparisons.
To everything Fred mentioned it should be added that the E-mount version also communicates distance data to the camera making for a more efficient IBIS action compared to when using the M-mount version.
So, if intended to use the lens with a Sony camera one really should consider the M-mount only if one really needs the AF or use both Leica and Sony cameras. Well, that's miy 2 cents.
Must've completely missed or forgotten about that as I have no recollection of seeing it. Will have to look for it.
My take on this is that the M-mount version is not optimized for the Sony sensor (sensor stack thickness).
Personally, I use the CV 40/1.2 as a general lens, including landscapes and although I haven't compared the two versions side by side, based on comparisons posted here, I'm very confident that the M-mount version will increase field curvature at any distance when mounted on a Sony body. That can be a problem since the E-mount has already moderate FC to begin with...
So, it's similar to shooting with the CV 35/1.7 Ultron or ZM 35/1.4 on a Sony sensor without any remediating PCX front lens and therefore dealing with extreme field curvature.
Some may say that's not important since they would be mainly using the lens at wide apertures and the corners do not matter much...Well, when shooting wide open, field curvature can be very noticeable depending on the subject distance. Take a look at some M-mount samples posted here and pay attention to the corners. In many instances, where they should be out of focus, they are almost as sharp as the foreground subject. That's due to induced field curvature and this effect won't happen when shooting with the E-mount. (At least not to a noticeable degree)
Having said that, I can see the benefit of using the 40/1.2 + TAP. A while back I was sold on the idea of using TAP with all my M-lenses (ZM 35/1.4, ZM 50/1.5, CV 35/1.7 + their respective PCX front-lenses). However, nowadays, I much prefer MF since TAP does not work as well under dim lighting or whenever my subject is off-center. I just got frustrated with the inconsistent focus and hunting in less than perfect light. Still, I can see how useful it can be depending on your subject.
hey all--been lurking here for a while and finally made an account to ask if anyone else is experiencing an audible scraping sound while turning the focusing ring in this new batch?
I was able to get my hands on one of the 40mm copies to try last year and everything was super smooth. Finally just received a new one from CameraQuest and wonder if it just takes some use or if it's another issue entirely.
casiocore wrote:
hey all--been lurking here for a while and finally made an account to ask if anyone else is experiencing an audible scraping sound while turning the focusing ring in this new batch?
I was able to get my hands on one of the 40mm copies to try last year and everything was super smooth. Finally just received a new one from CameraQuest and wonder if it just takes some use or if it's another issue entirely.
Second time I heard of this problem here. There was another FM member put up his for sale here because of clicking sound when turning focus ring. I would call CameraQuest who also service Voigtlander lenses.
casiocore wrote:
hey all--been lurking here for a while and finally made an account to ask if anyone else is experiencing an audible scraping sound while turning the focusing ring in this new batch?
I was able to get my hands on one of the 40mm copies to try last year and everything was super smooth. Finally just received a new one from CameraQuest and wonder if it just takes some use or if it's another issue entirely.
No sound with the one I just got from CameraQuest.
Thanks for that. I went with the M mount in the end just to see how it looks I the GFX. I’m planning for it to be the gereral purpose walk about lens that stays in the bag, so it should be fine for that.
fsung wrote:
Second time I heard of this problem here. There was another FM member put up his for sale here because of clicking sound when turning focus ring. I would call CameraQuest who also service Voigtlander lenses.
I received mine from Robertwhite a few days ago. At the beggining there was this scratch noise and the focusing ring was not smooth at all. After just a little use all this has gone and focusing is now smooth. Given the fact that my copy is as expected optically I decided to keep it. I don't think it is an issue.
I've received my copy from Robertwhite yesterday too. No issues regarding the noise/focusing. But I do prefer the much smoother focusing action of my Loxias (35,50,85). Loxia 21 is quite a bit stiffer though. Lanthar 65 also has nicer focus action compared to the Nokton 40.
Sadly I'll be returning the Nokton, my copy shows de-centering on the right hand side (upper corner mostly) which never goes away completely (even past f/11). Otherwise I love the lens, very nice rendering, sharp WO centrally, good contrast and very nice bokeh. I just can't justify its price tag if it won't be useful for landscapes.
I asked (Robertwhite) when they expect to have new stock and it is only at the end of May/early June.
As a side note, I checked for the new Apo-Lanthar 110/2,5 too - expected availability is end of 2018/beginning of 2019. So long wait ahead for those interested.
Apr 11, 2018 at 04:35 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fierylakes wrote:
Thanks for that. I went with the M mount in the end just to see how it looks I the GFX. I’m planning for it to be the gereral purpose walk about lens that stays in the bag, so it should be fine for that.
Do let us know how it works on the GFX. I have doubts it will cover the image circle that is needed, but if it does it would make an interesting approximately 28 f/0.88 equivalent on the GFX.
stjepan wrote:
As a side note, I checked for the new Apo-Lanthar 110/2,5 too - expected availability is end of 2018/beginning of 2019. So long wait ahead for those interested.
I hope they are wrong too. The sales rep got right back to me and they are the biggest (only?) UK distributor so perhaps they have authority on this? Who knows..
Fred Miranda wrote:
2019!!? I'm hoping much sooner.
stjepan wrote:
I hope they are wrong too. The sales rep got right back to me and they are the biggest (only?) UK distributor so perhaps they have authority on this? Who knows..
I've been told "we are months away" from a Voigtlander USA Distributor. As you wrote...who knows..
Fred Miranda wrote:
I can get much closer with 26mm tubes (10+16mm) and the Batis 135. I think magnification goes to almost 0.4x (from 0.19x)
Since this thread is about the CV 40/1.2, 26mm tubes gets us to 0.81x magnification.
A thinner 16mm tube magnifies it to 1:2 (same as CV 65/2)
Yes, I have the 40 1.2 on order and should have it early next week from B&H, per what they told me the other day. I have the 65 f2 also and love the lens but sometimes, as you know, the extra distance is very helpful. Looking forward to playing with the 40 and what it does with some of my work.
Picked up my CV 40/1.2 today. Took a couple shots in the store but need to test for decentering still.
As far as what baltmin said about the focus not being smooth, I think I can feel what you're talking about. It's not noisy but it's there. I also tested out the CV 65/2, and that was just melted butter on rib eye steak smooth, and fricken sharp!! Going to have to buy that as soon as possible. My only macro lens currently is a Zeiss 50/2 Makro for Nikon mount, and I don't like the way it balances on a dumb adapter + lose exif / proper ibis.
I also tried the Loxia 21. Really need to figure out an easy way to remove it from my camera. Never have my fingers felt so big while trying to get a purchase on that thin piece of non moving metal. There has to be a trick right?
Anyhow, getting back to the 40. It's such a manageable size and weight. That and usable F1.2 make it easy to understand why it's got a 109+ page thread on here. As soon as I got home I turned off the auto zoom while MF, and turned on Focus peeking. For critical stuff @ 1.2 I think I'll still need to zoom in but pressing a button gives me less grief. Overall, I'm pretty excited to put it through it's paces and then go ahead and buy the 65 Which I may actually be in love with.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I can get much closer with 26mm tubes (10+16mm) and the Batis 135. I think magnification goes to almost 0.4x (from 0.19x)
Since this thread is about the CV 40/1.2, 26mm tubes gets us to 0.81x magnification.
A thinner 16mm tube magnifies it to 1:2 (same as CV 65/2)
Hello Fred - can I ask what extension tubes you are using with the Batis 135 please? I tried some the other day - but found that results with the Batis were not so good with these - soft and purple fringing - complete opposite to how it performs by itself... Apologies for being off topic - but seemed a good time to ask Thanks! Lizzie
Which I may actually be in love with. 
Thanks! Lizzie