pleaseshoot wrote:
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. ...Show more →
As I've said before, the 40/1.2 is by no means a perfect lens, but it's good enough for non-AF work to be the default optic attached to my A7RIII. It's one of those lenses you won't fall in love with based on test data, but rather from direct usage.
Hoping the upcoming 20/3.5 is a "good enough" lens as well.
LizzieShepherd wrote:
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
The Kenkos are the most popular for the E-mount but the ones I tried were full of play. I'm not sure if there is variation but I had great luck with the Vello EXT-SFED Deluxe pair (10mm and 16mm). The Batis 135 won't perform as great with tubes so you may need to stop down a bit for better results (same for the 40/1.2)
LizzieShepherd wrote:
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
The quality of the tubes (within reason) makes little difference to the performance of a lens with them, especially in the respects you mention. It’s just that tubes make a lens focus closer, and often lenses don’t perform as well when forced to focus closer than they were designed for. You can still get good performance stopped down though with the B135. People often overlook the fact that you might get better close up performance with a top quality achromatic close up lens (a two or three element one, not one of those single element “close up filters”) on the front. There is a tendency to think that tubes must be fine because they contain no glass, and close up achromats must degrade because they add elements. But the reality is that sometimes the degradation caused by the lens focusing closer due to more extension is worse than the degradation caused by the extra elements on the fron (which leave the main lens operating within its design specs)
Thanks very much David and Fred - I suspect I should've stopped down more than I did - was just surprised at the extent of the degradation compared to what I remember in the past with other lenses - probably my memory at fault! Also going to be trying some achromatic close up lens/filters
LizzieShepherd wrote:
Thanks very much David and Fred - I suspect I should've stopped down more than I did - was just surprised at the extent of the degradation compared to what I remember in the past with other lenses - probably my memory at fault! Also going to be trying some achromatic close up lens/filters
Thanks to everyone who steered me towards Photo Village in new York. They are a distributor of this lens. Just phoned them and got through to a very friendly lady who said they are out of stock, but expecting the next shipment in 2 weeks. I placed my order and will cancel at Adorama. She told me that I am on a long list ! It seems that this thread is having quite the impact
It’s a five diopter *five element* close up lens used together which seems to have almost no impact on IQ, it can also be unscrewed and used as either a 3 element 3 diopter lens or a two element two diopter lens.
The 72mm filter size means you can often use it in various ways with somewhat wider lenses without vignetting.
jhinkey wrote:
As I've said before, the 40/1.2 is by no means a perfect lens, but it's good enough for non-AF work to be the default optic attached to my A7RIII. It's one of those lenses you won't fall in love with based on test data, but rather from direct usage.
Hoping the upcoming 20/3.5 is a "good enough" lens as well.
Totally get that but want to be able to use for real estate / landscape too. Decentered = No bueno.
It’s a five diopter *five element* close up lens used together which seems to have almost no impact on IQ, it can also be unscrewed and used as either a 3 element 3 diopter lens or a two element two diopter lens.
The 72mm filter size means you can often use it in various ways with somewhat wider lenses without vignetting....Show more →
I will try the 5 diopter Marumi and report back on its IQ.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will try the 5 diopter Marumi and report back on its IQ.
Great! I compared it, ages ago, with the Canon 4 diopter 250d and couldn’t find any difference in IQ (of course a slight difference in MFD) which makes it better value.
The Raynox I linked to on the Batis makes the result about as good as the awesome Sigma 150 Macro APO! I still use the Sigma for preference because it’s so much easier to focus a decidated macro lens.
DavidBM wrote:
Great! I compared it, ages ago, with the Canon 4 diopter 250d and couldn’t find any difference in IQ (of course a slight difference in MFD) which makes it better value.
The Raynox I linked to on the Batis makes the result about as good as the awesome Sigma 150 Macro APO! I still use the Sigma for preference because it’s so much easier to focus a decidated macro lens.
Would the Raynox cause hard vignetting from its long extension?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Would the Raynox cause hard vignetting from its long extension?
Not in the Batis; on wideangles I recall vignetting on some lenses using the full 5 diopter option but you can usually get away with the 3 element 3 diopter option.
I suspect using this 5 element option is similar to using a reversed normal lens as a close up lens, which also gives great results.
Apr 11, 2018 at 07:46 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Photo Village is great. Try to stop by whenever I'm in NYC. Very friendly staff and the place is like a candy store for us folks.
RobertHolloway wrote:
Thanks to everyone who steered me towards Photo Village in new York. They are a distributor of this lens. Just phoned them and got through to a very friendly lady who said they are out of stock, but expecting the next shipment in 2 weeks. I placed my order and will cancel at Adorama. She told me that I am on a long list ! It seems that this thread is having quite the impact
It’s a five diopter *five element* close up lens used together which seems to have almost no impact on IQ, it can also be unscrewed and used as either a 3 element 3 diopter lens or a two element two diopter lens.
The 72mm filter size means you can often use it in various ways with somewhat wider lenses without vignetting....Show more →
Luvwine wrote:
How would this compare with the Canon 500D?
The 500D is weaker; 2.5 diopter I think?
The 3 diopter component of the Raynox I would expect to be better than the 500D; it’s a three element job compared to 2, and in my tests is better than the 2 element ones I’ve tested (but I haven’t tested the 500D) I did however compare the 5 diopter compete set to the 4 diopter 250D Canon and the Raynox was a little better.
The Cannons though are less bulk and bit cheaper and still very good.
I know this is a question that I could probably piece together the answer to from all the another threads on using front filters, but I'm still a little confused after reading many of them. Also there are multiple solutions that seem similar, but maybe they really aren't (closeup filter vs Eksma plano-convex for example).
If I add a plano-convex front filter to the 40mm (let's say a 5000mm) …
What is it actually doing to the light?
Does it change the focal length of the lens (angle-of-view, crop, framing whatever the proper term is)?
I know what I gain, but what do I lose?
How does using a closeup filter differ from using a plano-convex filter? I know that the rear surface on the plano-convex filters are flat, and the closeup filters are not (at least the ones that I have had, maybe they aren't all like that), but what does this difference mean in the real world?
Thanks!
Apr 11, 2018 at 08:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Which I may actually be in love with. 
Thanks! Lizzie
