Some more shots. This is capable of some serious blur. I took the shots below of my son while we were building some Legos, and after looking at the results, shooting wide open works for some, but is far too shallow for most...definitely should have stopped down for these, but I figured I'd share them anyway.
f/2.8:
And two shots of the Columbus skyline, just before sunset, and then in early evening (f/11, f/8):
Well by reading the 100th page of this this thread I broke down and bought one too.
But after an admittedly limited time with it, I'm not sure I'll keep it. While it has a buttery background and great pop, it's still really hard for me to give up all the AF goodness I've upgraded bodies for (a7ii -> a7Rii -> a7iii) - especially in a keep it bolted to the camera focal length. I enjoy MF some of the time, but not sure about it as my "default" lens (currently the 55).
Other thoughts for those still on the fence:
It's a bit heavy. Yes, it's light for 1.2, but again as a 'walk around' lens it's a touch more than I'd like weight wise. I think the a7iii's slight weight increase is also partly to blame of crossing some magical threshold for me. Even though it is technically lighter than my Batis 85, they feel the same to me. This is in no way a deal breaker weight issue, but it is noticeably heavier than the a7iii + 55 which again makes me just a bit more hesitant about keeping it. However, the 55 is often a bit too long for my 'walk around' lens use.
On the flip side, if the volume is any indication, the Batis 40 will likely weigh as much or more than the CV 40 which also adds to my dilemma of which 40 will ultimately rule the roost. Still AF vs 1.2 would likely still win.
The VM is somewhat tempting to get as well and compare before deciding as the IQ outside of the corners is still pretty nice, with a dummy adapter it would be lighter, and with my Techart Pro would give some AF goodness.
Anyway enough thinking out loud. Here are a few comparison shots: 40/1.2, 40/1.8, 55/1.8 from about 4 feet which is about as close as I ever shoot people... or in this case monkeys. Handheld, indoor lighting, and my default import processing which is pretty minimal.
Appreciate the thoughts and comparison to the 55/1.8. I've also held off for lack of AF, so I'm waiting to see what the Batis 40 will be like. For now I'm still hanging onto my 28/2 and 55/1.8 pair.
Jman13 wrote:
All are nice, but that shot of her on the merry-go-round is phenomenal.
Thank you Jordan! This one was tricky one as the carousel was moving...so..I pre-focused on that area, set drive mode to continuous shooting High and captured many images as she passed that area.
Glad you found my comparison helpful grahamgibson. Here's a bit more:
Lens, Lens weight in oz, and total camera weight in lbs
FE 28/2.........7.0....1.8
FE 55/1.8......9.9....2.0
VM 40/1.2....12.8....2.2 (dumb adapter)
FE 40/1.2....14.7....2.3
Bat 85/1.8....15.9....2.4
VM 40/1.2....16.0....2.4 (Techart adapter)
Hopefully the weather will improve here and I can get some of those real world images the youtubers are always talking about, but in the meantime the 40, 55, and RX100 V at 2.8 (at 70mm eq).
Jman13 wrote:
A few more from this afternoon. So bummed I have to send this rental back on Thursday....need to sell things to get this. It's just so good. ...
esanchez wrote:
Would you all LOVE this lens even more if it had AF?
AF is definitely less work for the photographer and better for some applications like sports and action but it's rare I miss a shot with the CV 40/1.2. It's very easy to nail focus with the help of peaking and auto-magnification. I use both together when turning the focusing ring and with some practice, this can be done very quickly. Not kidding, I have more misses with the 55/1.8 when the AF system gets tricked by backlighting or horizontal lines.
The 35mm Sigma art renders similar as well. I've tested the 40/1.2,55/1.8 & 35art and the 55 is nicer slightly,all 3 very sharp wide open with the 40/1.2 being trickiest to nail.
The 35mm & CV40 are close enough to pick the AF every time,at least for events(for me). I do enjoy the 40 for a walkaround though,its smaller than the 35.
scottsoapbox wrote:
Well by reading the 100th page of this this thread I broke down and bought one too.
But after an admittedly limited time with it, I'm not sure I'll keep it. While it has a buttery background and great pop, it's still really hard for me to give up all the AF goodness I've upgraded bodies for (a7ii -> a7Rii -> a7iii) - especially in a keep it bolted to the camera focal length. I enjoy MF some of the time, but not sure about it as my "default" lens (currently the 55).
Other thoughts for those still on the fence:
It's a bit heavy. Yes, it's light for 1.2, but again as a 'walk around' lens it's a touch more than I'd like weight wise. I think the a7iii's slight weight increase is also partly to blame of crossing some magical threshold for me. Even though it is technically lighter than my Batis 85, they feel the same to me. This is in no way a deal breaker weight issue, but it is noticeably heavier than the a7iii + 55 which again makes me just a bit more hesitant about keeping it. However, the 55 is often a bit too long for my 'walk around' lens use.
On the flip side, if the volume is any indication, the Batis 40 will likely weigh as much or more than the CV 40 which also adds to my dilemma of which 40 will ultimately rule the roost. Still AF vs 1.2 would likely still win.
The VM is somewhat tempting to get as well and compare before deciding as the IQ outside of the corners is still pretty nice, with a dummy adapter it would be lighter, and with my Techart Pro would give some AF goodness.
Anyway enough thinking out loud. Here are a few comparison shots: 40/1.2, 40/1.8, 55/1.8 from about 4 feet which is about as close as I ever shoot people... or in this case monkeys. Handheld, indoor lighting, and my default import processing which is pretty minimal.
