I was actually expecting a bit more blur at 1.2, but the width of the bike limited how close I could get. Also needed LR checkbox and full slider to remove the purple fringing (from admittedly harsh high sun).
Another difference with this lens I've noticed is in the MF assist. While I have found focus peaking on low very useful with my MD 100/2.5 and MD 135/2.8, I find it distracting and unhelpful with the 40/1.2. I assume this is a combination of the much greater sharpness of the 40 and potentially smaller DOF.
I do wish Sony gave a few more magnification levels. A 2X would be a nice option to help nail focus over a larger area and still have some idea of framing. The 5.9X minimum mag is a bit extreme and I'm at a loss as to why Sony couldn't add several levels to choose from with a few lines of code.
Probably something to do with the ratios that can be quickly binned to match the evf res.
scottsoapbox wrote:
Another difference with this lens I've noticed is in the MF assist. While I have found focus peaking on low very useful with my MD 100/2.5 and MD 135/2.8, I find it distracting and unhelpful with the 40/1.2. I assume this is a combination of the much greater sharpness of the 40 and potentially smaller DOF.
I do wish Sony gave a few more magnification levels. A 2X would be a nice option to help nail focus over a larger area and still have some idea of framing. The 5.9X minimum mag is a bit extreme and I'm at a loss as to why Sony couldn't add several levels to choose from with a few lines of code....Show more →
thrice wrote:
Probably something to do with the ratios that can be quickly binned to match the evf res.
That would make sense since they are otherwise random multiples. Still some smaller number that was still a "good" ratio would be a nice option even if it was 1.8X or 3.2X
Thanks for the review Jordan! I am getting one after reading all 138 pages in this thread, twice.
So my MF lens kit will be: CV 12, CV 15, the new CV 21 Skopar (or the Loxia 21 again), CV 40 and a tele, maybe the Loxia 85 or something longer. For native AF now I have the 24-105, FE 85 f1.8 and FE 90 macro and the 100-400 GM.
kdrk888 wrote:
Thanks for the review Jordan! I am getting one after reading all 138 pages in this thread, twice.
So my MF lens kit will be: CV 12, CV 15, the new CV 21 Skopar (or the Loxia 21 again), CV 40 and a tele, maybe the Loxia 85 or something longer. For native AF now I have the 24-105, FE 85 f1.8 and FE 90 macro and the 100-400 GM.
I have a similar kit but love the Loxia 25 as well. I will have to decide on which one to keep (Lox 21 or 25) and can't make the call.
Same goes for CV 65/2 APO and Lox 85. Both outstanding glass.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have a similar kit but love the Loxia 25 as well. I will have to decide on which one to keep (Lox 21 or 25) and can't make the call.
Same goes for CV 65/2 APO and Lox 85. Both outstanding glass.
I tried the CV 65, lovely lens but a bit too big/heavy, too close to the CV 40 too. I am thinking the Loxia 85 may be better for "gaping" from the CV 40?
kdrk888 wrote:
I tried the CV 65, lovely lens but a bit too big/heavy, too close to the CV 40 too. I am thinking the Loxia 85 may be better for "gaping" from the CV 40?
Problem is that the CV 65 and Lox 85 are both around 600g. So, both heavy and long. The 65/2 is fatter but it's faster and has macro. It's actually optically superior as well. I agree that the CV 65 is close to 40mm but when carrying a couple lenses, I find the combo 25/65 very versatile. (wide and normal/tele)
When only carrying one lens, my choice is the CV 40.
When carrying 2 lenses, Lox 25 and CV 65
When carrying 3 lenses: Lox 25, CV 40 and Lox 85
For landscapes I am preferring this kit: CV 12, CV 15, Lox 25, CV 40, Lox 85, Batis 135.
For my needs, whenever shooting wider than 25mm, it's because I have a strong foreground and prefer going all the way to 15mm so my Lox 21 is being neglected.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Problem is that the CV 65 and Lox 85 are both around 600g. So, both heavy and long. The 65/2 is fatter but it's faster and has macro. It's actually optically superior as well. I agree that the CV 65 is close to 40mm but when carrying a couple lenses, I find the combo 25/65 very versatile. (wide and normal/tele)
When only carrying one lens, my choice is the CV 40.
When carrying 2 lenses, Lox 25 and CV 65
When carrying 3 lenses: Lox 25, CV 40 and Lox 85
For landscapes I am preferring this kit: CV 12, CV 15, Lox 25, CV 40, Lox 85, Batis 135.
For my needs, whenever shooting wider than 25mm, it's because I have a strong foreground and prefer going all the way to 15mm so my Lox 21 is being neglected. ...Show more →
Fred. regarding your conflict between Loxia 21 and Loxia 25 (which one to keep), have you tried cropping the 21 to the 25mm AOV? Some time ago a friend of mine tested it (comparing captures made with Loxia 25 with "the sames" done with Loxia 21 cropped to 25mm AOV) and told me that even at 100% magnification he had hard time to distinguish which was cropped vs not cropped.
Of course it would be a "practical" compromise if you would want to have both 21 and 25mm, but it would not work if you wanted to have also 28mm (as you could with Loxia 25 cropped a little).
