Fred Miranda wrote:
Wide open the CV 40/1.2 does not perform well at close distance as it's really optimized for infinity. I'd say that at 1.3m and longer, it shines. However, with the help of a close-up achromat lens, it's great even at MFD. (I use the Marumi +3 achromat for that). You must set the lens to 1.5m and attach the close-up lens to get the same native MFD magnification. if you don't want to deal with close-up lenses, you can always stop the lens down to f/2 - f/2.8 and it will perform great even at closer distances.
Ah, great insight, thanks! I'll probably stick to f/2+ for close distances. I love the colors and contrast of this lens.
To be honest, nope! Okay sort of. Even if sharpness is similar and maybe even better on the 40, the Lox 35 has a smoothness to it that I find compelling. Also I have the VM variant which I like for size, but no EXIF etc.
All that said I’m not 100% on switching either.
frezeiss wrote:
Mathieu, very nice examples.. I love how that lens render at those distances. Do you know why are you preferring the Lox 35?
Mathieu18 wrote:
I'll call it 2/3 a stop difference depending on where you are in the frame on a stock camera. Meaning with the M mount version, you'll have to stop down a bit further to get similar performance to the FE version. Obviously in the center it's pretty close. In the corners it's probably more like a stop.
I didn't own both at the same time, but feel the thin sensor is close to what I was getting from the FE version.
Thanks that's a very helpful comparison.
Do you have two bodies - one with the thin filter and one without? Or is that something that is easily swapped out? (I thought the thin filter was something you sent off to someone to do)
As some of you read about me going back to the RX1R after going through this Nokton and 35/1.4 distagon, Checking back on those shorts I took with the Nokton, I finally understand why this lens "speaks" to many people, including me, in the first place. It has very similar quality (instead of rendering) to the RX1R 35/2 Sonnar, which people will find the color transition/gradation to be very smooth, just like what you can get from the Sonnar.
All in all, this lens has more "artistic" and less sharp output than lenses like RX1R Sonnar. RX1R is more clinical rendering, but with the smoothness and quality to boot. Sonnar does have a smoother detail rendering, the Nokton can look harsh on the outlines on in focus area. Still prefer the RX1R though.
I'll probably keep this lens, even if I decided to sell the body and other lenses.
Some shots taken with the Nokton back in Nov 2017:
Cropped quite a bit and @f2.8, still the 3D pop is apparent:
And the output is malleable due to the smooth color transition. Can't do that with harsh lenses.
PS
On my second hand CV40/1,2 I had to take away all the electronics since sometime it was not telling to the camera correct aperture with the risk of overexposure
Not a big issue for me.
I had two at the time. There are a few ways you can do it though. Mine is a clip in hot mirror, so I can go 0.7mm full spectrum and use a front end hot mirror, or use the clip in which puts my stack at about 1.8mm. Stock is about 2.5mm. The VM 40 works better at 1.8mm than at 0.7mm with the front end filter. Would be interesting to compare it to performance on a Kolari UT, but unless someone wants to lend me one, I'm not interested in it for its AWB performance.
scottsoapbox wrote:
Thanks that's a very helpful comparison.
Do you have two bodies - one with the thin filter and one without? Or is that something that is easily swapped out? (I thought the thin filter was something you sent off to someone to do)
Mathieu18 wrote:
I had two at the time. There are a few ways you can do it though. Mine is a clip in hot mirror, so I can go 0.7mm full spectrum and use a front end hot mirror, or use the clip in which puts my stack at about 1.8mm. Stock is about 2.5mm. The VM 40 works better at 1.8mm than at 0.7mm with the front end filter. Would be interesting to compare it to performance on a Kolari UT, but unless someone wants to lend me one, I'm not interested in it for its AWB performance.
Interesting. I didn't realize that even existed. It was the Kolari that I was familar with. Thanks.
I can't tell if I didn't nail focus or if it's the softness at 1.4 (edit: maybe harder to see in this smaller image), but I was impressed at how bright this dim room looked in the viewfinder with only side light from a hall window. Cropped a bit and quick processing. Now I should get back to work.
They are made by STC or Astronomik. I wasn't either until a little bit ago. That said, Kolari still did my conversion on my A7RII, great service and recommended. I've done my own Gen 1 bodies, but didn't want to mess with an IBIS camera. One difference, all I could do was remove the stock shims Sony uses to mount the sensor. I'm not sure what he does, but Kolari seems to have a better process. On a camera I'd converted, I could reach infinity with the VM 40 unless I had the clip in filter in place. Kolari's conversion was able to obtain infinity.
scottsoapbox wrote:
Interesting. I didn't realize that even existed. It was the Kolari that I was familar with. Thanks.
I recently picked up the CV 40/1.2 to learn how to shoot manual on my A7R3. Does anyone have some good resources they could point me to that would help improve my learning process?
Short question:
I have the CV 40mm f1.2 and love it.
Is it worth to also buy a C-Sonnar 50mm f1.5 (I’m mainly into people’s photography) or are they too similar in focal length and rendering (I also have: CV 65 APO, Sony 85 1.8 and some vintage lenses for my A7ii).
Thank you!
TBH, the C-Sonnar is an authentic piece of photographic history but would-be buyers are best served by doing their due diligence before deciding to buy in. I recently shot a temple interior I've been chasing for years, finally got permission. I used both the very good FE55 and also the C-Sonnar. Most of the best finals come from the C-S. Very surprised by the 'step into the frame' immediacy and authenticity the C-S gave the subject matter. You'll probably not like it and it is pricy so perhaps take a look here:
Hamish is a thoughtful guy who agonised over the C-S then realized its secret, despite being hampered by Leica (focus shift) and film (DR). It's a tiny, very ergonomic jewel-like lens to use, great color palette, blows highlights easily, has no shortage of CA, so RAW only (for me anyway).
Al81 wrote:
Short question:
I have the CV 40mm f1.2 and love it.
Is it worth to also buy a C-Sonnar 50mm f1.5 (I’m mainly into people’s photography) or are they too similar in focal length and rendering (I also have: CV 65 APO, Sony 85 1.8 and some vintage lenses for my A7ii).
Thank you!
They are very different in rendering; the c sonnar being softer in a way that is appealing to many, and having a SA dominated bokeh that looks very different.
Of course whether you should have both is up to you, it’s certainly a luxury. The CV is a very useful general lens. The c sonnar is pretty much a portrait specialist.
I can't wait to finally get my personal copy...I've missed it since my rentwl was returned. Bought from a friendly FMer, and should be to me on Thursday!
I also just picked up a used copy that should be delivered this week. I have some excellent 35's and 50's, so it will be interesting to see how it compares. As great as the CV 65 is, it didn't make the cut (bought/sold), for my uses.
Just got back from South Carolina where we were celebrating my father-in-law's 80th birthday. He has a few textile factories there and they are all booming with orders right now.
I love this lens. Did a recent trip to Disney with my daughter and got some great shots. Still getting used to manual focus and the shallow DOF - especially when taking photos from a moving ride, but all in all I got some good shots.
