Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I love stopping it down to f/5.6 or smaller and the convenience of focusing at the hard stop. So, for landscapes, it's basically a point and shoot...per se.
My problem is with the Samyang's. The 35/1.4 is just so perfect for landscapes (and wide open). It is the only landscape lens I have that rivals the Loxia 21. In fact, it beats it at f/2.8. Then there is the Samyang 50/1.4 that has more bokeh at 1.4 than the 40 has at 1.2, and a flatter focus field. The 50 is about 100g heavier than the 40, the 35 is about 200g heavier. Not a big deal for me.
The 40 has a nice look, but I don't see it as a lens I would be happy making large landscape prints from. They can look great on the web, especially after post processing.
pdmphoto wrote:
My problem is with the Samyang's. The 35/1.4 is just so perfect for landscapes (and wide open). It is the only landscape lens I have that rivals the Loxia 21. In fact, it beats it at f/2.8. Then there is the Samyang 50/1.4 that has more bokeh at 1.4 than the 40 has at 1.2, and a flatter focus field. The 50 is about 100g heavier than the 40, the 35 is about 200g heavier. Not a big deal for me.
The 40 has a nice look, but I don't see it as a lens I would be happy making large landscape prints from. They can look great on the web, especially after post processing. ...Show more →
I disagree. At f/5.6 and smaller there are very few lenses that beat it at infinity distance. The Samy 35/1.4 FE is great at infinity (better than the ZA version) but it does not have the same level of contrast and I also prefer the Voigtlander's colors. Flare performance, size/weight and sunstar rendering goes in favor of the 40/1.2 as well and that's important for landscapes.
Agreed. I have no issue making large prints with the CV 40/1.2. I usually shoot it at around F6.3 or F7.1 for landscape, but as Fred and Guy say, it is really good at infinity from 5.6 or larger in a pinch.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I disagree. At f/5.6 and smaller there are very few lenses that beat it at infinity distance. The Sammy 35/1.4 FE is great at infinity (better than the ZA version) but it does not have the same level of contrast and I also prefer the Voigtlander's colors. Flare performance, size/weight and sunstar rendering goes in favor of the 40/1.2 as well and that's important for landscapes.
My Samy has better contrast across the frame, hands down. It might be a hair lower contrast in the center than the 40. The 40 has great central contrast and sharpness, no doubt about that.
pdmphoto wrote:
My Samy has better contrast across the frame, hands down. It might be a hair lower contrast in the center than the 40. The 40 has great central contrast and sharpness, no doubt about that.
Can you show samples demonstrating the Samy has better contrast 'hands down'? I've tested both side by side and was impressed by the Samy but I still give the CV 40 a slight advantage in contrast and colors. (Both great copies btw)
My point is that both lenses are great optically. For landscapes though, I personally prefer the Voigtlander for the characteristics outlined in my previous post.
Here is the comparison at f/4:
(both lenses improve very slightly at f/5.6 for the extreme corner only)
After buying the lens from a FM'er, I decided to take it with me for a walk in Niagara Falls. It's also the first place I ever tested my favorite lens, the 55 1.8 and I wanted to compare prior photos.
I may have missed it but has anyone compared the Emount and Mount versions of this lens. I am considering getting the techartpro. It's crazy I know, I have the Emount version already, favorite lens. I like the lens so much sometimes it would be great to have AF though. Any thoughts from anyone or anyone have that set up. Thx
