Tried to find if anyone has already discussed this, but what would be the an ideal 6-bit code to use for the VM 40/1.2 Nokton? I'm considering milling grooves to the original mount or subtitute it for a grooved one (I am aware I can just select an existing option manually from a list, but it's not what I'd prefer).
I've seen some using the 1.2 Noctilux coding, probably due to the aperture value, but would another lens code be more suitable considering the lens distortion/vignetting?
ajamils wrote:
Thank you. So would it be better to get this lens in M mount with TAP or native FE mount?
I am not technically savvy enough to give you a correct answer. If I am not mistaken, if you use the Leica M mount version via the TAP, you will not get the EXIF and the IBIS of the Sony bodies will not know the proper FL for the stabilization unless you manually enter the FL, which is a big PITA, for me. I don't know how good the AF is with the TAP, I tried it briefly with a Zeiss 125, it was not something I wanted to deal with. I am not sure if there is difference in image quality between the M version and the E version.
The native version of the CV 40 has a different optical correction for the thicker sensor stack on the Sony sensors, so yes there is a difference in image quality in the corners (more obvious field curvature on the M version results in corners looking more in-focus than the center). There are some comparisons you should be able to find in this thread if you search.
The TAP doesn't give you the correct EXIF data, although you should be able to program the correct FL for IBIS to function.
kdrk888 wrote:
I am not technically savvy enough to give you a correct answer. If I am not mistaken, if you use the Leica M mount version via the TAP, you will not get the EXIF and the IBIS of the Sony bodies will not know the proper FL for the stabilization unless you manually enter the FL, which is a big PITA, for me. I don't know how good the AF is with the TAP, I tried it briefly with a Zeiss 125, it was not something I wanted to deal with. I am not sure if there is difference in image quality between the M version and the E version....Show more →
It's possible to configure TAP so that when you take a test shot at specific aperture, it will set focal length for TAP (for example to 40mm) and then you can find this FL in EXIF for all the shots taken with this configuration although the lens name will always be a fake one. TAP will continue using the same configuration until reconfigured (even throuh power off/on). IBIS can also apply the focal length automatically when it's been set up this way with TAP.
They have the configuration app for Android that can be used to map specific apertures to specific focal lengths here: http://techartpro.com/downloads-2/
Damn, the M mount seems very nice also.. I saw the comparison earlier on this thread that the E version nas better sharpness. But i feel the M has better rendering. Judging also from Steve Huff’s sample.
frezeiss wrote:
Damn, the M mount seems very nice also.. I saw the comparison earlier on this thread that the E version nas better sharpness. But i feel the M has better rendering. Judging also from Steve Huff’s sample.
The M mount version can also be AF'ed with the TAP.
robsonj wrote:
I have both the E and M version. Can’t say I have noticed any difference in sharpness.
Thanks. Wide open the difference ought to be primarily in the corners, no?
Stopping down to f/5.6 both should produce sharp images, I assume.
I. Am still thinking of getting the M mount version to use with the TAP on A9.
Are you using the M mount version on Sony? There was a comparison posted earlier in this thread that seems to show rather significant differences. If you're using the M on a Leica body, then no, you wouldn't notice a difference, since it's designed for that cover glass.
robsonj wrote:
I have both the E and M version. Can’t say I have noticed any difference in sharpness.
frezeiss wrote:
Damn, the M mount seems very nice also.. I saw the comparison earlier on this thread that the E version nas better sharpness. But i feel the M has better rendering. Judging also from Steve Huff’s sample.
Steve Huff's comparison is flawed since he was shooting the Sony camera using EFCS which affects bokeh rendering.
cputeq wrote:
I am curious...how would EFCS affect bokeh?
There is a slight separation in distance between the sensor where the exposure begins and the shutter where the exposure ends and for wide aperture shots with a high shutter speed (it needs to be over 1/1000) this slight separation in distance makes the bokeh noticeably busier. With f/1.4 shots I find it pretty easy to see the difference between EFCS and fully manual shutter once you are at 1/2000 or faster and the full manual shutter just has nicer looking bokeh.
