twomblywhite wrote:
Or to the right, or up, or down... Exactly. You just have to move around a bit and keep the front of the lens on the same plane. Are you guys just being stubborn?
No, I just wondered if there was some other way to do it or if he meant something else. I wouldn't manage to move a feet to the side without also moving an inch either front or back. And then the focus would be just as much off as with rotating the camera. It is better if you have the skills or the luck, I can see that.
Have to say for those CV 35mm 1.7 fans this is so close to the results I got when i tested it and the 65 APO. The 40 at F2 is not missing a beat. BTW Im one of those fans. Im a little shocked by this.
I loaded the raws up but take that 40 1.2 image put a little clarity on it and it will come alive. Like this
alundeb wrote:
No, I just wondered if there was some other way to do it or if he meant something else. I wouldn't manage to move a feet to the side without also moving an inch either front or back. And then the focus would be just as much off as with rotating the camera. It is better if you have the skills or the luck, I can see that.
Skill but its not dramatic movements either. One other trick with M lenses focus at MFD than sway in and out till you hit focus. But lets do all this in another thread
The 40 doesn't look too bad on my screen. The 65 may have a little more punch, and the colors are a little stronger. Maybe because the light was different?
Lets move on to a Vignette test and you can also watch the bokeh as the horse is about 12 ft away so a little more mid distance. Think full human body size
PEKA62 wrote:
The 40 doesn't look too bad on my screen. The 65 may have a little more punch, and the colors are a little stronger. Maybe because the light was different?
Little tough because that shadow is sneaking in but Yes I would agree a touch more punch on the 65 but it should have more because it is a APO.
For the 40 you can get that punch but lets say this maybe more your people lens so be careful adding that. Lets call that mood settings. It will depend on taste but I agree it has a little less punch.
Lets move on to a Vignette test and you can also watch the bokeh as the horse is about 12 ft away so a little more mid distance. Think full human body size
At F4 it really comes alive quite well. You could shoot here all day and be great but pixel peepers delight go 5.6 there is a very slight increase in detail.
Now that you're done with testing, want to sell me your copy?
No but I think it’s worth talking about. I think this is one of those lenses that falls in the love / hate arena. Let’s face it it’s got some issues with onion rings ,CA, now discovered distortion as you can see in Big Bronco and the Bokeh is kind of crazy looking. A lot will depend on subject, light and all the things involved but I’m starting to view this as two different lenses from 1.2 to let’s say 2.8 it has the crazyiness but from F4 down it’s a damn good general purpose lens that settles down the craziness. So I kind of like the split personality but you really have to be careful on what it will do in those issue areas or you can have a bad day. I’m still learning this lens but end of day it’s fun as hell. Now I’m not really counting on it for landscape personality but heck 5.6 looks outstanding for it. Now I’m covered there with 15,21,28 and can go right to 65 if I had too shooting landscapes. But this is going in the bag. I got some nice sharp images that look more normal stopped down. I keep thinking of Fred’s carnival shots, they remind me of my Kodachrome days so this has a very cool look but it’s got some issues too. Maybe that’s a little old dog feeling I get from it it’s a more classic look than modern. You have to like that or this lens will not work for you. But I do think it’s nice to have one of these type of lenses available in your kit.
This maybe the great girlfriend, wife or S.O. Lens to have. It’s got character
Btw I’m glad it’s helping as this is a tough lens to buy in a way. I bitched about it too, so you are all not alone. It’s really growing on me. I just get a nice feeling from the images.
Great question . With the PCX 5000 the Cv 35 is a tough lens to beat. It’s really the landscape type lens. I think at 1.7 it will still be a touch sharper on center but it’s close. The 35 does not have onion rings or any of this crazyiness so technically the CV 35 1.7 is the better lens and more predictable in use. I do like shooting the 40 better operational wise but that’s a personal preference. I like a real focusing ring. Where I am surprised is the corners get really good at F4/56 on the 40. That was a surprise.
I think one has to think hard on what your after between the 2 . Forget 35/40 that’s so close don’t go by that but go by the end images . One reason I say that is because the 35 1.7 at 1.7 is not going to give you any lens issues like the 40. So more care is going to be needed on this 40.
I don’t like saying this because I treat everyone here as equals but I think the 40 is more for experienced shooters just because you have to keep on your toes with it. For instance the Asian gentleman under the bridge it got ugly in the background. So you have to pay attention to that. Please no one take offense I’m here to help and not hurt anyone’s feelings.
Maybe a good piece of advice here is shoot the 1.2 shot but back yourself up with a 2.8 when your in the soup situation.
