nhsonyshooter wrote:
Now if we could only get CV to start making AF lenses
Agreed! But since that’s unlikely, I think our hope is that Sony can come up with some physics magic and make a 40/1.4 GM the same size as the 24/1.4. As much as I love the CV 40, I’ll be first in line for the 40GM. 🙂
Been contemplating getting a Raynox 150 or 250 close up lens - would they both work OK with nokton set at 1m on focusing ring (as many have used Marumi 3+ that way) with the 250 offering bigger magnification or would there be any other differences?
smpetty wrote:
That looks delicious! A lot of Big Green Egg owners on this forum.
The charcoal tase actually over powered the chips. I think they take in more of that flavor because of how porous they are. Next time I'll smoke just the chicken like I did in step 1 but then finish in oven.
Tinside at Plymouth Hoe. Second go at a pano (7 images stitched and cropped to 6x17) - this time helped by L Bracket and pano clamp mounted above ballhead - the light was really not what I was hoping for though.
I may need to buy this lens again. I always loved the results but was usually shooting close up which required me to stop down to at least f4-f8 for DOF. I have the Sigma 45 2.8 now which “sort of” gets close to the look of the CV40 but that last little bit of magic just isn’t there.
sergun wrote:
Also think to buy this cv40 or Sigma 45с ? On the one hand I is the intensity of the 1.2 doesn't need much but the rendering !
Simple: if you have to have autofocus then the Sigma is the only choice between the two. If autofocus isn’t essential, the 40/1.2 is the clear choice - by far (in my opinion!). The difference between f2.8 and f1.2 is HUGE. It’s images are on another level than the Sigma. Maybe it’s just me, but the Sigma 45/2.8 does nothing for me. The images I’ve seen from it are good, but not great. The Voigtlander will deliver treasures almost every time you use it.
Based on what I've been reading it seems that both the 40/1.2 and the 50/1.2 are excellent lenses and I think I'll be buying one of them to use on my Sony a7R II camera..
At this time my only lens for this camera is the Sony 28/2. I'm not sure which focal length would be best for me. I guess maybe the 40 would be better for landscapes and the 50 better for narrower landscapes, street photography and portraits. I really don't expect to shoot many portraits, though.
I'm leaning toward the 40mm because it seems to offer greater versatility. I would appreciate any advice as which of the two might be best for my purposes.
stagates wrote:
Based on what I've been reading it seems that both the 40/1.2 and the 50/1.2 are excellent lenses and I think I'll be buying one of them to use on my Sony a7R II camera..
At this time my only lens for this camera is the Sony 28/2. I'm not sure which focal length would be best for me. I guess maybe the 40 would be better for landscapes and the 50 better for narrower landscapes, street photography and portraits. I really don't expect to shoot many portraits, though.
I'm leaning toward the 40mm because it seems to offer greater versatility. I would appreciate any advice as which of the two might be best for my purposes....Show more →
I shot mainly 50mm for many years on film & DSLR. Loved it. Then when I bought my A7 in 2014/15 one of my first lenses was the Voigtlander 40/1.4 Classic in M mount. Fell in love with that slightly wider, more useful, more versatile focal length instantly - I had it paired with a tiny Leitz 90/2.8. I shoot a lot of landscapes, nature, woodlands etc at 40mm
Our only difference is I have it paired with the 21/3.5 rather than your 28mm.
If you are mainly going to shoot with one lens, then the 40mm.
If you think you might be swapping between the two whilst out shooting, maybe the 50mm will give you better spacing?
It is ultimately a focal length thing for you. You'll be happy with the usage, style, IQ & rendering of either.
stagates wrote:
Based on what I've been reading it seems that both the 40/1.2 and the 50/1.2 are excellent lenses and I think I'll be buying one of them to use on my Sony a7R II camera..
At this time my only lens for this camera is the Sony 28/2. I'm not sure which focal length would be best for me. I guess maybe the 40 would be better for landscapes and the 50 better for narrower landscapes, street photography and portraits. I really don't expect to shoot many portraits, though.
I'm leaning toward the 40mm because it seems to offer greater versatility. I would appreciate any advice as which of the two might be best for my purposes....Show more →
I'd go with the 50. It offers better spacing with your 28. 28 to 40 is a bit too slim IMO.
I think the 40 or 50 could both excel at the items you listed. And for landscapes, you could always shoot panos with the 50 to get the area of a 40.
If you're planning on getting rid of the 28 or using only this lens, then the 40's probably more versatile. (and I love my 40) But I also gap it with a 21.
