There's a good reason for lenses having infinity a touch behind the hard stop. Apart from the field curvature the article discusses, manufacturing tolerances and temperature can affect its ability to hit infinity, so it's best to give a little wiggle room, rather than not be able to reach infinity at all.
1bwana1 wrote:
I have been playing around trying to learn the quirks of this lens.
I have found that at f1.2 the infinity stop on the dial is pretty soft. It is much sharper when I back off infinity just a tiny bit, even for objects that are at the infinity range.
I have also found that when I stop down just a bit, even f2.0, infinity is nice and sharp at the infinity stop on the dial.
Has anyone noticed this behaviour in the lens, or is it just my copy.
On my CV 15mm the infinity stop on the dial is reliably sharp at all apertures. In fact, I mostly just set this lens to infinity and shoot. But this probably works mostly because it is so wide of a FL....Show more →
Nov 25, 2019 at 07:43 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Hahaha, I just saw your ad! I did the swap from E to M, and sometimes I have thought about switching back for a couple reasons. I don't think the M's T-Stop or DOF capability is as good as the E version, even on a helicoid adapter. It's just a suspicion, as I don't have both to do a side-by-side, but by now I have a lot of experience with both versions and feel pretty confident about this. Additionally, the bokeh is different when using the M on a Sony, for possibly obvious reasons, but it's not quite as smooth and shows traces of FC with "uneven" bokeh quantity in spots. I LOOOVE the size of the M, though. And I use it quite often on film now, so I don't think I'll go back. I could see owning both someday, though.
Yeah, I know many shooters will prefer the optics of a native version, but I found the focus throw and resistance not near as conducive for MF, and I will eat smaller size at the expense of some bokeh oddity for sure. I am quite aware but don't really need better technical IQ--I mean, I own a 75 Lux. I really wish CV would port the lens precisely except the sensor stack modifications, like 7a did with the 28 1.4.
I tend to use my lenses WO or at f8, and WO I don't need decent corners or such. By f8, it's all pretty clean.
There's a good reason for lenses having infinity a touch behind the hard stop. Apart from the field curvature the article discusses, manufacturing tolerances and temperature can affect its ability to hit infinity, so it's best to give a little wiggle room, rather than not be able to reach infinity at all.
That all makes sense. Thanks for a very educational link.
Need your help making a decision on whether to get the VM or E mount version of the 40/1.2.
I see that there appear to be issues with the electronic contacts (distance scale, etc) - is this a confirmed issue?
Aside from the expected loss of functionality linked to the lack of information transfer when using the VM mount on a sony, are there major issues experienced by users of VM on sony? I read about field curvature because of the sony stacked sensor leading to corner issues (which don't overly concern me as I mainly shoot portraits and street and on an A6500). Not too concerned with bokeh quirks either (I want the speed for low light).
I see most users are FF - input from anyone with experience shooting this lens on APS-C (particularly A6500) would be appreciated.
Finally, any reason (aside from subjective preference) to prefer the 50 over the 40? I seem to prefer the 40 (both the FL and the images I have seen).
Thanks very much in advance.
mainoo
Nov 26, 2019 at 12:04 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
All th answers you seek are here, just read the thread.
mainoo wrote:
Hello,
Need your help making a decision on whether to get the VM or E mount version of the 40/1.2.
I see that there appear to be issues with the electronic contacts (distance scale, etc) - is this a confirmed issue?
Aside from the expected loss of functionality linked to the lack of information transfer when using the VM mount on a sony, are there major issues experienced by users of VM on sony? I read about field curvature because of the sony stacked sensor leading to corner issues (which don't overly concern me as I mainly shoot portraits and street and on an A6500). Not too concerned with bokeh quirks either (I want the speed for low light).
I see most users are FF - input from anyone with experience shooting this lens on APS-C (particularly A6500) would be appreciated.
Finally, any reason (aside from subjective preference) to prefer the 50 over the 40? I seem to prefer the 40 (both the FL and the images I have seen).
I had read the thread. I came across 2 people who had experienced issues with. the electronics on the 40mm. I called Robert White who aren't aware of this as an issue. I remain unsure as to whether it is an established (as in more widespread) issue or not and would appreciate more input from anyone else who has seen it. Would you mind pointing me at the places in the thread (and I've scanned all its pages) where the answer may be found?
As my third paragraph indicates, I am asking whether aside from the issues I mention (all gleaned from a thorough reading of the thread) there are any others that should make me think twice about using the VM mount on a Sony. I still would like to know.
Further I wanted to know whether there were any users on APS-C - again, a thorough reading of the thread had not turned up a single APS-C user (unless I missed something). I think that is a reasonable question to ask before I plunk down my dosh..
I thank you, once again, for your intervention.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
All th answers you seek are here, just read the thread.
Yeah I was just messing with you, this thread is 200 pages long.
Briefly, pros and cons:
M- smaller, adaptable to other systems. Possibly lower T stop. E- you get EXIF info, and a pointless digital distance scale that you can't disable unless you put packing tape over the contacts. E- smoother bokeh and less FC on Sony. E- aperture you can de-click for video. You can also do this with the M version, but you have to take off the name plate, take out the aperture assembly / front ring thingy and remove the 2 tiny ball bearings. It's actually super easy to do, the hardest part is not losing the ball bearings. On APS-C it'll be a different F9V, closer to 60mm,and it won't have the same (apparent) shallow DOF. Also, E version focuses closer, for the M to focus as close, you gotta buy an adapter with a helicoid. These run from generic (Haoge etc) for $40 to high end (Hawks, Voigtlander) for $300+
mainoo wrote:
Thanks for your response.
I had read the thread. I came across 2 people who had experienced issues with. the electronics on the 40mm. I called Robert White who aren't aware of this as an issue. I remain unsure as to whether it is an established (as in more widespread) issue or not and would appreciate more input from anyone else who has seen it. Would you mind pointing me at the places in the thread (and I've scanned all its pages) where the answer may be found?
As my third paragraph indicates, I am asking whether aside from the issues I mention (all gleaned from a thorough reading of the thread) there are any others that should make me think twice about using the VM mount on a Sony. I still would like to know.
Further I wanted to know whether there were any users on APS-C - again, a thorough reading of the thread had not turned up a single APS-C user (unless I missed something). I think that is a reasonable question to ask before I plunk down my dosh..
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Yeah I was just messing with you, this thread is 200 pages long.
Briefly, pros and cons:
M- smaller, adaptable to other systems. Possibly lower T stop. E- you get EXIF info, and a pointless digital distance scale that you can't disable unless you put packing tape over the contacts. E- smoother bokeh and less FC on Sony. E- aperture you can de-click for video. You can also do this with the M version, but you have to take off the name plate, take out the aperture assembly / front ring thingy and remove the 2 tiny ball bearings. It's actually super easy to do, the hardest part is not losing the ball bearings. On APS-C it'll be a different F9V, closer to 60mm,and it won't have the same (apparent) shallow DOF.
Ahhh I knew it had to be something - thanks Steve! Oh the things you don't realize when you are still using 1st gen Sonys.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The apparently pointless digital distance scale does have a point--it allows 5-axis IBIS, and you can only get 3-axis IBIS with the M version.
Focus throw is shorter with less resistance on the m version due to its smaller size, which I liked. But the m version has a stupid chrome ring on the barrel’s end, which can unwanted reflections.
Also, MFD is longer on the m-mount, though you can use a close focus helicoid. The e-mount has a shorter native MFD but no helicoid easy fix. Tbh, neither is good up close by contemporary standards, but if you’ve got a soft spot for SA...
M is cheaper, but not be enough to be meaningful (I think), especially used.
Nov 26, 2019 at 07:01 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Here's one from today, just a JPEG transferred to my phone and edited with Snapseed, so it may look like crap at high-res. Trying to tailor a new work flow.
So, I finally was able to get out, take a walk along the beach down the hill from my house and experiment with my new VC 40mm f1.2. It was the only lens I took with me. I am trying to learn to manual focus efficiently, so I mostly shot at f1.2. I am still pretty slow, but my hit rate was OK for a beginner I think.
Hopefully this lens and I will learn to get along with some time spent together.
Anyway, here are a few shots from the walk.
Life guard on duty. Seems sharp enough on the subject for wide open, and I really like the background.
Three sleeping sea lions, just my speed. I think I probably should have moved the focal point back just a bit.
Had to test infinity stopped down for future landscapes. Looks nice and sharp to my eye.
p.s.: I was always wondering - how come M mount Voigtlanders are cheaper than their E mount brothers? I`d reckon it`d be the other way around, since Leica camp is way more expensive, the M mount more versatile - can be used on E mount, m4/3 and Fuji via adapters as well, so a must for people with different mount cameras...
