I think it's a focal length difference, the fact that the 40/1.2 came out first, and that there are fewer options at 40mm. It's my favorite focal length for just bringing a single lens, a nice in-between 35 and 50. Personally, I think 40mm is a great balance between providing background separation, but still capturing the environment. Also, the CV40 came out before Sony released their small 35/1.8, and a lot of people (like me) were looking for a small 35ish option at the time--faster than f2.8. 40mm can stand in for 35mm, but I don't think 50mm can.
There's not much difference in image quality between this and the 50/1.2 from what I've read. The 50 is just slightly better at the brick wall test and doesn't show onion rings in the bokeh. So some may prefer it for those reasons, but 40 vs 50 is the main reason to prefer one or the other IMO.
Here's another casual shot from my CV40 the other day
Thanks for the info. New to the photography world so trying to piece some of this together. Pictures for both look amazing and would immediately jump to the best lens I own.
Close focusing in not the strength of this lens. But when your bored in line at Disney you shoot what is available Paired with the Riv you can still get decent shots of a 3 inch Gecko
All the close up imagery looks very good to me, just a beautiful draw - and thanks to all for posting the recent above. For almost all very fast lenses, you kind of flinch when your eyes move to the out of focus, but not with this one - hence 218 pages, as a measure of interest.
If they (40 and 50) had Canon's or Nikon's name on it, you'd never hear the end of it. They are much more rounded lenses than say, Nikon's 58/1.4 (which is around 50% more money). Ken Wheeler was saying the 50/1.2 is one of the best he's ever seen, and that it had 2/3 stop more transmission than other f1.2 50s.
'Pictures for both look amazing and would immediately jump to the best lens I own.'
I have the 50/2 and this thread hurts, but amazingly I can also see room for one of these, especially the 40mm.
background reading:
Start here for the 50/1.2, lots of discussion - get a warm drink first:
I currently have a Loxia 50mm but am considering replacing several lenses including the Loxia with this one. Being in Houston though, I have to wonder how does the 40mm hold up in practice in a high humidity environment and how does it do with dust / particles? Both are an issue here.
Mar 04, 2020 at 05:09 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Yeah, negligible difference in IQ between the 40/1.2 and the 50/1.2. Big difference in focal length, though. Maybe doesn't seem like it would be, but when you are talking about a "normal" focal length, it comes down to preference and you may not know until you shoot a bunch where you stand.
I'm currently in possession of one of the best 50mm lenses I've ever had the pleasure of shooting, and I want so badly to love it, but 50mm has never been natural for me, so I'm most likely going to sell it. 50mm means I have to get farther away from my subject to get anything other than head-and-shoulders shots, as I mostly like to be within 2m - or am forced to be due to urban room sizes. I love 28mm and 35mm, but 40mm puts things exactly as I want them, usually in context with an environment, and without much perspective distortion if I want to shoot an actual portrait, like just a head and shoulders in portrait orientation. The absolute COOLEST thing about the 40/1.2 is that it has the magic of an ultra-fast lens with thin DOF, paired with a *slightly* wide perspective.
So, now I'm 100% positive that I love 40mm and don't care much for 50mm, try as I might. YMMV.
Davidw25 wrote:
So I was turned on to this lens yesterday and went down a bit of a rabbit hole! Is there an image quality difference between the 40 and 50mm versions? Why is there so much love for the 40, but not as much for the 50, is it just preference of 40v50?
Looking at your prior work, IFO, that's the best course. It's so personal - I am figuring on a 21-28-40-50-110 during Corona time (in-country car/foot travel). They might do us a short portrait lens some time.
It all came together in the 40mm, it seems. I wonder what its actual FL is? But some lenses transcend their FL, this is one of them. Maybe, Cosina being traditionalists and an almost exclusive M lens producer for so long, the fast 50mm was not to be resisted, even if they were already planning the all-seeing APO-Lanthar, the 'documentarian's delight'.
The Loxias are made by Cosina and you can expect similar in-field physical properties. Some of us think they lavish more attention on their own-brand lenses. The feel in the hand is actually very different, certainly smoother and finer weighting than my L85. Just turning the Voigts' focus rings back and forth is special, here is why:
'It's the technician's job to use his years of experience, in this case 40 years' of experience, to turn the mating parts back and forth, until the parts have the perfect silky smooth action, not too tight, and not too loose. We are talking about precision, not in millimeters, but in microns.
Each helicoid pair is unique and it can take anywhere from 4 to 40 turns, to get it just right, the technician told us. At Cosina, every lens that leaves the factory with the focus helicoids lapped by a master craftsman before final assembly.'
40 mm is much closer to the "real normal" of 24x36 (43 mm diagonal). I've never liked 50 mm and none of those for Sony has excited me at all, since they are the wrong focal length. Doesn't matter how good they are then...
Also, most fast 50 mm lenses are either old (and thus don't play perfectly with a digital sensor with a thick ass stack in front of it) or so well corrected that they are too big. The Loxia 50/2 is one of very few exceptions.
So, the 40/1.2 fills a very important hole that for some reason no one else even considers.
Absolutely agree. I just wish it has a rounder bokeh balls at times, which the 50mm improves upon.
But this lens is just glorious.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Yeah, negligible difference in IQ between the 40/1.2 and the 50/1.2. Big difference in focal length, though. Maybe doesn't seem like it would be, but when you are talking about a "normal" focal length, it comes down to preference and you may not know until you shoot a bunch where you stand.
I'm currently in possession of one of the best 50mm lenses I've ever had the pleasure of shooting, and I want so badly to love it, but 50mm has never been natural for me, so I'm most likely going to sell it. 50mm means I have to get farther away from my subject to get anything other than head-and-shoulders shots, as I mostly like to be within 2m - or am forced to be due to urban room sizes. I love 28mm and 35mm, but 40mm puts things exactly as I want them, usually in context with an environment, and without much perspective distortion if I want to shoot an actual portrait, like just a head and shoulders in portrait orientation. The absolute COOLEST thing about the 40/1.2 is that it has the magic of an ultra-fast lens with thin DOF, paired with a *slightly* wide perspective.
So, now I'm 100% positive that I love 40mm and don't care much for 50mm, try as I might. YMMV.
I’ve had the 40/1.2 and currently have the 50/1.2. The 50/1.2 is noticeably wider than my 50/1.4ZA which is reported to be somewhere around 47-49mm.
So keep in mind it is a wide 50. I do prefer the 40 as a single lens kit but the 50/1.2 is nowhere as tight in use as say the FE 55 (which was way to narrow for me). I kind of wish Voigtlander came out with a 43mm f1.2 - that would be perfect for me!
darrellc wrote:
I’ve had the 40/1.2 and currently have the 50/1.2. The 50/1.2 is noticeably wider than my 50/1.4ZA which is reported to be somewhere around 47-49mm.
So keep in mind it is a wide 50. I do prefer the 40 as a single lens kit but the 50/1.2 is nowhere as tight in use as say the FE 55 (which was way to narrow for me). I kind of wish Voigtlander came out with a 43mm f1.2 - that would be perfect for me!
At 55° the 40/1.2 is 41.5mm at infinity. Take about a quarter step forward and you've got a 43mm field of view. If you don't feel like moving, maybe focus on the mid-field instead.
Not surprised. I don’t have the 40/1.2 anymore but it always seemed tighter than 40 and not that far off from the 50.
Probably why I liked the field of view so much.
Thx!
d.s. wrote:
At 55° the 40/1.2 is 41.5mm at infinity. Take about a quarter step forward and you've got a 43mm field of view. If you don't feel like moving, maybe focus on the mid-field instead.
philip_pj wrote:
All the close up imagery looks very good to me, just a beautiful draw - and thanks to all for posting the recent above. For almost all very fast lenses, you kind of flinch when your eyes move to the out of focus, but not with this one - hence 218 pages, as a measure of interest.
If they (40 and 50) had Canon's or Nikon's name on it, you'd never hear the end of it. They are much more rounded lenses than say, Nikon's 58/1.4 (which is around 50% more money). Ken Wheeler was saying the 50/1.2 is one of the best he's ever seen, and that it had 2/3 stop more transmission than other f1.2 50s.
'Pictures for both look amazing and would immediately jump to the best lens I own.'
I have the 50/2 and this thread hurts, but amazingly I can also see room for one of these, especially the 40mm.
background reading:
Start here for the 50/1.2, lots of discussion - get a warm drink first:
Afterwards, your wallet might need a stiff drink....Show more →
I'm surprised by myself, because the 40mm focal length has never suited me before.I preferred 35mm and 50mm instead of it. However that I already have CV 50 / 1.2 E and CV 50/2 E, I decided to buy a CV 40 / 1.2 E. It will be part of the universal Voigtlander E set,id est : 21 / 3.5 Skopar + 40 / 1.2 Nokton + 65/2 and 110/2 Apo Macro Lanthars + Canon EF L 200 / 2.8 untill Voigtlander comes out again with something compact,like 180 / 3.5 - 4 in E mount.
Nokton 50 / 1.2 and Apo Lanthar 50/2 are mutual replacements - light and dark - in my "landscape and architecture" set ,id est :Voigtlander E 15 / 4.5 + Loxia 25 / 4.5 + Loxia 35/2 + Voigtlander Nokton 50f1.2 or Apo Lanthar 50f2 - (depending on the current topic) + Zeiss ZF2 Apo Sonnar 135/2 (lazy Cosina,do finally something like Loxia 135 / 2.8 - 3.5!) + Tamron Macro 180 / 3.5 - optically very good on the A7R2 - perfectly suitable for infinity landscapes af f8 (again - lazy Cosina /Voigtlander - move your reverend asses and do something compact like Loxia/Voigtlander 180-200 / 3.5 - 4)
