Any comments on Big Bronco test because I’m actually shocked no one said anything about F4 corners or 5.6 because I can name several lenses that can’t get there.
I shot about 30 portraits today with the Batis 135. Simply a laser. I have to knock it down so much in post. Lol
Guy, I was really impressed by the performance of the lens stopped down in your Big Bronco test. At that distance the lens does really well stopped down. I would have thought field curvature would be more of an issue, but it didn't seem to be an issue if you focussed stopped down. From reports the lens doesn't do as well close up and maybe not as well at infinity but those medium focus distances it does very very well stopped down.
This lens is an interesting set of tradeoffs. It is small and fast and pretty inexpensive. To pull that off they had to make some optical compromises, but I can see why a lot of people like that tradeoff. For me I am much more interested in a bit slower lens with exceptional performance even if it isn't super small in size and more moderate for the focal length. I see the CV 65 f/2 and the Basis 135 f/2.8 as exactly the sort of tradeoff I prefer, which in some ways are sort of the opposite tradeoffs of this CV 40 f/1.2, but I am glad it is available and I am sure a lot of people will like it.
Yea it’s a interesting lens. On the closeup shots I’m not so sure I agree with that either. I have some damn sharp close up images. I may have to shoot more. But even the park bench I’m 3 ft away and my focus point is sharp as heck. But I need to look at that more and infinity. Okay it beats just about every 35 lens on Big Bronco or damn close to it. A naked 35 1.7 is not good in the corners at F4 sorry, with a PCX 5000 it’s much better for sure. A 35 ZM naked again not even close . 28 Ultron same thing. They all need a PCX filter. It has better mid frame than the FE 35 1.4. Can’t speak of the 35 2.8 but at that distance maybe the only thing close. Hold your breath. Tammy 35 1.8 is that sharp in the corners at F4. It’s why I brought up the question
Also the little wall center shots about 10 ft for the 40 was really close to the gold standard of the APO 65. Anything close to that lens is really good on center. I actually like this lens at 1.4 more than 1.2. I just need to find what F stop the onion rings are not as pronounced that’s if there is one. I just need to get out more with this lens.
If someone has the time and desire look at F4 on all my Big Bronco tests that compare in focal length to this 40. You have to search but it maybe interesting as I’m always at the buildings width sizing regardless of focal length. The A9 was used in the last 6 months I believe
Our best lenses will be able to capture finer high frequency detail on a high megapixel body, and this is more noticeable at center.
Regarding the degradation of resolution at distances close to MFD, it's just a characteristic of the CV 40/1.2...It's a lens designed without floating elements. There is nothing to agree or disagree.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree with that. A lower MP sensor like 20-24MP won't be able to discern as much high frequency detail from our best lenses and therefore resolution is rendered more evenly from center to edges. I'm not a fan of the FE 28 for its immense astigmatism and distortion but it's a very sharp lens at center.
True. But for most print sizes, or for viewing even on 30" retina monitors when the whole image is viewed, this gets cancelled out by the fact that the viewing distance/screen rendering/printing process also filters out the highest frequency stuff, so there's not much visible unevenness. Of course there will such visible unevenness be comparing crops at 100%
I make this pedantic point not because anyone who has posted here says anything wrong, but because I think some people who read talk of "this lens is no good for 40/50/60 MP" think that it will somehow be visibly *worse* on a higher resolution sensor. But in fact it's only a matter of not being as much *better* as you might hope, and, as Fred points out, lenses with a high level of reserve sharpness centrally but not peripherally may look less even *at the highest magnifications*. But you can always unsharpen the centre!
We need to separate two issues: one is getting the very best performance out of a high rez sensor, and that indeed requires the very best glass.
Bu the other is that somehow a lens we have loved and was excellent on a lover rez sensor will somehow look worse *in matched viewing conditions* on a higher rez sensor, and of course, that's not true...(of course the 1:1 experience gets worse, but that's not matched between images taken on sensors of different resolutions)
You said it better than I did David thanks. It’s because of smaller pixel pitch it gets higher frequency which comes with higher res sensors as you get higher the pixel pitch gets smaller. There’s trade offs though. I’ll leave that to the smart guys. Lol
The bottom line here though is most of these high quality lenses we have nothing to worry about because they are out resolving our sensors, the question comes how big can we really go and until we have bigger than 42 we just don’t really know.
pdmphoto wrote:
24 to 42MP is a stretch for any lens. It separates the best from the rest. The FE 28/2 is great at 24MP, but shows it weaknesses at 42MP (I am on my third copy). I love the 28/2 for its speed and size, but it isn't great on 42MP, If I were shooting 24MP I probably wouldn't look any further.
Fred Miranda wrote:
A lower MP sensor like 20-24MP won't be able to discern as much high frequency detail from our best lenses and therefore resolution is rendered more evenly from center to edges.
i'm gonna disagree with this. 42mp is a little less than 1.33 x the resolution of 24mp. the a7rii basically increases linear resolution by 1/3. this is nice for prints, but it's a difference that's barely worth talking about as far as challenging lenses. i can't say that i've been surprised by the performance of any lens on the a7rii vs a7 either.
DavidBM wrote:
True. But for most print sizes, or for viewing even on 30" retina monitors when the whole image is viewed, this gets cancelled out by the fact that the viewing distance/screen rendering/printing process also filters out the highest frequency stuff, so there's not much visible unevenness. Of course there will such visible unevenness be comparing crops at 100%
I make this pedantic point not because anyone who has posted here says anything wrong, but because I think some people who read talk of "this lens is no good for 40/50/60 MP" think that it will somehow be visibly *worse* on a higher resolution sensor. But in fact it's only a matter of not being as much *better* as you might hope, and, as Fred points out, lenses with a high level of reserve sharpness centrally but not peripherally may look less even *at the highest magnifications*. But you can always unsharpen the centre!
We need to separate two issues: one is getting the very best performance out of a high rez sensor, and that indeed requires the very best glass.
Bu the other is that somehow a lens we have loved and was excellent on a lover rez sensor will somehow look worse *in matched viewing conditions* on a higher rez sensor, and of course, that's not true...(of course the 1:1 experience gets worse, but that's not matched between images taken on sensors of different resolutions) ...Show more →
That's a good point David. A lens will always look better on a higher megapixel sensor, never worse.
How much better depends on the level of high frequency resolution it's capable of capturing.
I'm talking 1:1 magnification.
Hi I'm currently traveling with this lens and noticed some strange flares from out of frame light source. I thought only lenses with bulbous front elements show such flares? Hood was on.
kaioyang wrote:
Hi I'm currently traveling with this lens and noticed some strange flares from out of frame light source. I thought only lenses with bulbous front elements show such flares? Hood was on.
hsiunghsiung wrote:
The pop is just amazing. Wish it had autofocus instead of waiting for the m mount with tap adapter and seeing how well that one does
I think AF would be terribly inaccurate, at least close to MFD. There's just too much spherical aberration for it to work reliably.
Also, the optical cell is probably so heavy that the lens would be twice the volume to support it on flimsy plastic helicoids.
Makten wrote:
I think AF would be terribly inaccurate, at least close to MFD. There's just too much spherical aberration for it to work reliably.
Also, the optical cell is probably so heavy that the lens would be twice the volume to support it on flimsy plastic helicoids.
This reminds me of the Canon 50/1.2L which has inaccurate AF at close distance. This lens also performed better at mid-distance.
I’m going to try and run a infinity test tommorrow. It did well shooting at infinity but like to see it in a more controlled test. I have a couple other tests I want to try as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This reminds me of the Canon 50/1.2L which has inaccurate AF at close distance. This lens also performed better at mid-distance.
Not to mention the focus shift. With the CV40/1.2 we also have focus shift but to a lesser degree and then it doesn't matter as long as we focus using the working aperture. I remember trying to focus the EF50/1.2 stopped down... lol, I would have needed a third hand. The Canon lens has other nice features though.
More later, but so far, I think lens is doing better at infinity than I thought though CA is dreadful at large apertures (this is no surprise). A quick pic as I am late for dinner:
I did some test shots. Still looking at them. I think this may be a keeper tho. I have found that even though the fringing is pretty bad, the sliders in Lightroom get rid of them pretty well. I have been wanting to go mostly native lenses. I still am finding a place for the CV/Y 35-70 zoom and some long glass, but think this may supplant my ZM 35/1.4. Time will tell as the ZM is really good. The main sacrifice is giving up TAP as the ZM 35 works really well with TAP and has a load of contrast from wide open. Anyway, here are some walk around type shots in my first 1/2 hour with the lens:
