bobek13 wrote:
It's 58mm as is the cv 4.5/15mm... 52mm is on cv 3.5/21mm...
;-)
Cheers, A.
The filter thread on the FE version is 58mm, but on the M version it is 52mm.
Which brings me to the question, are there any reports on how the M version performs on Sony cameras? Apparently the optics are same in both.... But I would like to get real world reviews rather than hypotheticals. Reason being, the benefit of having a fast lens that I could also use on my M6 would likely outweigh the electronic communication the E version has.
I apologize if this has already been covered ad nauseum
I think Fred did a very detailed comparison some time ago. Maybe you can find it in a search. The Sony is optimized for the Sony filter stack, so it does perform differently than the M version.
pdmphoto wrote:
I think Fred did a very detailed comparison some time ago. Maybe you can find it in a search. The Sony is optimized for the Sony filter stack, so it does perform differently than the M version.
Then they wouldn't be identical optically would they?
I have done some searches, but have only found his comparison to a VM 35/1.7, not the VM 40/1.2. Otherwise it's mostly conjecture
helimat wrote:
Then they wouldn't be identical optically would they?
I have done some searches, but have only found his comparison to a VM 35/1.7, not the VM 40/1.2. Otherwise it's mostly conjecture
I can't remember where, but there was for sure direct comparison with crops. May not have been on this thread. To my memory, the VM was about 1-2 stops behind the FE version.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I can't remember where, but there was for sure direct comparison with crops. May not have been on this thread. To my memory, the VM was about 1-2 stops behind the FE version.
Thanks, I have searched and searched and haven't found anything like that unfortunately. When you say stops, do you mean light transmission, vignetting, or......?
helimat wrote:
Thanks, I have searched and searched and haven't found anything like that unfortunately. When you say stops, do you mean light transmission, vignetting, or......?
It's on page 40 of this thread. I meant sheerly in terms of resolution. Given the VM is smaller, I would guess you're going to get more vignetting and cat's eye. I also remember seeing something that bokeh is smoother on the FE version than VM--more abstracted, but I'd have to search around for that thread/site.
For what it's worth, I have owned the CV 40/1.2 a couple times in both VM and FE. While the IQ is better on the FE, I don't find it to be way better, and I find the additional size and ergonomics worse (to my liking) on the FE, so I would opt for the VM. Then again, I am far less picky than many here, so I may be in a minority.
This is what I was talking about. The VM version has more abstracted bokeh than the FE (I remembered incorrectly), but they are both on their native bodies. I haven't seen any testing for bokeh when both shot on an a7x body.
It's on page 40 of this thread. I meant sheerly in terms of resolution. Given the VM is smaller, I would guess you're going to get more vignetting and cat's eye. I also remember seeing something that bokeh is smoother on the FE version than VM--more abstracted, but I'd have to search around for that thread/site.
For what it's worth, I have owned the CV 40/1.2 a couple times in both VM and FE. While the IQ is better on the FE, I don't find it to be way better, and I find the additional size and ergonomics worse (to my liking) on the FE, so I would opt for the VM. Then again, I am far less picky than many here, so I may be in a minority. ...Show more →
Great! Thank you, that page eluded me. That being said, the only direct comparison looks as though either a) the shooter wasn't 100% perpendicular to the wall, or b) there's a centering issue with his lens. I do appreciate hearing your opinion though, as someone who has had both.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
This is what I was talking about. The VM version has more abstracted bokeh than the FE (I remembered incorrectly), but they are both on their native bodies. I haven't seen any testing for bokeh when both shot on an a7x body.
Thanks again. I do see the difference in the bokeh there for sure, which is another knock against the claims that they are optically identical. I have to admit, I originally just skimmed over his review and missed that difference, as I had some reservations on his prognosis; partly because a lot of his results didn't exactly add up, but mainly because of his odd paranormal website 👻
While there seems to be difference, I am not sure if it is enough to sway me away from the VM yet.
helimat wrote:
Great! Thank you, that page eluded me. That being said, the only direct comparison looks as though either a) the shooter wasn't 100% perpendicular to the wall, or b) there's a centering issue with his lens. I do appreciate hearing your opinion though, as someone who has had both.
Thanks again. I do see the difference in the bokeh there for sure, which is another knock against the claims that they are optically identical. I have to admit, I originally just skimmed over his review and missed that difference, as I had some reservations on his prognosis; partly because a lot of his results didn't exactly add up, but mainly because of his odd paranormal website 👻
While there seems to be difference, I am not sure if it is enough to sway me away from the VM yet....Show more →
No, Steve’s comparison is horribly flawed—he has EFC on in the Sony shots, which is why the bokeh is worse in those shots. I don’t think there’s actually a difference.
One of my few goals in life is to find the perfect travel setup. As perfect as the Voigt 40 is, It's really hard (for me anyway) to find the right combo lens. So I ordered the 7Artisans 28mm f/1.4 FE+, which should be coming in a few days. That leaves me with the problem of there not being quite enough separation between 28 and 40mm. So I decided to run an experiment.
I have an old Nikkor 50mm 1.4 AIS laying around that I bought for $40 a year ago, and my F to M mount adapter just came in the mail. Using this on my TAP, I think I may have found the perfect combo. The rendering is actually pretty great for such a cheapie, and I still have AF.
grahamgibson wrote:
No, Steve’s comparison is horribly flawed—he has EFC on in the Sony shots, which is why the bokeh is worse in those shots. I don’t think there’s actually a difference.
hahaha--I am always nervous when looking at him or Ken Rockwell. This makes sense, and thanks for the FYI.
I have yet to see a a7x + VM 40 1.2 and FE 40 1.2 on a tripod, with crops (systematic).
Only recently started using it again after about 7 months of being locked away!