Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tried the 35/1.2 SE and 50/1.2 E-mount lenses for a while but decided to go back to the 40/1.2 instead of them.
The 50mm is the best optically but I prefer the wider focal length. The 35mm is also great but I find myself shooting 40mm way more on the Sony.
I bought the newer 40/1.2 "SE" just because it's more compact than the original version. On the Leica M10, I prefer the 35/1.2 III VM for the frame-lines and because it's a great combo to my CV 75/1.5.
Just to show how compact the 40/1.2 SE is, here is a side by side to the Sigma 45/2.8 which I also consider small. The Voigtlander is 2 1/2 stops faster!...Show more →
So, Fred, is the Sigma 45 your choice for an AF alternative to the CV40 then?
grahamgibson wrote:
So, Fred, is the Sigma 45 your choice for an AF alternative to the CV40 then?
Yes. Technically the Sigma has better rendering but way less blur.
Generally I prefer lenses with superior rendering instead of ultimate resolution. For AF, I really like the 24/1.4 GM, 40/2.8 C and 85/1.4 GM lenses.
The upcoming 35/1.4 GM sounds promising though.
Yeah, I'm a bit worried about my CV 40 with the recent 35/1.4 GM news. Can't quite afford 2 fast normal prime lenses yet, as different as the AF vs MF experience is.
Let's see though, still early days for the 35/1.4 and the CV 40 is the de facto lens cap.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes. Technically the Sigma has better rendering but way less blur.
Generally I prefer lenses with superior rendering instead of ultimate resolution. For AF, I really like the 24/1.4 GM, 40/2.8 C and 85/1.4 GM lenses.
The upcoming 35/1.4 GM sounds promising though.
akashyap wrote:
Yeah, I'm a bit worried about my CV 40 with the recent 35/1.4 GM news. Can't quite afford 2 fast normal prime lenses yet, as different as the AF vs MF experience is.
Let's see though, still early days for the 35/1.4 and the CV 40 is the de facto lens cap.
One thing is for sure, the Voigtlander will win on speed and size. The Sony won't be small and it's not 40mm if that's your preference.
I get a barely used 40 1.2 FE. I'm not high on budget, considering to get A7rII next month.
It's 1340 Eur, and the A7rIII is 1780 Eur. Is the III version worth the extra 440 Eur for this lens? For me it means 1 or 2 month delay for shopping. I'm not in hurry, however quite excited to use this lens.
I switched to the 50mm f/1.2 a while ago (from the 40mm) with the intention of getting also the 35mm f/1.2. With the 50mm I find myself missing the little bit wider perspective the 40mm gives. The 50 is a stunning lens, but the seemingly small difference in focal length with 40mm makes it so much more versatile. I have a 35mm Samyang which I use a lot when needing wider angle, but I really could do with just the one 40mm lens...
Might have to swap back. Would love to get the CV21/40/75 trio once again, but this time Noktons only (earlier had color-skopar and color-heliar as the 21 & 75mm).
Tonzah78 wrote:
I switched to the 50mm f/1.2 a while ago (from the 40mm) with the intention of getting also the 35mm f/1.2. With the 50mm I find myself missing the little bit wider perspective the 40mm gives.
The classic Voigtlander conundrum. All their products are great and it makes you want them all
I'm happy with my CV15 and CV40, but I would keep my eyes peeled for an e-mount 75 or 90 if they come along!
I followed Fred’s previous move, traded the CV 40 for the Cv 35 f1.2, haven’t had chance to use it much. Now the soon to be announced Sigma 35 f2 could be a very interesting lens if it renders like the 45 f2.8.
zz wrote:
The classic Voigtlander conundrum. All their products are great and it makes you want them all
Tell me about it. Sometimes I wonder do I have to just get them all, instead of trying to find the "optimal minimal setup".
And yeah. Sigma threw my plans to trash altogether. I'm interested of the both 35/2 and 65/2. I might actually now keep the CV50/1.2 and get the CV21/1.4 to fill my wide angle needs. And then 35/2 & 65/2 to fill in the gaps. Already have their stunning 105mm as my tele/portrait/macro lens.
Tonzah78 wrote:
Sigma threw my plans to trash altogether. I'm interested of the both 35/2 and 65/2. I might actually now keep the CV50/1.2 and get the CV21/1.4 to fill my wide angle needs. And then 35/2 & 65/2 to fill in the gaps.
That's also where prices comes in. The Sigma 45 runs at around €475 here and most of the CV's run at around €850+.
I believe you're asking if the A7R3 is worth the extra 440 euros over the A7R2 when it comes to using this lens?
The A7R3 has a better EVF resolution, so if your eyes are strained while manually focusing, it might be worth it. The A7R3 also has a much better battery, so if you don't like changing / carrying batteries, the A7R3 is nice.
But other than that, the image quality of the 2 cameras is not that different. I've been using the A7R2 with this lens and have been getting great results. If your eyes are okay and you have the ability to carry spare batteries, save the 440 euros and use the camera + lens combo for 1 extra holiday season.
Lukacs wrote:
I get a barely used 40 1.2 FE. I'm not high on budget, considering to get A7rII next month.
It's 1340 Eur, and the A7rIII is 1780 Eur. Is the III version worth the extra 440 Eur for this lens? For me it means 1 or 2 month delay for shopping. I'm not in hurry, however quite excited to use this lens.
Now the real question is...who do you get to take the photos when you're in them? Your wife or one of your kids? If so, did you have to put in some time on manual focus training? I can usually get some if I've got an AF lens on but it's a no-go when I've got an MF lens haha
Dave Sanders wrote:
Now the real question is...who do you get to take the photos when you're in them? Your wife or one of your kids? If so, did you have to put in some time on manual focus training? I can usually get some if I've got an AF lens on but it's a no-go when I've got an MF lens haha
zz wrote:
