Tempted by this lens. Currrently have the 40 Batis and 35 GM on pre-order. And also own the Sigma 24-70 and 55 Zony. One of them could surely be a more specialised lens so might switch the Batis to CV 40. What would be the biggest differnce except 1.2 and AF?
The Batis has a nice rendering IMO, it doesn't get enough respect around here. OK granted I generally preferred the CV40 in side-by-side comparisons, but I think they're both good. The size of the Batis is too big for me though. I have the Batis 85 and tend to leave it at home unless I have a specific use in mind. When I want just a single lens in the 35-50mm range, I'd want to carry something smaller. The CV40 is nice for that. Actually, you might consider the CV50 instead if you're already getting the 35GM.
Also, a quick google brings up some comparisons where you can judge for yourself against the Batis:
grahamgibson wrote:
The Batis has a nice rendering IMO, it doesn't get enough respect around here. OK granted I generally preferred the CV40 in side-by-side comparisons, but I think they're both good. The size of the Batis is too big for me though. I have the Batis 85 and tend to leave it at home unless I have a specific use in mind. When I want just a single lens in the 35-50mm range, I'd want to carry something smaller. The CV40 is nice for that. Actually, you might consider the CV50 instead if you're already getting the 35GM.
Also, a quick google brings up some comparisons where you can judge for yourself against the Batis:
Thanks. I'm a Batis fan but shooting more and more wide open which CV beats Batis. Might miss the close focus capabilites of the Batis but I also own the CV 65 which is great for that.
The 50 might be an option. Have the 55 Zony though and using 35 and 40 more. Might look Into that 50 though. Not that much info on that lens though.
A few picks from a trip to friends cabin with my friends recently. Yes I did go to water, 5 times. From sauna of course. Didn't have any other lenses with my that time (it's my "desert island" lens). The first and the last image are stitched together from several images (which makes this lens double as a "wide angle").
I sold mine in a moment of 'brilliance'. I figured selling 3 lenses I really like, in exchange for 2 unknowns was a great idea... We'll see how it works out.
Here's a few from the VM version on Leica M240 & Sony A7R IV
I did a fun experiment yesterday. I have a Hasselblad 80/2.8 lens and shift adapters to mount this on my A7rII. This lens is roughly equivalent to the CV40 when shot on their respective formats (different aspect ratios account for "roughly"). By shifting the A7rII while the Hasselblad lens is mounted to the tripod, I can capture a multiple shots from the same image circle and flat stitch them together. Due to adapter limitations, I can't quite achieve the 72mm x 48mm wide area with shifting to exactly match the CV40, so this is a 2:1 ratio 72mm x 36mm crop. The camera is mounted in portrait and I shift horizontally. The result is a 125MP image. I hope it's OK posting a non-CV40 image here for comparison's sake:
It's no coincidence that these are my favorite lenses for each format, the look is pretty much identical. But of course, it's much easier to take a single image on the CV40 when 42MP is enough. These aren't perfectly aligned by the way, I just shot the CV40 handheld. Since these are edited to taste, I should also mention that the CV40 has gorgeous colors and contrast straight out of camera, compared to the 30yr old Hasselblad, which is quite flat by comparison. But it cleans up nicely as you can see I can get them to look pretty close. I did correct CA on the Voigtlander which is not bad at f1.4, but the Hasselblad at f2.8 is cleaner. For the pixel-peepers out there, here are links to the full-size images:
And a couple shots of the lens mounted on the tripod. By the way, I use two shift adapters--first Hasselblad to Canon EF, then Canon EF to Sony E so that I can shift in two directions or twice in one direction as in the image above (shifted +/- 24mm in each direction).
grahamgibson wrote:
I did a fun experiment yesterday. I have a Hasselblad 80/2.8 lens and shift adapters to mount this on my A7rII. This lens is roughly equivalent to the CV40 when shot on their respective formats (different aspect ratios account for "roughly"). By shifting the A7rII while the Hasselblad lens is mounted to the tripod, I can capture a multiple shots from the same image circle and flat stitch them together. Due to adapter limitations, I can't quite achieve the 72mm x 48mm wide area with shifting to exactly match the CV40, so this is a 2:1 ratio 72mm x 36mm crop. The camera is mounted in portrait and I shift horizontally. The result is a 125MP image. I hope it's OK posting a non-CV40 image here for comparison's sake:...Show more →
That's a really cool experiment. Thanks for sharing Graham
Nicely done, Graham. I say the top image is much more assured, with more refined and accurate colour tonality, bokeh, 'presence'. Even the minor CA looks very neat, artistic.
I figured selling 3 lenses I really like, in exchange for 2 unknowns was a great idea... We'll see how it works out. 
But of course, it's much easier to take a single image on the CV40 when 42MP is enough. These aren't perfectly aligned by the way, I just shot the CV40 handheld. Since these are edited to taste, I should also mention that the CV40 has gorgeous colors and contrast straight out of camera, compared to the 30yr old Hasselblad, which is quite flat by comparison. But it cleans up nicely as you can see I can get them to look pretty close. I did correct CA on the Voigtlander which is not bad at f1.4, but the Hasselblad at f2.8 is cleaner. For the pixel-peepers out there, here are links to the full-size images:
