quasitime wrote:
Is there something special about the 40mm that the 35mm 1.2 SE is lacking? Or is it just purely a matter of focal length?
Honestly, I think it's that the 40/1.2 was the first to be released in that series, and once folks got that lens, they didn't feel compelled to switch to either the 35/1.2 or 50/1.2, especially since the 40 is right in the middle.
My partner and I stayed in a remote cabin in Mendocino, CA for about 40+ hrs straight for our anniversary in 2019. We cooked all our meals, watched shows on my laptop, read, edited, and had a very relaxed time. I switched between the Loxia 21 and CV 40 for the trip, so here are the CV pictures.
akashyap wrote:
My partner and I stayed in a remote cabin in Mendocino, CA for about 40+ hrs straight for our anniversary in 2019. We cooked all our meals, watched shows on my laptop, read, edited, and had a very relaxed time. I switched between the Loxia 21 and CV 40 for the trip, so here are the CV pictures.
I have numerous systems in my head that I'd take with me if I traveled the world. One of them is this lens..by itself. Just the 40mm 1.2 Voigtlander. Yes, I'd add a 21mm in all likelihood..BUT...I think I could do it with just this one lens.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
I have numerous systems in my head that I'd take with me if I traveled the world. One of them is this lens..by itself. Just the 40mm 1.2 Voigtlander. Yes, I'd add a 21mm in all likelihood..BUT...I think I could do it with just this one lens.
Imagining you walking around with just the lens, holding the rear element up to your eye and enjoying the (tiny, inverted) rendering.
Kissing Bridge, West Montrose covered bridge, spanning the Grand River near Elmira, Ontario comp_DSC00486-2 by Joachim Wulfers, on Flickr
ILCE 6600 Voigtländer 40/1.2 40mm f3.5 1/4000 ISO250
