maybe if you pixel-peep this lens isn't perfect in all regards, but hell, these images look pretty sweet to me! Makes me wonder if I should trade in my VC 35/1.2.
Exactly they just look so good rendering wise. Lovin’ it
The kids just jump out at you. I’m not perfect either . Missed focus slightly on some shots. Kids are tough with manual focus but who cares. The look wipes that out
Field curvature seems fairly evident in some samples but some impressive work coming out of this lens. Guy, really liked the shots from your grandsons party. Reminded me of some with the 35/1.2 at f/2 or f/2.8, which seemed to be where that lens sang.
Anyone have any thoughts how this performs in general vs the 35/1.2? Seems more similar than dissimilar but curious how it compares at wide aperture. Personally I think I prefer AF possibility to EXIF but not at the expense of IQ.
Despite their undoubted excellence, I haven't been seriously tempted by either the CV 40/1.2 or 65/2 lenses. If Cosina manage to pull off a trifecta with their upcoming Nokton Classic FE 35/1.4, I'll probably buy one. But a CV 28/1.4 of a similar standard as the 40mm and 65mm lenses would be impossible to resist -- not just for what it has to offer but also because it will nicely complement my Loxia 28.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Field curvature seems fairly evident in some samples but some impressive work coming out of this lens. Guy, really liked the shots from your grandsons party. Reminded me of some with the 35/1.2 at f/2 or f/2.8, which seemed to be where that lens sang.
Anyone have any thoughts how this performs in general vs the 35/1.2? Seems more similar than dissimilar but curious how it compares at wide aperture. Personally I think I prefer AF possibility to EXIF but not at the expense of IQ.
ive shot with with both and the 40/1.2 is definitely sharper wide open. 35/1.2 has very nice rendering but overall prefer the 40/1.2. Never shot them both at same time though since I no longer have the 35/1.2
Thanks, that's what I was thinking from samples but always good to hear.
teh_rebel wrote:
ive shot with with both and the 40/1.2 is definitely sharper wide open. 35/1.2 has very nice rendering but overall prefer the 40/1.2. Never shot them both at same time though since I no longer have the 35/1.2
Luvwine wrote:
If you are writing to me, both of my most recently posted images were hand held.
Thanks - that's got great color, clarity and dynamic range. I know it's part camera, part lens, and part development (you do a lot of night cityscapes so I think you know what you're doing in that regard).
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Thanks - that's got great color, clarity and dynamic range. I know it's part camera, part lens, and part development (you do a lot of night cityscapes so I think you know what you're doing in that regard).
Thanks for your kind words. I actually often struggle with where to set the white balance on Cityscape shots. The light is always changing and the lighting is mixed between fading sunlight and artificial light and Auto white balance is frequently way off. Here, I went with auto white balance (which works for the building itself) but for me the sky color is still a bit troubling. I just darkened the sky significantly to avoid making it too cartoon like in color, and I gather you approve, but perhaps if I were not so lazy, I might have done a layer mask and process the sky color differently from the building to try to make the image better). The camera is remarkable in that this was at ISO 2500--only necessary because I wanted sun stars and so used F4. I often am amazed at how we can get usable shots at high ISO, tho I still prefer to work on tripod at base ISO for best quality and dynamic range. The CV 40 however is making me use it hand held as F1.2 still produces good shots and obviously allows for much lower ISO even in dim conditions.
I really like the quality of the sunstars this lens produces, but after viewing this whole thread this lens seems to produce sunstars in situations and at apertures that other lens wouldn't. Is that true (or just my perception), and if yes, does it have the potential to become an unwanted aberation that's not easily stopped/fixed and will end up looking 'gimmicky' if you use this lens as a general walkaround lens?
zaphodm wrote:
I really like the quality of the sunstars this lens produces, but after viewing this whole thread this lens seems to produce sunstars in situations and at apertures that other lens wouldn't. Is that true (or just my perception), and if yes, does it have the potential to become an unwanted aberation that's not easily stopped/fixed and will end up looking 'gimmicky' if you use this lens as a general walkaround lens?
No, it produces sunstars in the same conditions any lens, as well defined as any with straight blades, and with he same no of rays as any lens with a ten bladed iris.
Of course some lenses with very curved blades and/or very many blades may make stars so undefined that they are just blobs and you won’t see them as sunstars at all. But these lenses are the exception.
DavidBM wrote:
No, it produces sunstars in the same conditions any lens, as well defined as any with straight blades, and with the same no of rays as any lens with a ten bladed iris.
zaphodm wrote:
I really like the quality of the sunstars this lens produces, but after viewing this whole thread this lens seems to produce sunstars in situations and at apertures that other lens wouldn't. Is that true (or just my perception), and if yes, does it have the potential to become an unwanted aberation that's not easily stopped/fixed and will end up looking 'gimmicky' if you use this lens as a general walkaround lens?
from my experience, the voigtlander stars tend to come very early, you dont need to stop them very small to have a significant impact.
