Great images in this thread! Rebuilding my kit and bought this lens. So far really like the focal length and images it creates. I think it will pair nicely with the 21 f/3.5, 28 II, and 75 Nokton. It however was not calibrated to the RF, so a replacement is on its way.
I’ve now tried 3 copies of the 40 1.2. This is the best of the 3. It's not terrible but still bugs me. The first copy was much worse, so making progress at least.
Does this seem normal for 3 copies in a row to be off on this lens? My other CV lenses are well calibrated to the RF patch: 28 II, 21 3.5, 35 1.5 and 75 1.5 (and a 50 f/1 that I no longer have).
These are 100% crops of photos that were taken on a m11 on a tripod at 6' away. The image on the left was focused with the patch. The image on the right was focused with the Visoflex 2. After taking the image on the right I went back to the focusing patch and you can clearly see the text was not aligned. If the text was aligned I'd just chalk it up to focusing error on my part. I feel like I'm being too picky here, but then again I'd never have sharp images at 1.2 on the M.
lifeandmylens wrote:
I’ve now tried 3 copies of the 40 1.2. This is the best of the 3. It's not terrible but still bugs me. The first copy was much worse, so making progress at least.
Does this seem normal for 3 copies in a row to be off on this lens? My other CV lenses are well calibrated to the RF patch: 28 II, 21 3.5, 35 1.5 and 75 1.5 (and a 50 f/1 that I no longer have).
These are 100% crops of photos that were taken on a m11 on a tripod at 6' away. The image on the left was focused with the patch. The image on the right was focused with the Visoflex 2. After taking the image on the right I went back to the focusing patch and you can clearly see the text was not aligned. If the text was aligned I'd just chalk it up to focusing error on my part. I feel like I'm being too picky here, but then again I'd never have sharp images at 1.2 on the M....Show more →
That would really annoy me. Have you checked out much a copy of the 40/1.2 is to be calibrated?
I was wondering, how do you hold you 40/1.2 on AF? You have to hold it by camera body only, if you hold it by lens, whole body will move and will create strain on adapter worth of 500g...
Then 40/1.2 is already 315g or so, which must be feel that weight. I have one on MF adapter on A7C and feel that weight. For me it feels like this adapter would be better with sub 200g lens.
170 Fifth Ave AKA The Sohmer Piano is a pre-war Condo Building. Originally home to The Sohmer Piano Co, a business owned and managed by the Sohmer family for over 100 years, this sliver building, designed by Robert Maynicke in the Beaux-Arts style, was built in 1897.
akashyap wrote:
Your pictures are already so much more dynamic with AF!
Thank you, yes I think AF does help in composing with young kids. Previously shooting with the CV40, I would always have the camera against my face to use the viewfinder, but with the Techart adapter, you can use the rear screen and hold the camera at different angles where it would be otherwise very challenging to manually focus.
And phinix, I am just holding the camera normally with the CV40 on the adapter. It is well enough below the weight limit I have no worries about it.
lifeandmylens wrote:
I’ve now tried 3 copies of the 40 1.2. This is the best of the 3. It's not terrible but still bugs me. The first copy was much worse, so making progress at least.
Does this seem normal for 3 copies in a row to be off on this lens? My other CV lenses are well calibrated to the RF patch: 28 II, 21 3.5, 35 1.5 and 75 1.5 (and a 50 f/1 that I no longer have).
These are 100% crops of photos that were taken on a m11 on a tripod at 6' away. The image on the left was focused with the patch. The image on the right was focused with the Visoflex 2. After taking the image on the right I went back to the focusing patch and you can clearly see the text was not aligned. If the text was aligned I'd just chalk it up to focusing error on my part. I feel like I'm being too picky here, but then again I'd never have sharp images at 1.2 on the M....Show more →
While annoying, you can intentionally misfocus the RF patch by the amount you saw in the test after focusing with the EVF and you'll get good focus pretty consistently. You just have to confirm the misfocus is consistent at various distances. The only other solutions are to try more copies or try to get the best one RF calibrated, but not sure if Cameraquest does that (if you bought it from them). Maybe ask him what his preference is - either you keep returning lenses until you get one that is calibrated, or he calibrates one for you.
