saxguy wrote:
I have a question. I recently tried the 40 1.2 on the zf in Z mount. I like the manual focus confirmation features but still used magnified view most of the time for critical focus. I love the images this combination produces.
But... I also own the Leica SL3. Since I'm using mostly magnification for focus I should be able to do the same with the Leica. My question is whether the image quality of the Z mount on the zf will be better than the adapted M mount on the SL3. Anyone have any experience/thoughts?
In my experience the SL3 will give you far superior results. In addition to whatever optical advantages there are with a sensor designed for the M lenses, there is the highest resolution, and Leica processing contributing to the result.
patotts wrote:
Anyone tried that? Shouldn't I be worried about AF accuracy and speed on a f/1.2 lens?
Lots of people have tried it. As a summary, AF accuracy is pretty good, but AF is not quite as good as AF lenses especially when tracking and in the outer part of the frame and the camera can matter too. You also have the issue of sensor cover glass affecting the image at wider apertures. This is more severe for Sony cameras than Nikon cameras, but can be an issue for the 40 f/1.2. That said, a number of people are satisfied with the 40 f/1.2 with an AF adapter on both Sony and Nikon.
In my experience the SL3 will give you far superior results. In addition to whatever optical advantages there are with a sensor designed for the M lenses, there is the highest resolution, and Leica processing contributing to the result.
I think he was referring to the Z-mount version on a Nikon, in which case, I would expect it to be slightly better than the M-mount on the SL3.
I use the Techart and it’s great. Not that fast, but it’s ok. The main annoyance is the limited/central AF area like Scott said. If you’re composing people’s eyes using the rule of thirds, it’s right on the border where AF loses tracking. I end up placing people more centrally and re-compose in post.
For Sony, the Sigma 35/1.2 comes closest to the CV40 of any native AF lens I’ve seen. It’s better in a lot of ways actually, but much, much larger. The camera/lens combo weighs about the same as the GFX+55/1.7 setup.
patotts wrote:
Anyone tried that? Shouldn't I be worried about AF accuracy and speed on a f/1.2 lens?
patotts wrote:
Anyone tried that? Shouldn't I be worried about AF accuracy and speed on a f/1.2 lens?
When I was using the VM with Techart adapter, it performed best with my A9 in AFC. I was able to capture tons of my favorite shots in various scenarios I could have never accomplished if I was using the E mount version with MF.
The biggest thing to note, outside of the AF restrictions/caveats is that there is a decent amount of field curvature induced when using the Techart + VM combo. It never bothered me, but if you are a stickler for stuff like that, then you will definitely take issue with the amount of field curvature the combo exhibits.
If you're interested in seeing more sample photos and/or chatter on the combo, I believe I started posting around page 80s-90s range, or just use the google engine search at the bottom of the page with my handle.
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
Lots of people have tried it. As a summary, AF accuracy is pretty good, but AF is not quite as good as AF lenses especially when tracking and in the outer part of the frame and the camera can matter too. You also have the issue of sensor cover glass affecting the image at wider apertures. This is more severe for Sony cameras than Nikon cameras, but can be an issue for the 40 f/1.2. That said, a number of people are satisfied with the 40 f/1.2 with an AF adapter on both Sony and Nikon.
100%
---------------------------------------------
grahamgibson wrote:
I use the Techart and it’s great. Not that fast, but it’s ok. The main annoyance is the limited/central AF area like Scott said. If you’re composing people’s eyes using the rule of thirds, it’s right on the border where AF loses tracking. I end up placing people more centrally and re-compose in post.
For Sony, the Sigma 35/1.2 comes closest to the CV40 of any native AF lens I’ve seen. It’s better in a lot of ways actually, but much, much larger. The camera/lens combo weighs about the same as the GFX+55/1.7 setup.
Agreed on all counts.
The Sigma 35 is actually one of the reasons I haven't used the VM 40 in forever,
