I’ve given up on the TAP myself. Sticking with my 40 1.2 E Mount. All my lenses have EXIF except the Laowa 15 which I will not part with. Have a golden copy
Currently in Paris and very kind of Phillip to meet up at short notice. A couple of shots taken with the CV 40 tonight along the Seine (all are minimally processed in ACR and cropped accordingly).
DavidBM wrote:
I'm guessing the M mount version will either perform about the same on Leica (if it is differently optimised) or worse (if it is optically the same). I think the 1.7/35 is likely the last primarily M optimised fast lens we will see from CV judging from what I've heard about relative sales....
sebboh wrote:
oh, are the e-mounts outselling the m-mounts for the most part?
I'd be surprised if it's even close. Who buys Leica anyway?
Based on the first two photos in the post above, I'd really liked to have seen curved aperture blades at the cost of less-nice starbursts...
rscheffler wrote:
Based on the first two photos in the post above, I'd really liked to have seen curved aperture blades at the cost of less-nice starbursts...
rscheffler wrote:
I'd be surprised if it's even close. Who buys Leica anyway?
Based on the first two photos in the post above, I'd really liked to have seen curved aperture blades at the cost of less-nice starbursts...
+1, i find both straight edged bokeh balls and starbursts to be quite annoying.
with regard to m-mount vs e-mount lenses, i would expect relatively few leica owners to be super interested in putting a $700 lens on their $6k camera (sometimes that's all you got left though...). the previously released e-mount voigtlanders aren't great for m-mount either – all ultrawides that are kinda a pain to shoot on a rangefinder.
kaioyang wrote:
Currently in Paris and very kind of Phillip to meet up at short notice. A couple of shots taken with the CV 40 tonight along the Seine (all are minimally processed in ACR and cropped accordingly).
Hey Kai. It was cool to meet you and shoot together. People, I must say that he is one gentleman of the highest moral character! Not only did he let me try his 2 new CV lenses (40mm and 65mm), on his tripod while he politely waited for me to hand it back, but he resisted trying out my Otus, for fear of a GAS attack!!! The man has principles! Oh, and he is a seriously good 'tog and fine company too!
philber wrote:
Hey Kai. It was cool to meet you and shoot together. People, I must say that he is one gentleman of the highest moral character! Not only did he let me try his 2 new CV lenses (40mm and 65mm), on his tripod while he politely waited for me to hand it back, but he resisted trying out my Otus, for fear of a GAS attack!!! The man has principles! Oh, and he is a seriously good 'tog and fine company too!
Many Thx Phillip for meeting up on so short notice and thanks for your kind words!. Good discussions and photo walk and hope you will make a call on the lenses soon. For compactness, weight and good IQ this CV40 can't be beaten. It's just a compromise of weight and IQ against the Zeiss.
GMPhotography wrote:
I’ve given up on the TAP myself. Sticking with my 40 1.2 E Mount. All my lenses have EXIF except the Laowa 15 which I will not part with. Have a golden copy
Why'd you give on the TAP Guy? What application/situation were you using it in?
I've always been amazed that with all of the people checking their lenses for perfect centering and all of the complaints about de-centered lenses, that issues never comes up with these adapters. I can't believe that a $300 Chinese adapter is able to keep proper alignment.
Rob L wrote:
I've always been amazed that with all of the people checking their lenses for perfect centering and all of the complaints about de-centered lenses, that issues never comes up with these adapters. I can't believe that a $300 Chinese adapter is able to keep proper alignment.
They can't be perfect but there is also the issue of "sensor to camera mount".
Mount parallelism can be a problem as any tilt is noticeable in our images. With lenses, the more elements and complexity, the higher the odds of a tilt, decentering or spacing issues. With an adapter, I would think the odds are smaller but it really depends on how tight tolerance is.
Rob L wrote:
I've always been amazed that with all of the people checking their lenses for perfect centering and all of the complaints about de-centered lenses, that issues never comes up with these adapters. I can't believe that a $300 Chinese adapter is able to keep proper alignment.
For a dumb adapter (that's just a spacer), the required parallelism isn't a hard thing to accomplish.
I have an expensive Metabones adapter that has much worse parallelism (0.002" variation) than a $25 Fotasy that was parallel to within ~0.0002" across the mounting surfaces.
For an adapter like the TAP that needs to axially move the lens mount maintaining parallelism is very difficult and I would not expect perfection or use it to assess lens decentering characteristics.
Heck, my original A7R had the lens mounting flange off-parallel with the sensor as just about every fast lens I have showed a left-to-right slight variation in sharpness.
sebboh wrote:
with regard to m-mount vs e-mount lenses, i would expect relatively few leica owners to be super interested in putting a $700 lens on their $6k camera (sometimes that's all you got left though...). the previously released e-mount voigtlanders aren't great for m-mount either – all ultrawides that are kinda a pain to shoot on a rangefinder.
I guess it depends on the type of Leica owner (user vs. poseur vs collector)... I value the Voigtlander and Zeiss M-mount options and have owned and used quite a few. The 35/1.7 is my go-to 35mm. I value the 40/1.4 for its rendering character (wilder than the 40/1.2) and the UWAs are excellent value (and much easier to use on EVF-capable digital Ms). But yes, compared to Sony FE, Leica will remain a minuscule, niche market. Fortunately it seems it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt Sony designs to Leica and I hope to eventually find out how the 40/1.2 performs on Leica.
Cosina seems to be a bit of a quirky company in respect to willingness to offer niche lenses. Therefore I wouldn't rule out future Leica-specific lens releases. But it does make a lot of sense for them to concentrate efforts on Sony FE offerings, given it's the current hot system.
Yes, I was referring to the TAP and the new similar unit that has come on the scene. While I don't have one of these, I can imagine a bit of play must be common. I remember many of the older design auto-focus lenses like the canon 50 1.4 and the nifty 50 where the lens head can be literally jiggled around within the focus mount.
rscheffler wrote:
I guess it depends on the type of Leica owner (user vs. poseur vs collector)... I value the Voigtlander and Zeiss M-mount options and have owned and used quite a few. The 35/1.7 is my go-to 35mm. I value the 40/1.4 for its rendering character (wilder than the 40/1.2) and the UWAs are excellent value (and much easier to use on EVF-capable digital Ms). But yes, compared to Sony FE, Leica will remain a minuscule, niche market. Fortunately it seems it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt Sony designs to Leica and I hope to eventually find out how the 40/1.2 performs on Leica.
Cosina seems to be a bit of a quirky company in respect to willingness to offer niche lenses. Therefore I wouldn't rule out future Leica-specific lens releases. But it does make a lot of sense for them to concentrate efforts on Sony FE offerings, given it's the current hot system....Show more →
you are not the typical leica user though, most seem to only have 1 or 2 lenses from the stats i've seen. cv has lots of great m-mount lenses and the cv 35/1.7 and 50/1.5 are great candidates to be the 1 or 2 lenses a typical leica shooter has, but most choose zeiss or leica lenses instead. personally i actually think the cv options are better than the zeiss ones for use on a leica.
sebboh wrote:
you are not the typical leica user though, most seem to only have 1 or 2 lenses from the stats i've seen. cv has lots of great m-mount lenses and the cv 35/1.7 and 50/1.5 are great candidates to be the 1 or 2 lenses a typical leica shooter has, but most choose zeiss or leica lenses instead. personally i actually think the cv options are better than the zeiss ones for use on a leica.
You are saying that most Leica users only have 1-2 lenses? No idea where you saw that but it is likely BS. My "guess" (perhaps wrong) is around 5-6 lenses on average. I have my three main lenses (28/35/50) and then some other niche type lenses to supplement. I like the CV lenses but don't like them enough. The 35/1.7 is the only exception. I would probably choose any of the ZM options over the CV counterpart. However, I would love to try the M-mount 40/1.2.
Gary Clennan wrote:
You are saying that most Leica users only have 1-2 lenses? No idea where you saw that but it is likely BS. My "guess" (perhaps wrong) is around 5-6 lenses on average. I have my three main lenses (28/35/50) and then some other niche type lenses to supplement. I like the CV lenses but don't like them enough. The 35/1.7 is the only exception. I would probably choose any of the ZM options over the CV counterpart. However, I would love to try the M-mount 40/1.2.
it was a cross branded survey i saw linked on one of the leica centric forums. it was a few years ago, but i thought it was an interesting result so it stuck in my mind. just looking at the users here, dpi, and rff seems to bear that out though. there seems to be a lot less people interested in "full lens coverage" shooting rangefinders, and more people that pick one or two focal lengths and focus on that than in the dslr or sony world.
I tried this lens, courtesy of FM member kai (thanks!) and found it impressive if not flawless. We all know it can't be perfect considering the speed/size/cost balance chosen by CV. I feel that the lens is not being helped by a detailed study of its weaknesses which does not always put it in perspective wth its many virtues.
