Fred Miranda wrote:
I've been enjoying your Hawaii pictures!
I do the same! I often use the Voigtlander 40/1.2 M-mount on the Techart EA9 with my A7CR, but mine's been Kolari thin-sensor modded. That way I avoid the weird rendering you get on the stock Sony stack, where field curvature bends outward and corners can look in focus when they should be blurred. Sharpness isn't the issue...it's the exaggerated field curvature and added corner astigmatism. The Kolari mod fully fixes it.
Hmm, maybe something I'll have to consider. Quite expensive for my A1 at $600 though.
I know people have tried PCX filters on various M lenses as a cheaper, non-mod solution, but I haven't followed the discussion too closely. Do you know if anyone has tried one on the CV40?
A couple of years ago, after reading a number of reviews, watching as many YT videos as I could find, and following this thread here on FM I purchased the CV 40/1.2.
Long story-short...I never bonded with it so off it went.
Background: I own two Voigtlander's that bookend the CV 40mm - the APO 35 and APO 65. IMO, as primarily a landscape photographer it doesn't get any better than those two. Enter the CV 40mm and I couldn't find the proper niche for it in my kit. But yet, I love the outcome of so many of images posted here on this thread.
Is it time to give it another try?
Before I decide whether to buy another can I ask your opinion(s) on what you feel the main difference is between the APO 35 and CV 40mm? And what is the primary use for your CV 40mm - landscape, street, environmental...??
For me, the look of f1.2 wide-open sets the images from this lens apart from other options I've tried. It is most apparent at mid-distances (environmental) where you can still have a somewhat wide angle of view, but still achieve that subject-background separation. At closer distances, most reasonably fast lenses can produce a decent amount of background blur.
I tried the Sony 35/1.4 for a while, but in this mid-distance+wide open type of image, the slightly longer focal length of the CV and slightly faster f-stop added up to an appreciable difference in look. As for f2 lenses like the CV 35 APO, I've also had the Sigma 35/2 and RX1rII, which are both slightly wider even than the 35GM and a stop slower so the difference is even more apparent. The CV40 does have LoCA when shooting wide open (like many fast lenses), and in that area an APO lens is going to be a lot better. I find the CA removal tool in Lightroom can correct things to my satisfaction, so I accept this tradeoff.
If your interest is more towards landscape or stopped-down shooting, then the CV40 can do that also, but is not going to stand out (though I wonder how much the best lens really "stands out" at f8).
grahamgibson wrote:
Hmm, maybe something I'll have to consider. Quite expensive for my A1 at $600 though.
I know people have tried PCX filters on various M lenses as a cheaper, non-mod solution, but I haven't followed the discussion too closely. Do you know if anyone has tried one on the CV40?
Wow, the prices went up. I paid $400 for mine with rush service last year. I'd do it again if I didn't already have this camera but I have mostly M-lenses. It even makes rendering nicer with regular Sony FE lenses, since it pulls the field curvature inward...most lenses tend to have a bit of outward curvature...so you get smoother, more pleasing blur in the corners even with Sony lenses.
Al Trujillo wrote:
Is it time to give this lens another try?
A couple of years ago, after reading a number of reviews, watching ax many YT videos as I could find, and following this thread here on FM I purchased the CV 40/1.2.
Long story-short...I never bonded with it so off it went.
Background: I own two Voigtlander's that bookend the CV 40mm - the APO 35 and APO 65. IMO, as primarily a landscape photographer it doesn't get any better than those two. Enter the CV 40mm and I couldn't find the proper niche for it in my kit. But yet, I love the outcome of so many of images posted here on this thread.
Is it time to give it another try?
Before I decide whether to buy another can I ask your opinion(s) on what you feel the main difference is between the APO 35 and CV 40mm? And what is the primary use for your CV 40mm - landscape, street, environmental...??
Yes, I agree with what Graham wrote. Essentially, if you're used to shooting with perfect APO lenses, it can be easy to focus on flaws. With the CV 40/1.2, its uniqueness comes from those very imperfections. You have to look past the slight SA, CA, and coma and appreciate what it truly offers...enormous blur and a distinctive, characterful rendering. The magic truly shows when focusing on subjects at mid-distance, where the separation is especially striking due to the high contrast and quick focus transition.
It's just a different look, like using a different paintbrush.
I sold my CV40 a few years ago, wasn't get used enough. But then found myself in instances where I wish I had it, and combined with the smaller "SE" version made it too tempting, so I picked up a sharp copy from a fellow FM'er earlier this year.
Nice form-factor when combined with the A7cR, and like others have said gives you a certain look. I use it mainly for landscapes, sunsets, and low-light stuff. But also subject isolation. On this shot in Maui I was stopped down for sunset pics, and decided to back up a few steps and flip it over to f/1.2 for shots of our daughter.
gocolts wrote:
I sold my CV40 a few years ago, wasn't get used enough. But then found myself in instances where I wish I had it, and combined with the smaller "SE" version made it too tempting, so I picked up a sharp copy from a fellow FM'er earlier this year.
Nice form-factor when combined with the A7cR, and like others have said gives you a certain look. I use it mainly for landscapes, sunsets, and low-light stuff. But also subject isolation. On this shot in Maui I was stopped down for sunset pics, and decided to back up a few steps and flip it over to f/1.2 for shots of our daughter.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I notice a lot of us keep cycling with the CV 40/1.2...selling it and then buying it back. I'm definitely one of them
I'm asking people who have probably used both of these lenses....obvious differences aside (FL, min/max F-stop, elements/groups, price)...looking only at IQ output - is the CV 40/1.2 'like / not like / kind of like' a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4
Fred Miranda wrote:
I notice a lot of us keep cycling with the CV 40/1.2...selling it and then buying it back. I'm definitely one of them
Hah, I only sold my FE version (somewhat hesitantly) once I started using the M+TAP setup
When this lens was released, I was very hesitant to buy an MF-only lens, but it won me over after trying it. I always had an AF backup lens before, but now with the TAP I don't feel I need it as much.
I have the 50/1.2 Nokton also, but I can't tell which lens I used to take images on the TAP, they're pretty close. Too close to keep both--I think I'll end up parting with the CV50.
Al Trujillo wrote:
I'm asking people who have probably used both of these lenses....obvious differences aside (FL, min/max F-stop, elements/groups, price)...looking only at IQ output - is the CV 40/1.2 'like / not like / kind of like' a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4
Al
do you mean the zm, zf, or c/y distagon 35/1.4? All of those are more like each other than they are like the cv 40/12 fwiw.
they are not terribly similar, but i often take the cv 40/1.2 when i would prefer the c/y 35/1.4 but don't want the extra weight for narrow dof stuff and environmental portraiture. the zm is more different in wide open look from 40/1.2.
I have been using the 40/12. for a few years now and have posted a few images on the FM site. I cannot answer your question about the difference between the APO 35 and the CV40 but, in an album I created for the CV40 on my Flickr account you can see the type oh photos I have been shooting with the CV 40. Feel free to view the album here :https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/albums/72157719125912839/
Al Trujillo wrote:
Is it time to give this lens another try?
A couple of years ago, after reading a number of reviews, watching as many YT videos as I could find, and following this thread here on FM I purchased the CV 40/1.2.
Long story-short...I never bonded with it so off it went.
Background: I own two Voigtlander's that bookend the CV 40mm - the APO 35 and APO 65. IMO, as primarily a landscape photographer it doesn't get any better than those two. Enter the CV 40mm and I couldn't find the proper niche for it in my kit. But yet, I love the outcome of so many of images posted here on this thread.
Is it time to give it another try?
Before I decide whether to buy another can I ask your opinion(s) on what you feel the main difference is between the APO 35 and CV 40mm? And what is the primary use for your CV 40mm - landscape, street, environmental...??
I have been using the 40/12. for a few years now and have posted a few images on the FM site. I cannot answer your question about the difference between the APO 35 and the CV40 but, in an album I created for the CV40 on my Flickr account you can see the type of photos I have been shooting with the CV 40. Feel free to view the album here :https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/albums/72157719125912839/
Fred Miranda wrote:
I notice a lot of us keep cycling with the CV 40/1.2...selling it and then buying it back. I'm definitely one of them
Lovely images, folks!
Fred, I had the original Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f1.2 for several years, one of my favorite lenses back then before my expansion of lens collection. When Voigtlander introduced the Nokton 35mm f1.2 SE, I sold the 40mm and bought the 35mm as I prefer the slightly wider angle of view. I haven't used it much, not because I didn't like it, but because my photography interest has evolved. I kind of remember you did a comparison between the 40mm f1.2 and the 35mm f1.2 SE?
Fred, I had the original Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f1.2 for several years, one of my favorite lenses back then before my expansion of lens collection. When Voigtlander introduced the Nokton 35mm f1.2 SE, I sold the 40mm and bought the 35mm as I prefer the slightly wider angle of view. I haven't used it much, not because I didn't like it, but because my photography interest has evolved. I kind of remember you did a comparison between the 40mm f1.2 and the 35mm f1.2 SE?
They share the exact same optical design as the E-mount and Z-mount versions, so it might be of interest. These days I'm mainly shooting with the new version, either on the Leica or adapted to my modded Sony.
