I’m just a little tired of spending money on these front filter stuff. And it’s more about me just being lazy here. Nothing more but I’ll wait until a difinitive solution comes about. Your turn to be the guinea pig. I’m passing the buck here. Lol
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree. The lens performs best at infinity and the right diopter strength may allow some of that high performance to be achieved at closer distances. If that's worth or not, it's entirely subjective.
Let's not shoot this down without knowing the benefits first. I can already tell the improvement is not that big when testing my Elpro 3 (+1.66) and Nikon No.0 close-up lenses (+0.7) but there is definitely an improvement.
Some not 100% relevant results about the benefits:
I happen to have the right step up rings for the Loxia, so I tried an achromatic +2 on the Loxia 35, which is fairly weak at wide apertures and close up.
Focus at .67 metres.
Useful improvement at the centre, but considerably worse in the midfield (and that's refocussing for the midfield to deal with any field curvature)
Of course the Loxia is not much good at wide open and infinity either except dead centre, so we shouldn't have expected much.
So I'm looking forward to hearing from Fred or testing the midfield on the cv..
Luvwine wrote:
As I think about this, for the vast majority of my shots, a diopter would not be worth the hassle. If shooting at minimum focusing distance, I would just change lenses to say the CV 65/2. Perhaps I am missing something to be gained here, so happy to learn why the hassle of adding a diopter has advantages. I get that it is smaller and lighter than carrying a second lens, but how often is this going to be that useful?
Since I accidentally started this whole thing, I must say I wouldn't bother at all. I just happened to have the Nikon No.5 T laying around and tried it. But since I already have it and it doesn't take up any space, I'll probably bring it with me.
Most of the time I only use one lens when I'm photographing, so there is no "backup" lens in the bag. And then this thing makes some sense.
I've actually shot some flowers and stuff near MFD that I've then disregarded since they were far too unsharp. The diopter lens would definitely make a difference on those occasions.
But, I also like the glowiness and SA near MFD. Whether or not added sharpness is a good thing, depends on the subject.
Makten wrote:
Since I accidentally started this whole thing, I must say I wouldn't bother at all. I just happened to have the Nikon No.5 T laying around and tried it. But since I already have it and it doesn't take up any space, I'll probably bring it with me.
Most of the time I only use one lens when I'm photographing, so there is no "backup" lens in the bag. And then this thing makes some sense.
I've actually shot some flowers and stuff near MFD that I've then disregarded since they were far too unsharp. The diopter lens would definitely make a difference on those occasions.
But, I also like the glowiness and SA near MFD. Whether or not added sharpness is a good thing, depends on the subject. ...Show more →
Don't backpedal now. ...accident or not, this discovery is quite useful.
It is your fault, sebbe! You make it look so good with your lovely pics that tourists flock in unmanageable numbers! You ought to feel guilty taking and showing such fine pics!
davewolfs wrote:
Any owners of this lens ex owners of the Zeiss 35mm f/2? If so any preferences?
You mean the Loxia? I still own it and I like it better regarding colors and shots with lesser bokeh (~f/3.5). It has got a nicer transition zone but less nice bokeh (unless you stop down a bit where it gets better than the Nokton).
If you shoot mostly wide open, get the Nokton. If you shoot mostly stopped down, get the Loxia. The Nokton is a bit more versatile though, but both has quirks.
Edit: With "stopped down" I don't mean landscapes, but rather environmental semi-close stuff where DOF doesn't extend through the whole scene.
No the Distagon or classic ZE/ZF/ZF.2. The one which has the same formula as the current Milvus. Sorry for not making that clear and thanks for feedback regarding Loxia.
Makten wrote:
You mean the Loxia? I still own it and I like it better regarding colors and shots with lesser bokeh (~f/3.5). It has got a nicer transition zone but less nice bokeh (unless you stop down a bit where it gets better than the Nokton).
If you shoot mostly wide open, get the Nokton. If you shoot mostly stopped down, get the Loxia. The Nokton is a bit more versatile though, but both has quirks.
Edit: With "stopped down" I don't mean landscapes, but rather environmental semi-close stuff where DOF doesn't extend through the whole scene.
I like the Loxia better from f5.6. I like the Nokton better wider than f4. At f2 the Nokton is massively better unlesd you like soap bubble bokeh and SA. For landscape i prefer the fl of the Lox as well as stopped down quality....
But while i like the Loxia, the Nokton is close to the Lox stopped down, while the Lox is not close to the Nokton at f2 or 2.8...
davewolfs wrote:
Any owners of this lens ex owners of the Zeiss 35mm f/2? If so any preferences?
davewolfs wrote:
No the Distagon or classic ZE/ZF/ZF.2. The one which has the same formula as the current Milvus. Sorry for not making that clear and thanks for feedback regarding Loxia.
I've had that one too (or rather two of them). It was long ago, but that lens is a different animal. I've actually thought of getting it again, because it gave the most "3D" images I've ever been able to produce.
If you can live with the size (it's very long with the adapter required), heavy vignetting, lateral CA and quite a bit of barrel distortion, it's a phenomenal lens. Especially from MFD to ~1.5 meters or so. At larger distance, resolution gets lower while acutance goes from "good" to "extreme". The bokeh is similar to the Makro-Planar 50/2; "perfect" at near distance and a bit nervous further away. The transition zone is probably the best I've seen in any lens, ever.
If you don't need faster than f/2 and you love the "in your face" look, I'd say the Distagon 35/2 is a better lens than the Nokton.
The only images from the Distagon I've got online are old and small, but here are some...
I realize that most of these won't tell you anything about the lens. But... Even at this very small format, check out the bokeh here:
The background just "melts" away and the far away bokeh has low contrast. Something I've never seen in very fast lenses.
Makten wrote:
I've had that one too (or rather two of them). It was long ago, but that lens is a different animal. I've actually thought of getting it again, because it gave the most "3D" images I've ever been able to produce.
If you can live with the size (it's very long with the adapter required), heavy vignetting, lateral CA and quite a bit of barrel distortion, it's a phenomenal lens. Especially from MFD to ~1.5 meters or so. At larger distance, resolution gets lower while acutance goes from "good" to "extreme". The bokeh is similar to the Makro-Planar 50/2; "perfect" at near distance and a bit nervous further away. The transition zone is probably the best I've seen in any lens, ever.
If you don't need faster than f/2 and you love the "in your face" look, I'd say the Distagon 35/2 is a better lens than the Nokton.
The only images from the Distagon I've got online are old and small, but here are some...
These are really nice. Would love for Zeiss to give us a similar Batis. This lens was known for its 3D and was superior to the 1.4 (no longer the case with Milvus but that lens is huge).
Was it unwieldy on the A7?
Makten wrote:
I've had that one too (or rather two of them). It was long ago, but that lens is a different animal. I've actually thought of getting it again, because it gave the most "3D" images I've ever been able to produce.
If you can live with the size (it's very long with the adapter required), heavy vignetting, lateral CA and quite a bit of barrel distortion, it's a phenomenal lens. Especially from MFD to ~1.5 meters or so. At larger distance, resolution gets lower while acutance goes from "good" to "extreme". The bokeh is similar to the Makro-Planar 50/2; "perfect" at near distance and a bit nervous further away. The transition zone is probably the best I've seen in any lens, ever.
If you don't need faster than f/2 and you love the "in your face" look, I'd say the Distagon 35/2 is a better lens than the Nokton.
The only images from the Distagon I've got online are old and small, but here are some...
Hi to all! I'm new to this site and thanks to this thread, I got my copy of CV 40mm Nokton. Basically everything worked as expected, the good and the bad. Coming from RX1R that was stolen few months ago, this lens bring back a lot of memories, and more because it goes all the way to f1.2 that is actually sharp!
However, one concern that I have about the de-click ring. I never own any CV lens before, when I push the ring down I heard what I consider normal loud click sound, at the same time some kind of spring-stretching sound as if the spring inside was grinding. Is this normal?
Thanks in advance, I'll be on a trip soon and hope to share some pictures!
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Hi to all! I'm new to this site and thanks to this thread, I got my copy of CV 40mm Nokton. Basically everything worked as expected, the good and the bad. Coming from RX1R that was stolen few months ago, this lens bring back a lot of memories, and more because it goes all the way to f1.2 that is actually sharp!
However, one concern that I have about the de-click ring. I never own any CV lens before, when I push the ring down I heard what I consider normal loud click sound, at the same time some kind of spring-stretching sound as if the spring inside was grinding. Is this normal?
Thanks in advance, I'll be on a trip soon and hope to share some pictures!...Show more →
Welcome to FM!
I hear the same thing with the two copies of the CV 40/1.2 I've tried. It's interesting that the de-clicking function works different between Voigtlander models.
With the CV 10, CV 12 and CV 15, de-clicking is engaged by pulling the ring up. With the CV 40/1.2, it's by pushing down...Kinda confusing.
Thank you so much for your fast reply Fred! Now that I can have a peace of mind. And I really appreciate your effort of doing this review and being actively sharing your experiences with this lens. This will be my frequent visiting thread for the days to come.
One thing I wish to share is that, while the 24-70GM I have now has precise rendering and sharpness, it just doesn't capture the color the same way as this Nokton does, lack of soul is the word I would use. And for close focus, for some reason this lens doesn't do detailed rendering, it may be sharp, but lack of micro contrast or something. RX1R did a whole lot better job. I bought the GM lens thinking I can have lots of focal length covered, but low and behold, there are compromises.
I strongly believe that the Nokton will get stucked on my a9 for long long time...Thanks to everyone here!
I can already tell the improvement is not that big when testing my Elpro 3 (+1.66) and Nikon No.0 close-up lenses (+0.7) but there is definitely an improvement.
I just happened to have the Nikon No.5 T laying around and tried it. But since I already have it and it doesn't take up any space, I'll probably bring it with me. 
