Well you need to go get the CV 65 APO as. Compliment to it. Between the CV 65 and my Batis 135 the sharpest lens’s around. I love the 40 1.2 just need to be aware of its weaknesses. But do go out and shoot this at F2 and F2.8 as well on some test subjects. I really like the look here as well a those apertures. I got lucky on the 40 as I have a golden copy of it.
Hello Guy! I'm aware that you seems to have a really good copy, but since the information were scattered around in earlier posts, would you mind give a summarized words in what way that the lens is as perfect as it gets? Field curvature?
Mine seems to satisfied my need in terms of sharpness wide open focused at mid to far distance. Close distance yes it's not as sharp but stop down to f2 it's gorgeous, and basically the same as like using RX1R. I wouldn't use wide open for close up anyway, the DOF is so thin that basically showing bokeh rather than subjects. I usually won't go bigger than f2.8 when I use my RX1R for close range.
Oh and if it wasn't because my RX1R was stolen, I would still happily use it as my one and only camera. As you can tell, I'm a one lens shooter, but who knows, might want to get the 65mm some day when I needed it for specific shots.
Yes, good question: how do you define "a golden copy". Is this personal satisfaction with the item or are there some objective characteristics which define a lens in specs?
te4o wrote:
Yes, good question: how do you define "a golden copy". Is this personal satisfaction with the item or are there some objective characteristics which define a lens in specs?
te4o wrote:
Yes, good question: how do you define "a golden copy". Is this personal satisfaction with the item or are there some objective characteristics which define a lens in specs?
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
Fred, that is because some of the Voigtländer lenses are made by them, and others by Zeiss
Sebbe, masterful, inspiring shot of this iconic location! Did you manage to get it sharp at 1/6s handheld (wow!) or to deploy a tripod there and then (even wower!)
philber wrote:
Fred, that is because some of the Voigtländer lenses are made by them, and others by Zeiss
Sebbe, masterful, inspiring shot of this iconic location! Did you manage to get it sharp at 1/6s handheld (wow!) or to deploy a tripod there and then (even wower!)
Merci Phillippe for the kind words.
A few words to the venice-pictures: I'll never do photography journeys. My wife and I have only very few spare time together. Therefore we try to enjoy those days off as best as possible. Of course I can't turn off my "tunnel view" completely when I have a camera around my neck but there is no tripod, additional lenses or patience to wait for the perfect moment. I'll just point and shoot. Sometimes I look at the beautiful sunset only and let the camera off. I'm very happy with that because I need the recreation. In general, I tend to like freezing action, small DOF more then smoothed water/all sharp. Therefore I would not use a tripod anyway (except for framing).
To the story behind the picture: I was simply lucky to get a sharp shot (especially the gondoliere) and it is one of 5 pictures I took within a few secs at this spot. There were some photographers with tripod there but as I said I'm more about details then smoothed water. I walked along and thought it's a really boring scenery and the absence of light was just terrible. But I wanted to test the lens with f1.2 in a very low light situation and this was a good spot for that. As I came from the Biennale the ISO was set to 640 and EV-1. I missed to change that before. Otherwise I would rather tried to shoot this with f1.2, EV0, 1/30s, ISO12800 or with 1/15s to reduce the ISO. But then the chance of motion blur on the gondoliere would be too big. The RAW file was just a black plain. Thanks to the great sensor I could push the details back.
sebboh wrote:
hey Makten, have you ever tried the contax g 45/2? it seems like it might fit your style quite well.
Nope. The fiddly adapter required has put me off. And 45 is so close to 50 that I'm not sure it's worth it.
davewolfs wrote:
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?
If the Batis 25 gives any indication, such a lens would not draw like the classic Distagons. Nice, but different.
The 35/2 Distagon isn't that large or heavy, but the long adapter and the longish shape of the lens makes it a bit awkward on a mirrorless camera. In fact the ergonomics are great when shooting, but it's gonna be front heavy when carrying it around.
realVivek wrote:
What an odd statement!
Why is that odd? It's my personal perception based on the lenses I've owned, nothing else.
sebboh wrote: hey Makten, have you ever tried the contax g 45/2? it seems like it might fit your style quite well.
I'm not Martin but...
anyone wanting good bokeh from a fast 40mm lens should avoid the little Contax. That's in my humble opinion: I have owned the lens, two different copies, and the rendering wide open is pretty awful. How fun is a 45mm lens stopped down to f/2.8 or, even better, f/4?
The lens is nice enough stopped down, small, light and probably good for anyone into landscapes. I guess I'm missing something?
Jonas B wrote:
I'm not Martin but...
anyone wanting good bokeh from a fast 40mm lens should avoid the little Contax. That's in my humble opinion: I have owned the lens, two different copies, and the rendering wide open is pretty awful. How fun is a 45mm lens stopped down to f/2.8 or, even better, f/4?
The lens is nice enough stopped down, small, light and probably good for anyone into landscapes. I guess I'm missing something?
I happen to like shots where the bokeh just smoothens out the background a bit, which often requires stopping down. So it might suit me very well. I used the classic Planar 50/1.4 that way, since it was really soft wide open. That lens was truly amazing at ~f/2.5-4. It's also what makes me like the Loxia 35/2.
Jonas B wrote: sebboh wrote:
I'm not Martin but...
anyone wanting good bokeh from a fast 40mm lens should avoid the little Contax. That's in my humble opinion: I have owned the lens, two different copies, and the rendering wide open is pretty awful. How fun is a 45mm lens stopped down to f/2.8 or, even better, f/4?
The lens is nice enough stopped down, small, light and probably good for anyone into landscapes. I guess I'm missing something?
i agree the g45 bokeh is pretty terrible wide open, it's pretty good stopped down though (except for the hexagons). i don't think the 35/2 distagon has terribly good bokeh either. i was thinking specifically of makten's style and the shots he posted of the 35/2. the g45 excels 3D rendering at mid distance. it is similar in rendering to f1.4 planar but greater contrast, saturation, and dof for a given aperture.
Makten wrote:
I happen to like shots where the bokeh just smoothens out the background a bit, which often requires stopping down. So it might suit me very well. I used the classic Planar 50/1.4 that way, since it was really soft wide open. That lens was truly amazing at ~f/2.5-4. It's also what makes me like the Loxia 35/2.
---------------------------------------------
sebboh wrote:
i agree the g45 bokeh is pretty terrible wide open, it's pretty good stopped down though (except for the hexagons). i don't think the 35/2 distagon has terribly good bokeh either. i was thinking specifically of makten's style and the shots he posted of the 35/2. the g45 excels 3D rendering at mid distance. it is similar in rendering to f1.4 planar but greater contrast, saturation, and dof for a given aperture.
Fair enough, I understand I missed something about Makten's style. Here in this thread we had so many images taken at f/1.2 that I didn't think of much else. There was no need for me to reply.
Well, maybe; every time I hear people praise the G Contax 45/2 they seem to forget the lens is barely usable wide open. It is of course but not when there is anything busy in the background. The 3D rendering at mid distance - there I agree. I had fun with the lens that way but it never worked as a f/2 lens for me.
Update regarding adding achromat close up lens to the CV 40/1.2.
The CV 40/1.2 is a lens optimized for infinity distance. It performs best at long distances in terms of resolution and contrast.
The optimal range seems to be from 2.5m to infinity and resolution gradually degrades when focused closer than that. I find the worse performance starts at MDF until about 0.8m. For those saying their lenses are sharp, I agree, it's sharp for a f/1.2 lens even at non-optimal distances but the whole point of this is to make it even better.
Adding achromat close up lenses allow the CV 40/1.2 to focus at the 'optimal zone' and therefore there will be gains in resolution and contrast with less haze.
Which close up lens is the best? I tested this last night and like the Leica lenses the best. (Elpro 3 and Elpro 4).
The Minolta No.0 (0.94x diopter) does not match the IQ of the Leicas, especially when focusing off axis.
So for close-up photography, one could use the Elpro 3 (1.66x diopter) at closer range... > 0.5m until 0.7m with noticeable gains in resolution. (At MDF, I didn't detect much difference). However, it's a bit restrictive since the maximum distance would be 0.7m.
The Elpro 4 (0.75x diopter) could be used as a environment portrait option since at infinity, will let the lens focus at 1.5m.
The Minolta should be the 'in-between' option but from my initial tests, it does not match the IQ of the Leica across the frame. It's still better than bare but it may not be worth the trouble.
It I were to but only one close-up lens, it would be the Elpro 4 for its IQ and flexibility. (focus from MDF until 1.5m)
I love the CV 40/1.2 look (veil and all) when shooting at any distance but this could be a nice option for those striving to get sharper and more contrasty images at close range.
PS:
1) The Close-up lenses increase resolution even when stopping down the lens to f/1.7-2.
2) I also tried my Nikon No.0 close-up lens but it's not achromatic and results were not great, so it's out.
3) Both Elpro 3 and Elpro 4 have 55mm threads so a 58-55mm step-down ring would be needed. The good news is that there is no mechanical vignetting.
Sorry, no samples yet. I want to find a good subject and take some time to run a very precise test.
