Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes they were handheld but I can see a noticeable difference in sharpness when focusing. For example, peaking gets much more apparent with the close-up lens. This was not a precise test as I noted, but I think tripod examples won’t be too much different.
The impression of "clarity", or contrast perhaps as the peaking reacts differently, may remain pretty much the same. However, a fair comparison would be nice considering the images may serve as reason to buy an Elpro or not. I'm interested in how much black turns into something brownish for example. Thinking about it I'll get the Elpro 4 anyway, and sets of step-up and -down rings.
I think the Elpro 4 is worth it because it has a good sweet spot. It’s not just a contrast improvement, there is resolution gain as well.
However, close to MFD, the difference is small since we stay below 1m with close up lens. Starting at 0.7m, the lens goes to ~ 2m with the lpro4 so there is a noticeable gain.
If you mainly shoot close ups at 0.7m, the lpro3 or Nikon 5t are even better since the lens will focus at infinity (instead of 2m)
Jonas B wrote:
The impression of "clarity", or contrast perhaps as the peaking reacts differently, may remain pretty much the same. However, a fair comparison would be nice considering the images may serve as reason to buy an Elpro or not. I'm interested in how much black turns into something brownish for example. Thinking about it I'll get the Elpro 4 anyway, and sets of step-up and -down rings.
Fred Miranda wrote:
(...)
If you mainly shoot close ups at 0.7m, the lpro3 or Nikon 5t are even better since the lens will focus at infinity (instead of 2m)
I have checked and my main "distance of interest" should be between 1 and 2 meters. So, I'll look for the Elpro 4, maybe I can find one with case fitting the lens and the step-down ring making it comfortable to toss into the bag somewhere.
I had both the Loxia 50 and the 50/2 ZM and was very excited for the Voigtländer 40/1.2 for street photography in the evenings due to its speed and size. I am hoping to be able to keep ISO at 640 in evening urban settings.
I decided to let the Loxia go and use the 40/1.2 when I want very sharp low light images with minimal noise and keep the 50/2 ZM when I want a (possibly less precise/clinical) classic rendering. Below are two recent images with the 40/1.2 and a Loxia 50 and 50/2 ZM image for comparison.
As a side note, I also have the Zeiss 35 ZM and have at times struggled with the lens on the Sony A7RII. Sometimes I get wonderful results and sometimes I struggle with processing the images. I did get a front filter correction but find it winds up longer than the 90/2 Summicron I have and it makes me not want to carry it around. I am excited to use the Voigtländer 40/1.2 a bit more and compare it to the Zeiss. The 35/1.4 ZM often remains glued to my film camera and it will be fun when I finally break down and get a used Leica MM or rent one again.
M-Mount version being delivered Friday! Its starting to feel like Christmas has come early 😀 Let's hope it performs as well as the e-mount on the A7rmkii.
I'm bringing only my Sony a9, and this wonderful Nokton f1.2 for the trip, and i'm only 3rd day into the trip but can't wait to share some pictures. I didn't felt I'm limited with lens choice (except maybe some food shots in cramped restaurants in Tokyo, 40mm FOV is slightly too tight but still manageable). This combo really reminds me of my RX1R, and more versatile due to bigger aperture and IBIS.
I will be having the m-mount and e-mount versions of this lens for a short while. Are there any specific compaisons you would like me to do for the forum?
The a9 and Nokton combo is probably the closest thing to RX1R without being a fixed lens camera! Still, it doesn't render the bokeh at close range like RX1R which is unique - the transition zone seems to happen immediate and defocused, which sometimes yield a very unique and pleasant look, but sometimes distracting as the in focus area seems thinner than it should and smaller aperture is needed and thus, losing light. It also means I can actually shoot at a bigger aperture on Nokton to achieve the same result, but sharpness I still give it to RX1R. Also I still find I prefer the 35mm focal length as the slightly wider FL seems to suit most situation better than 40mm.
Until something better comes out, especially at 35mm, this lens will remain glued to my a9 for long time.
This forum is really tough on my bank account! With a shelf full of glass in every imaginable FL, I thought I was done. Now, after reviewing all the photos in this forum thread, I need this lens.
On the other hand, I have missed the RX1R that I sold some time back. I was considering a used RX1RII. Now I think I will re-purpose one of my A7RII's (that I was going to sell when my A7RIII comes), using this Nokton lens for travel. The RX1RII is about 33mm vs the Nokton's 40mm, but I do a lot of stitching for wide-angle shots, anyway... plus, I will have IBIS.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
The a9 and Nokton combo is probably the closest thing to RX1R without being a fixed lens camera! Still, it doesn't render the bokeh at close range like RX1R which is unique - the transition zone seems to happen immediate and defocused, which sometimes yield a very unique and pleasant look, but sometimes distracting as the in focus area seems thinner than it should and smaller aperture is needed and thus, losing light. It also means I can actually shoot at a bigger aperture on Nokton to achieve the same result, but sharpness I still give it to RX1R. Also I still find I prefer the 35mm focal length as the slightly wider FL seems to suit most situation better than 40mm.
Until something better comes out, especially at 35mm, this lens will remain glued to my a9 for long time.
I have the CV 35 1.7 and the Pentax 31 Limited. After about a 2 year search, these are the two best alternatives to the RX1. I prefer the Pentax 31 1.8. It's sharp and has brilliant colors WO, but has some fringing (a bit more than the CV but not much, and coma till f4). It also has a bit of SA WO in the best way. Af first I initially found the focusing difficult (focus ring turns the Nikon way) and it's a short focus throw, but I've gotten used to it and can focus very quickly in MF, faster than the CV or zm 35 1.4 I owned. I think Jonas tested, and recently sebboh, but it resolves terrifically at 2.8 all over. The CV gets lots of love on FM (as it should), but I think the pentax would get more love with more exposure.
InFocus2014 wrote:
This forum is really tough on my bank account! With a shelf full of glass in every imaginable FL, I thought I was done. Now, after reviewing all the photos in this forum thread, I need this lens.
On the other hand, I have missed the RX1R that I sold some time back. I was considering a used RX1RII. Now I think I will re-purpose one of my A7RII's (that I was going to sell when my A7RIII comes), using this Nokton lens for travel. The RX1RII is about 33mm vs the Nokton's 40mm, but I do a lot of stitching for wide-angle shots, anyway... plus, I will have IBIS.
OK, now I am done.......Show more →
The 40mm vs 33mm-ish is really some significant difference. I have not gotten used to it, in tight space like restaurant or similar it's harder to get full view. But at the same time there isn't much need to go close either. Also some large object or building is harder to get a full view too especially when there are bunch of tourists and no good spot to frame. Otherwise, it's actually more useful than RX1R due to being closer view to most subjects.
Speaking about stitching...
nehemiahphoto wrote
I have the CV 35 1.7 and the Pentax 31 Limited. After about a 2 year search, these are the two best alternatives to the RX1. I prefer the Pentax 31 1.8. It's sharp and has brilliant colors WO, but has some fringing (a bit more than the CV but not much, and coma till f4). It also has a bit of SA WO in the best way. Af first I initially found the focusing difficult (focus ring turns the Nikon way) and it's a short focus throw, but I've gotten used to it and can focus very quickly in MF, faster than the CV or zm 35 1.4 I owned. I think Jonas tested, and recently sebboh, but it resolves terrifically at 2.8 all over. The CV gets lots of love on FM (as it should), but I think the pentax would get more love with more exposure. ...Show more →
I mainly looking for something that resemble the rendering of the RX1R, I searched about the lenses you mentioned, none seems to resemble closer. But the Pentax looked like a great lens!
Hard to describe the look of RX1R, it's not a classic look, yet doesn't look digital. Perhaps it's what people called modern classic. The sharpness wide open is stunning!
This e-mount makes the ZM35mm 1.4 look very expensive, it handles better and can provide just as much 'Pop'! Also prefer the colour to the Zeiss. Voigtlander has a hit on there hands 😀 I'm now thinking of selling my 35mm 1.7 ultron and Zeiss 50mm 1.5 as this 40mm can do everything! They are two lenses I thought I would never get rid off.
Do you miss the lens? The ultron is probably sharper at f1.7 but I'm not sure how much that matters? You can always claw that back in post a little with the 40mm.
SharpContrast wrote:
Do you miss the lens? The ultron is probably sharper at f1.7 but I'm not sure how much that matters? You can always claw that back in post a little with the 40mm.
The CV 40 at F2 pretty much is equal to the 35 at 1.7 on center.
