Fred Miranda wrote:
Today is my birthday and I took the family for a hike. My wife managed to capture this picture with the 40/1.2 almost wide-open.
...ok, I pre-focused it for her.
You better be careful bud she does not walk off with your A7rIII or you will be shooting your daughters canon Rebel for awhile longer.
Ordered the 40mm last week during the $999 sale from CameraQuest (through Amazon). It showed in stock at the time. Was supposed to arrive today. This morning I get an email saying that due to 'lack of availability' they had cancelled my order. Sounds like they didn't want to sell any more at the sale price.
P.S.
Reordered from B&H, who has them in stock, and still at the sale price.
linnil wrote:
my choice is between a 35/1.2, ve 40/1.2 or vm 40/1.2.
judging by the sample, seems vm 40/1.2 is a lot worse than ve 40/1.2 on sony bodies. what about comparison to 35/1.2?
I have not compared them directly, but I used to own the 35/1.2 and while it worked very well, I think the new 40/1.2 is better. Note that this is on a Sony body—never used a Leica body.
I have owned the CV35/1.2. Without having done any direct comparison I have no problems saying the CV40/1.2 clearly is the better lens:
The CV35/1.2 has more of the typical Cosina purple/magenta pollution, the 40/1.2 is "sharper" at large openings, the 40/1.2 has better rendering despite the problems with the transition zone, the CV35/1.2 is the better landscape lens stopped down but it will be hard to tell the difference in normal prints, the CV 35/1.2 has no focus shift but that's not a problem with the mirror free Sony cameras.
I became curious about the CV40/1.2 performance at short distances with and without a close up lens attached.
I decided to try this out.
Background:
initial post and finding, by Makten, at page 32 post 9, then discussed a little back and forth
comments by fred, page 37 post 1
images by Fred page 37 post 10 and 15 (my comments on them at page 37 post 19)
And now for the boring job:
What:
I decided to do this systematically. Tripod, 2-sec delay, three exposures or iterations of each situation, different distances, at f/1.2 and f/2.0, daylight bulb (so near constant light, not perfect though as one of the bulbs popped so I had one light source only and the bulb has an RA-value of about 93 only).
Targets:
a) A standard USAF chart somewhat modified printed with a common 600dpi office laser printer
b) A middle aged woman with a heart of gold and loaded with patience, one series only
Distances:
0.75m, distance scale showed 0.75 and 1.3 (w and w/o Elpro 4 respectively) at f/1.2 and f/2, six images
1.00m, distance scale showed 1 and close to 3 meters
1.25m, scale showed 1.25 and the left edge of the infinity symbol
1.43m, scale showed something I forgot respectively was very very close to the infinity hard stop
and 1.05m with a living person in front of the camera
Disclaimer:
These results can be repeated only by me using my camera and lens. Anyone else will without doubt get a better result.
Please note:
All the images are shown with zero sharpening or other processing, as described under the crops which all are 100% crops. If you aren't used to this sort of peeping I recommend downsizing and sharpening and whatever else you usually do.
Here is an example:
All the other compilations mentioned above can be seen here.
Here is the one and only series of my better half:
Above: The top left sample is shaky (I probably touched the camera or tripod). That was unfortunate as I aimed for the eyebrow, the lashes and the iris in this series. Or, that is what I tried.
Feel free to comment or ask about details. My conclusion can wait a little.
Ooops. I just noticed a mistake in the post above. I forgot to dial down the exposure compensation when changing from USAF charts to poor E. The images of her are overexposed so you may keep that in mind.
For the fun of it I picked one of the naked lens-images and run it again through ACR and Photoshop:
This is more like a normal final result than the crops hint. I'm sorry for stretching your imagination.
SharpContrast wrote:
The Techart works better with the vm 40mm 1.2 than any other lens. It's brilliant for fast moving subjects (kids), using available light.
Sir, you seem like to be the only person that has both the e mount and the m mount. The pictures have been posted showed pretty big differences in image quality. What is your feeling so far after using it for a few days. I am also a heavy techart pro user. Was wondering if you are able to focus with the object off center well via techart pro on vm 40/1.2 also. Thanks!
linnil wrote:
Sir, you seem like to be the only person that has both the e mount and the m mount. The pictures have been posted showed pretty big differences in image quality. What is your feeling so far after using it for a few days. I am also a heavy techart pro user. Was wondering if you are able to focus with the object off center well via techart pro on vm 40/1.2 also. Thanks!
The m-mount is great, I'm using it far more than the e mount. The quality is absolutely superb, I've hardly ever woried about the corners with the sort of pictures i take, It's way more important to get the subject in focus. If you do want sharp corners you can stop the lens down to f8.
Off centre focusing is a doddle with single shot AF, pre focus in the centre then move the subject to the side, easy!
Good luck in your decision making, buying is half the fun, or though you probably know that😀
