jhinkey wrote:
Oh, and BTW - B&H did a pretty poor job packaging the 40/1.2.
Way big enough box, but they threw in a modicum of bubble wrap just to say they did, thus letting the Voigtlander box fly all around in side the shipping box.
Not cool.
I had the same experience within the last two weeks with a Batis 85 from B & H. They are either getting very sloppy or putting way to much faith in the OEM packaging. The type of packing we experienced can lead to punctures in the box and who knows what else. I was surprised.
Sounds like you would love the new version of the Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 Heliar, that has similar colours to the 40mm1.2 but the rendering is definitely not course, and it's a super sharp lens!
Makten wrote:
The character of Voigtländer lenses seem to be all over the place, which makes it a bit of a gamble getting one. I've owned a bunch and haven't been very pleased with colors, except for the 15/4.5 (Mk 1) and 40/1.4 (yes, that one!). The Nokton is special here too, with sort of "bold" colors but in a very good way. The images can take a lot of abuse in PP when pushing colors around. Or maybe the colors are just suited for cranking them up?
When shooting Zeiss lenses, I'm often more careful with the sliders since the files look kind of "natural" without doing very much.
Sharpness-wise, I would definitely have chosen the Loxia 35 for this and similar shots, though. The rendering stopped down is a bit "coarse", which I've previously mentioned on the topic of modern, aspherical lenses. The Batis 25 does the same, while the Loxia 35 and 50 gives an apparent larger DOF and finer detail at ~f/8-11 and thereabout. ...Show more →
SharpContrast wrote:
Sounds like you would love the new version of the Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 Heliar, that has similar colours to the 40mm1.2 but the rendering is definitely not course, and it's a super sharp lens!
The thing is, I don't print. I mean never. So it really doesn't matter to me. But I'm noticing and liking or not liking what I see. Anyway, I've seen some Heliar shots and it seems to suit my taste. The only problem is that I don't like the 50 mm focal length.
My dream lens would be a ~40 mm that draws like the Zeiss ZE/ZF 50/1.4 Planar, but that was sharp wide open (which the Planar really is not). I traded my Sony 55/1.8 for a Loxia 50, and even if it's good and I like it better than the Sony, it's not at all like the 1.4.
The Nokton is something completely different and I like it for other reasons. But it's not what I really want. Just a good lens that works and has nice properties for allround use, even at f/1.2. That's worth a lot.
SharpContrast wrote:
Sounds like you would love the new version of the Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 Heliar, that has similar colours to the 40mm1.2 but the rendering is definitely not course, and it's a super sharp lens!
The CV 50/3.5 is screaming sharp to the very corners even wide open. I'm VERY impressed. i will post a mini-review tomorrow.
Cool Fred I look forward to your review! I new after the first 4 or 5 shots that the heliar was a keeper, it gives you so much detail the images seem to have a surreal look to them, it's hard to explain really, but I'm sure you'll do a better job than me 😀
kaioyang wrote:
No front filter required and it's sharp at the corners? Look forward to seeing the review.
The corners wide open are similar to what I get with my CV 65/2 and Batis 135/2.8 lenses. It's actually pretty amazing for such small lens. (Definitely better than Loxia 50/2 at wider apertures)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The corners wide open are similar to what I get with my CV 65/2 and Batis 135/2.8 lenses. It's actually pretty amazing for such small lens. (Definitely better than Loxia 50/2 at wider apertures)
Wow. You mean the corners wide open are similar to what those lenses do at f 3.5 or when they are wide open?
Is it as good or better than Lox at say, f5.6? And still at f8?
If so it could be a very tempting alternative to the Loxia for me, as I use it as a hiking-landscape lens: almost always stopped down, and when weight is critical.
One interesting question is how it compares with the previous release from 2009 (which is optically identical I think but maybe the new has better coatings?). That one was collapsible, and very pretty....
Well, a preliminary test of my copy seems like left side of the frame is noticeably weaker than then right at all apertures.
Need to go back and test it again focusing the far right and far left to see if it improves at all. I found that even the best of the corners is just OK at f/4. Center 1/4 of the frame is sharp as heck right from f/1.2.
Meanwhile a shot at MFD - boy does this lens get soft at 0.3m . . . though it will make a sharp looking image at small sizes.
I spoke to them and I don't think there will be a new firmware released for this feature. The A7R III 'already' supports EyeAF with Techart Pro's current version. Where did you read they will release a new firmware?
jhinkey wrote:
Well, a preliminary test of my copy seems like left side of the frame is noticeably weaker than then right at all apertures.
Need to go back and test it again focusing the far right and far left to see if it improves at all. I found that even the best of the corners is just OK at f/4. Center 1/4 of the frame is sharp as heck right from f/1.2.
Meanwhile a shot at MFD - boy does this lens get soft at 0.3m . . . though it will make a sharp looking image at small sizes.
Bummer. Sounds like you need to send it back, it may have considerable skew. This seems (thankfully) to be rare with this lens so you ought get a good replacement. It does get softer at MFD, though look through this thread for advice on using an achromatic diopter when you care about near-MFD performance.
genji wrote:
It’s certainly an unusual looking lens. Is it collapsible, like a couple of the earlier versions?
No it’s not, but the optically identical 2009 version and some earlier ones are. The nickel 2009 version is gorgeous. May have older coatings of course.
DavidBM wrote:
Bummer. Sounds like you need to send it back, it may have considerable skew. This seems (thankfully) to be rare with this lens so you ought get a good replacement. It does get softer at MFD, though look through this thread for advice on using an achromatic diopter when you care about near-MFD performance.
Yeah, I need to make sure it's not my flange mount, though I don't see this with my 65/2 CV.
Anyway, I've seen some Heliar shots and it seems to suit my taste. The only problem is that I don't like the 50 mm focal length. 
