Makten wrote: The middle will also be affected by the sensor filter stack, if the exit pupil is large (and close) enough. (...)
Jonas B wrote:
That may explain it. I have to think a little about this considering the good results I've seen from other fast lenses, including fast M-mount ones, when used on Sony's A7 cameras. I'm talking about the center only now.
i've tested 4 different film era f/1.2 lenses on the a7 vs a7 kolari UT and all were noticeably better in the center on the UT.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Only for a slight better center. I was referring to sharpness across the field.
I don't think I was looking only at center when I was evaluating, but we are doubtless splitting hairs either way. If I am shooting at infinity for best results on a tripod, I am stopping down beyond F4 anyway. I do appreciate you pointing out the hard stop working as I had not arrived at that technique when you posted about it so thank you for that!
Luvwine wrote:
I don't think I was looking only at center when I was evaluating, but we are doubtless splitting hairs either way. If I am shooting at infinity for best results on a tripod, I am stopping down beyond F4 anyway. I do appreciate you pointing out the hard stop working as I had not arrived at that technique when you posted about it so thank you for that!
Yes, it's also possible that lenses are not calibrated perfectly equally. Anyways, this is mainly due to focus shift and field curvature. With apertures wider than f/4 or smaller, the focusing ring seems to be optimal before the hard stop and it changes slightly depending on the selected aperture.
linnil wrote:
It will be nice if we could find out what pcx works best with 40 1.2 vm.
Certainly interesting for someone shooting M and Sony.
But it would be surprising (though not impossible) if adding any stock PC filter to the M mount version would get close to the performance of the E mount version where the design has been optimized overall.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have both lenses and here are my personal thoughts:
1) Resolution/contrast: The CV 35/1.7 is one of the sharpest 35mm lenses in the market. It's already amazing wide open at center while the CV 40/1.2 needs to be stopped down to f/1.7 to match it. This is at infinity though. At closer distance and MFD, the CV 40/1.2 never approaches the CV 35/1.7's performance.
2) Specular Highlights quality: The CV 35/1.7 has asphericals but no traces of onion ring pattern, so its bokeh balls are pretty clean. That's not the case with the 40/1.2.
3) OOF smoothness: I consider the CV 35/1.7's rendering smooth even at mid-distances. They pretty much match each other at f/1.7 but the CV 40/1.2's bokeh balls won't be rounded anymore. (polygon)
4) Aberration control: The CV 35/1.7 is better control for LaCA, LoCA and coma wide open.
5) Blur will be noticeably higher with the CV 40/1.2 wide open since it's 2/3rd stops faster and longer in FL compared to the CV 35/1.7. That's really the reason to get the CV 40/1.2 instead. However, the CV 35/1.7 is so sharp wide open, that there is pop and subject isolation even though it's a slower lens.
6) The CV 35/1.7 'needs' a corrective lens to perform best with the stock Sony sensor. I've tried many PCX front lens (2.5, 4m, 5m) and the best is 5m. Field curvature is corrected without any loss of sharpness at center.
7) The CV 35/1.7 + PCX + adapter is still lighter (by 100g) and skinnier than the CV 40/1.2. However it's a bit longer. See first post.
8) They both perform similarly at infinity when stopping down to f/5.6. Optimum aperture is about f/6.3 for both (center to corner resolution)
Thank you for the details.
I dismissed the CV35/1.7 after seeing the initial images with their totally weird focus distribution. It seems as you got a long way with the PCX filter!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have both lenses and here are my personal thoughts:
1) Resolution/contrast: The CV 35/1.7 is one of the sharpest 35mm lenses in the market. It's already amazing wide open at center while the CV 40/1.2 needs to be stopped down to f/1.7 to match it. This is at infinity though. At closer distance and MFD, the CV 40/1.2 never approaches the CV 35/1.7's performance.
2) Specular Highlights quality: The CV 35/1.7 has asphericals but no traces of onion ring pattern, so its bokeh balls are pretty clean. That's not the case with the 40/1.2.
3) OOF smoothness: I consider the CV 35/1.7's rendering smooth even at mid-distances. They pretty much match each other at f/1.7 but the CV 40/1.2's bokeh balls won't be rounded anymore. (polygon)
4) Aberration control: The CV 35/1.7 is better control for LaCA, LoCA and coma wide open.
5) Blur will be noticeably higher with the CV 40/1.2 wide open since it's 2/3rd stops faster and longer in FL compared to the CV 35/1.7. That's really the reason to get the CV 40/1.2 instead. However, the CV 35/1.7 is so sharp wide open, that there is pop and subject isolation even though it's a slower lens.
6) The CV 35/1.7 'needs' a corrective lens to perform best with the stock Sony sensor. I've tried many PCX front lens (2.5, 4m, 5m) and the best is 5m. Field curvature is corrected without any loss of sharpness at center.
7) The CV 35/1.7 + PCX + adapter is still lighter (by 100g) and skinnier than the CV 40/1.2. However it's a bit longer. See first post.
8) They both perform similarly at infinity when stopping down to f/5.6. Optimum aperture is about f/6.3 for both (center to corner resolution)
My 40 is really good as you seen earlier in the Big Bronco tests. I even put it up against the CV 65 and it was really close. I think some copy variance is at play her
some very not interesting pictures when I was walking my dog today.
I stated what the F stop is and where i put the focus at. Most pics were taken at 1.2 as that is what lots of people care about the most. Used TAP to focus, some might not have been focused perfectly.
linnil wrote:
some very not interesting pictures when I was walking my dog today.
I stated what the F stop is and where i put the focus at. Most pics were taken at 1.2 as that is what lots of people care about the most. Used TAP to focus, some might not have been focused perfectly.
SharpContrast wrote: I notice there is no purple fringing anywhere... (...)
I see quite some fringe at the expected places. My question is why the EXIF says f/2.0 for every image, and a SAM DT lens. This is off topic but shouldn't the camera shift down to APS-C mode if you trick it to believe you are uding a DT lens? Or maybe it has done that? I'm a bit puzzled.
GMPhotography wrote:
You using the TAP. That’s why
As an RX1-user, until very recently, I haven't followed the lengthy discussions about that adapter. Are you saying the TAP tells the camera it is an APS-C AF and f/2.8 lens and then you get uncriopped images with f/2 in the EXIF?
Jonas B wrote:
As an RX1-user, until very recently, I haven't followed the lengthy discussions about that adapter. Are you saying the TAP tells the camera it is an APS-C AF and f/2.8 lens and then you get uncriopped images with f/2 in the EXIF?
It's weird how they did this. Yes, for your image to be properly exposed, the 'camera' should be set to aperture "f/2" and that will show in the EXIF regardless of your 'lens' aperture.
