Inspect Fred's first pg review, I'd say this lens was designed for M use and tweak for E. The sensor stack effect seems very obvious and more sensitive to the way focusing.
On M, I can see mid frame slightly worse than center and corner at f2 (Due to FC, and corner show more SA). but from f2.8 to f8, focus either corner, mid-frame or center, I don't get much difference on M.
I know it is 24M vs 42M, but still feel astigmatism is strong on a7RII IMO.
Fred thanks for all the hard work! I wonder how the Canon EF 50mm F1.2 might compare. Not exactly the same F but the same F stop. Yes, 30% more expensive but with the promise of, adapted, AF.
zhangyue wrote:
Inspect Fred's first pg review, I'd say this lens was designed for M use and tweak for E. The sensor stack effect seems very obvious and more sensitive to the way focusing.
On M, I can see mid frame slightly worse than center and corner at f2 (Due to FC, and corner show more SA). but from f2.8 to f8, focus either corner, mid-frame or center, I don't get much difference on M.
I know it is 24M vs 42M, but still feel astigmatism is strong on a7RII IMO.
That's a shame if it was designed for M use . . . it makes no sense since they will sell far more E mount versions of this lens.
I suspect what really happened is that due to the much thinner sensor cover thickness of the Leica cameras it was far far easier to design this lens to work well as compared to the thick cover glass on the Sony cameras where they likely did the best they could w/o blowing up the lens design/cost/etc.
My initial copy is at B&H being swapped out for another, hopefully better optically performing better, copy.
I really like this lens, but for my uses it needs to perform as good as Fred's copy, if not it will be going back and I'll have to see how the 35/1.4 turns out, get the 35/1.7 CV (+PCX), or just keep truckin' on with my very very good, but not-so-fast 35/2.8 Sony. I really wished the 35/2 Lox was much better than it is or that would be in my bag.
SoundHound wrote:
Fred thanks for all the hard work! I wonder how the Canon EF 50mm F1.2 might compare. Not exactly the same F but the same F stop. Yes, 30% more expensive but with the promise of, adapted, AF.
I used the 50/1.2L for many years. I have not tested it with the Sony 42MP sensor but remember it being optimized for long distances as well. The FL difference will be quite apparent though as the CV 40/1.2 feel like a wide angle lens.
There is also weight to consider. The Canon plus smart adapter will feel twice as heavy.
zhangyue wrote:
On M, I can see mid frame slightly worse than center and corner at f2 (Due to FC, and corner show more SA). but from f2.8 to f8, focus either corner, mid-frame or center, I don't get much difference on M.
Strange in that the images from M cameras seen on other sites, seemed a bit washed out and not as sharp in the center. I thought that unlike the UWA series, this particular design was created for the E mount and subsequently adapted for M
jhinkey wrote:
RMA back to B&H printed out.
All boxed up and ready to send back tomorrow.
I have the worst luck with lenses while Guy seems to have the best.
Cold comfort to you but haven't had much luck with brand new CV lenses either.
A 4/180 bought new seemed never to sharpen up at distance whilst a 3,5/20 SL II was a total dud, even at ƒ/11.
When you land a great sample, you get an unmatched bargain for the price (have 2 such gems: 2,5/125 -sold-, and a 3,5/28 VM) but there's a risk in the weak QC and after-sales support. In the US, I think only Camera Quest and Photo Village are authorized importers; the former has a repair guy locally who works on troubled glass. Don't know what BH does; they probably just send you a new one.
Quick question everyone. I haven't gone through the whole thread, but is this lens significantly better than the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 Nokton? I love the versatility of the 40mm FL and I'd be willing to trade up if the performance is better while still keeping relatively compact. I'm looking to get it in Leica M mount so I can use it on my Techart Pro adapter. Thanks for any insights!
j.liam wrote:
The CV 40 Nokton is a completely different optical formula; older style, no aspherical elements and lots of focus shift IIRC.
The newer lens is a modern design.
I'm aware of that, but in real world photography how big is the difference? Is it noticeably better or just slightly better? I've taken lots of great shots on the 40mm 1.4 Nokton. Some people complained the 15mm 4.5 Heliar II was atrocious, but I still take good pictures with it and the color shift issue doesn't bother me at all. I guess I'm less picky than most!
If you're using it on an EVF camera, nothing at all, except for the veiling flare, coma and low contrast wide-open. It is a specialized 'look' with certain appeal, after all. The Nikon 50/1.2 AIs, still in production, does the same thing.
The CV 40/1.4 was an OK lens on my A7R/RII.
Not great pointed at the sun, not particularly sharp wide open, and stopped down it had a lot of dips in sharpness across the frame starting not too far from the center.
The ergonomics were also very difficult with the focusing tab always being in the wrong place for me. Loved the look and mechanicals of the lens, but optically it wasn't that great.
Compared to the center, at f1.2 I see corners of -0.8EV, -0.5EV, and two corners -1.7EV.
At f4 I get +0.0, +0.25, and the same two corners at -1EV.
I haven't had time to complete a clean run of test images, but I haven't noticed large differences in image quality between the corners. (Though it's a bit hard to discriminate between levels of mush at wide apertures.)
I've not noticed anything unusual about the uniformity of light fall-off in different corners, though I've not been looking for it either.
Hopefully my 2nd copy will be back this week from B&H and, along with some nice weather being predicted, I'll be able to look at the vignetting too.
Is there a consensus yet if this is a viable replacement for the Loxia 35/50 combination? I have the 21 and I'm looking to compliment it with either the 40/1.2 or the Loxia combo.
ChrisLovesUgly wrote:
Is there a consensus yet if this is a viable replacement for the Loxia 35/50 combination? I have the 21 and I'm looking to compliment it with either the 40/1.2 or the Loxia combo.
Depends on your preferences. The 40 is much better if you like short DOF and/or shooting in low light, while the loxias render more "delicate" when stopped down a bit. The transition zone is also worse on the Nokton, which can be problematic at times.
I'll keep my Loxia 35 but sell the 50. But if I had none of these lenses I would choose the Nokton for maximum versatility.
Makten wrote:
Depends on your preferences. The 40 is much better if you like short DOF and/or shooting in low light, while the loxias render more "delicate" when stopped down a bit. The transition zone is also worse on the Nokton, which can be problematic at times.
I'll keep my Loxia 35 but sell the 50. But if I had none of these lenses I would choose the Nokton for maximum versatility.
Thank you, that's very useful. I like using 35 when it's my only lens, but prefer more of 21/24 and a 50/55 when bringing two. I think a 40 would be okay, but I never really got along with the CV Nokton 40/1.4 when I had it. I'm not sure if it was the focal length or the handling that I didn't like - I found it plenty sharp when stopped down though.
