I just checked out Camera Quest and found a positive review of them from... wait for it... FRED MIRANDA.
Ok, I guess they're legit.
Like another poster said, I'd prefer to deal with a small business anyway, but this is (for me) a significant investment, and I'd *prefer* to not have to gamble on someone else's return, or deal with going to the Post Office, as much of a good time that always is.
**EDIT**
I *have* had more than a few issues with Amazon Fulfillment. Would I be better off just ordering via the Camera Quest site?
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I buy all my Voigtlander stuff from Stephen (Camera Quest). First rate in every way. Me too, especially back in my film camera days.
Jan 08, 2018 at 12:10 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I agree, Philippe! We are in the minority, but I dislike the 55/1.8's rendering, and I loathe its terrible manual focus intensely.
I'm intrigued by this 40/1.2, however; so much that I read this entire 59-page thread over the weekend. And of course now I want one, but I'm not sure exactly what I would do with it! Questions to owners:
1) Do you notice much difference from 35mm in actual use? (I would think not)
2) I'm aware that it's less sharp at MFD, and that a dual element diopter (which I have in the form of a Canon 250D with 58mm thread) can help with that for closeups. As many of you know, I like flower closeups, often with wonky bokeh. I have a new Milvus 35/1.4 when I want smooth, but I don't have a 35mm "wonky", other than Loxia 35, which can give effects that I like with flower closeups. Have any of you seen much difference in that regard, if you've done much work at MFD?
IMO the 40mm f/1.2 kicks the 55 f/1.8 to the curb. I gave my copy of the 55 to my son. The 55 is a good lens, makes a good image, but for me lacked something, the 40mm has that something, the 40mm inspires me to use it, the 55 didn't.
I love 35mm, and the 40mm seems to render things a hair closer to how the eyes really see. I love lenses so I own both focal lengths.... the 40mm manual focus is just fun for me atleast.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I agree, Philippe! We are in the minority, but I dislike the 55/1.8's rendering, and I loathe its terrible manual focus intensely.
I'm intrigued by this 40/1.2, however; so much that I read this entire 59-page thread over the weekend. And of course now I want one, but I'm not sure exactly what I would do with it! Questions to owners:
1) Do you notice much difference from 35mm in actual use? (I would think not)
2) I'm aware that it's less sharp at MFD, and that a dual element diopter (which I have in the form of a Canon 250D with 58mm thread) can help with that for closeups. As many of you know, I like flower closeups, often with wonky bokeh. I have a new Milvus 35/1.4 when I want smooth, but I don't have a 35mm "wonky", other than Loxia 35, which can give effects that I like with flower closeups. Have any of you seen much difference in that regard, if you've done much work at MFD?...Show more →
Seems like if one of your prime uses for the lens is going to be closeups you'd want the best image possible - i.e. you'd want to use the diopter.
I have the Elpro 4 and a 58-55 step down ring. It doesn't vignette, but it's a pain to screw on/off if you're swapping back and forth. So, I tried the Xume 58mm magnetic filter mount (you need both the "filter holder" and the "lens adapter" halves for it to work). That ends up being 3 rings (2 Xumes and the step down ring), and it vignettes. However, I can put on the hood, a clear filter, and the Xume adapter without the Elpro and get no vignetting, so the lens can be used 'magnetic-ready' for the Elpro without side effects. When I then put the Elpro on with all the aforementioned items it vignettes, but for the convenience of quickly snapping on/off the diopter I can move forward a bit and shave off the corners in post. Add a pair of 55mm lens caps to either side of the Elpro, and the whole assembly fits in your front pocket when you're not using it. Get a third 55mm lens cap for your lens - the stock cap doesn't stick in the Xume adapter. The magnets aren't made for something as heavy as the Elpro, but they're plenty strong. Out of caution I probably wouldn't carry it around that way, though.
Thanks for your info - good to know and I'll keep it in mind if (when?) I get the 40/1.2.
I'll want to see what the diopter does to the bokeh. I won't use a diopter with my Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar for closeups, as an example. Although it does make the point of focus a bit sharper, it completely eliminates its unique bokeh effects, and for flower bokeh closeups, I'm more concerned about the rendering look than absolute sharpness. I do want the point of focus as sharp as possible, but not at the cost of a given lens' unique bokeh.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
2) I'm aware that it's less sharp at MFD, and that a dual element diopter (which I have in the form of a Canon 250D with 58mm thread) can help with that for closeups. As many of you know, I like flower closeups, often with wonky bokeh. I have a new Milvus 35/1.4 when I want smooth, but I don't have a 35mm "wonky", other than Loxia 35, which can give effects that I like with flower closeups. Have any of you seen much difference in that regard, if you've done much work at MFD?
I don't know what you are looking for personally and you may disagree with my use, but I am using the more "flawed" m-mount version, ahem, with the Fuji GFX 50s - I know it's a major transgression but I love manual and though Fuji lenses are great - I have the 45, 63, and 110mm lenses, I also love to adapt.
I'm experimenting now with the cv 40 f1.2 for m-mount plus the very same canon 250D and 500D both of which are outstanding. Now, I can't vouch for what it does on the sony - or leica for that matter - but I find it's rending and bokeh beautiful. LR can remove what vignetting occurs, and it does, but there isn't so much in most of the closeups and some actually add to the artistic rendering. By the way, I find it sharp enough and I'm hand holding as well.
Difference is in the character. 55 doesn’t have it. 40 has it mostly ecause if a somewhat wide view with so less dof, a treat and a shock to the eyes. 40 is like using a VSCO filter without using it. With 40 i can shoot a brick in ok light and it will still look good. 55 depends on the light and scene i am shooting. And of course 55 maybe the only 50 which is tack sharp wide open.
Lucinda wrote:
IMO the 40mm f/1.2 kicks the 55 f/1.8 to the curb. I gave my copy of the 55 to my son. The 55 is a good lens, makes a good image, but for me lacked something, the 40mm has that something, the 40mm inspires me to use it, the 55 didn't.
I love 35mm, and the 40mm seems to render things a hair closer to how the eyes really see. I love lenses so I own both focal lengths.... the 40mm manual focus is just fun for me atleast.
I do realise that because the CV 40/1.2 lens a newer premium lens designed for the Sony sensor that it will be sharper at f2 than the older Leica/Rokkor M 40/2. My question to those who have used both is how does the rendition differ between the lenses at f2 for subjects 1.5-2.5m away?
nandadevieast wrote:
Difference is in the character. 55 doesn’t have it. 40 has it mostly ecause if a somewhat wide view with so less dof, a treat and a shock to the eyes. 40 is like using a VSCO filter without using it. With 40 i can shoot a brick in ok light and it will still look good. 55 depends on the light and scene i am shooting. And of course 55 maybe the only 50 which is tack sharp wide open.
the Zony 50mm f/1.4 is also tact sharp wide open, in fact it is a lazer.
wolfloid wrote:
I do realise that because the CV 40/1.2 lens a newer premium lens designed for the Sony sensor that it will be sharper at f2 than the older Leica/Rokkor M 40/2. My question to those who have used both is how does the rendition differ between the lenses at f2 for subjects 1.5-2.5m away?
No contest; the Nokton is a lot better in every way than the Leica, at least wide open. Smoother bokeh, sharper, lesser aberrations in general, better colors, higher contrast, less flare.
Personally I think the Leica is useless on an a7X camera without sensor filter modification, if you don't stop down to get full DOF.
wolfloid wrote:
it will be sharper at f2 than the older Leica/Rokkor M 40/2.
I used both leica rokkor on film where they are very good. On A7 they are both to bad /soft at 2.0. I sold them all. Unfortunately both are no good option for a 40mm pancake lens.
For me personally extremely unfortunate,
cause I love its size, focuslength , 2.0, handling, design, Wight,. .....
Thanks Makten and Rsrsrs. I was hoping the 40/2 would be better than you portray it since it woul make such a small package
Never mind, I do have an alternative - the M 35/1.4 asph pre FLE. How does the rendition of this lens compare to the 40/1.2? I know the thicker cover glass on the A7rIII is not optimised for the Lux and that this will definitely affect the corners wide open (not at all important for my photography) but what about the mid frame dip? Is this made even worse by the Sony sensor or is it less of a problem when using the live view to specifically focus mid frame?
How will the central rendition vary between the two lenses at a range of apertures? Sharpness is very important, but so is SA and bokeh - I almost always convert to B&W - hence such a string of questions, since I’m also thinking of a Monochrome - though love the idea of AF and zoom on the Sony.
