wolfloid wrote:
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
If you get a good, modern copy it's really not bad. I have one of the newer, better-coated Minolta CL(E?) versions, in not-bad condition. It's not perfect, there is some wearing in the coatings for example.
At f/2.0 it's not very sharp. But the images are usable, and on an A7rII the files handle some sharpening to get it sharp-ish.
At f/2.8 I would call it acceptably sharp in the centre, and the rendering of the OOF areas is pretty good.
At f/4-f/5.6 it's decent across most of the frame.
By f/8 it's landscape-worthy to the edges.
It's not to the standard of the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2, obviously. But … it's half the size (it is tiny), and half (maybe) the price (for a good one). If you want 40mm and only have $400-500, this lens is a good choice.
(I also like the foldable rubber hood, it's cute.)
ps After looking at eBay prices, this lens seems to have gone up quite a bit in the last couple of years. If those prices are indicative, just buy the Voigtlander.
zaphodm wrote:
If you want 40mm and only have $400-500, this lens is a good choice.
Or get the Ultron 40/2. It's not as small, but it's cheaper and better. Also, such tiny lenses as the Leica/Rokkor isn't really pleasing to use, ergonomics-wise.
Fred Miranda wrote:
As I usually shoot landscapes under lower contrast lighting, I tested the CV 40/1.2 at infinity distance again. I wanted to confirm my previous findings with more precision and find out what's the best way to focus it, in order to minimize FC and focus shift.
I tested it at thirds of stop and with my copy, resolution across the field is optimal at f/4.5. Any smaller aperture does not increase resolution even towards the corners. (I can se a slight gain from f/4 and none at f/5)
Here are the crops at f/4.5 showing center, mid-field and extreme edge sections. As I wrote previously, I would not hesitate using this lens for landscapes....Show more →
These photos do not have the magenta CA edges that the original photos on page 1 have even at f/6.3.
Does Lightroom have a lens profile for this lens yet, as I can't confirm, and is that the difference in the photos I see. Maybe it is a longitudinal CA correction?
JimBuchanan wrote:
These photos do not have the magenta CA edges that the original photos on page 1 have even at f/6.3.
Does Lightroom have a lens profile for this lens yet, as I can't confirm, and is that the difference in the photos I see. Maybe it is a longitudinal CA correction?
Thanks, Fred for any help on this.
I am not Fred, but Lightroom does have a lens profile and the sliders in Lightroom to kill CA do a more than adequate job for the images I have taken. I notice the issue mostly when wide open or close but other than an additional step occasionally in post, I have not found the issue to be a problem.
Luvwine wrote:
I am not Fred, but Lightroom does have a lens profile and the sliders in Lightroom to kill CA do a more than adequate job for the images I have taken. I notice the issue mostly when wide open or close but other than an additional step occasionally in post, I have not found the issue to be a problem.
I am aware of the remove CA check box and the purple fringing slider in LR. I'm asking if either of these were used in the test shots referenced, or if LR has a lens correction for the 40/1.2 and if it was used.
I am aware of the remove CA check box and the purple fringing slider in LR. I'm asking if either of these were used in the test shots referenced, or if LR has a lens correction for the 40/1.2 and if it was used.
My interest is in this lens and the upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.4 FE lens....Show more →
Jim,
Most native lenses have a RAW CA correction built-in (applied), even if the corrections are turned OFF in-camera. The CV 40/1.2 does not have that and to reduce LaCA in Lightroom, a profile correction needs to be applied (LR has a profile for this lens) OR "Remove Chromatic Aberration" needs to be checked.
I don't remember if I checked that box in Lightroom for those samples but this lens shows noticeable lateral CA when uncorrected. Aberration control is definitely not it's forte.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jim,
Most native lenses have a RAW CA correction built-in (applied), even if the corrections are turned OFF in-camera. The CV 40/1.2 does not have that and to reduce LaCA in Lightroom, a profile correction needs to be applied (LR has a profile for this lens) OR "Remove Chromatic Aberration" needs to be checked.
I don't remember if I checked that box in Lightroom for those samples but this lens shows noticeable lateral CA when uncorrected. Aberration control is definitely not it's forte.
Has anybody done this for CaptureOne?
Amos
Jan 16, 2018 at 01:44 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
goo0h wrote:
Has anybody done this for CaptureOne?
Amos
You can. I've only had the lens two days, but there may or may not be in-camera corrections applied, and a "Manufacturer" (as distinct from "Generic") profile shows up in C1 by default on import. I'm using an a7 without any firmware update, so I can only assume the lens is able to transmit some sort of data to the camera - along with distance and aperture - without the camera knowing specifically *which* lens is being used.
Technology is a magical, magical thing.
I've turned off the in-camera settings, and turn off all automatic corrections when I import into C1, because I want to get a feel for how this lens behaves "in the raw" before I start applying corrections willy-nilly. There is definitely CA in heavily backlit foliage shots, but it's definitely easy to fix in C1 via Lens Corrections or Layers, if you prefer a local adjustment.
The shot of my kiddo with a bagel had zero corrections applied, and defaults off in-camera as well as in C1, so you can see that it's still quite impressive without any corrections.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jim,
Most native lenses have a RAW CA correction built-in (applied), even if the corrections are turned OFF in-camera. The CV 40/1.2 does not have that and to reduce LaCA in Lightroom, a profile correction needs to be applied (LR has a profile for this lens) OR "Remove Chromatic Aberration" needs to be checked.
I don't remember if I checked that box in Lightroom for those samples but this lens shows noticeable lateral CA when uncorrected. Aberration control is definitely not it's forte.
Thanks, Fred.
That second set on page 10 looks so much better in regards to CA. Whatever LR did, it looks way more clean than simply turning the magenta to gray.
That second set on page 10 looks so much better in regards to CA. Whatever LR did, it looks way more clean than simply turning the magenta to gray.
Yeap, it cleans up very nicely. Interestingly the "Remove Chromatic Aberration" option also clean a little bit of axial CA...so it's not only lateral. However further reduction of LoCA requires the manual sliders.
I've been looking but haven't as yet found them. Are there are any forum posts/articles showing the IQ of the M-Mount version on A7 cameras? I want this lens, but I don't know that I can give up the ability to AF to get it.
zaphodm wrote:
I've been looking but haven't as yet found them. Are there are any forum posts/articles showing the IQ of the M-Mount version on A7 cameras? I want this lens, but I don't know that I can give up the ability to AF to get it.
Thank you, Jonas! This thread, though I have read much of the 61 pages, is a tricky one to keep straight in your head at times (or remember exactly where things are).
Jan 20, 2018 at 10:27 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
zaphodm wrote:
I've been looking but haven't as yet found them. Are there are any forum posts/articles showing the IQ of the M-Mount version on A7 cameras? I want this lens, but I don't know that I can give up the ability to AF to get it.
Info and samples are still pretty sparse, but if you scroll back through this thread there is at least one person using the M version with a TAP. I'm interested too, because my FE mount absolutely smokes anything I've ever used at maximum aperture, so it would be worth looking into an M mount for the future.
