Just about every image I see posted with this lens just has so much nice pop to it. It’s become my main thrill lens. I did buy back the CV65 yesterday and I bought a CV 28 ultron to hold me until the Loxia 25 comes out. I keep coming back to look lenses in my primes. This one is like on top of the list for that
GMPhotography wrote:
Not sure in this very long thread it has been mentioned but I do find this lens easy for focus and nail even stopped down.
I agree. This lens has been nailed to my camera since I got it! It's an easy lens to love. It's funny, when I first started seeing reports on this lens, I was in the maybe camp so I purchased the 65/2 instead and stayed with a couple of different 35s. Once I got this lens in my hands, it felt easy to use and sharp like the 65/2 but with a different character and rendering. Both are stellar optics. Voigtlander is on a roll.
Hi GMP
I have the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon. Going to buy the 40/1.2 next month.
Looking at the Ultron 28/2, but curious to learn more about why you’re considering the Loxia 25.
What does “look lenses” mean?
Many thanks, Rob
GMPhotography wrote:
Just about every image I see posted with this lens just has so much nice pop to it. It’s become my main thrill lens. I did buy back the CV65 yesterday and I bought a CV 28 ultron to hold me until the Loxia 25 comes out. I keep coming back to look lenses in my primes. This one is like on top of the list for that
I've continued to debate whether I need this lens, or does it duplicate what I've already got too closely. For the second time, I've read the entire huge thread, and the rendering and pop have convinced me that I have to have it. No, "need" doesn't enter the picture.
It arrives next week, and I'll take it for a spin at Notre Dame's Snite Museum shortly afterward.
Embarrassed to say that i'm actually past my 2nd read through. Selling lenses and saving and will order it at the end of the month. Danny, please post photos, you know we need more
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
Resistance is futile.
I've continued to debate whether I need this lens, or does it duplicate what I've already got too closely. For the second time, I've read the entire huge thread, and the rendering and pop have convinced me that I have to have it. No, "need" doesn't enter the picture.
It arrives next week, and I'll take it for a spin at Notre Dame's Snite Museum shortly afterward.
RobertHolloway wrote:
Embarrassed to say that i'm actually past my 2nd read through. Selling lenses and saving and will order it at the end of the month. Danny, please post photos, you know we need more
So what are the odds of getting a good one or a dud on the CV 40/1.2? I keep telling myself “No”, but keep thinking this would replace my Loxia 35 & 50, with extra aperture to boot... As Danny said, resistance may be futile but I’m among those that like the Lox 35 and have a good one.
123_Repeater wrote:
If I didn't have the mitakon 50mm id be all over this lens
Funny, I'm selling my Mitakon 50mm f 0.95 to finance this lens. The shots on this thread completely convinced me re IQ and I think 40mm will be more useful for me than 50mm. Mitakon is also about 700g. I do love my Mitakon though.
Mathieu18 wrote:
So what are the odds of getting a good one or a dud on the CV 40/1.2? I keep telling myself “No”, but keep thinking this would replace my Loxia 35 & 50, with extra aperture to boot... As Danny said, resistance may be futile but I’m among those that like the Lox 35 and have a good one.
I wondered about the "odds" too. I hope I'll get a good one on the first try; I'll report findings here.
I also like the Lox 35, which is one of the main reasons that I hesitated to get the 40/1.2 for a long time. After looking again at the latter's rendering in samples here, I decided that it's quite different, and of course it's 1.5 stops faster too. I'll see what I think when I have a chance to compare them, and if it turns out that they're closer than expected, it's not impossible that I decide to let go of the Loxia. (Unlikely, but nothing's impossible.)
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I wondered about the "odds" too. I hope I'll get a good one on the first try; I'll report findings here.
I also like the Lox 35, which is one of the main reasons that I hesitated to get the 40/1.2 for a long time. After looking again at the latter's rendering in samples here, I decided that it's quite different, and of course it's 1.5 stops faster too. I'll see what I think when I have a chance to compare them, and if it turns out that they're closer than expected, it's not impossible that I decide to let go of the Loxia. (Unlikely, but nothing's impossible.)...Show more →
Danny, just keeping it real, I've seen some bad apples...but the same goes for the Lox 35.
Thanks, look forward to hearing what you think of it!
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I wondered about the "odds" too. I hope I'll get a good one on the first try; I'll report findings here.
I also like the Lox 35, which is one of the main reasons that I hesitated to get the 40/1.2 for a long time. After looking again at the latter's rendering in samples here, I decided that it's quite different, and of course it's 1.5 stops faster too. I'll see what I think when I have a chance to compare them, and if it turns out that they're closer than expected, it's not impossible that I decide to let go of the Loxia. (Unlikely, but nothing's impossible.)...Show more →
Fred, can I ask your thoughts one the 40 vs the Loxia 35? I know you were (are?) a fan of the Loxia 35 and obviously the CV 40 as well... I guess the question is “if you can only have 1...”
Fred Miranda wrote:
Danny, just keeping it real, I've seen some bad apples...but the same goes for the Lox 35.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Fred, can I ask your thoughts one the 40 vs the Loxia 35? I know you were (are?) a fan of the Loxia 35 and obviously the CV 40 as well... I guess the question is “if you can only have 1...”
They are very different lenses...
The Lox 35 Biogon has pretty much no distortion and the CV 40 has noticeable pincushion shaped distortion.
I find that the Lox 35's OOF rendering improves as the lens is stopped down and that does not happen with the CV 40 which is best wide open.
OOF rendering and transition zone for the CV 40 is similar to Zeiss 50/1.5C ZM for those who love the ZM's rendering.
Towards the corners, the CV 40 wins by a large margin as it only needs f/4 while a couple more stops is needed for the Loxia. Micro-contrast is a draw but I give the Loxia a slight upper hand.
Wide-open the CV 40 is already outstanding at center at f/1.7 and the Loxia really needs f/4 for optimum center.
The CV 40/1.2 gets a bit of a glow with a loss of contrast/resolution at distances closer than 0.8m but that's wide open. This can be greatly improved by using an achromatic close-up lens like the Leica Elpro4 or stepping it down to f/1.7 or f/2. The Loxia 35/2 in comparison shows a glow/veil at any distance wide open.
They share the same sunstar shape (thanks to the 10-straight blade aperture), deep colors and similar micro-contrast. For landscapes, it's very easy to focus the CV 40/1.2 which has infinity at the hard stop after f/4. (At wider apertures a tad before the hard stop due to focus shift). This could vary from body to body depending on mount tolerance though.
At f/5.6 field curvature is completely masked.
After shooting with the CV 40/1.2 for a while, I believe it's underpriced for what it provides. If it were a Leica, it would cost at least 5 times more.
There is no lens like it in the sense of producing great subject separation (micro-contrast) and isolation (blur) wide open. Stopped down, it's a great landscape lens starting at f/4 and f/5.6 optimum. So, great versatility.
The CV 40/1.2 replaced my Loxia 35 but I still have the Loxia 50. Not sure if I really need it though but since it's an outstanding copy, I am a bit weary to sell it. The Lox 50 shows slight less astigmatism towards the extreme corners but needs f/6.3 or smaller to be optimum.
