antst wrote:
I see, you had the same choice I have, ultron 35/1.7 vs nokton 40/1.2 E/M
I also use an m-mount camera so that added to my reasons for getting the VM.
I have a soft spot for the ultron and actualy feel its quite a different animal to the 40mm. The depth of field with the Nokton is significantly less, also the rendering is more Zeiss like. I use it more like a portrait lens, where as the Ulton is better for capturing mutiple subjets with in an enviromment.
The Ulton is the shapest 35mm lens I've ever used, sharper than ZM35 1.4, LM 35mm 1.4 fle and the FE35 2.8 when being shot at the same aperture.
I'm still having a hell of a time deciding whether I should return my Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZA and Planar T 50mm f/1.4 ZA for the CV 40mm f/1.2.
The 40 would cover for both lengths and do slightly better for low light shooting. With the funds from the return of the Distagon and the Planar T, plus adding a little more cash, I could have the CV 40mm f 1.2 as a walk around lens and get the G Master 16-35 to cover my wider angles. I have my G Master 85 for portraiture.
Any more testing on whether the m mount is just as good on the TAP without a sensor mod? I'm not opposed to manual focus, but still like having AF if there's no downside.
I don't have the TechArt but just got an email saying that my 40/1.2 is ready to be collect at the post office. Going there in about 4-5 hours.
Never shot any of those two lenses you mention since they're just way too big for me to ever own them but I'm curious to see how this 40/1.2 compares to the RX1RII.
If you have any specific test you'd like, let me know.
Like buses, nothing, then the 40mm E mount and 7Artisans 50 1.1 arrive at the front door within 5 minutes of each other! Happy to run any tests between the two people would like, the 40mm is obviously sharper and a much better lens IQ wise, but thought I saw someone ask for that comparison somewhere.
robsonj wrote:
Like buses, nothing, then the 40mm E mount and 7Artisans 50 1.1 arrive at the front door within 5 minutes of each other! Happy to run any tests between the two people would like, the 40mm is obviously sharper and a much better lens IQ wise, but thought I saw someone ask for that comparison somewhere.
Sweet! Looking forward to further thoughts on both.
Coincidentally, I also have a copy of the 40 arriving within the next hour except mine is in M mount. Been shooting the 7A for a while so looking forward to seeing the character differences.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
When you nailed the focus at f1.2, and the lighting is right, the result is simply stunning. Minimal processing, sharpening setting on default in LR.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
When you nailed the focus at f1.2, and the lighting is right, the result is simply stunning. Minimal processing, sharpening setting on default in LR.
Why oh why did I just click into this thread again??
I'm really starting to think this lens has the most appealing rendering of any native e-mount lens for me.
As a happy Loxia 35mm (excellent for landscapes) and FE 35mm 1.4 ZA (excellent for 1.4 AF shooting) owner I'm stumped as to what I should do about it. I don't want to sell those, but that would make adding the 40mm an extreme luxury. The rendering, which has been conveyed throughout this thread captivates me, so maybe I should just bite the absurdity bullet and order one and have all three.
Just get the m-mount and save yourself some money. I got mine BNIB for $760 USD and the includes 10% GST I'll get back at the airport here in Australia.
I've done a little testing with my Canon 500D to improve the 40/1.2's closeup quality as discussed earlier. Nothing scientific about the tests, but a brief look shows that, like the other attachment filters that some of you are using, it does make quite a difference in closeup resolution. At the same time, I also tried a Canon 250D (twice as strong), but results were nowhere near as good (not shown here). I didn't try it at greater distance, since my interest is in using it for flower closeups, but the filter strength is such that it's not going to have the ability to focus beyond close range.
First image pair is the naked lens at MFD, wide open, shot with A7R3; all images were processed in ACR with default sharpening (25/1.0/25); no further sharpening on the conversion to jpg. In each pair, there is the full frame for reference, then a clip at full screen res.
Second image pair is the lens + 500D; lens was set to about 1.7 ft distance to get about the same image size as with the naked lens. I'm impressed with the improvement here and plan to try it for flower closeups in the coming months.
Interesting. It's not very good at all at MFD without the filter, and just okay with it. I expected it to be much better than my ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 lens at MFD but it's not. I'm tempted, but I prefer the Sonnar.
expwmbat wrote:
Interesting. It's not very good at all at MFD without the filter, and just okay with it. I expected it to be much better than my ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 lens at MFD but it's not close. I'm tempted, but I prefer the Sonnar.
DJK
IMO it's pretty damn good with the 500D. Impressive.
I think it's pretty good too, considering that it's 1.2, and especially compared to no filter. I suppose I should try it compared to a macro (Voigt 65 or Zeiss 50 MP), but of course we already know which would be the winner in that case.
Overstated--it's pretty good with the 500D. I was just expecting more, I guess. Just shot some tests with my ZM 50/1.5 and if it's not better it is every bit as good (with close-focusing adapter, so 1/2 MFD). Given this is a far more modern design, I expected it to be clearly better.
DJK
Mar 01, 2018 at 04:50 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
expwmbat wrote:
Overstated--it's pretty good with the 500D. I was just expecting more, I guess. Just shot some tests with my ZM 50/1.5 and if it's not better it is every bit as good (with close-focusing adapter, so 1/2 MFD). Given this is a far more modern design, I expected it to be clearly better.
DJK
But the 40 f/1.2 is about 2/3rds of a stop wider aperture. I think the shot with the 500D looks very good, not excellent but very good and the closeup filter seems to add definite functionality to the lens.
I would stop it down to F2 and test again. Your not going to see much of a bokeh difference at this close a distance but you will see the sharpness improve
RobertHolloway wrote:
Waited patiently till March 1st.
Grrr, tried to order the 40/1.2 this morning and both Adorama and B&H are out of stock
There were a number of us that had back orders on the lens. I am hoping that they got some in and mine got sent out. I guess we will see. Not surprising to me that the demand is high.
