nampramos wrote:
Can't see why anyone would complain about this lens.
Well, there is obvious huge field curvature in your images. Personally I don't understand why anyone would choose the VM version over the FE, for Sony cameras.
Makten wrote:
Well, there is obvious huge field curvature in your images. Personally I don't understand why anyone would choose the VM version over the FE, for Sony cameras.
I tend to agree with with. I understand using the TAP with it but not sure that outweighs just going native as it’s pretty nice to manually focus and picking up FC is a PITA. Bad thing is if you wanted to use a PCX front filter they are 50mm and I think the VM is 52 filter so you may run into trouble with the sizing and hard vignette. Not sure anyone has tried doing this yet
Makten wrote:
Well, there is obvious huge field curvature in your images. Personally I don't understand why anyone would choose the VM version over the FE, for Sony cameras.
I suppose (at least for me) FC as a “complaint” for a lens like this (for my uses) isn’t really a complaint. I have enough lenses (e.g. Zeiss 50 Makro and others) to achieve a flatter field when my subject matter or desired image calls for it.
For the way that I’ll be using this lens (and to my eye), the FC doesn’t bother me. As a matter of fact, if FC was an issue for me, I wouldn’t own a slew of other lenses that perform far worse like the Helios 85/1.5 and a gaggle of their 58s or even the 7A.
While I understand and appreciate how some shooters love that the FE mount version functions stellarly as a lens for general shooting, there are some of us that enjoy the 40/1.2 just for shooting people (not in groups across the entire frame). For this purpose, as long as the subjects themselves are sharp enough wherever I place them in the frame, I’m not overly concerned about having a flat plane outside of them.
If I were someone who shot print/image copy work or landscape and specifically wanted to use a fast 40 for it, then sure...FE mount it is. However, for what and how I shoot the majority of the time, having AF yields (for me) a much higher hit rate. I’d happily exchange the gain of some FC for AF. Actually, I have and I still love the lens as it has a great look at a focal length I love.
Some quick bullet points to give more of a nutshell answer the question of why VM:
-AF
-Size
-Adaptability to all of my systems
-Still produces a look I love in spite of FC
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I suppose (at least for me) FC as a “complaint” for a lens like this (for my uses) isn’t really a complaint. I have enough lenses (e.g. Zeiss 50 Makro and others) to achieve a flatter field when my subject matter or desired image calls for it.
For the way that I’ll be using this lens (and to my eye), the FC doesn’t bother me. As a matter of fact, if FC was an issue for me, I wouldn’t own a slew of other lenses that perform far worse like the Helios 85/1.5 and a gaggle of their 58s or even the 7A.
While I understand how some shooters love that the FE mount version functions stellarly as a lens for general shooting, there are some of us that enjoy the 40/1.2 just for shooting people (not in groups across the entire frame). For this purpose, as long as the subjects themselves are sharp enough wherever I place them in the frame, I’m not overly concerned about having a flat plane outside of them.
If I were someone who shot print/image copy work or landscape and specifically wanted to use a fast 40 for it, then sure...FE mount it is. However, for what and how I shoot the majority of the time, having AF yields (for me) a much higher hit rate. I’d happily exchange the gain of some FC for AF. Actually, I have and I still love the lens as it has a great look at a focal length I love.
Some quick bullet points to give more of a nutshell answer the question of why VM:
-AF
-Size
-Adaptability to all of my systems
-Still produces a look I love in spite of FC ...Show more →
And still there are numerous images in this thread where FC shows very clearly despite small size. Which means that some people are using it where they could be better off with the FE version.
I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else what to do, but I think it's good if people know the downsides with the VM version on a Sony camera. I would never even consider it, but that's me.
Makten wrote:
And still there are numerous images in this thread where FC shows very clearly despite small size. Which means that some people are using it where they could be better off with the FE version.
I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else what to do, but I think it's good if people know the downsides with the VM version on a Sony camera. I would never even consider it, but that's me.
I can definitely understand and respect your view on this. I also agree that anyone interested in either should know the differences in performance on a Sony body.
My only point was specifically to answer the singular question of “why VM?”
As far as characteristics or flaws involved in choosing the VM for a Sony body versus the native version, to each his own. Lens production history would lead most to recognize that there has historically been a desire in the market (some segments) to include FC as a desired characteristic of a lens.
Mar 04, 2018 at 11:08 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Makten wrote:
And still there are numerous images in this thread where FC shows very clearly despite small size. Which means that some people are using it where they could be better off with the FE version.
I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else what to do, but I think it's good if people know the downsides with the VM version on a Sony camera. I would never even consider it, but that's me.
Totally get where you're coming from, but I rarely (if ever) have a need or desire for a "reference" lens. I enjoy FC if I ever even notice it in the same way I enjoy how you can hear people breathing on certain recordings of classical music - call it "character" or "soul" or something else, but there's much appeal in *subtle* quirks.
I'm with Makten here. The M-version was not designed for the Sony's sensor stack thickness. It won't look like 'character' as the edges may look 'sharp' instead of OOF when you are shooting wide open due to induced FC. Sure you still can get great quality at center but you are using a lens not optimized for the body you are using. Unless you mainly shoot Leica and occasionally wants to use it on your Sony, I would also recommend getting the E-mount.
At the 2018 CP+ show in Japan, Cosina announced a new Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.2 Aspherical VM lens for Leica M-mount. (It does not look like it will be produced for the E-mount).
This 40mm f1.2 is definitely intriguing. But man is it a hard sell to my wife. She can’t understand why I would buy a camera with such amazing AF and then consider a manual focus lens...
Surfnsun wrote:
This 40mm f1.2 is definitely intriguing. But man is it a hard sell to my wife. She can’t understand why I would buy a camera with such amazing AF and then consider a manual focus lens...
Fred Miranda wrote:
At the 2018 CP+ show in Japan, Cosina announced a new Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.2 Aspherical VM lens for Leica M-mount. (It does not look like it will be produced for the E-mount).
what are the size specs on this? is it significantly bigger than the 40/1.2 in m-mount?
i personally am much more attracted to the m-mount version of the 40/1.2 because i shoot on a modded sensor, the smaller size, ability to use on other future mirrorless cameras from other brands, and the closer mfd (with helicoid adapter).
sebboh wrote:
what are the size specs on this? is it significantly bigger than the 40/1.2 in m-mount?
i personally am much more attracted to the m-mount version of the 40/1.2 because i shoot on a modded sensor, the smaller size, ability to use on other future mirrorless cameras from other brands, and the closer mfd (with helicoid adapter).
Voigtlander NOKTON 50mm f/1.2 Aspherical VM Lens for Leica M-mount
Construction: 8 elements in 6 groups
Viewing angle: 47.5 degrees
Maximum aperture: f/22
Number of apertures: 12
Minimum focusing distance: 70 cm
Dimensions: 63.1 × 49 mm
Diameter of filter attachment: 52 mm
Mount: Leica M
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I suppose (at least for me) FC as a “complaint” for a lens like this (for my uses) isn’t really a complaint. I have enough lenses (e.g. Zeiss 50 Makro and others) to achieve a flatter field when my subject matter or desired image calls for it.
For the way that I’ll be using this lens (and to my eye), the FC doesn’t bother me. As a matter of fact, if FC was an issue for me, I wouldn’t own a slew of other lenses that perform far worse like the Helios 85/1.5 and a gaggle of their 58s or even the 7A.
While I understand and appreciate how some shooters love that the FE mount version functions stellarly as a lens for general shooting, there are some of us that enjoy the 40/1.2 just for shooting people (not in groups across the entire frame). For this purpose, as long as the subjects themselves are sharp enough wherever I place them in the frame, I’m not overly concerned about having a flat plane outside of them.
If I were someone who shot print/image copy work or landscape and specifically wanted to use a fast 40 for it, then sure...FE mount it is. However, for what and how I shoot the majority of the time, having AF yields (for me) a much higher hit rate. I’d happily exchange the gain of some FC for AF. Actually, I have and I still love the lens as it has a great look at a focal length I love.
Some quick bullet points to give more of a nutshell answer the question of why VM:
-AF
-Size
-Adaptability to all of my systems
-Still produces a look I love in spite of FC ...Show more →
Just goes to show people value different things from their gear. Some want utmost image quality and will sacrifice AF to gain this, others feel having AF with some reduced image quality at the edges is a good tradeoff. For me, this lens is all about shooting wide open and for that, I don't really care about the corners but sure would love AF. I care about corners in my landscape gear, but this lens would not be used for that purpose.
chez wrote:
Just goes to show people value different things from their gear. Some want utmost image quality and will sacrifice AF to gain this, others feel having AF with some reduced image quality at the edges is a good tradeoff. For me, this lens is all about shooting wide open and for that, I don't really care about the corners but sure would love AF. I care about corners in my landscape gear, but this lens would not be used for that purpose.
While what you say makes a lot of sense, I don't see any reason to limit the applications of the lens. It actually works terrifically well for landscapes once stopped down to F5.6 or so. The lens is also at optimal infinity focus at its hard stop once stopped down to F5.6 (some say F4) or smaller. Anyway, for me it is nice to have added versatility (and the lens has great sun stars) but different strokes for different folks....
chez wrote:
Just goes to show people value different things from their gear. Some want utmost image quality and will sacrifice AF to gain this, others feel having AF with some reduced image quality at the edges is a good tradeoff. For me, this lens is all about shooting wide open and for that, I don't really care about the corners but sure would love AF. I care about corners in my landscape gear, but this lens would not be used for that purpose.
That's just not the case. Induced field curvature can be quite pronounced and affects wide open apertures as well. In many cases, your subject will be sharp and the corners instead of being our fo focus will be sharp as well. I don't think anyone wants that.
Also, it's clear you never tried the CV 40/1.2 lens. It's amazing for landscapes starting at f/4. (Sharp edge to edge)
The M-mount version on the Sony body would restrict the usability of the lens.
I just can't see anything wrong with my photos or other shared here from the VM. I'm only taking photos though instead of looking at every technical aspect of a lens.
Glad there's two versions so that everyone can be happy.
Makten wrote:
Well, there is obvious huge field curvature in your images. Personally I don't understand why anyone would choose the VM version over the FE, for Sony cameras.
Mar 04, 2018 at 03:22 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
At the 2018 CP+ show in Japan, Cosina announced a new Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.2 Aspherical VM lens for Leica M-mount. (It does not look like it will be produced for the E-mount).
Which means that some people are using it where they could be better off with the FE version.
