Because I'd prefer to keep my marriage intact as I praise this lens, instead of a pictire of my wife at f/2.5, here's my ten year old neighbor and a 24 year old buddy at f/1.2 and f/1.7 respectively (click link for larger):
bjornthun wrote:
In that case I'd get a real AF lens instead.
Eh. This 40 is exactly what I needed. There is no other lens and camera combination that has met my needs better than what I have now. You can buy whatever you'd like.
Plus, no real AF 40mm f/1.2 lens exists. So there's that.
@rscheffler@ shows a 50mm 1.2 in E-mount...at least that is what the display label says, since the rear cap is on.
It looks like a "typo" on the display label since the model and demo lensese were clearly in M-mount and there was no announcement about 50/1.2 for E-mount at CP+.
Anyhow, I was also thinking that CV last year announced only 40mm 1.2 in E-mount at CP+ and shortly after releasing it they announced the corresponding lens in M-mount without much of an "advance warning".
Maybe this time around they could do the reverse and make a surpise announcement of 50/1.2 in E-mount shortly after bringing out the lens in M-mount... Would be a nice surprise.
I have quite a lot of 50mm lenses already though but could be tempted if it was in E-mount.
Mar 04, 2018 at 10:41 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Juha Kannisto wrote:
It looks like a "typo" on the display label since the model and demo lensese were clearly in M-mount and there was no announcement about 50/1.2 for E-mount at CP+.
Anyhow, I was also thinking that CV last year announced only 40mm 1.2 in E-mount at CP+ and shortly after releasing it they announced the corresponding lens in M-mount without much of an "advance warning".
Maybe this time around they could do the reverse and make a surpise announcement of 50/1.2 in E-mount shortly after bringing out the lens in M-mount... Would be a nice surprise.
I have quite a lot of 50mm lenses already though but could be tempted if it was in E-mount....Show more →
It will be interesting to see if they do, but a 50 makes a lot more sense for M mount than a 40 because there are frame lines for a 50 and not for a 40. I would expect now that there is an M 40 f/1.2 and an M 50 f/1.2 that the 50 will sell much better than 40 for M mount. Not sure that would be true for E mount. There are some awfully good 50ish lenses for E mount already.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It will be interesting to see if they do, but a 50 makes a lot more sense for M mount than a 40 because there are frame lines for a 50 and not for a 40. I would expect now that there is an M 40 f/1.2 and an M 50 f/1.2 that the 50 will sell much better than 40 for M mount. Not sure that would be true for E mount. There are some awfully good 50ish lenses for E mount already.
Yes, I agree with you, though not sure how large portion of the buyers of the M-mount versions are using them on real RF cameras. For all the lens adapters the 40mm M-version might still be more attractive.
I also already have the FE 50/1.4, FE 55/1.8, FE 50/1.8, Loxia 50/2, CV 50/1.5 (VM) and CV 50/3.5 (VM), Konica Hexanon 50/2.4 LTM, Pentax K 50/1.2 and a few others too so the new 50/1.2 would not be very essential for me but if it was available as a native E-mount version I could consider replacing some of my manual focus 50's with it.
I start to feel that, this lens has more true to life rendering than any lens I used before. The subject and lighting has to be really good to begin with, then when the focus hits, the result is really stunning looking picture. The down side of this perhaps, is the close focus range. The rendering perhaps a bit on the "hard" side, whereas lens like Zony FE 35mm 1.4 seems to render silky smooth in and out of focus zone, and very sharp too.
Perhaps I really do prefer more "modern" rendering, my RX1R was more forgiving in the lighting and focus distances. Patiently waiting for stock arrival for the Zony FE 35mm 1.4.
For my situation personally, if I chose to go with the FE mount version and MF, I would only be ensuring that I'd have maximum IQ in my many misfocused shots for what it is I shoot and how I shoot it.
So in order to have the general look/rendering of the Voigt 40 while enjoying the FL/size, and still giving myself the best chance at having a decent hit rate, VM is the only choice. If I want a challenge in focusing, I'll just mount the Mitakon. lol.
Again, I fully understand and respect the uses and perspectives of both camps. But this is me.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
For my situation personally, if I chose to go with the FE mount version and MF, I would only be ensuring that I'd have maximum IQ in my many misfocused shots for what it is I shoot and how I shoot it.
So in order to have the general look/rendering of the Voigt 40 while enjoying the FL/size, and still giving myself the best chance at having a decent hit rate, VM is the only choice. If I want a challenge in focusing, I'll just mount the Mitakon. lol.
They are lovely images John. Color, contrast, composition, all great.
However, they also illustrate the issue with induced field curvature I mentioned in my previous post. In some of your wide open images, both your subject and corners are sharp and I find that a bit distracting. If you were shooting with the E-mount version which is optimized for your camera sensor stack, this would not be an issue or would be greatly minimized.
I've read some members refer to pronounced field curvature as a non-issue since they are not shooting landscapes but as you can see, this induced ill-effect affects all apertures, even wide open. For those using the 40/1.2 VM version with Leica and Sony bodies, the use of a plano-convex front-lens could greatly correct this when pairing with the Sony.
Fred Miranda wrote:
They are lovely images John. Color, contrast, composition, all great.
However, they also illustrate the issue with induced field curvature I mentioned in my previous post. In some of your wide open images, both your subject and corners are sharp and I find that a bit distracting. If you were shooting with the E-mount version which is optimized for your camera sensor stack, this would not be an issue or would be greatly minimized.
I've read some members refer to pronounced field curvature as a non-issue since they are not shooting landscapes but as you can see, this induced ill-effect affects all apertures, even wide open. For those using the 40/1.2 VM version with Leica and Sony bodies, the use of a plano-convex front-lens could greatly correct this when pairing with the Sony....Show more →
One major problem here and this made me sell a few lenses because they are awesome on center but the mid field is not good is if your shooting 2 or 3 people in a shot those outside folks in the frame are really going to be hard to keep in focus. If lets say its great on center with 12 percent of the frame than what if those folks are outside that 12 percent. Well you just lost the ability to shoot more wide open but may have to stop down to F8. Case in point i almost blew a gig with the Nokton 50mm 1.5 lens. Which granted is a really nice lens with great character but my outside people in the frame where completely soft even at 5.6. Luckily I shot another lens that was more flat field. So thats something to consider. Now the E version is awesome to the corners at F4 so you take that risk out of blowing a shot like this. This is with 3 people in a frame so really need to be careful.
The real issue here is you may not be able to fix it like the 35mm ZM or CV 35mm as we put PCX front filters on them and it took the field curvature and corrected them but they are 46mm filter threads i believe from memory and the PCX filters are 50mm so we could make a front filter mount for them without vignetting. This VM 40 i think is 52mm filter thread so you may have a real problem trying to fix the field curvature with a bad hard vignetting with the filter thread that size of 52. So even if you wanted to use it both ways. Like off for a single person to get that tool off, but when you add more people in you can't throw a PCX on it. So you have a libation here. Do what you want but Im just pointing out a real potential issue that you may run into. Im just not a fan personally of buying a lens that won't do what i need and like i said i bought a few like this and sold them. Of course that was my need . Fred and I have been through the PCX stuff extensively and had good luck and bad luck.
It may be possible to attached a 50mm PCX to work on the 52mm filter thread without vignetting and I'm sure eventually someone will figure this out if that works.
If I were shooting Sony and Leica with only one lens, I would probably try this out.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It may be possible to attached a 50mm PCX to work on the 52mm filter thread without vignetting and I'm sure eventually someone will figure this out if that works.
If I were shooting Sony and Leica with only one lens, I would probably try this out.
Yea agree Fred it possible may work because its a 40mm and narrower angle of view. Not ruling it out and would be worth a try. My guess maybe a 1.5
Love for someone to try this as we just don't know yet
No I'm not buying the VM version just to test it either.
These are really nice and would be very hard to do with MF (for me anyway).
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
For my situation personally, if I chose to go with the FE mount version and MF, I would only be ensuring that I'd have maximum IQ in my many misfocused shots for what it is I shoot and how I shoot it.
So in order to have the general look/rendering of the Voigt 40 while enjoying the FL/size, and still giving myself the best chance at having a decent hit rate, VM is the only choice. If I want a challenge in focusing, I'll just mount the Mitakon. lol.
Again, I fully understand and respect the uses and perspectives of both camps. But this is me.
I think a lens line that had MF focus + built in support for a AF lens adapter would be pretty cool. Almost like a two piece lens system but actually optimized for Sony.
GMPhotography wrote:
One major problem here and this made me sell a few lenses because they are awesome on center but the mid field is not good is if your shooting 2 or 3 people in a shot those outside folks in the frame are really going to be hard to keep in focus. If lets say its great on center with 12 percent of the frame than what if those folks are outside that 12 percent. Well you just lost the ability to shoot more wide open but may have to stop down to F8. Case in point i almost blew a gig with the Nokton 50mm 1.5 lens. Which granted is a really nice lens with great character but my outside people in the frame where completely soft even at 5.6. Luckily I shot another lens that was more flat field. So thats something to consider. Now the E version is awesome to the corners at F4 so you take that risk out of blowing a shot like this. This is with 3 people in a frame so really need to be careful.
The real issue here is you may not be able to fix it like the 35mm ZM or CV 35mm as we put PCX front filters on them and it took the field curvature and corrected them but they are 46mm filter threads i believe from memory and the PCX filters are 50mm so we could make a front filter mount for them without vignetting. This VM 40 i think is 52mm filter thread so you may have a real problem trying to fix the field curvature with a bad hard vignetting with the filter thread that size of 52. So even if you wanted to use it both ways. Like off for a single person to get that tool off, but when you add more people in you can't throw a PCX on it. So you have a libation here. Do what you want but Im just pointing out a real potential issue that you may run into. Im just not a fan personally of buying a lens that won't do what i need and like i said i bought a few like this and sold them. Of course that was my need . Fred and I have been through the PCX stuff extensively and had good luck and bad luck....Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
They are lovely images John. Color, contrast, composition, all great.
However, they also illustrate the issue with induced field curvature I mentioned in my previous post. In some of your wide open images, both your subject and corners are sharp and I find that a bit distracting. If you were shooting with the E-mount version which is optimized for your camera sensor stack, this would not be an issue or would be greatly minimized.
I've read some members refer to pronounced field curvature as a non-issue since they are not shooting landscapes but as you can see, this induced ill-effect affects all apertures, even wide open. For those using the 40/1.2 VM version with Leica and Sony bodies, the use of a plano-convex front-lens could greatly correct this when pairing with the Sony....Show more →
Thank you, Fred.
Totally understand the optimization issue and FC. For my tastes though, it hasn't bothered me. I will definitely take a closer look at some of these front filter options though just so I can be ready to pick one up if need be at some point.
---------------------------------------------
davewolfs wrote:
These are really nice and would be very hard to do with MF (for me anyway).
Thank you, @davewolfs
Admittedly, most of these would've never happened with my level of MF ability. While decent at it, I still struggle at large apertures with significant movement in various directions. In many of these, either I and/or the subject are both moving. To make it even more difficult, some of these were shot with one hand as I was still having to be a dad in some way with the other (e.g. holding My Little Pony toys or sand tools). lol.
Case in point, I have some of my daughter on the swing where I am pushing her and shooting as she is moving away as well as some where I am chasing her around and catching her various looks as she is trying to escape me.
Again, I understand I am only one of an infinite type of shooters. But I am honest with myself and my abilities relative to what it is I am shooting. With a 40mm that has an aperture this large, my inclination is to use it for chasing my kids around and that would be impossible with my current skillset combined with MF. For this guy, taking a hit in IQ and having some (non-problematic for me) optical issues is a fair tradeoff if the alternative is to not be able to use the lens the way I want to use it at all.
---------------------------------------------
davewolfs wrote:
Kids don’t hold still 🤷♂️
I think a lens line that had MF focus + built in support for a AF lens adapter would be pretty cool. Almost like a two piece lens system but actually optimized for Sony.
I was just thinking that exact same thing yesterday!!!!
Pretty sure most of us would pay a premium on this thing to retain AF and maximum IQ (or close to it) in the same package.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It may be possible to attached a 50mm PCX to work on the 52mm filter thread without vignetting and I'm sure eventually someone will figure this out if that works.
If I were shooting Sony and Leica with only one lens, I would probably try this out.
A cool idea would be to cross-transplant the optics from the VM to the FE and vice versa. Then you could sell the FE with VM optics to someone using a thin sensor modded camera and use the VM with TAP on a non-modded camera.
The question is, why would anyone with a modded camera want the larger lens?
I actually ordered the E mount version and the TAP at the same time after reading this thread. My thoughts before the TAP arrived mirrored @GMPhotography, I suspected that the TAP would be good, but not as good as a dedicated AF lens such as the FE 35 or FE 55. Since trying the TAP, I can say I am amazed how good it is, but for me my prediction holds true, I'll use the TAP, but if I was chasing fast moving kiddo's, I'd probably move to the 35 or 55 for that.
EDIT: For me I see the 40mm as a general purpose walk around lens when I only wanna take one camera and one lens. I've for a longtime been looking for a package similar to the RX1 in size that matched the exceptional 35mm in the RX1, but have never bought an RX1 as I think I'd feel limited by the fix focal length (I did buy a x100f and sold it for that reason). I think this 40mm is the closest I've seen to the awesomeness of that 35mm RX1 lens... in a reasonably sized package. I'm not saying its as good, but its close - IMHO.
robsonj wrote:
Well, I find your insight very useful, so stick around!
I actually ordered the E mount version and the TAP at the same time after reading this thread. My thoughts before the TAP arrived mirrored @GMPhotography@, I suspected that the TAP would be good, but not as good as a dedicated AF lens such as the FE 35 or FE 55. Since trying the TAP, I can say I am amazed how good it is, but for me my prediction holds true, I'll use the TAP, but if I was chasing fast moving kiddo's, I'd probably move to the 35 or 55 for that.
