A very weak close-up lens added to the front of the 40/1.2 CV has been found to significantly improve the image quality (especially off-center) for focus distances under 1.5m or so and particularly for much closer than that.
The two close-up lenses that have been successfully used are the Leica Elpro 4 and the Hasselblad f=2m Proxar B60. Both of these require some adaptation, but the Elpro is easier.
I bought both and chose to go the Proxar route in the end, but others are happy with the Elpro 4.
I have an EX+ condition Elpro 4 available if you want to give that a try.
- John
Read through some of the posts to get more details/images.
Others will chime in.
Mar 06, 2018 at 03:11 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jhinkey wrote:
A very weak close-up lens added to the front of the 40/1.2 CV has been found to significantly improve the image quality (especially off-center) for focus distances under 1.5m or so and particularly for much closer than that.
The two close-up lenses that have been successfully used are the Leica Elpro 4 and the Hasselblad f=2m Proxar B60. Both of these require some adaptation, but the Elpro is easier.
I bought both and chose to go the Proxar route in the end, but others are happy with the Elpro 4.
I have an EX+ condition Elpro 4 available if you want to give that a try.
- John
Read through some of the posts to get more details/images.
antst wrote:
And now, please, explain for dummies about close-up lens. What do I have to look for?
Since the 40/1.2 is optimized for infinity distance and it's noticeably softer from MFD until about 0.5 or 0.7m, using a close-up lens allows the lens' elements to be closer to infinity when shooting at this range. Think of it as an external floating element device for your lens.
The Leica ElPro 3 or Canon 500D (both achromats) allow that weak range to be very close to infinity on the lens. It's where you will see the biggest improvement. Weaker close-up lenses like the ElPro 4, Milnolta n.0 or Proxar 2m will not give the absolute best results at that range (MDF until ~ 0.7m) but will allow you to focus until ~1.5m at the lens infinity mark which makes it more versatile...For close-up work, I would prefer the ElPro 3 or Canon 500D lenses as they are close to +2 diopter.
This is for the lens wide open. If you are shooting at near MFD distances and close the aperture 1 or 2 stops, IQ will be great without the help of a close-up lens.
sebboh wrote:
I would pay a premium to avoid the AF. Also to keep the size small.
That's where I stand as well and thus my dilemma with the CV40 f/1.2 vs the CV40 f/1.4 for Leica M. I have the CV40 f/1.4, which is only 175g. While I'm sure the 1.2 provides a better IQ, the 1.4 is no slouch in IQ. Some of my samples can be found here.
Fred Miranda wrote: (...)
This is for the lens wide open. If you are shooting at near MFD distances and close the aperture 1 or 2 stops, IQ will be great without the help of a close-up lens.
That's the important part to me.
I have certainly done my part of pixel peeping (page 44, post15 and page 45 post 7) when it comes to figure out the benefits of an achromat in front of the lens. My conclusion is that the naked lens is good enough unless printing very big and that stopping down to f/1.7 saves the situation if not bringing the close-up lens.
Jonas B wrote: Fred Miranda wrote:
That's the important part to me.
I have certainly done my part of pixel peeping (page 44, post15 and page 45 post 7) when it comes to figure out the benefits of an achromat in front of the lens. My conclusion is that the naked lens is good enough unless printing very big and that stopping down to f/1.7 saves the situation if not bringing the close-up lens.
But, we are all different of course.
Exactly! It's just an nice option for when shooting close-up subjects wide-open like flowers, etc. Closing the aperture down to f/1.8-f/2.5 is another workaround to increase IQ.
It's funny you say f/1.7...I remember my A7R2 was reporting f/1.7 as an intermediate aperture but the A7R3 shows f/1.8, which I believe is correct: 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.5.
I'm liking f/2.2 as a sweet spot for close-ish candids. Still keep the background smooth and get decent sharpness and a workable DOF. 1.2 is awesome when you nail it, but VERY tricky with the little man. These are 2.2 and 1.2:
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's funny you say f/1.7...I remember my A7R2 was reporting f/1.7 as an intermediate aperture but the A7R3 shows f/1.8, which I believe is correct: 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.5.
Yes, 1.8 seem correct. There's some glitch in the communication between the A7R2 and the lens.
Or it's the other way round and the setting that logically should be 1.8 might have an aperture opening that effectively is 1.7 :-)
Great timing. It's a beautiful moment well captured!
PS: Although your image looks great on my monitor, it may be a tad too big for the web at 2400px. Try resizing it to about 1,400 pixels for the longest dimension.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great timing. It's a beautiful moment well captured!
PS: Although your image looks great on my monitor, it may be a tad too big for the web at 2400px. Try resizing it to about 1,400 pixels for the longest dimension.
Thank you! I have resized and edited the post with the new image.
I'd really like to get this lens in E-mount, but I fairly often use the LCD display on my a7rII like a medium format viewfinder. This works pretty well with my 55/1.8, but using some of my old M-mount lenses, not so much. I've read the reports that the viewfinder on the a7rIII is drastically improved for manual focusing, but I doubt there would be little or no difference with the LCD display. I guess I just have to rent this 40/1.2 and give it a try on my rII.
I'm on the fence about upgrading to the a7rIII, but doing both that and getting this lens a bit beyond my budget.
Interesting, for me it is opposite. I can't really do manual focusing on LCD display. Something in my vision refuses it. Maybe result of eye trauma 1.5 years ago, but image processing in my brain now is a bit funny. Even on the eye which wasn't damaged (and which is my leading eye). My brain/vision just refuses to process some things, and one of them is a back LCD on camera's I can't even review photos on back screen nowdays as I don't really "get/understand" (don't know what would be right word here) what I see. EVF is a saver.
goo0h wrote:
I'd really like to get this lens in E-mount, but I fairly often use the LCD display on my a7rII like a medium format viewfinder. This works pretty well with my 55/1.8, but using some of my old M-mount lenses, not so much. I've read the reports that the viewfinder on the a7rIII is drastically improved for manual focusing, but I doubt there would be little or no difference with the LCD display. I guess I just have to rent this 40/1.2 and give it a try on my rII.
I'm on the fence about upgrading to the a7rIII, but doing both that and getting this lens a bit beyond my budget. ...Show more →
I believe the A7RIII has a LCD display with more resolution (and touchscreen)
Both 3 inches but 1,228,800 vs 1,440,000 resolution.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe the A7RIII has a LCD display with more resolution (and touchscreen)
Both 3 inches but 1,228,800 vs 1,440,000 resolution.
That change in LCD resolution is very small, really the big difference is in the EVF resolution:
2,359,296 for the A7RII
3,686,400 for the A7RIII
I did not directly compare the RII vs. the RIII for EVF when I had them both, but the A7RIII EVF is very very nice. I always thought the A7RII was pretty good too.
Mar 07, 2018 at 09:40 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
sebbe wrote:
It's just one lens and often people start to ask technical questions. In my opinion it's better to stay in this thread for pictures.
But it seems a "Voigtländer official image thread" (like the Batis, Loxia, ... threads) in the Sony forum would be a good idea. There is the 10,12,15,40 and 65 with its fans and I'm sure the 21 and 110 will add some more.
Ahhh, gotcha. I like the idea of dedicated lens threads, just as I like perusing Flickr groups for a given lens if I'm in the market, or just to see what people are squeezing out of it, but if anyone starts an official Voigtlander thread on Sony, I'll gladly contribute.
