To the infinity at night: The hardstop is fine for f4 and higher. If you are below it may be necessary to move a tad back. But this is nothing you can't check at daylight and do it "blind" in the night. As Guy wrote the lens should be fine for astro at f2.8. Keep in mind this lens has some vignette and may even have some slight colorcast in it. Nothing that can be corrected though.
To the panorama question: I do panos even with 12mm lenses. If there is no or not much distortion and you shoot enough pictures there is no reason why it should not work with any focal length.
sebbe wrote:
To the panorama question: I do panos even with 12mm lenses. If there is no or not much distortion and you shoot enough pictures there is no reason why it should not work with any focal length.
Be aware it's 30'000 pixels wide.
It was made quick and without a tripod. Therefore it can have some blur.
Here a "small version" of it (which I already posted somewhere in this thread):
Wonderful pano Sebbe. It took a while to open the 100% version.
Why did you choose the 40mm for this? You wanted this much pixels, or for the lens quality? You shot them vertical?
I think for astrophotography the improving of noise level also play a part in choosing a longer lens. But that's maybe for another topic.
My biggest concern there are the coma etc.at 2.8. And of course if 2,4 is already good, that would be better for noise.
Mar 15, 2018 at 01:54 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
FotograafNL wrote:
Thanks, but the reason why i posted in this topic is because is want to know specifically if this lens will do good at 2.8 for astrophotography.
And also if focusing at infinity is difficult in this situation with this lens. That's why i asked if marking an infinity point for 2.8 is a solution.
I think owners of this lens might know the answers best..
I know zilch about the majority of questions you asked, so I'll second the suggestion for a new topic. Seems like a good bunch of helpful people here with lots of diverse areas of expertise.
I can say, however, that infinity at 2.8 is doable. Perhaps due to tolerances, actual infinity on my copy is *just* a hair before the hard stop. I don't trust focus peaking - too many false positives, but it's very easy to use focus magnify and move the point around the frame to decide if you have an acceptable level of edge sharpness at a given aperture.
Did a quick test cause I was curious, EF 50/1.2 L vs the CV 40/1.2, focus distance about 4’, 3 MF shots of each, picked I think the best. EF might have more fringing at the plane of focus... Camera auto WB normalized the images a bit more but set a common WB to see the difference. No ACR sharpening, so they could look better, but did apply ACR profiles. Didn’t have any models but used a detailed pitched about as tall as a head and kept its framing the same (so a bit closer on the 40mm.) Feel free to take from it what you will, I was just curious before I ship out my 40.
I find the CV 40/1.2 to be a tad narrower than other 40mm lenses I've tried. I compared it to the CV 40/2.8, Canon 40/2.8 and a couple zooms. I think it's more like a 42mm lens.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Did a quick test cause I was curious, EF 50/1.2 L vs the CV 40/1.2, focus distance about 4’, 3 MF shots of each, picked I think the best. EF might have more fringing at the plane of focus... Camera auto WB normalized the images a bit more but set a common WB to see the difference. No ACR sharpening, so they could look better, but did apply ACR profiles. Didn’t have any models but used a detailed pitched about as tall as a head and kept its framing the same (so a bit closer on the 40mm.) Feel free to take from it what you will, I was just curious before I ship out my 40....Show more →
Ha, nope, didn’t really shock me. The CV is at its weakest close and wide open, I didn’t test longer distance but having shot both in similar scenes I think the CV is better wide open at 10’ to infinity, neither lens is bad though. I think you’ll like it! Also you give up AF, but it’s a HELL of a lot smaller!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find the CV 40/1.2 to be a tad narrower than other 40mm lenses I've tried. I compared it to the CV 40/2.8, Canon 40/2.8 and a couple zooms. I think it's more like a 42mm lens.
Good and interesting find Fred. I feel like my photos and perspective with the lens are more like a 50mm than a 35mm.
GMPhotography wrote:
One off the top of my head the FE 35 1.4 that was 5
24-70 F4 than 4
Loxia 21 3
Cv 65 2
CV 35 1.7 3
CV 28 F2 3
This is a list that can go on a long time and its disturbing the money spent
Oh Tokina Firin 20 2 just got one yesterday.
Ive been sneaking in lenses I have not mentioned.
Right now
Laowa 15
Tokina Firin 20
Loxia 25 paid for and waiting
CV 40 1.2
Loxia 85
Batis 135
Sony 24-105
I may switch out the Firin for the AF model
the 24-105 maybe sold for the Tokina 28-70 2.8. Just have to see
I just bought the Nisi V5 100mm filter setup but the filters are from Breakthough Photography. The 100mm filters will handle up to 82mm. Folks should look into this setup . It very cool . The CPL is rotated with two gear knobs....Show more →
oh dear lord.
i've only sold and rebought 2 lenses: the olympus pen f 42/1.2 and the contax g 35/2. the olympus i just really missed and i found one super cheap. the contax i had sold before FF mirrorless was a thing and i wanted to try it out on FF.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Did a quick test cause I was curious, EF 50/1.2 L vs the CV 40/1.2, focus distance about 4’, 3 MF shots of each, picked I think the best. EF might have more fringing at the plane of focus... Camera auto WB normalized the images a bit more but set a common WB to see the difference. No ACR sharpening, so they could look better, but did apply ACR profiles. Didn’t have any models but used a detailed pitched about as tall as a head and kept its framing the same (so a bit closer on the 40mm.) Feel free to take from it what you will, I was just curious before I ship out my 40....Show more →
This is a little less wide than I’d expect, feels much closer to 50 than I’d expect. But the voigt fares very well in this comparison, and is much more compact!
Has anyone done a side by side with a 35 to compare FoV?
Mind-blowing. I rented an a7S briefly, and will probably pick one up if prices dip any lower. Had a blast with it and loved the files. Something very special about them. The Nokton + a7S combo is about as ninja as you can get. Excellent work!
My Nokton is taking a well-deserved break, because I'm selling a few lenses to fund the purchase of an RX100 and I wanted to spend a few days with the FD 24mm before it gets boxed up and shipped to a new home. I've come to the realization that I do need a compact with AF for all the one-handed shooting I do. Ah, the dad life. The Nokton (and Ultron) ain't going anywhere, though. I'll sell my kidneys before I sell either of them.
Mar 17, 2018 at 11:52 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
trogdon wrote:
This is a little less wide than I’d expect, feels much closer to 50 than I’d expect. But the voigt fares very well in this comparison, and is much more compact!
Has anyone done a side by side with a 35 to compare FoV?
I haven't done a side-by-side, but my feeling is also that it's closer to 50 than 35. Which is actually a good thing, in my book, because I don't care for the 35mm FOV as much as I used to think I did, but 50 feels to narrow for candids and most street scenes I'd like to capture. It's possible it's the closer to the "perfect diagonal" 43 but it's just labeled 40mm.
Maybe others who are better at empirical testing can offer a more solid answer, but my gut tells me it's 42ish.
Nuno Ramos
