Hi ! does someone have done a side by side comparison between the vm and the ve versions on a7 ? I would like to use it with the tap on a7r2. I don't mind the fc at larger apertures if it becomes acceptable by f8.
What about the bokeh and the purple fringing at f1.2. They behave the same ?
Would you say it is worth it even if no eye af with the r2 ?
Thanks and sorry if it has already been discussed...
imagesfromobjects wrote:
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.
The VM 40/1.2 sure helps to see in the this dark conditions but the A7s is the star here in my opinion since it has such a fantastic sensor and with a special look to it that I was never able to reproduce with any other camera.
Really happy with this combo and glad I bought an A7s again.
charles.K wrote:
Awesome shots Nuno The A7s was one of my all time favorite cameras even at 12MP's
Thank you Charles. Yes, you're right. The A7s is a fantastic camera and I'm really glad I got my hands on one once again.
Together with the CV40/1.2 it's an absolute night monster. I was quite surprised with the flare resistance of this lens as well, since there were many sources of strong artificial light everywhere.
Thanks for all the sharing about this lens. Couldn't resist and pick up one recently (also the CV 65). Some photos from first outing with it, walking around some estates.
I am not a big expert in night/city photography, and focus is a bit off from what I wanted.
But it is great what you can do with fast lens and good camera nowadays. And I totally love "natural" perspective of CV40/1.2
It is Russian Embassy in The Hague. Was there for elections today and decided to make quick shot, as this building lighting triggered some associations with House of Cards visual aesthetics.
CV 40/1.2, A7RIII, f/1.2, 1/30s, ISO 640, handheld.
I see a lot of shots in this thread that would suggest that this lens is quite soft wide open or that focus was missed.
Which is it?
It is actually the sharpest wide open of any lens I have owned from f/0.85 to 1.2 (probably at least 8-10 lenses).
As @KarmaKramer stated though, missing focus (even ever so slightly) with apertures this large is very common. When you have in fact achieved proper focus on your intended plane, it is shockingly sharp for being a 1.2 lens.
Here is a wide open shot I previously posted in the thread along with a crop of an already compressed copy of a compressed copy from my phone. lol. Note that this is with the M mount version with adapter which, as discussed, is not generally as good as this lens is meant to perform optically with the FE mount.
i returned my 40mm f/1.2 M mount. It is soft at wide open. It will sharp at f/4 or above. I also put it on the Techart adapter and using on Sony A9, same result. Is that normal for the M mount?
Alex Phan wrote:
i returned my 40mm f/1.2 M mount. It is soft at wide open. It will sharp at f/4 or above. I also put it on the Techart adapter and using on Sony A9, same result. Is that normal for the M mount?
You have a bad copy. I have an m-mount I use WO and it's sharp if you hit focus centrally. At least at normal shooting distances. Not sure about infinite WO.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
You have a bad copy. I have an m-mount I use WO and it's sharp if you hit focus centrally. At least at normal shooting distances. Not sure about infinite WO.
i guess it is a bad copy because i tried at many different distant, with the help of EVF on my M10. I doubt myself of maybe i'm not good at focus on the leica, put on Sony A9. All AF by the camera. Everything super sharp at f/4 and above.
Alex Phan wrote:
i guess it is a bad copy because i tried at many different distant, with the help of EVF on my M10. I doubt myself of maybe i'm not good at focus on the leica, put on Sony A9. All AF by the camera. Everything super sharp at f/4 and above.
is it sharp at mid-distance? (1m or longer)? That's where this lens performs best.
The 40/1.2 Nokton is not tack sharp at close distance wide open, so your copy may actually be ok. So, basically performance varies by distance since this lens does not have a floating element design.
The DoF is tiny, it will never give you the sharpness you seen to be looking for.
I see this lens as a tool to let me take photos in very low light situations. Even then, if you're not hitting focus precisely at 1.2, you can't expect sharp results.
If you pixel peep, then I don't recommend getting this lens (or any other fast lens).
DaveFP wrote:
I'm curious.
I see a lot of shots in this thread that would suggest that this lens is quite soft wide open or that focus was missed.
Which is it?
Mar 21, 2018 at 05:50 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I see a lot of shots in this thread that would suggest that this lens is quite soft wide open or that focus was missed.
Which is it?
It is a little of both. The lens isn't very sharp wide open shot closer than about 1m or 1.5m. It is pretty sharp even wide open at anything longer than 1.5m or so. It also is pretty sharp even close up at aperture of 2.0 or narrower and very sharp even across the frame at aperture 4.0 or narrower. So, there are some conditions when the lens isn't very sharp but lots of use cases in which it is very sharp.
In addition, from time to time you will see some shots on this thread that missed focus a bit. You won't notice at these web sizes typically unless you look really close or zoom in. Of course the larger you want to present an image the better the focus needs to be to get acceptable results. I have seen very few examples on this thread in which I think the focus ruined the shot, but then I haven't been looking closely for that either. So, I think the vast majority work at the size they have been presented and at typical viewing distance has had adequate focus.
