It's definitely a modified Planar and not a Sonnar. Field curvature is w shaped like the 35/1.4 summilux pre asph.
I foresee acceptable central sharpness, frustrating results on flat planes and decent landscape performance at f8 and smaller as it brings the mid zone dof into line with the centre and corners.
Lens diagram looks to be unchanged so most likely just a tweak to some curvatures. If the larger size allows better tolerances than the VM it might be sharper where it's meant to be sharp but this will be a 100% character lens.
umsl12 wrote:
Wow, I really like its small size and simplicity. I was amazed by 65mm/2 so probably I jump in this lens for its focal length and size. I like 35 than 42mm.
There are reasons some will like this lens, but being amazed by the 2/65 is NOT a reason for being interested in this lens. No two lenses could have more different looks or design goals despite being made by the same guys, CV does not aim to produce a line of similarly performing lenses, rather they explore every corner of design space and every different combination of compromises or lack thereof (except AF)
DavidBM wrote:
There are reasons some will like this lens, but being amazed by the 2/65 is NOT a reason for being interested in this lens. No two lenses could have more different looks or design goals despite being made by the same guys, CV does not aim to produce a line of similarly performing lenses, rather they explore every corner of design space and every different combination of compromises or lack thereof (except AF)
Have you tried the M-version David?
As you know, I really like the CV 40/1.2 and therefore the new CV 35/1.4 it not very enticing to me personally. However, I can see folks replacing their 35/2.8 ZA lenses for something native and just as compact, basically exchanging AF with speed and character.
As I recall, the original CV lens was supposed to be a copy of the venerable pre-ASPH Summilux, but they didn't really do a very good job of it because it never performed as well as that lens. It had worse distortion, worse sharpness in the corners, field curvature, and most damning, worse bokeh wide open, which was really what made that Leica lens so special...
I had the Leica version with the M9 and and M6, and loved it on the M9. But the thicker coverglass of the Sony killed that lens with smearing that never really recovered as you stop down. I held on to that lens for years hoping for a good solution, but finally conceded that it wasn't going to happen, so I sold it last year.
What I especially liked about the Summilux was that it had the Leica glow wide open, but would sharpen up very nicely when closed down to f8, so it was a bit of a split personality lens. A great lens for shooting people and travel. Really small and light.
If they fix that horrible bokeh and sharpen it up a bit in this version it may be a good replacement, and since it has EXIF info, a good profile can be built to deal with distortion if it still exists.
I'm not going to be a first-day buyer since the M version was pretty bad, but I am watching very closely for what the reports and tests look like.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Have you tried the M-version David?
As you know, I really like the CV 40/1.2 and therefore the new CV 35/1.4 it not very enticing to me personally. However, I can see folks replacing their 35/2.8 ZA lenses for something native and just as compact, basically exchanging AF with speed and character.
I did try it briefly, Fred, it wasn't my cup of tea in its character mode, so I didn't check to see whether it comes good stopped down. If it does I guess someone might well get it for wide use and then have a decent stopped down result.
But, even forgetting about AF, I'd be surprised if the new CV at 2.8 or stopped down further matched the 2.8/35ZA (though very interested to find out if it's so). I too am a big fan of the 1.2/40, but if I weren't a 1.4/35 that was centrally OK wide open and great stopped down would be tempting. But that's a good description of the 1.2/40 (and to a lesser extent the 1.2/35) with their larger more modern designs, so I'd be quite surprised if the new CV was like that.
not a fan of the 40 nokton, which has similar design. Nervous bokeh was my main complaint. Secondary complaint was the vignetting, way too harsh. Third was the smearing, got better, but not clean. I replaced it with the FE 35 f2.8 and while there's a big stop difference on paper, probably one 1 EV stop difference.
Hoping the new lens is better for the sake of everyone.
if the only improvement is optimized for sony, then the price is way too steep.
I had the M-mount version and loved that lens but I had the opportunity to buy a Lux FLE and finally sold the VC. Must say I had some regrets after selling it. I liked the nervous bokeh in the VC and I'll buying the Sony version for sure
I don't believe it will be really optimized for FE mount in fact I think it is going to be just the same lens with the adaptor included, field curvature will be present for sure and extreme corners will be terrible even closing 2 stops (my predictions).
Why am I buying this lens ? because I don't like using focus tab in Sony bodies and I prefer character over "perfection".
Charlie N wrote:
not a fan of the 40 nokton, which has similar design. Nervous bokeh was my main complaint. Secondary complaint was the vignetting, way too harsh. Third was the smearing, got better, but not clean. I replaced it with the FE 35 f2.8 and while there's a big stop difference on paper, probably one 1 EV stop difference.
I've had the Nokton 40/1.4 MC since close to its release. I think of it as Summicron-C 40/2 or M-Rokkor 40/2 that is one stop faster. Leicaphiles used to claim that the Summicron-C had better bokeh, but in side by side tests, it was pretty clear that at comparable stops, they had the same nervous bokeh, and pretty much identical sharpness. Color was different to the coatings.
When they modified it to the 35/1.4, they clearly positioned it as an alternative to the pre-asph Summilux 35. I can't say how it compared in that regard, but I felt it was a great as an updated Summicron-C/M-Rokkor.
Got my lens and first impressions are very positive. Build and handling are very similar to 40/1.2 E-mount (but there is no stopless aperture option), small hood is included and lens cap goes inside similarly to 40/1.2. Loving the small size and low weight. It seems to be sharp centrally from wide open with a bit different bokeh style, and infinity shots seem to have excellent corners at f8 and very good or excellent by f5.6. Passable at f4, not so good at f2.8. Hard infinity is best setting for corners but central sharpness is a tad better a bit before infinity even at f8 so I think for infinity shots it may be best to focus in midzone. So far I just looked at my shots through viewfinder and camera's screen. On the way to work now. I'll copy some first samples to a shared Google drive folder later at the office.
Sounds a bit better than the M version, though my only comparable experience is with their 40/1.4 which most certainly is not a lens intended for technically demanding situations where the photographer expects high sharpness across the frame. Would be interesting to see a side-by-side against the M mount version to determine what is different. From what I recall of the M version, it has strong field curvature on Leica M but actually is one of those few M-wides where the thicker Sony sensor stack moderates the field curvature.
I put 100 JPEGs here, straight out of camera (Sony A9). EXIF is available on those shots. Random samples taken this morning in Shinjuku and during lunch break at Shinagawa Seaside. The weather is a bit hazy but basically sunny. In many cases I took the "same shot" twice at different apertures, e.g. f1.4 and f2 or f5.6 and f8.
At f1.4 there is definitely some glow, probably more so than 40/1.2 has wide open. By f2 the results sharpen up noticeably. f8 might be optimum aperture for infinity shots but I find f5.6 to be working almost as well. Bokeh is a bit busier than with 40/1.2.
I had Camera Lens distortion and CA correction set to AUTO but vignetting correction off so some in-camera corrections may have been applied. There is quite much vignetting at f1.4. I also have all the RAW files so if somebody wants to see particular RAW file I can copy it somewhere.
Thank you for sharing Juha. Focus distance, background types and apertures you've selected are just perfect for me to see the character.
Seems to have a bit more sharpness than M version on Sony bodies from what I remember... but a test side by side would tell us the truth.
