The hoods are the only disappointment, seem very overpriced for what they are.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This lens is also compatible with Voigtlander's new hood (LH-10) which is a bit longer and according to them offers even better stray light shielding.
I have a 52 metal screw in I normally get from eBay or Amazon. I was not impressed with Cosina pricing on their hoods for this. Frankly a rip off at those prices
GMPhotography wrote:
I have a 52 metal screw in I normally get from eBay or Amazon. I was not impressed with Cosina pricing on their hoods for this. Frankly a rip off at those prices
Hi Guy,
Check with Fred about this (I do not have the lens nor intend to purchase one), but the Voigtlander hood looks much like my hood for my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM distagon hood which bayonets to the lens and is a very nice though expensive hood. Unless I want to change my filter from the UV filter on my Zeiss Distagon, I leave hood attached to the lens. I leave the hood in place and it allows the installation of the lens cap without removing or reorienting and reversing the hood.
Check with Fred about this (I do not have the lens nor intend to purchase one), but the Voigtlander hood looks much like my hood for my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM distagon hood which bayonets to the lens and is a very nice though expensive hood. Unless I want to change my filter from the UV filter on my Zeiss Distagon, I leave hood attached to the lens. I leave the hood in place and it allows the installation of the lens cap without removing or reorienting and reversing the hood.
Rich
Yes, the Voigtlander hood reminds me of the Zeiss ZM line's bayonet hood design.
It's a very nice design that accepts filters and the same lens cap. The ones they provide free of charge with E-mount lenses are simpler screw-in hoods.
Hopefully I can do some real shooting over the weekend and post some samples here.
I'm getting some questions regarding bokeh rendering and how the 40/1.2 and 50/1.2 lenses compare.
They are very similar in color, contrast and spherical / color aberration correction. So, images from these two lenses will have a very similar look and character. If your subject is at the same distance from the camera, the 50/1.2 yields more blur compared to the 40/1.2. (See samples below)
However, when shooting at the same aperture while matching the subject magnification, blur will be identical. The CV 40/1.2 shows onion ring pattern on specular highlights and the 50/1.2 surprisingly does not. Perhaps Voigtlander changed their aspheric grinding process?
Same distance to subject: CV 50/1.2 (top) | CV 40/1.2 (bottom)
Same distance to subject: CV 40/1.2 (top) | CV 50/1.2 (bottom)
Mine is in hand. Lovely build quality. Focuses really nice both visually and mechnical feel. Mine looks to be very sharp on center. Obviously I will be testing it. I did buy a Voigtlander close focus adapter from a member so looking forward to that. I have a cheap Fotasy one right now and seems okay for now to test with. May take me a few days to get under test. I知 in the middle of building a beauty salon for my daughter. Yes you guessed it I知 the construction crew. I知 so worn out but I知 saving her thousands by doing a lot of the work. Of course I had to buy all new tools .
Looks really nice so far. I値l keep trying to post images
I do have some wobble with this adapter so I have to be careful until the VM comes.
amazing and intersting comparison. What about color and contrast? any impressions?
My impression comparing the CV 50/1.2 to the Loxia 50/2 is that the former has even more resolving power in the center and slightly off-axis. The Loxia 50/2's color rendition is beautiful but the Voigtlander it's at least on par with it. The Lox 50 has better corner resolution at all apertures and better flare resistance. (See crops below)
My Lox 50 weighs 315g while the CV 50/1.2 weighs 400g. (with 50g adapter)
The CV 50/1.2 + adapter is almost the same size as the Loxia 50 which is amazing considering it's a much faster lens.
Here are some crops for you:
Center at f/2 | This is the Lox 50/2 wide open and it did well but the CV 50/1.2 is better
Mid at f/2 | Both similar but perhaps the Lox 50 has a small edge
Edge at f/2 | Here vignetting is very high for both but the Lox 50 does way better
Center at f/4 | The Lox 50 improves noticeably but the CV 50 improves further from f/2.8 and it's still better
Mid at f/4 | Both very similar here
Edge at f/4 | The Lox 50 is almost optimum at f/4 while the CV 50 still shows heavy astigmatism
So im seeing at center and mid field they look darn darn close. At F2 to me it looks like the CV has a slight edge. Color the CV looks like about 100 kelvin towards the warm side. Not a big difference at all. Just going by your lates samples above here
It seems to me that the CV 50/1.2 is slightly wider than the Lox 50mm...Perhaps 0.5 or 1mm difference.
It's harder to instigate ghosting flare from the Lox 50/2 compared to the CV 50/1.2. Both have great flare resistance but the IMO the Loxia 50 does better. Here is an example:
PS: Notice that at f/2, the CV 50/1.2's OOF rendering is smoother than the Loxia's.
