Even though mine is sitting at home waiting for me . I had the VM version and loved it. Don稚 under estimate this its sharp as hell with tremendous falloff and just gorgeous rendering. As much as I love my Sony 50 1.4 this may just beat it on several fronts. And we all know the Sony is very hard to beat. So this is a lens worth looking at . But you have to be a manual focus person too. I値l probably keep both for different things. This is my travel kit 12,21,28,50 all CV.
It's very similar to what the CV 40/1.2 E provides in terms of rendering where it really becomes a FL preference. The main difference is that until about f/2.8, the CV 50/1.2 E is capable of higher resolution away from center compared to the 40/1.2 E. Unlike the 40mm, the CV 50 E and VM versions are free of focus shift at infinity and bokeh balls are also absent of onion rings.
I agree that the Voigtlander 50mm E has smoother rendering compared to Sony's ZA.
At center, my 50/1.4 ZA is noticeably sharper than the CV 50/1.2 @f/1.4. See image of mailbox but the Voigtlander's rendering is superior across the image field. (2nd crop)
Sony 50/1.4 ZA shows better resolution/contrast at center
Better rendering for the Voigtlander, especially off-axis
At center, my 50/1.4 ZA is noticeably sharper than the CV 50/1.2 @f/1.4. See image of mailbox but the Voigtlander's rendering is superior across the image field. (2nd crop)
Wow, that CV OOF look is almost looks like there's an apodization filter! I guess I like it - it's the holy grail creaminess - but there's something photographic about the distinct OOF balls of a higher contrast look like the ZA that I like too (though I could do without the stronger outlining)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Honestly the 50/1.4 ZA is sharper at center but I much prefer the CV 50/1.2 Nokton's smoother rendering at f/1.4. (Same as f/1.2)
Rendering for both lenses do not improve when stepping the aperture down, so the Voigtlander is always smoother in comparison.
---------------------------------------------
GMPhotography wrote:
The Sony looks like a double image. Am I seeing things
The ZA is a Planar designation and that's pretty much Planar style rendering, IMO. I agree Cosina have done a great job with the look of the 40 and 50/1.2 lenses.
Aside from their designations, I was a bit surprised by this as the 50/1.4 ZA's rendering never bothered me.
After I saw these results, I tested the 50/1.4 ZA at small aperture increments like f/1.6, f/1.8, f/2 and rendering never got smoother. (Same for the CV 50/1.2 E's)
So, CV 40/1.2 E or CV 50/1.2 E?
They share similar rendering signature and now it really becomes a focal length preference. (Although the 50/1.2 is a bit better away from center and it's free of onion patterns in bokeh)
Fred thanks for testing . I should be home tomorrow and start this process. I知 really excited about the 50. Look how well the 40 took off here for members. Really love the rendering especially the foreground too. Maybe the 75 coming maybe nice to look at at some point. With the 135 coming and hopefully a updated firmware for the Rokinon 85 we can stop chasing our tails some. I知 loving my gear now
GMPhotography wrote:
Fred thanks for testing . I should be home tomorrow and start this process. I知 really excited about the 50. Look how well the 40 took off here for members. Really love the rendering especially the foreground too. Maybe the 75 coming maybe nice to look at at some point. With the 135 coming and hopefully a updated firmware for the Rokinon 85 we can stop chasing our tails some. I知 loving my gear now
Get some more rest guy. No rush for the big bronco comparison between 50ZA
I am frustrated as I want to join in the fun but my wife would not let me leave the house due to being under the weather. Hopefully I can get out and test soon. I do like the smoothness of the bokeh in Fred痴 samples.
Fred Miranda wrote:
So, CV 40/1.2 E or CV 50/1.2 E?
They share similar rendering signature and now it really becomes a focal length preference. (Although the 50/1.2 is a bit better away from center and it's free of onion patterns in bokeh)
I'm reading this thread just begging for justification to own both.
At center, my 50/1.4 ZA is noticeably sharper than the CV 50/1.2 @f/1.4. See image of mailbox but the Voigtlander's rendering is superior across the image field. (2nd crop)
The rendering of the CV looked like essentially a Gaussian Blur difference from the ZA, so I thought I'd see if there was a level of gaussian blur that made them look close. 2.9 pixels, on that sample, seems to be the number:
Of course it's not exactly the same, and even if it were it would be pain to paint the blur into the BG of your images (but it's a small amount, and not very sensitive I think to depth info, so not hard to do: the depth cues are there from the underly bokeh structure). Still I'm surprised by how similar!
