I think the 40/1.2’s rendering is very similar. No wonder this lens is loved by so many!
DavidBM wrote:
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!
Fred, maybe I missed in somewhere in the thread, but is the CV 50 1.2 a real 50 mm (exact focal lenght)? I am asking as the CV 40 1.2 is more like a 42mm...THANKS for all the testing!
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 curious about that too. Fred said somewhere that the CV 50 1.2 is wider than the Zony 50 1.4. That would indicate that the CV 40 & 50 are not all that different in focal length.
grahamgibson wrote:
Nice, Fred. How close is the actual focal length to 50mm? I've heard the Sony 50/1.4 is more like 47mm and the CV40 is closer to 42mm.
Fred wrote:
The 50/1.2 E-mount is only slightly wider than the 50/1.4 ZA. It's a small difference that could vary from copy to copy.
I just did a VERY quick and dirty infinity comparison between CV 50/1.2 and Loxia 50 (and the C/Y 35-70 for good measure). It was windy, I only did one trial, and the light conditions were changing (bright sun with a few clouds that altered the look of different parts of the image). With these caveats, I can post images later or tomorrow latest (hosing a dinner party tonight), but the CV 50 is quite good in the center from F2 but the edges suffer a lot until F2.8 and at F4 it is very good tho best probably F5.6 or so. Loxia gets way better when stopped down to F5.6 of course. At F2.8, the CV is preferable everywhere in the field. At F4, the CV is still better towards the edges and corners. At F5.6 to F8 I would say the two seem even in sharpness with maybe a bit of an edge on native contrast to the Loxia but it is very slight and I hesitate to say anything definite until I have tested more. The Loxia is also somewhat longer than the CV. Seems like two very good lenses. Don't suspect the CV will have any advantage for stopped down landscape work over the Loxia and perhaps the opposite though right now they seem pretty even with the CV being the more versatile entry. I do want to test more tho. I also did some with the CV 40 but have not even looked at them yet.
What about color and or contrast? Which one is more appealling ?
Luvwine wrote:
I just did a VERY quick and dirty infinity comparison between CV 50/1.2 and Loxia 50 (and the C/Y 35-70 for good measure). It was windy, I only did one trial, and the light conditions were changing (bright sun with a few clouds that altered the look of different parts of the image). With these caveats, I can post images later or tomorrow latest (hosing a dinner party tonight), but the CV 50 is quite good in the center from F2 but the edges suffer a lot until F2.8 and at F4 it is very good tho best probably F5.6 or so. Loxia gets way better when stopped down to F5.6 of course. At F2.8, the CV is preferable everywhere in the field. At F4, the CV is still better towards the edges and corners. At F5.6 to F8 I would say the two seem even in sharpness with maybe a bit of an edge on native contrast to the Loxia but it is very slight and I hesitate to say anything definite until I have tested more. The Loxia is also somewhat longer than the CV. Seems like two very good lenses. Don't suspect the CV will have any advantage for stopped down landscape work over the Loxia and perhaps the opposite though right now they seem pretty even with the CV being the more versatile entry. I do want to test more tho. I also did some with the CV 40 but have not even looked at them yet. ...Show more →
hanay78 wrote:
What about color and or contrast? Which one is more appealling ?
Give me a day or so and I will post crops, but in general I find CV colors a bit more neutral and on contrast the Zeiss to have a touch more but in neither event are the differences dramatic. As to which is more pleasing, it depends on the subject. Both are fine choices. The quick and dirty comparison I did was just of a Cityscape that I often use. There are certainly differences in these two lenses tho less as one stops down, but there are no bad choices here.
It seems like the 50 has extreme corners that are decently sharp starting at about f/2.8 but I wouldn't worry about them even at f/2 and the chances of the corners mattering for a shot at f/1.4 or f/1.2 are slim.
It looks like you can get pixel peeping levels of sharpness at f/4 across the frame with the new 50 but for me even f/2 is great.
It seems like the 50 has extreme corners that are decently sharp starting at about f/2.8 but I wouldn't worry about them even at f/2 and the chances of the corners mattering for a shot at f/1.4 or f/1.2 are slim.
It looks like you can get pixel peeping levels of sharpness at f/4 across the frame with the new 50.
I'd say that at f/4 both lenses are very similar across the frame. With apertures larger than f/2.8, the advantage goes to the new 50/1.2 when the subject is off-axis.
One advantage of the 50/1.2 E-mount is that a subject positioned towards the "rule of thirds" will be sharper wide open until about f/2.8. The 50/1.2 E-mount is a huge improvement vs the VM version on the Sony.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'd say that at f/4 both lenses are very similar across the frame. With apertures larger than f/2.8, the advantage goes to the new 50/1.2 when the subject is off-axis.
One advantage of the 50/1.2 E-mount is that a subject positioned towards the "rule of thirds" will be sharper wide open until about f/2.8. The 50/1.2 E-mount is a huge improvement vs the VM version on the Sony.
Agreed. As far as I'm concerned, the sharpness is more than adequate at every aperture as the stuff I'm shooting at f/1.2 to f/2 is not going to need corner sharpness. Rule of thirds matters though, and as you say, the new 50 is perfectly fine here as far as I'm concerned. I look forward to getting my hands on one.
Have you noticed any difference in T-stops (light transmission between this and other 50's you've tried lately)?
