virtualrain wrote:
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)?
I will check transmission tomorrow. So far didn't see anything alarming though.
Next, I will post a comparison to the Sony FE 50/1.4 ZA at infinity.
Spoiler alert: The Sony wins at pretty much all apertures. (Especially center and extreme corners)
I’m home I’ll start soon, the 50 looks better too me. Which I was expecting. The nice thing is the 50 corners come up much sooner than the VM version, which I was hoping that would happen, glad I waited for this version. Thanks Fred that helped me a lot.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will check transmission tomorrow. So far didn't see anything alarming though.
Next, I will post a comparison to the Sony FE 50/1.4 ZA at infinity.
Spoiler alert: The Sony wins at pretty much all apertures. (Especially center and extreme corners)
I would be shocked if the ZA didn’t own the CV in resolution... it’s a monster in comparison. However, I’m guessing the CV is punching outside its weight (and size) class and gets the edge in bokeh smoothness.
I just got back in from some infinity testing. Unfortunately, I found that my sample is slightly decentered in that the corner crops on the right side are slightly soft compared to the left. It is fairly minor, but enough that I just sent an email asking about a return. (I expect Camera Quest will be easy to deal with in this regard, thankfully). I did a fair amount of testing--more careful than yesterday and under bright sunny conditions. I think there is some field curvature in the lens as if I am focusing at larger apertures, the best spot for center sharpness seems to be just shy of the hard stop where if I am focusing say on the top edge, the best spot is at the hard stop. Still, I don't see any advantage in focusing away from center at infinity and did not see any significant difference focusing at say F1.4 on center compared to focusing at F2.8. Overall, compared to the Loxia, I think I favor the CV at large apertures, but at F5.6 and smaller, I think they seem approximately equal though I would like another sample to be sure as in the strong part of the frame for my copy of the CV, I think I see a potential advantage in resolution even at F5.6-8 but then not in the weaker part of the frame (where I might choose the Loxia). Sigh.
One oddity is that when I compare an image at F8 to F11 using aperture priority, the shutter speed does NOT halve as one would expect. This means the image is darkened perceptibly and I don't know why. I shot the same Cityscape scene in bright sun with not clouds and every time the shutter speed halves in whole stop increments except from F8-11. The Loxia did not have the same behavior. Anyone else see this? For example, I shot one image at F8 at 1/320 and the next image at F11 was at 1/200. Another time at ISO 50, it went from 1/160 to 1/100 going from F8 to F11. Another time from 1/320 to 1/200. Only once, when it went from 1/400 to 1/200 was it as expected and even then the image darkens perceptibly and the histogram moves to the left. Wonder what is going on assuming my copy is not exhibiting anomalous behavior.
Luvwine wrote:
I just got back in from some infinity testing. Unfortunately, I found that my sample is slightly decentered in that the corner crops on the right side are slightly soft compared to the left. It is fairly minor, but enough that I just sent an email asking about a return. (I expect Camera Quest will be easy to deal with in this regard, thankfully). I did a fair amount of testing--more careful than yesterday and under bright sunny conditions. I think there is some field curvature in the lens as if I am focusing at larger apertures, the best spot for center sharpness seems to be just shy of the hard stop where if I am focusing say on the top edge, the best spot is at the hard stop. Still, I don't see any advantage in focusing away from center at infinity and did not see any significant difference focusing at say F1.4 on center compared to focusing at F2.8. Overall, compared to the Loxia, I think I favor the CV at large apertures, but at F5.6 and smaller, I think they seem approximately equal though I would like another sample to be sure as in the strong part of the frame for my copy of the CV, I think I see a potential advantage in resolution even at F5.6-8 but then not in the weaker part of the frame (where I might choose the Loxia). Sigh.
One oddity is that when I compare an image at F8 to F11 using aperture priority, the shutter speed does NOT halve as one would expect. This means the image is darkened perceptibly and I don't know why. I shot the same Cityscape scene in bright sun with not clouds and every time the shutter speed halves in whole stop increments except from F8-11. The Loxia did not have the same behavior. Anyone else see this? For example, I shot one image at F8 at 1/320 and the next image at F11 was at 1/200. Another time at ISO 50, it went from 1/160 to 1/100 going from F8 to F11. Another time from 1/320 to 1/200. Only once, when it went from 1/400 to 1/200 was it as expected and even then the image darkens perceptibly and the histogram moves to the left. Wonder what is going on assuming my copy is not exhibiting anomalous behavior. ...Show more →
Thanks for sharing your observations. The fact that this lens is competing with the Loxia at the edges is a win although I hope you can get a properly centred copy. It is unfortunate if there is copy variation in this product.
As for the exposure problem. It seems the lens is letting in more light than it should at f/11 (faster shutter than expected). So it would stand to reason that the iris is perhaps not closing a full stop from f/8 to f/11. Maybe try changing the the aperture in 1/3rd increments and trying again to see where the change in exposure is not happening as expected. And maybe try with the shutter fixed and watching ISO instead in case it’s something else. And also try smaller apertures to see if it’s happening at other small apertures. I think more testing might be helpful in getting to the root of this.
Edit: I wonder if one other possible explanation for the exposure behaviour you’re witnessing may be that vignetting changes between f/8 and f/11 enough to regain a bit of light. It may change at other apertures as well? Have you tried going from wide open to f/11 and watched the shutter change along the way?
virtualrain wrote:
Thanks for sharing your observations. The fact that this lens is competing with the Loxia at the edges is a win although I hope you can get a properly centred copy. It is unfortunate if there is copy variation in this product.
As for the exposure problem. It seems the lens is letting in more light than it should at f/11 (faster shutter than expected). So it would stand to reason that the iris is perhaps not closing a full stop from f/8 to f/11. Maybe try changing the the aperture in 1/3rd increments and trying again to see where the change in exposure is not happening as expected. And maybe try with the shutter fixed and watching ISO instead in case it’s something else. And also try smaller apertures to see if it’s happening at other small apertures. I think more testing might be helpful in getting to the root of this.
Edit: I wonder if one other possible explanation for the exposure behaviour you’re witnessing may be that vignetting changes between f/8 and f/11 enough to regain a bit of light. It may change at other apertures as well? Have you tried going from wide open to f/11 and watched the shutter change along the way? ...Show more →
It is letting in less light than it should from F8 to 11, not more. From F1.4 intil F8 the SS in aperture priority changes as it should in whole stop increments. Vignetting was my initial thought as well as I noticed the darkening in the blue sky comparing corner crops but then I realized the darkening was all over the image so I then looked at the SS and histogram. Really odd. Perhaps the aperture just closes down a hair more than it should from F8 to 11 at least on my copy? Just reporting observations to see if others see something similar.
For all that, yes I am encouraged enough to send the lens back for replacement rather than refund and Stephen at Camera Quest was prompt and pleasant about the return (which is great—even paying postage on the return which I did not ask for nor expect).
Can anyone comment on the degree to which the VM intrudes into the 50mm frames on any Leica M other than the 10? Instead of the native, I'd sacrifice the corners at or close to wide open if it doesn't take up more than 10% of the frame.
virtualrain wrote:
Thanks for sharing your observations. The fact that this lens is competing with the Loxia at the edges is a win although I hope you can get a properly centred copy. It is unfortunate if there is copy variation in this product.
As for the exposure problem. It seems the lens is letting in more light than it should at f/11 (faster shutter than expected). So it would stand to reason that the iris is perhaps not closing a full stop from f/8 to f/11. Maybe try changing the the aperture in 1/3rd increments and trying again to see where the change in exposure is not happening as expected. And maybe try with the shutter fixed and watching ISO instead in case it’s something else. And also try smaller apertures to see if it’s happening at other small apertures. I think more testing might be helpful in getting to the root of this.
Edit: I wonder if one other possible explanation for the exposure behaviour you’re witnessing may be that vignetting changes between f/8 and f/11 enough to regain a bit of light. It may change at other apertures as well? Have you tried going from wide open to f/11 and watched the shutter change along the way? ...Show more →
The Loxia 50/2 gets alive at around f/6.3. That's when its mid-field gets crispier.
At smaller apertures, the Loxia will do better off-axis while the CV 50/1.2 will always have the better center. (slightly)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Loxia 50/2 gets alive at around f/6.3. That's when its mid-field gets crispier.
At smaller apertures, the Loxia will do better off-axis while the CV 50/1.2 will always have the better center. (slightly)
Fred, are you saying that at F6.3 and smaller you think the Loxia is better than the CV 50 away from center?
Luvwine wrote:
Fred, are you saying that at F6.3 and smaller you think the Loxia is better than the CV 50 away from center?
At f/5.6, the Loxia's corners have higher resolution and contrast. Center and mid are similar to the CV 50 at small apertures.
The Loxia 50's corners are always great even at wide aperture. The issue is mid-field needs at least f/5.6 to get optimum.
Here is a comparison. (Loxia is LEFT)
PS: Taken at different days and different lighting
Just to add to the data, here are some crops from a comparison I did the other day. The issue is that the corner crop is from the upper right and that is the weakest corner on my copy of the CV (which I am returning tomorrow due to having a softer right side than left). All are at F6.3. CV first in each pair.
Full scene:
Center, CV first:
Upper mid field (toward edge):
Left Midfield:
Upper right corner (weak right side for my sample of the CV--want a better sample for a true comparison):
For what it is worth, I thought the CV held up to the Loxia very well and, on the left side of the image may even have the edge but given my sample of the CV is a bit decentered, I am not sure I can make a true conclusion. Loxia is a bit better in the upper right corner but only there to my eyes and again that is the worst corner for the decentered CV. Happy to post additional crops. I did several times and it at every apertures F1.2, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 6.3, 7.1, 8, and 11.
Just to add to the data, here are some crops from a comparison I did the other day. The issue is that the corner crop is from the upper right and that is the weakest corner on my copy of the CV (which I am returning tomorrow due to having a softer right side than left). All are at F6.3. CV first in each pair.
Upper right corner (weak right side for my sample of the CV--want a better sample for a true comparison):
For what it is worth, I thought the CV held up to the Loxia very well and, on the left side of the image may even have the edge but given my sample of the CV is a bit decentered, I am not sure I can make a true conclusion. Loxia is a bit better in the upper right corner but only there to my eyes and again that is the worst corner for the decentered CV. Happy to post additional crops. I did several times and it at every apertures F1.2, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 6.3, 7.1, 8, and 11....Show more →
Well that’s actually not that bad in my experience... with Sony and Batis lenses. It could be much worse. I probably would have kept your copy.
virtualrain wrote:
Well that’s actually not that bad in my experience... with Sony and Batis lenses. It could be much worse. I probably would have kept your copy.
Larger apertures are worse. Perhaps I have high standards. Here is upper left corner versus upper right corner at F1.4:
There’s no question yours is slightly decentered. Is this on a 42Mpix sensor?
I don’t know if lens manufacturers like Cosina have significantly stepped up manufacturing tolerances lately, but back when I was active on the forums about 24-18 months ago, that level of decentering would have been considered pretty good on a 42Mpix sensor. Someone exchanging a lens like yours would be just as likely to get one worse than better than this. I went through 3 copies with the Batis 85 where my 2nd copy was worse than my first, and the third was the same as the first (at which point both me and my contact at Zeiss gave up). I concluded that it just wasn’t realistic to expect a perfectly cantered copy when pixel peeping at 42Mpix.
But I have no experience with CV copy variation, so maybe yours is an exception these days and your chances of getting a better one are much greater than they use to be with Zeiss Batis or older designs.
For other CV owners following this thread... what’s the copy variation like on 42Mpix? Is it as bad as Sony and Batis lenses were two years ago or is it much improved?
Aren't Batis lenses made by Tamron for Zeiss, whereas Cosina makes the Zeiss Z*, Loxia and Otus lenses? My impression is Cosina's QC has improved a lot over the last ~5 years. Before then it was apparently more of a crapshoot. IIRC, someone posted a few years back on the Leica images thread in the Alt forum that they tried ~10 copies of the old 21/4 before finding a stellar copy that was sharp and centered.
As for the 50/1.2... rendering looks very Lux ASPH like, if not better in some respects. Being an M shooter, if the CV wasn't so big (likely viewfinder blockage, also info I'd be interested in knowing more about, already raised in d.s.'s post a few up this page), I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
Actually, I'd love to see Cosina make a killer 50/2 with this rendering and performance competitive with the Leica 50/2 APO ASPH.
I think the only thing holding me back from the 50/1.2, other than size (because I know I would still favor the 50 Lux ASPH over it because of this), is what appears to be some purple fringing tendency at wide apertures. Has anyone found this to be noticeable and/or objectionable in their everyday photos with this lens? The Porsche photo above looks really good at web-res... maybe it's not as significant a factor as I imagined.
rscheffler wrote:
Aren't Batis lenses made by Tamron for Zeiss, whereas Cosina makes the Zeiss Z*, Loxia and Otus lenses? My impression is Cosina's QC has improved a lot over the last ~5 years. Before then it was apparently more of a crapshoot. IIRC, someone posted a few years back on the Leica images thread in the Alt forum that they tried ~10 copies of the old 21/4 before finding a stellar copy that was sharp and centered.
As for the 50/1.2... rendering looks very Lux ASPH like, if not better in some respects. Being an M shooter, if the CV wasn't so big (likely viewfinder blockage, also info I'd be interested in knowing more about, already raised in d.s.'s post a few up this page), I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
Actually, I'd love to see Cosina make a killer 50/2 with this rendering and performance competitive with the Leica 50/2 APO ASPH.
I think the only thing holding me back from the 50/1.2, other than size (because I know I would still favor the 50 Lux ASPH over it because of this), is what appears to be some purple fringing tendency at wide apertures. Has anyone found this to be noticeable and/or objectionable in their everyday photos with this lens? The Porsche photo above looks really good at web-res... maybe it's not as significant a factor as I imagined....Show more →
There was a bit of fringing. I saw it easily on the horizontal line at the bottom of the “frunk” (closest to the camera just under the Porsche symbol). cleaned it up in LR. It only took a small amount of moving the slider to get rid of it. It goes away as one stops down but at F1.4 (Porsche shot above) one is likely to see some in a pic like that one.
rscheffler wrote:
Being an M shooter, if the CV wasn't so big (likely viewfinder blockage, also info I'd be interested in knowing more about, already raised in d.s.'s post a few up this page), I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
Assuming the length listed on B&H for both lenses was measured from the flange, the 7Artisan's 50/1.1 is nearly identical in size to the Nokon (though the Nokton tapers past the aperture ring).
Here's an image of the intrusion at what looks to be in the 10m range:
