d.s. wrote:
Sounds like a nice alternative for those who passed on the 40 because of onions. Now I need a nice native manual 28mm to pair with it. Any manufacturers reading this?
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for checking the dimensions. I have the 50/1.1 and will check it on my M240 once I have it back from servicing in a few days.
d.s. wrote:
No problem. I'd be curious to know your findings.
Tried the 7A 50/1.1 without a hood on the M240. At infinity focus VF blockage reaches just to the corner tip of the bottom right 75mm frame lines. At MFD, blockage extends to the left-most point of the 75mm horizontal frame line to the left of the bottom right corner 75mm frame line.
It's not as bad as I expected for farther focusing distances, but add a hood and it will be somewhat worse.
Infinity distance resolution comparison: CV 50/1.2 E-mount vs FE 50/1.4 ZA
At f/1.4, the Sony 50/1.4 ZA performs slightly better at center and substantially better at the extreme corners compared to the CV 50/1.2 @f/1.4 at infinity distance.
At mid-field, the FE 50/1.4 is not particularly strong (mid-field dip) but managed to match the 50/1.2 @f/1.4.
Thumbnail showing 1:1 areas at infinity distance
Center at f/1.4: The FE 50/1.4 ZA does slightly better wide open compared to the 50/1.2 E-mount @f/1.4
Mid-field at f/1.4: They are very similar here
Extreme edge at f/1.4: No contest. The Sony ZA takes the cake here
Thank you, VR and Guy. This is an area we can expect the FE55 to excel, but no. Here it has a small but real magnification advantage but if anything the V50 is a little better. Better shaping, slightly better green separation, and that subtle red tone to front left tree is there also, Sony tends blue/green but also very good here.
Even Macca's number is clearer. Handles haze better too. Neutrals separate more clearly too. I can tell from the grasses that drab mountainscapes would be better served too. All from a f1.2 lens is very impressive. Colors in Guy's bronc rider are stronger in bright sunlight than the faster Sony 50. A winner by TKO. I'm kind of glad our CV distributor is not yet listing it.
Blunt comment and I apologize in advance. I would not own the 55. I know I must be a idiot. It’s a lens . Period
I want personality. Z
Don’t flame me today. Just not a great day but remember we are Artists that want to leave a impression in our work. This lens just leaves my cold. My opinion
Fred Miranda wrote: Infinity distance resolution comparison: CV 50/1.2 E-mount vs FE 50/1.4 ZA
At f/1.4, the Sony 50/1.4 ZA performs slightly better at center and substantially better at the extreme corners compared to the CV 50/1.2 @f/1.4 at infinity distance.
At mid-field, the FE 50/1.4 is not particularly strong (mid-field dip) but managed to match the 50/1.2 @f/1.4.
Get to F 4 and they are very close. I said early you need wide open performance in corners. Get the Sony. No question
GMPhotography wrote:
Get to F 4 and they are very close. I said early you need wide open performance in corners. Get the Sony. No question
Both such nice lenses
Yes, they get closer at f/4 and smaller.
Honestly, aside from the same FL, these two lenses could not be more different in size, performance and rendering. (Not to count AF vs MF)
Personally, I prefer the Voigtlander's rendering but the FE 50/1.4 ZA wins on resolution and contrast. I will post comparisons at smaller apertures as well.
Thanks for the follow up. That's really not bad at all. Earlier in this thread the issue of ring flare came up, and seemed to mostly be mitigated by a glassless filter ring. I believe B+W's XS-Pro line is the thinnest.
After downloading Guy's old VM zip file, and comparing Fred's midfield crops, I think I'll stick with the 50s I have in M mount, and continue to build up my native FE kit.
rscheffler wrote:
Tried the 7A 50/1.1 without a hood on the M240. At infinity focus VF blockage reaches just to the corner tip of the bottom right 75mm frame lines. At MFD, blockage extends to the left-most point of the 75mm horizontal frame line to the left of the bottom right corner 75mm frame line.
It's not as bad as I expected for farther focusing distances, but add a hood and it will be somewhat worse.
The 55 is a bit of an on/off lens. It really should have been more affordable, being the main lens on release. I've liked its clarity a lot for general work, and it excels at close distance indoors, where the dishwater bokeh works well. But once seen never forgotten, this soft hazy cast over backgrounds is why it heads off to another user soon.
The CV 50/1.2 is all I want in the middle and the little bit shorter FL is good too. You can grow more fussy in a bigger system like we have now, and the good ones from the 50/1.2 posted here are special. Mid aperture quality sealed it. thanks again.
I took the CV 50 f/1.2 (E-Mount) lens to Granville Island Public Market yesterday and here are some of the more interesting shots with 100% crops - no post processing. It's possible any softness might be my MF technique... I'm still a noob. So don't necessarily judge the lens sharpness from these narrow DoF samples.
Here are a couple of shots of people... the Hat Lady posed making it much easier, the other was stationary anyway, but MF on this lens with the magnification assist is actually much easier and quicker than I thought. I find turning peaking off makes it easier for me to eye-ball it.
virtualrain wrote:
I took the CV 50 f/1.2 (E-Mount) lens to Granville Island Public Market yesterday and here are some of the more interesting shots with 100% crops - no post processing. It's possible any softness might be my MF technique... I'm still a noob. So don't necessarily judge the lens sharpness from these narrow DoF samples.
virtualrain wrote:
Here are a couple of shots of people... the Hat Lady posed making it much easier, the other was stationary anyway, but MF on this lens with the magnification assist is actually much easier and quicker than I thought. I find turning peaking off makes it easier for me to eye-ball it.
Got my second copy of the CV 50/1.2 today. Seems better centered than my first copy. I did a quick infinity check and am happy with it being centered. I tested it against the Loxia 50. While the light was not as consistent and thus I may want to test again, to me the CV does quite well even against the Loxia. At larger apertures--F2-F4, I like the CV for sure. At smaller apertures, it is very close. See what you guys think. Here is the overall scene and then some crops at F2.8 and F6.3. Happy to post more, but don't want to bore everyone....My knee jerk reaction is that if the results hold up on further testing (I did two tests with each lens refocusing between each attempt) the Loxia may be going to the Buy and Sell board.
Here is the overall scene as shot by the CV 50 and then the F2.8 crops:
Having received my copy today the first negative thing I noticed is a big purple ghost in strongly backlit scenarios at or near wide open. Unless I find a fingerprint or something on an element it'll be returned rather than exchanged. Too bad.
d.s. wrote:
Having received my copy today the first negative thing I noticed is a big purple ghost in strongly backlit scenarios at or near wide open. Unless I find a fingerprint or something on an element it'll be returned rather than exchanged. Too bad.
Both the CV 40 and 50 have a fair amount of CA at or near wide open in back lit subjects. It is usually pretty easily correctable and disappears quickly as one stops down. The Loxia has it too at large apertures.
Not CA, which I'm fine with ( esp. considering the design), but flare (ghosting, not veiling).
Luvwine wrote:
Both the CV 40 and 50 have a fair amount of CA at or near wide open in back lit subjects. It is usually pretty easily correctable and disappears quickly as one stops down. The Loxia has it too at large apertures.
