TheWonderer wrote:
So I'm finding this lens remarkably versatile... from street to landscape. The two genres I mainly focus on, but also a bit of 'marco' (close-up).
You're located in Brisbane/Australia. Happy to see your stunning pics from Mosel-Region in Germany, where my wife is born. The licence tag "COC ..." was eye-catching.
Indeed, Brisbane is home-base but I've been near Cochem (Bad Bertrich) for almost 2 months now, I'm on a 1 year sabbatical and ... ended up here somehow. Fantastic area, got some great landscape photos but can't post here because they're taken with my Fuji haha
EddiM wrote:
You're located in Brisbane/Australia. Happy to see your stunning pics from Mosel-Region in Germany, where my wife is born. The licence tag "COC ..." was eye-catching.
Anyone know the effective focal length of this lens? I just got one from Cameraquest, compared to my FE 50/1.4 (which is supposedly <50mm) and the Nokton is definitely wider.
The extension (infinity to MFD) for both 40mm and 50mm Voigtlanders (measured with a calliper) is approx. 6.85mm.
Assuming that the maximum magnification specified for both by Cosina is accurate, it is easy to calculate the focal length: f = extension / magnification (both lenses are unit focussing).
For the 40mm magnification is specced as 1/6.2; focal length thus is 42.5mm
For the 50mm magnification is specced as 1/7.0; focal length thus is 48.0mm
Based on what I've been reading it seems that both the 40/1.2 and the 50/1.2 are excellent lenses and I think I'll be buying one of them to use on my Sony a7R II camera.. At this time my only lens for this camera is the Sony 28/2. I'm not sure which focal length would be best for me. I guess maybe the 40 would be better for landscapes and the 50 better for narrower landscapes, street photography and portraits. I really don't expect to shoot many portraits, though. I'm leaning toward the 40mm because it seems to offer greater versatility. I would appreciate any advice as which of the two might be best for my purposes.
stagates wrote:
Based on what I've been reading it seems that both the 40/1.2 and the 50/1.2 are excellent lenses and I think I'll be buying one of them to use on my Sony a7R II camera.. At this time my only lens for this camera is the Sony 28/2. I'm not sure which focal length would be best for me. I guess maybe the 40 would be better for landscapes and the 50 better for narrower landscapes, street photography and portraits. I really don't expect to shoot many portraits, though. I'm leaning toward the 40mm because it seems to offer greater versatility. I would appreciate any advice as which of the two might be best for my purposes....Show more →
Good review from Bastian at phillipreeve.net HERE.
Regarding the CV50 vs the CV40, Bastian states "I would only recommend to get this 40mm lens if you prefer its focal length. In terms of bokeh rendering and across frame sharpness I prefer the 50mm."
I agree with what he says. I own both. I meant to pick one and sell the other. However they are both so good that I can't bear to let either one go. The CV40 gaps better with my MF lenses (15, 21, 25, 40, 65, 85) but I slightly prefer the focal length and IQ of the CV50. I think that the CV50 has the best rendering of any native Sony 50mm lens.
I agree that the 50 has slightly better rendering, but for landscape one significant difference is that the 50 has 12 aperture blades and thus has 12 pointed sun stars where the 40 has 10. I use the 40 more in part because the focal length is more versatile and I prefer the 10 pointed sun stars. However, both are great. This is not a fair comparison as the conditions were better on the 40mm shot and the 40 is at F11 compared to F9 for the 50, but this is an example of sun stars from each:
The FL between the two is actually closer than 10mm, its more like 7-8mm difference. I own the 50 but have read the entire thread on the 40 and did my homework before making a decision. It seems that everyone that has experience testing / using both states that the 50 is equal or better in every aspect. The biggest thing for me was the that the 40 gets onion rings in out of focus artificial light areas that the 50 does not suffer from.
so the only get the 40 if you feel like the 7-8mm extra width is most important to you.
Also the 12 vs 10 apertures blades is more a matter of preference.
they both make very nice looking stars.
the 12 blades gives rounder (less octagon looking bokeh balls). and without onions
brentjbuck3 wrote:
The FL between the two is actually closer than 10mm, its more like 7-8mm difference. I own the 50 but have read the entire thread on the 40 and did my homework before making a decision. It seems that everyone that has experience testing / using both states that the 50 is equal or better in every aspect. The biggest thing for me was the that the 40 gets onion rings in out of focus artificial light areas that the 50 does not suffer from.
so the only get the 40 if you feel like the 7-8mm extra width is most important to you. ...Show more →
I wonder if there any examples of the onion ring bokeh online and whether I would find this objectionable? I think I prefer the greater width of the 40 but if the quality of the 50 is significantly better, I'll go with it.
stagates wrote:
I wonder if there any examples of the onion ring bokeh online and whether I would find this objectionable? I think I prefer the greater width of the 40 but if the quality of the 50 is significantly better, I'll go with it.
Focal length trumps any tiny difference in quality. For those who own both, the consensus seems to be the 50 is only a tiny bit better (no onion rings). If you need 40mm then 50mm won’t work and vice versa. These two lenses are basically identical in image quality. Choose the focal length that works the best for you.
Yes, due to the unusual character of these two, the other lenses you work with are a very large factor here. If you have a more general/other purpose 50-65 or a solid 28-35mm - different choices apply. 40mm has a lot going for it, hence a lot of rebuys.
Leica M 10 wide open
M 10 wide open
M 10 wide open
I was pleasantly surprised by this lens. 50 is not a F/L that is natural for me on FF. 35mm is the F/L that is that. I do really like the way this lens renders. The build is really good. Focus is smooth, pleasant and very easy on a Leica rangefinder. And the price is a real plus. I was actually thinking of picking up a Leica 50 1.0 Noctilux but I am very happy with this gem at a fraction of what a used 50 1.0 Noctilux can be bought for. And it focuses at just a hair over 2 ft. That is really good for a rangefinder lens.
Just to say that I'm very impressed by the 50mm/1.2 Nokton. Very well built, a pleasure to use and mine is at least as good as my Leica 50/1.4 ASPH in the center and better in the edges.
Only problem I have is that it front-focuses on my M10 whilst my Leica lenses (28 to 90) are ok.
