My conclusion is that the CV 50/1.2 VM (Leica M) version does not perform optimally on the Sony sensor. Same performance at center but about 2 stops behind off-axis (away from center) due to induced field curvature. If you have a Sony, I highly recommend either the CV 50/1.2 E-mount or CV 50/1.2 SE E-mount versions.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My conclusion is that the CV 50/1.2 VM (Leica M) version does not perform optimally on the Sony sensor. Same performance at center but about 2 stops behind off-axis (away from center) due to induced field curvature. If you have a Sony, I highly recommend either the CV 50/1.2 E-mount or CV 50/1.2 SE E-mount versions.
How does the Voigtländer 50/1.2 VM fare on a Nikon Z7? I'm curious whether there would be similar effects as on the Sony, or if they would be qualitatively or quantitatively different.
AcuteShadows wrote:
How does the Voigtländer 50/1.2 VM fare on a Nikon Z7? I'm curious whether there would be similar effects as on the Sony, or if they would be qualitatively or quantitatively different.
I have not tested this but I would bet you would see similar induced field curvature when using the 50/1.2 VM on the Z7 sensor.
Aside from the difference in focal length, here are the CV 50/1.2 Nokton advantages compared to the CV 40/1.2:
1) The CV 40/1.2 is equipped with 10 aperture blades (10-point sunstar) while the 50/1.2 has 12 for 12-point sunstars. The extra 2 aperture blades also yields slightly rounder specular highlights when stopped down. There are some shooters who prefer 10-point sunstars but I prefer sunstars with 12. All recent Voigtlander lenses have 12 aperture blades.
2) The CV 40/1.2's field of view is narrower than 40mm. It's about 42mm while the CV 50/1.2's FOV is a bit wider (49mm). So, if you are considering the 40mm for that wider FOV, in reality they are not as far apart in terms of field of view as the numbers suggest. (~7mm instead of 10mm).
3) The CV 50/1.2's transition zone is smoother compared to the 40/1.2's. Overall rendering is more pleasant to my eyes. It seems like Voigtlander changed their aspherical moulding process as well since the 50/1.2's specular highlights are pretty much free of onion ring pattern which is not the case with the 40/1.2.
4) Neither lens is equipped with a floating element group which means they won't perform optimally at close distance. However, it's less of an issue with the 50mm because one would usually stay a bit further away from the subject. The further the better performance (less spherical aberration). This is even more of an issue with the new 35/1.2 Nokton since compositions tend to be closer to the subject at 35mm.
5) The CV 50/1.2 is a better lens optically. Stronger resolution/contrast at center and across the field. (less field curvature and focus shift as well)
6) When using the 50/1.2 VM on a Leica M body, you will have frame lines available which is not the case with the 40/1.2.
After a year with the CV50/1.2 FE, I started using less of my other lenses and relied mostly on the CV even for landscape shots (panorama). What I need now is only a short-tele for the nokton line; something along a 90/1.5, /1.8 or /2 with the same rendering as the 50/1.2 would be perfect!
Yes I know, I have red your post with attention. It is just that I prefer having native lens mostly because I find it to be more convenient (exif, nothing else to carry...)
I would not buy an expensive lens if I have to adapt it. When I adapt lenses, it for fun, like with my FD lenses!
