Maybe I missed it in the previous pages, but any idea how sharp the 50/1.2 is up close - i.e., does it fall off quickly in sharpness when you get near MFD like the 40/1.2 does?
chris9 wrote:
Very interesting comparison the CV 1.2 40 versus the CV 1.2 50. Thanks Fred!!!
Based on your comparison Fred it seems to me that the CV 1.2 40 has a significantly higher resolving power than the CV 1.2 50 because the CV 1.2 40 shows the same details as the CV 1.2 50 - in the corners even more details... As the CV 1.2 40 has a wider field of view the CV 1.2 40 should show less details than the CV 1.2 50!!!
Would be interesting to see a comparison of the two lenses showing the same frame, meaning going closer to the target with the CV 1.2 40 than with the CV 1.2 50 till the frame matches. Something like a bronco test. My speculation is, the CV 40 would do better also having more Megapixels for each picture at each aperture....Show more →
You're welcome!
Keep in mind that even though the CV 50/1.2 performs surprisingly well off-axis at small apertures, it was not designed for the Sony sensor stack thickness and therefore the CV 40/1.2 E-mount has the native advantage here.
If a CV 50/1.2 E-mount is released, I believe it will be stronger than the 40mm everywhere in the frame.
jhinkey wrote:
Maybe I missed it in the previous pages, but any idea how sharp the 50/1.2 is up close - i.e., does it fall off quickly in sharpness when you get near MFD like the 40/1.2 does?
Little dog shot was pretty much MFD seemed to hold up fairly well. I need to test more for that though.
jhinkey wrote:
Maybe I missed it in the previous pages, but any idea how sharp the 50/1.2 is up close - i.e., does it fall off quickly in sharpness when you get near MFD like the 40/1.2 does?
The 50/1.2's MFD is 0.7m while the 40/1.2 focus as close as 0.35m. It makes sense since it's a longer focal length but I think a 50/1.2 E-mount version would focus as close as 0.5m....Don't know if Voigtlander will even release such lens though.
To answer your question, they have pretty much identical optical design and perform better at infinity compared to close distance and the worse performance is at MFD. I've tried the Marumi +3 achromat while setting the lens' distance to about 2m with great results. This would be much better than using close-up adapters. I will post some samples soon.
robsonj wrote:
Few out of camera (M240) - imported into Lightroom and straight out...
Great, someone is actually using this on a native mount camera.
Any chance you can do some infinity test shots similar to Fred's in order to determine if the relatively weak corner performance is a lens characteristic or a result of Sony's thick sensor stack?
thanks Guy. Can you also test the CA towards the corners?
GMPhotography wrote:
Check this out for CA. Look at the metal hook ring. At F 1.2/F2 you still see a little CA but at F2.8 its gone. This is in C1 without CA checked.
Full Frame is F1.2
Crops
F1.2
F2
F2.8
Im shooting these with electronic shutter to avoid EFSC
rscheffler wrote:
Great, someone is actually using this on a native mount camera.
Any chance you can do some infinity test shots similar to Fred's in order to determine if the relatively weak corner performance is a lens characteristic or a result of Sony's thick sensor stack?
It’s the Sony. My VM 40 1.2 did the exact same thing on my stock Sony, but is much better on Sebboh’s UT. Conversely, the VE 40 1.2 is much better on the stock Sony.
Sep 15, 2018 at 01:16 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
rscheffler wrote:
Great, someone is actually using this on a native mount camera.
Any chance you can do some infinity test shots similar to Fred's in order to determine if the relatively weak corner performance is a lens characteristic or a result of Sony's thick sensor stack?
Was wondering the same thing - interested to see if it does significantly better on a native M Mount camera. Purely for speculation, of course.
rscheffler wrote:
Great, someone is actually using this on a native mount camera.
Any chance you can do some infinity test shots similar to Fred's in order to determine if the relatively weak corner performance is a lens characteristic or a result of Sony's thick sensor stack?
Yep, I plan to take it out Landscape shooting today with the M, so will take some test shots
Just a reminder since we are dealing with a F1.2 lens and doing a lot of testing there we need to be making sure we have EFSC off. Myself I just shoot all this in electronic mode instead of mechnical. My worry is some of this CA we are seeing could also be affected by EFSC given the effect that does wide open
Also I think it’s worth a test especially for LR users is to test a series with Lens corrections turned off and on in camera as LR maybe seeing the raw tags in the file . C1 users we seem to have more control or the tag does not get applied from the Raws with lens corrections on or off.
My infinity seems to just before the hard stop but that is not tested yet. Hopefully I can get to Big Bronco Sunday and get some testing in. Actually I have a few lenses that are in need of tests.
GMPhotography wrote:
Also I think it’s worth a test especially for LR users is to test a series with Lens corrections turned off and on in camera as LR maybe seeing the raw tags in the file . C1 users we seem to have more control or the tag does not get applied from the Raws with lens corrections on or off.
Is it likely LR will identify this lens automatically when it is used with an adapter?
Suffering from fringes of hurricane here, so very gray and humid. Here are two shots on the M10 at f1.2. Note that I have duplicated the layer, added sharpening, masked the top layer, inverted the mask, and painted in sharpening where it matters. Very low amount of sharpening. Also note there was some fogging on lens and in the air...
The 50mm focal length allows me to get more distance when shooting half-body portraits. In that sense, I prefer it over the 40/1.2 lens.
The 50/1.2 is also sharp off-axis (outside the center area) when wide-open. (f/1.2)
The fast aperture gives a nature skin smoothing, so not much processing is needed.
