Might as well show the rest of the logging. Unfortunately I don't have a tractor (yet!), so I had to make do with the lawn mower.
Here you can clearly see how the bokeh calms down at larger distance. A feature that I like very much, and that is very uncommon.
ILCE-7M2Voigtländer 35mm F/1.4 Nokton Classic (Sony E) lens35mmf/1.41/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7M2Voigtländer 35mm F/1.4 Nokton Classic (Sony E) lens35mmf/1.41/8s640 ISO0.0 EV
Does the CV 35/1.4 lens output feel like an authentic vintage lens? Not the bokeh but just how the regular images look compared to modern lenses? Thinking around medium or long distance shots mostly. Stopped down some, f2.8-f11.
Want to give it a try for filmic looks as the Nikon 35/1.4 ais is a bit long when adapted to Sony, but it looks so much better than modern lenses with the editing I'm doing.
The other vintage lenses I'm not so sure about. f2.8 ones tend to be too contrasty. F2 lenses slightly too big when adapted to Sony still (or just not good enough) or the canon 35/2 with the bearing issue. Prices are up there anyway for good condition f2 ones and I don't know how well they'll hold up. So I was thinking about this one.
The modern lenses there's just something about them that ruins it and I don't know if it's the microcontrast, sharpness or the way the light is, I just don't know how to explain it exactly but it causes a struggle in post. Ideally the x100vi would do for this but I just can't get it to look as good as the vintage lenses. Possibly a skill issue but it's too much.
I was wondering if this gives that vintage look, ignoring the bokeh, stopped down, bit longer distance. Or is it still a bit too modern? The flickr samples I'm struggling to get high enough res to test with, only 1024 px, so hoping for general opinions and thoughts from owners.
-- sorry I thought it was a thread on the CV 35/1.4 exclusively, apologies but hopefully it'll be a good enough place for the question anyway.
I have this feeling it's still a bit too modern. The mir-24h (35/2) doesn't hold up well enough at the edges stopped down, the distortion is a mess at medium-long, the flare resulting in loss of contrast on stopping down. It's really nice for closer/medium people shots but I'm looking for a street non-people walkabout setup. Voigtlander 40/2 ultron isn't right either.
Yogifi wrote:
Does the CV 35/1.4 lens output feel like an authentic vintage lens? Not the bokeh but just how the regular images look compared to modern lenses? Thinking around medium or long distance shots mostly. Stopped down some, f2.8-f11.
Want to give it a try for filmic looks as the Nikon 35/1.4 ais is a bit long when adapted to Sony, but it looks so much better than modern lenses with the editing I'm doing.
The other vintage lenses I'm not so sure about. f2.8 ones tend to be too contrasty. F2 lenses slightly too big when adapted to Sony still (or just not good enough) or the canon 35/2 with the bearing issue. Prices are up there anyway for good condition f2 ones and I don't know how well they'll hold up. So I was thinking about this one.
The modern lenses there's just something about them that ruins it and I don't know if it's the microcontrast, sharpness or the way the light is, I just don't know how to explain it exactly but it causes a struggle in post. Ideally the x100vi would do for this but I just can't get it to look as good as the vintage lenses. Possibly a skill issue but it's too much.
I was wondering if this gives that vintage look, ignoring the bokeh, stopped down, bit longer distance. Or is it still a bit too modern? The flickr samples I'm struggling to get high enough res to test with, only 1024 px, so hoping for general opinions and thoughts from owners.
-- sorry I thought it was a thread on the CV 35/1.4 exclusively, apologies but hopefully it'll be a good enough place for the question anyway.
I have this feeling it's still a bit too modern. The mir-24h (35/2) doesn't hold up well enough at the edges stopped down, the distortion is a mess at medium-long, the flare resulting in loss of contrast on stopping down. It's really nice for closer/medium people shots but I'm looking for a street non-people walkabout setup. Voigtlander 40/2 ultron isn't right either....Show more →
Totally depends on what you see as "vintage" in your Nikon 35/1.4. IMO the Voigtländer gives more vintage looking results if anything, but OTOH I think both are more or less indistinguishable from any modern, good lens at f/4 and on.
The only "vintage" character left would be lack of contrast and lower saturation, and that is easy to fix in PP. If you want a generally more hazy result, there are countless "mist" filters that do that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This lens is based on the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton "M-mount" and draws inspiration from the famous Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux (pre-asph).
Fred, when you say Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux are you referring to the original steel rim - first version, 8-element?
brick33308 wrote:
Fred, when you say Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux are you referring to the original steel rim - first version, 8-element?
The original 35mm f/1.4 Summilux Steel Rim, the subsequent pre-asph "v2", and the recent Steel Rim reissue all share the same optical design. What changed over the decades was the type of glass (minor changes) and the coatings used, not the formula itself. As a result, resolution and overall rendering remain essentially the same, while contrast and color can vary slightly between versions due to the different coatings.
The 8 element 35/2 Summicron, on the other hand, is a different optical design.
I should get the e-mount version of this lens for IQ over the m-mount to use on Sony right?
I don't care too much about the electronic contacts, but the larger focus ring looks appealing.
Any difference in IQ that people with both can tell? Just thinking I might still get an m-mount camera in the future but if there's a solid reason to get e-mount in terms of performance?
Looking for something for casual walkabout that has:
- high build quality
- not big
- by f5.6 is reasonable in the corners but not great
- not high contrast and easy to look at the images (not currently planning to use this at f1.4)
- good flare resistance in terms of losing contrast all over the image when the sun is in the frame
- manual focus and nice to use
- don't notice the distortion / notice it a little but easy to correct
- pretty flat field
Ideally no sunstars until f16 but I'll live if they're there.
I tried some smaller adapted vintage lenses but I'm not having the best of luck even after shelling out for "top mint" quality, getting a bit tired of ebay.
Yogifi wrote:
I should get the e-mount version of this lens for IQ over the m-mount to use on Sony right?
I don't care too much about the electronic contacts, but the larger focus ring looks appealing.
Any difference in IQ that people with both can tell? Just thinking I might still get an m-mount camera in the future but if there's a solid reason to get e-mount in terms of performance?
Looking for something for casual walkabout that has:
- high build quality
- not big
- by f5.6 is reasonable in the corners but not great
- not high contrast and easy to look at the images (not currently planning to use this at f1.4)
- good flare resistance in terms of losing contrast all over the image when the sun is in the frame
- manual focus and nice to use
- don't notice the distortion / notice it a little but easy to correct
- pretty flat field
Ideally no sunstars until f16 but I'll live if they're there.
I tried some smaller adapted vintage lenses but I'm not having the best of luck even after shelling out for "top mint" quality, getting a bit tired of ebay....Show more →
If you plan on using the lens on the E-mount exclusively, yes, get the E-mount since it's tweaked for the Sony sensor stack thickness.
