I have a few comparisons to post, probably not exactly what you were looking for, but I had limited time and limited ideas on where to shoot. I turned off corrections in camera (what I could) as well as Lightroom. Default sharpening. Focus is on Milton Hershey's eye/face.
The most obvious differences to my eye are that the CV image has less contrast and color saturation and also less LoCA around the white colonnades. This being said, if these were commercial or photo contest photos, none would had been priced differently, rejected or selected as a winner based on the technical aspects.
These had very little post processing, any correction that could be turned off was turned off. I used default sharpening, contrast, and saturation. Just color balance tweaks and exposure tweaks. I would usually spend more time on post processing, if I wasn't specifically trying to apply a light touch.
I had mostly done this for John, who wanted to see specific bokeh examples. (Which I attempted to do with the limited time I had.) This subject and framing wouldn't win any photo competitions no matter what equipment was used. And I wouldn't be silly enough to enter them.
While I'm keeping the FE 55/1.8 when I need AF, there are obvious difference that matter to me, but I realize they don't matter to you.
Let's just both be happy then? You will grant me that, if I grant you the same?
-Tim
vdo1 wrote:
The most obvious differences to my eye are that the CV image has less contrast and color saturation and also less LoCA around the white colonnades. This being said, if these were commercial or photo contest photos, none would had been priced differently, rejected or selected as a winner based on the technical aspects.
tsdevine wrote:
These had very little post processing, any correction that could be turned off was turned off. I used default sharpening, contrast, and saturation. Just color balance tweaks and exposure tweaks. I would usually spend more time on post processing, if I wasn't specifically trying to apply a light touch.
I had mostly done this for John, who wanted to see specific bokeh examples. (Which I attempted to do with the limited time I had.) This subject and framing wouldn't win any photo competitions no matter what equipment was used. And I wouldn't be silly enough to enter them.
While I'm keeping the FE 55/1.8 when I need AF, there are obvious difference that matter to me, but I realize they don't matter to you.
Let's just both be happy then? You will grant me that, if I grant you the same?
I'd put it differently. For this type of subject and lighting, and the particular aperture and distances to the main subject and the background, the differences are minor. Same with Fred's infinity shots. After all I saw here in this thread, I believe that (very) close distance subjects are where the differences are more substantial and may matter.
As for happiness, I'm equally happy with any lens you chose.
How would it compare to the CV 40mm f1.2 for landscape use (say f5.6-11)? It looks like an amazing lens but I've got the CV65 and would prefer a larger spread if the 40 is up to it.
vdo1 wrote:
I'd put it differently. For this type of subject and lighting, and the particular aperture and distances to the main subject and the background, the differences are minor. Same with Fred's infinity shots. After all I saw here in this thread, I believe that (very) close distance subjects are where the differences are more substantial and may matter.
As for happiness, I'm equally happy with any lens you chose.
Hopefully Fred will chime is as he has both I believe. Phillip Reeve doesn't mention the 40/1.2 in the 50/2 review, but I bet he would have some good feedback as well.
-Tim
dave unwin wrote:
How would it compare to the CV 40mm f1.2 for landscape use (say f5.6-11)? It looks like an amazing lens but I've got the CV65 and would prefer a larger spread if the 40 is up to it.
tsdevine wrote:
Hopefully Fred will chime is as he has both I believe. Phillip Reeve doesn't mention the 40/1.2 in the 50/2 review, but I bet he would have some good feedback as well.
-Tim
I can compare them. From my experience with both lenses, at f/4 and smaller, the Voigtlander 50/2 APO and 40/1.2 Nokton perform similarly at center and mid-field, but the APO is capable of more resolution/contrast towards the corners even stopped down.
Aside from the weaker corners compared to the APO, another negatives for the Nokton lenses are the noticeable astigmatism and lateral CA off-axis which does not improve at smaller apertures.
tsdevine wrote:
These had very little post processing, any correction that could be turned off was turned off. I used default sharpening, contrast, and saturation. Just color balance tweaks and exposure tweaks. I would usually spend more time on post processing, if I wasn't specifically trying to apply a light touch.
I had mostly done this for John, who wanted to see specific bokeh examples. (Which I attempted to do with the limited time I had.) This subject and framing wouldn't win any photo competitions no matter what equipment was used. And I wouldn't be silly enough to enter them.
While I'm keeping the FE 55/1.8 when I need AF, there are obvious difference that matter to me, but I realize they don't matter to you.
Let's just both be happy then? You will grant me that, if I grant you the same?
Hi Tim,
I see these differences as well and don't think they are subtle. I much prefer the rendering and IQ from the 50/2 APO even on resized images.
I'm keeping both lenses though as there are situations where a normal AF lens is preferred. Basically it's a trade between AF and IQ.
tsdevine wrote:
Hopefully Fred will chime is as he has both I believe. Phillip Reeve doesn't mention the 40/1.2 in the 50/2 review, but I bet he would have some good feedback as well.
-Tim
PR does mention the 1.2/40 in the 1.2/50 review, however! Might give you some insight.
@httivals
Light and postprocessing, of course, the color of the lens is also very good.
In addition, these are longexposure photos, which can make the color and light sense of the picture more unique.
Paul.S wrote:
Congratulations cwnchkn, thats very cool.
Im currious, did they see your photos here? Or did you send them into Voigtlander?
Paul
The latter, on a whim no less! I guess their marketing rep felt generous this morning. So fire away, I am sure they will include others.
I am not even particularly proud of the pictures, they are absolutely nothing special. The only reason behind submitting them is that I have noticed how well this and my other Voigtländer lens, the 40mm Nokton, render shiny metal surfaces, I favour them for pictures of cars or anything to do with industrial design. I thought these pictures followed the same pattern, playing to one of the strengths of the APO lens.
