Archive 2020 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
p.4 #1In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
AcuteShadows wrote:
Quick aperture series from f1.2 to f8 at hard infinity (filenames tell the aperture):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7PUMhX631ByqwGqQ7
(Widest aperture shots are somewhat overexposed as the camera shutter speed is limited to max 1/8000s.)
Some random samples, many taken at f1.2 and f4. I think the first shot was at f2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmKPxtXB9k1S8ttv8
(I used T&O color profile in-camera for the first shots and then switched to Standard color.)
So far I'm really liking the lens, it seems to have excellent sharpness, great pop wide open and at other wide apertures, lovely color and it seems pretty flat field on my fp. Handling is also excellent. I also bought the optional LH-8 hood.I think there is a blue/cyan cast in the edges and corners. Do you have a chance to check this? (Focus at infinity, uniform color, preferably not blue or green - I'm using an opaque glass against a gray sky.)I think it might be a characteristic that Sigma fp has with various adapted RF lenses. I've noticed a little bit of bluish shift in the vignetting towards the corners and extreme edges with some of my other RF glass on it too and there might be something similar going on in some of these samples. It's rather subtle though and the slightly bluish tone doesn't usually look offensive. fp has a Lens Optics Compensation menu where user can create, save and select to apply up to 10 Color Shading compensation profiles by taking reference shots against a monotone surfaces. So I think it's not a characteristic of the lens as such but more related to the camera / sensor.
I don't have a good way to test it here except perhaps when there's a suitably cloudy weather, so that I could shoot against the clouds.Thank you for your quick reply! I have the same issue with three Leica M lenses on the Nikon Z. I have now produced a couple of lens color cast correction files for Capture One (which don't work any longer in Capture One 20, due to a bug). These are 3 x 5 x 9 files, as there are 3 lenses, 5 focus distances, and 9 apertures. I'll check my Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 for color cast, too - slightly more optimistic for that lens, as it's a Distagon design with presumably a rather large distance of the exit pupil.
I realized that I still have an old 77mm Neutral ExpoDisc White Balance filter. Shooting the sky through that seems to produce usable reference shots for creating Color Shift correction profiles for the fp in-camera. There were quite noticeable blue shifts when I took some test shots of the grey sky today on the fp with this lens & Expodisc on top, and after creating a few Color Shift profiles on the camera that way and shooting with the right correction profile those seem to be compensated for quite well at first glance.
This in-camera Color Shift correction process seems to reduce vignetting at the same time which might not always be desirable. It seems the corrections are applied on the DNG file as well as JPGs, not sure if there is any way to undo the effect in post processing. Anyway, I'll experiment more later when we have some photogenic light again. I'll probably use this method to make profiles for a few apertures that I use the most, at the most common shooting distances for those apertures, e.g. f5.6 at infinity, and f1.2 at close distance etc.
Juha Kannisto wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
Juha Kannisto wrote
I got my Nokton 35/1.2 III today but didn't have much time to shoot yet as I had a lot of work to do today. I took a few shots using my Sigma fp + Leica M-L adapter (which I think is spec-accurate when it comes to thickness) while coming back from Shinjuku to Ebisu.Quick aperture series from f1.2 to f8 at hard infinity (filenames tell the aperture):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7PUMhX631ByqwGqQ7
(Widest aperture shots are somewhat overexposed as the camera shutter speed is limited to max 1/8000s.)
Some random samples, many taken at f1.2 and f4. I think the first shot was at f2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmKPxtXB9k1S8ttv8
(I used T&O color profile in-camera for the first shots and then switched to Standard color.)
So far I'm really liking the lens, it seems to have excellent sharpness, great pop wide open and at other wide apertures, lovely color and it seems pretty flat field on my fp. Handling is also excellent. I also bought the optional LH-8 hood.
I don't have a good way to test it here except perhaps when there's a suitably cloudy weather, so that I could shoot against the clouds.
I realized that I still have an old 77mm Neutral ExpoDisc White Balance filter. Shooting the sky through that seems to produce usable reference shots for creating Color Shift correction profiles for the fp in-camera. There were quite noticeable blue shifts when I took some test shots of the grey sky today on the fp with this lens & Expodisc on top, and after creating a few Color Shift profiles on the camera that way and shooting with the right correction profile those seem to be compensated for quite well at first glance.
This in-camera Color Shift correction process seems to reduce vignetting at the same time which might not always be desirable. It seems the corrections are applied on the DNG file as well as JPGs, not sure if there is any way to undo the effect in post processing. Anyway, I'll experiment more later when we have some photogenic light again. I'll probably use this method to make profiles for a few apertures that I use the most, at the most common shooting distances for those apertures, e.g. f5.6 at infinity, and f1.2 at close distance etc.
Mar 28, 2020 at 05:04 AM
p.4 #2In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Quick aperture series from f1.2 to f8 at hard infinity (filenames tell the aperture):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7PUMhX631ByqwGqQ7
(Widest aperture shots are somewhat overexposed as the camera shutter speed is limited to max 1/8000s.)
Some random samples, many taken at f1.2 and f4. I think the first shot was at f2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmKPxtXB9k1S8ttv8
(I used T&O color profile in-camera for the first shots and then switched to Standard color.)
So far I'm really liking the lens, it seems to have excellent sharpness, great pop wide open and at other wide apertures, lovely color and it seems pretty flat field on my fp. Handling is also excellent. I also bought the optional LH-8 hood.I think there is a blue/cyan cast in the edges and corners. Do you have a chance to check this? (Focus at infinity, uniform color, preferably not blue or green - I'm using an opaque glass against a gray sky.)I think it might be a characteristic that Sigma fp has with various adapted RF lenses. I've noticed a little bit of bluish shift in the vignetting towards the corners and extreme edges with some of my other RF glass on it too and there might be something similar going on in some of these samples. It's rather subtle though and the slightly bluish tone doesn't usually look offensive. fp has a Lens Optics Compensation menu where user can create, save and select to apply up to 10 Color Shading compensation profiles by taking reference shots against a monotone surfaces. So I think it's not a characteristic of the lens as such but more related to the camera / sensor.
I don't have a good way to test it here except perhaps when there's a suitably cloudy weather, so that I could shoot against the clouds.Thank you for your quick reply! I have the same issue with three Leica M lenses on the Nikon Z. I have now produced a couple of lens color cast correction files for Capture One (which don't work any longer in Capture One 20, due to a bug). These are 3 x 5 x 9 files, as there are 3 lenses, 5 focus distances, and 9 apertures. I'll check my Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 for color cast, too - slightly more optimistic for that lens, as it's a Distagon design with presumably a rather large distance of the exit pupil.I realized that I still have an old 77mm Neutral ExpoDisc White Balance filter. Shooting the sky through that seems to produce usable reference shots for creating Color Shift correction profiles for the fp in-camera. There were quite noticeable blue shifts when I took some test shots of the grey sky today on the fp with this lens & Expodisc on top, and after creating a few Color Shift profiles on the camera that way and shooting with the right correction profile those seem to be compensated for quite well at first glance.
This in-camera Color Shift correction process seems...Show more →
Got my copy—pumped
AcuteShadows wrote
Juha Kannisto wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
Juha Kannisto wrote
I got my Nokton 35/1.2 III today but didn't have much time to shoot yet as I had a lot of work to do today. I took a few shots using my Sigma fp + Leica M-L adapter (which I think is spec-accurate when it comes to thickness) while coming back from Shinjuku to Ebisu.Quick aperture series from f1.2 to f8 at hard infinity (filenames tell the aperture):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7PUMhX631ByqwGqQ7
(Widest aperture shots are somewhat overexposed as the camera shutter speed is limited to max 1/8000s.)
Some random samples, many taken at f1.2 and f4. I think the first shot was at f2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmKPxtXB9k1S8ttv8
(I used T&O color profile in-camera for the first shots and then switched to Standard color.)
So far I'm really liking the lens, it seems to have excellent sharpness, great pop wide open and at other wide apertures, lovely color and it seems pretty flat field on my fp. Handling is also excellent. I also bought the optional LH-8 hood.
I don't have a good way to test it here except perhaps when there's a suitably cloudy weather, so that I could shoot against the clouds.
This in-camera Color Shift correction process seems...Show more →
Got my copy—pumped
Mar 28, 2020 at 12:40 PM
p.4 #3In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Got my copy today. I’m excited to try it on the M6 I also acquired.
Mar 28, 2020 at 01:08 PM
p.4 #4In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
mikflores wrote:
Got my copy today. I’m excited to try it on the M6 I also acquired.
Cool, congrats! Seems a lot smaller than my predecessor copy of this lens. Very curious to see photos taken with both cameras in color and B&W film.
Got my copy today. I’m excited to try it on the M6 I also acquired.
Cool, congrats! Seems a lot smaller than my predecessor copy of this lens. Very curious to see photos taken with both cameras in color and B&W film.
Mar 28, 2020 at 01:46 PM
p.4 #5In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Great. What an achievement - that size for an f1.2 lens, very close to the Leica 35/1.4 asph. Thanks for the pix.
Mar 28, 2020 at 02:32 PM
p.4 #6In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Quick aperture series from f1.2 to f8 at hard infinity (filenames tell the aperture):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7PUMhX631ByqwGqQ7
(Widest aperture shots are somewhat overexposed as the camera shutter speed is limited to max 1/8000s.)
Some random samples, many taken at f1.2 and f4. I think the first shot was at f2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmKPxtXB9k1S8ttv8
(I used T&O color profile in-camera for the first shots and then switched to Standard color.)
So far I'm really liking the lens, it seems to have excellent sharpness, great pop wide open and at other wide apertures, lovely color and it seems pretty flat field on my fp. Handling is also excellent. I also bought the optional LH-8 hood.I think there is a blue/cyan cast in the edges and corners. Do you have a chance to check this? (Focus at infinity, uniform color, preferably not blue or green - I'm using an opaque glass against a gray sky.)I think it might be a characteristic that Sigma fp has with various adapted RF lenses. I've noticed a little bit of bluish shift in the vignetting towards the corners and extreme edges with some of my other RF glass on it too and there might be something similar going on in some of these samples. It's rather subtle though and the slightly bluish tone doesn't usually look offensive. fp has a Lens Optics Compensation menu where user can create, save and select to apply up to 10 Color Shading compensation profiles by taking reference shots against a monotone surfaces. So I think it's not a characteristic of the lens as such but more related to the camera / sensor.
I don't have a good way to test it here except perhaps when there's a suitably cloudy weather, so that I could shoot against the clouds.Thank you for your quick reply! I have the same issue with three Leica M lenses on the Nikon Z. I have now produced a couple of lens color cast correction files for Capture One (which don't work any longer in Capture One 20, due to a bug). These are 3 x 5 x 9 files, as there are 3 lenses, 5 focus distances, and 9 apertures. I'll check my Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 for color cast, too - slightly more optimistic for that lens, as it's a Distagon design with presumably a rather large distance of the exit pupil.I realized that I still have an old 77mm Neutral ExpoDisc White Balance filter. Shooting the sky through that seems to produce usable reference shots for creating Color Shift correction profiles for the fp in-camera. There were quite noticeable blue shifts when I took some test shots of the grey sky today on the fp with this lens & Expodisc on top, and after creating a few Color Shift profiles on the camera that way and shooting with the right correction profile those seem to be compensated for quite well at first glance.
This in-camera Color Shift correction process seems...Show more →
Most important is of course that the lens/sensor combination does not lose sharpness at the corners. For example, the Elmarit 2.8/28mm does have astigmatism at the edges with the Nikon Z7, while the (new) Summicron 2/28mm does not. Both have noticeable color cast on the Z7, however. In pictures of architecture, this creates the impression that the central part of the image would be lit by artificial light sources, in landscape pictures it's less noticeable, and I find it most detrimental for indoor pictures with larger unicolor (white or bright yellowish/brownish colors) areas, even though the focus is not at infinity in that case.
AcuteShadows wrote
Juha Kannisto wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
Juha Kannisto wrote
I got my Nokton 35/1.2 III today but didn't have much time to shoot yet as I had a lot of work to do today. I took a few shots using my Sigma fp + Leica M-L adapter (which I think is spec-accurate when it comes to thickness) while coming back from Shinjuku to Ebisu.Quick aperture series from f1.2 to f8 at hard infinity (filenames tell the aperture):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7PUMhX631ByqwGqQ7
(Widest aperture shots are somewhat overexposed as the camera shutter speed is limited to max 1/8000s.)
Some random samples, many taken at f1.2 and f4. I think the first shot was at f2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmKPxtXB9k1S8ttv8
(I used T&O color profile in-camera for the first shots and then switched to Standard color.)
So far I'm really liking the lens, it seems to have excellent sharpness, great pop wide open and at other wide apertures, lovely color and it seems pretty flat field on my fp. Handling is also excellent. I also bought the optional LH-8 hood.
I don't have a good way to test it here except perhaps when there's a suitably cloudy weather, so that I could shoot against the clouds.
This in-camera Color Shift correction process seems...Show more →
Most important is of course that the lens/sensor combination does not lose sharpness at the corners. For example, the Elmarit 2.8/28mm does have astigmatism at the edges with the Nikon Z7, while the (new) Summicron 2/28mm does not. Both have noticeable color cast on the Z7, however. In pictures of architecture, this creates the impression that the central part of the image would be lit by artificial light sources, in landscape pictures it's less noticeable, and I find it most detrimental for indoor pictures with larger unicolor (white or bright yellowish/brownish colors) areas, even though the focus is not at infinity in that case.
Mar 28, 2020 at 04:55 PM
p.4 #7In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
f1.2
f4
f1.2
f1.2
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
f1.2
f4
f1.2
f1.2
Mar 28, 2020 at 06:14 PM
p.4 #8In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Looks like they are settling on the finger-width knurled focus ring, more lucid and generous distance scale and better separation from aperture ring, much like what they are doing with Sony vsns. They intelligently used the extra diameter to open up the rear font scale display, and the aperture ring is easier for no look use, just reach to the front. Thanks for posting these!
Mar 28, 2020 at 07:12 PM
p.4 #9In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
couple more test type photos--I won't be doing a real review. I have a good feel for it versus the zm 35 1.4, rx1 sonnar and other CV 35's I posted earlier.
Modern optics are crazy good and small--the backlight 1.2 bokeh stress test below has very minimal processing (help) and it handles that scenerio well. And it's sharp and snappy enough you can shoot decently away at mid distance and get good photos like below.
Bokeh and transitions are very reasonable to excellent overall.
Ring flare
veiling and ghosting at f8
f1.2 mid distance
bokeh at f2--check top right
bokeh at 1.2 stress test back lit
transitions at 1.2
Modern optics are crazy good and small--the backlight 1.2 bokeh stress test below has very minimal processing (help) and it handles that scenerio well. And it's sharp and snappy enough you can shoot decently away at mid distance and get good photos like below.
Bokeh and transitions are very reasonable to excellent overall.
Ring flare
veiling and ghosting at f8
f1.2 mid distance
bokeh at f2--check top right
bokeh at 1.2 stress test back lit
transitions at 1.2
Mar 28, 2020 at 08:08 PM
p.4 #10In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.
Mar 28, 2020 at 08:50 PM
p.4 #11In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.
Agree on both fronts. For the size and speed I am happy and think it’s good, but in absolute terms the transitions aren’t like the rx1 Sonnar or 35 1.2. The flare I enjoy.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
nehemiahphoto wrote
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
Agree on both fronts. For the size and speed I am happy and think it’s good, but in absolute terms the transitions aren’t like the rx1 Sonnar or 35 1.2. The flare I enjoy.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
Mar 28, 2020 at 09:44 PM
p.4 #12In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Foliage is the toughest test, good to see you jumped in at the deep end. Street scenes will be very different.
Mar 28, 2020 at 10:11 PM
p.4 #13In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.Agree on both fronts. For the size and speed I am happy and think it’s good, but in absolute terms the transitions aren’t like the rx1 Sonnar or 35 1.2. The flare I enjoy.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
Are you adding contrast to the samples (by tweaking whites and blacks)? Rendering seems quite harsh and it's surprising since the CV 35/1.2 III's optical design is similar to the 40/1.2's.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
Are you adding contrast to the samples (by tweaking whites and blacks)? Rendering seems quite harsh and it's surprising since the CV 35/1.2 III's optical design is similar to the 40/1.2's.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.
Mar 28, 2020 at 10:46 PM
p.4 #14In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.Agree on both fronts. For the size and speed I am happy and think it’s good, but in absolute terms the transitions aren’t like the rx1 Sonnar or 35 1.2. The flare I enjoy.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.Are you adding contrast to the samples (by tweaking whites and blacks)? Rendering seems quite harsh and it's surprising since the CV 35/1.2 III's optical design is similar to the 40/1.2's.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.
Oh yeah. Like I stated, I wasn't going to test this lens extensively, and the posted photos were't scientific, just illustrative as I'll usually add contrast and adjust exposure in post.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 > 35/2
The CV 35/1.2's bokeh and transitions tend to get rough at mid and longer distances. Nothing new there. But, overall, I think it's a great performance given the size/price/speed. I still easily prefer my RX1. And all things considered, I prefer the ZM 35 1.4's rendering and IQ to this CV 35/1.2, though the CV has better ergo, size, price, MFD, is easier to focus accurately and I would guess less axial fringing wide open even though it's faster, but can't test as I sold my ZM 35 1.4. Very preferential which one to choose.
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.
Oh yeah. Like I stated, I wasn't going to test this lens extensively, and the posted photos were't scientific, just illustrative as I'll usually add contrast and adjust exposure in post.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 > 35/2
The CV 35/1.2's bokeh and transitions tend to get rough at mid and longer distances. Nothing new there. But, overall, I think it's a great performance given the size/price/speed. I still easily prefer my RX1. And all things considered, I prefer the ZM 35 1.4's rendering and IQ to this CV 35/1.2, though the CV has better ergo, size, price, MFD, is easier to focus accurately and I would guess less axial fringing wide open even though it's faster, but can't test as I sold my ZM 35 1.4. Very preferential which one to choose.
Mar 28, 2020 at 11:18 PM
p.4 #15In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
philip_pj wrote:
Foliage is the toughest test, good to see you jumped in at the deep end. Street scenes will be very different.
Very true, but I rarely shoot them so I won't bother to test or post.
Foliage is the toughest test, good to see you jumped in at the deep end. Street scenes will be very different.
Very true, but I rarely shoot them so I won't bother to test or post.
Mar 28, 2020 at 11:26 PM
p.4 #16In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.Agree on both fronts. For the size and speed I am happy and think it’s good, but in absolute terms the transitions aren’t like the rx1 Sonnar or 35 1.2. The flare I enjoy.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.Are you adding contrast to the samples (by tweaking whites and blacks)? Rendering seems quite harsh and it's surprising since the CV 35/1.2 III's optical design is similar to the 40/1.2's.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.Oh yeah. Like I stated, I wasn't going to test this lens extensively, and the posted photos were't scientific, just illustrative as I'll usually add contrast and adjust exposure in post.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 >...Show more →
Thank you! Rendering seem more in tune with the CV 40/1.2's now. You scared me.
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 >...Show more →
Thank you! Rendering seem more in tune with the CV 40/1.2's now. You scared me.
Mar 29, 2020 at 09:59 AM
p.4 #17In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Thanks so much for the samples. I do think it looks a lot like the 40 f/1.2, but I think there is likely also some effect of the sensor stack on the Sony A7r II. There seems to be pretty clear field curvature in both the shot of the post and the shot of the tree in the first set. I think I see it clearly on the sidewalk in the shot of the post, and I suspect the bokeh in the edges and corners is affected by astigmatism. Still even with the likely effects of the sensor stack, I think it has a quite decent rendering. Can you compare it on Leica M and Sony? I totally understand if you don't want to bother, but I would love to see a few comparisons.
Mar 29, 2020 at 10:13 AM
p.4 #18In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.Agree on both fronts. For the size and speed I am happy and think it’s good, but in absolute terms the transitions aren’t like the rx1 Sonnar or 35 1.2. The flare I enjoy.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.Are you adding contrast to the samples (by tweaking whites and blacks)? Rendering seems quite harsh and it's surprising since the CV 35/1.2 III's optical design is similar to the 40/1.2's.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.Oh yeah. Like I stated, I wasn't going to test this lens extensively, and the posted photos were't scientific, just illustrative as I'll usually add contrast and adjust exposure in post.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 > 35/2
The CV 35/1.2's bokeh and transitions tend to get rough at mid and longer distances. Nothing new there. But, overall, I think it's a great performance given the size/price/speed. I still easily prefer my RX1. And all things considered, I prefer the ZM 35 1.4's rendering and IQ to this CV 35/1.2, though the CV has better ergo, size, price, MFD, is easier to focus accurately and I would guess less axial fringing wide open even though it's faster, but can't test as I sold my ZM 35 1.4. Very preferential which one to choose.Thank you! Rendering seem more in tune with the CV 40/1.2's now. You scared me.
Is my processing really so offensive?
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
For those curious, here are the CV 35/2, 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. CV killed it and the new 35/1.2 is super comparable in size to the 1.7 despite the stop difference. It's fatter but a hair shorter.Just a few snaps. So far it's just like expected--modern CV palate and sharpness like the 40/50 1.2, seems a bit better corrected than the 40 to me. Shooting my on the a7r2 and Ikon.
CV going to make a lot of people happy once again, and Zeiss and Leica aren't one of them.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 > 35/2
The CV 35/1.2's bokeh and transitions tend to get rough at mid and longer distances. Nothing new there. But, overall, I think it's a great performance given the size/price/speed. I still easily prefer my RX1. And all things considered, I prefer the ZM 35 1.4's rendering and IQ to this CV 35/1.2, though the CV has better ergo, size, price, MFD, is easier to focus accurately and I would guess less axial fringing wide open even though it's faster, but can't test as I sold my ZM 35 1.4. Very preferential which one to choose.
Is my processing really so offensive?
Mar 29, 2020 at 11:08 AM
p.4 #19In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks so much for the samples. I do think it looks a lot like the 40 f/1.2, but I think there is likely also some effect of the sensor stack on the Sony A7r II. There seems to be pretty clear field curvature in both the shot of the post and the shot of the tree in the first set. I think I see it clearly on the sidewalk in the shot of the post, and I suspect the bokeh in the edges and corners is affected by astigmatism. Still even with the likely effects of the sensor stack,...Show more →
For sure Steve! Sadly, I don't have access to a modded sensor or native M sensor as I don't live near Sebboh anymore and we used to share gear. Otherwise I'd be happy to oblige. I too see astigmatism and field curvature, I just don't how much of it is from the Sony. Like I said earlier, I think given the specs and price, CV has again done quite well. They seem quite capable at understanding and balancing compromises of price, performance and technical IQ, rendering and haptics. I don't think I'll keep it, but is a great offering.
Thanks so much for the samples. I do think it looks a lot like the 40 f/1.2, but I think there is likely also some effect of the sensor stack on the Sony A7r II. There seems to be pretty clear field curvature in both the shot of the post and the shot of the tree in the first set. I think I see it clearly on the sidewalk in the shot of the post, and I suspect the bokeh in the edges and corners is affected by astigmatism. Still even with the likely effects of the sensor stack,...Show more →
For sure Steve! Sadly, I don't have access to a modded sensor or native M sensor as I don't live near Sebboh anymore and we used to share gear. Otherwise I'd be happy to oblige. I too see astigmatism and field curvature, I just don't how much of it is from the Sony. Like I said earlier, I think given the specs and price, CV has again done quite well. They seem quite capable at understanding and balancing compromises of price, performance and technical IQ, rendering and haptics. I don't think I'll keep it, but is a great offering.
Mar 29, 2020 at 11:14 AM
p.4 #20In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Agree on both fronts. For the size and speed I am happy and think it’s good, but in absolute terms the transitions aren’t like the rx1 Sonnar or 35 1.2. The flare I enjoy.
The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.Are you adding contrast to the samples (by tweaking whites and blacks)? Rendering seems quite harsh and it's surprising since the CV 35/1.2 III's optical design is similar to the 40/1.2's.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.Oh yeah. Like I stated, I wasn't going to test this lens extensively, and the posted photos were't scientific, just illustrative as I'll usually add contrast and adjust exposure in post.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 > 35/2
The CV 35/1.2's bokeh and transitions tend to get rough at mid and longer distances. Nothing new there. But, overall, I think it's a great performance given the size/price/speed. I still easily prefer my RX1. And all things considered, I prefer the ZM 35 1.4's rendering and IQ to this CV 35/1.2, though the CV has better ergo, size, price, MFD, is easier to focus accurately and I would guess less axial fringing wide open even though it's faster, but can't test as I sold my ZM 35 1.4. Very preferential which one to choose.Thank you! Rendering seem more in tune with the CV 40/1.2's now. You scared me. Is my processing really so offensive?
Of course not. Processing is purely subjective. I was just trying to evaluate rendering because there are very few samples online.
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Thanks for the samples. Transition zone seems quite nervous. That ring flare is likely a reflection from the chrome threads and should be fixed by using a hood.The f2 photo above was taken with the Sonnar in mind as that’s often how I would use it.
If you can, could you post a side by side comparison to the 35/1.7 with a subject at mid-distance? The CV 35/1.7 has smooth transition zone and would be interesting to see how they compare.
But just so you can see, here is what the RAW's look like with a direct export from RAW's, A7R2, with all default LR settings, shot with AWB, no exposure/contrast/saturation adjustments, and default sharpening.
And I do have the 3 VM CVs and an RX1, so I could a transition comparison if you are interested. I would be shocked if the smoothness order didn't go RX1 > 35/1.7 > 35/1.2 > 35/2
The CV 35/1.2's bokeh and transitions tend to get rough at mid and longer distances. Nothing new there. But, overall, I think it's a great performance given the size/price/speed. I still easily prefer my RX1. And all things considered, I prefer the ZM 35 1.4's rendering and IQ to this CV 35/1.2, though the CV has better ergo, size, price, MFD, is easier to focus accurately and I would guess less axial fringing wide open even though it's faster, but can't test as I sold my ZM 35 1.4. Very preferential which one to choose.
Of course not. Processing is purely subjective. I was just trying to evaluate rendering because there are very few samples online.
Mar 29, 2020 at 11:16 AM