p.5 #1 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Of course not. Processing is purely subjective. I was just trying to evaluate rendering because there are very few samples online.
Oh I know--I was only joking Yeah, I haven't seen much, so I thought people might like to see those samples. I can check other parameters if you'd like, just let me know. I do notice similar amount of lateral and longitudinal CA to the 40, but I feel like it's a little less. I also think this 35/1.2 performs better at MFD where there isn't quite as much SA, but I don't own a 40/1.2 to test heads up.
p.5 #2 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Looking at the test shots, I still think the ZM 35 Distagon is the better lens, however the new VM is smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Mar 29, 2020 at 12:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #3 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
blan01 wrote:
Looking at the test shots, I still think the ZM 35 Distagon is the better lens, however the new VM is smaller, lighter and cheaper.
I think the ZM 35 Distagon might be the better lens, but from what I can see it suffers even more on the Sony sensor. I used the lens extensive on the Sony sensor and wide open like this is shows even worse field curvature and astigmatism. From the sample pictures I think I would prefer the CV 35 f/1.2 on a Sony sensor, but on a modified sensor or a Leica M camera the Zeiss lens is fantastic--still a few flaws but a very lovely lens.
p.5 #4 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Here is a comparison using the CV 35 1.2, CV 35 1.7, CV 35 2, Pentax 31 Ltd and RX1. Framing differences are due to the true focal lengths. Shot on stock A7r2. All focused manually on both sets wide open for each lens.
All images shot using a tripod, 2 second delay, no processing or lens corrections, IBIS off, standard sharpening, all WB identical (except the RX1). The MFD bokeh is shot at 0.7 meters. Note the slightly different aperture values.
For this set the RX1 > CV 35 1.2 > CV 35 1.7 > 31 ltd > CV 35 2
RX1 is clearly ahead even though it's an f2, the CV 35 2 is much worse than the rest. Interestingly, the CV 35 1.2 is better than the CV 35 1.7 both @ 1.7. The CV 35 1.2 has less DOF than the CV 35 1.7 at the same aperture, and this is consistent with the transition zone as well.
I see the 31 ltd and CV 35 1.7 as similar here with a nod to the CV 35 1.7
Mid-Distance transition zone (i.e., where most wides struggle).
I tossed in the CV 35 1.2 is so you could all see--it's nervous.
Same as above but shot at 3 meters away. All images shot using a tripod, 2 second delay, no processing or lens corrections, IBIS off, standard sharpening, all WB identical (except the RX1).
When at similar apertures, to my eyes, RX1 > 31 ltd > CV 35 1.7 > CV 35 1.2 > CV 35 2
Take aways: The RX1 Sonnar is special as always, the CV 35 1.7 and Pentax 31 ltd are similar in both and do well. The CV 35 1.2 has more abrupt or thinner DOF at comparable apertures and does well for bokeh but the transition zone is busier. The CV 35 f2 loses at everything, except character
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #5 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Here is a comparison using the CV 35 1.2, CV 35 1.7, CV 35 2, Pentax 31 Ltd and RX1. Framing differences are due to the true focal lengths. Shot on stock A7r2. All focused manually on both sets wide open for each lens.
All images shot using a tripod, 2 second delay, no processing or lens corrections, IBIS off, standard sharpening, all WB identical (except the RX1). The MFD bokeh is shot at 0.7 meters. Note the slightly different aperture values.
For this set the RX1 > CV 35 1.2 > CV 35 1.7 > 31 ltd > CV 35 2
RX1 is clearly ahead even though it's an f2, the CV 35 2 is much worse than the rest. Interestingly, the CV 35 1.2 is better than the CV 35 1.7 both @ 1.7. The CV 35 1.2 has less DOF than the CV 35 1.7 at the same aperture, and this is consistent with the transition zone as well.
I see the 31 ltd and CV 35 1.7 as similar here with a nod to the CV 35 1.7
Mid-Distance transition zone (i.e., where most wides struggle).
I tossed in the CV 35 1.2 is so you could all see--it's nervous.
Same as above but shot at 3 meters away. All images shot using a tripod, 2 second delay, no processing or lens corrections, IBIS off, standard sharpening, all WB identical (except the RX1).
When at similar apertures, to my eyes, RX1 > 31 ltd > CV 35 1.7 > CV 35 1.2 > CV 35 2
Take aways: The RX1 Sonnar is special as always, the CV 35 1.7 and Pentax 31 ltd are similar in both and do well. The CV 35 1.2 has more abrupt or thinner DOF at comparable apertures and does well for bokeh but the transition zone is busier. The CV 35 f2 looses at everything, except character ...Show more →
Very very useful comparison. In the ballpark (sometimes a little better, sometimes a little worse) of the 31 ltd, and CV 35 f/1.7 is actually really a good performance. Sure we aren't getting and likely will never get the bokeh of the RX1 sonnar, but this is pretty darn good perfomance. Thanks for going to the work of doing this.
Oh and is the first one in the first set CV 35 f/1.2 @ 1.7? It is labelled as CV 40 f/1.2 @ 1.7?
p.5 #6 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Steve Spencer wrote:
Very very useful comparison. In the ballpark (sometimes a little better, sometimes a little worse) of the 31 ltd, and CV 35 f/1.7 is actually really a good performance. Sure we aren't getting and likely will never get the bokeh of the RX1 sonnar, but this is pretty darn good perfomance. Thanks for going to the work of doing this.
Oh and is the first one in the first set CV 35 f/1.2 @ 1.7? It is labelled as CV 40 f/1.2 @ 1.7?
Glad you appreciate it. And yes, thanks, I need to change that 40 to 35! And yes, before I tested it I could tell, I was impressed with bokeh and transitions overall--not perfect, but for a 350g 35 1.2, pretty killer.
For several years I have settled on a combo of the RX1, Pentax 31 and CV 35 1.7.
The RX1 is the best overall to me. The Pentax I prefer for people--the colors and tonal nuance are just lovely. The CV 35 1.7 I use as a landscaper with it's super flare resistance, across the frame sharpness, diminutive size and capable shallow DOF when needed. But the images never have the richness of the ZM 35 1.4, RX1, Pentax 31 or CY 35 1.4, which are my favorite 35mm's.
I think if more people gave the 31 ltd a try, they would be impressed, but I've given up on pushing it. It was even lovely on the GFX with how wide it became.
p.5 #8 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Here is a comparison using the CV 35 1.2, CV 35 1.7, CV 35 2, Pentax 31 Ltd and RX1. Framing differences are due to the true focal lengths. Shot on stock A7r2. All focused manually on both sets wide open for each lens.
All images shot using a tripod, 2 second delay, no processing or lens corrections, IBIS off, standard sharpening, all WB identical (except the RX1). The MFD bokeh is shot at 0.7 meters. Note the slightly different aperture values.
For this set the RX1 > CV 35 1.2 > CV 35 1.7 > 31 ltd > CV 35 2
RX1 is clearly ahead even though it's an f2, the CV 35 2 is much worse than the rest. Interestingly, the CV 35 1.2 is better than the CV 35 1.7 both @ 1.7. The CV 35 1.2 has less DOF than the CV 35 1.7 at the same aperture, and this is consistent with the transition zone as well.
I see the 31 ltd and CV 35 1.7 as similar here with a nod to the CV 35 1.7
Mid-Distance transition zone (i.e., where most wides struggle).
I tossed in the CV 35 1.2 is so you could all see--it's nervous.
Same as above but shot at 3 meters away. All images shot using a tripod, 2 second delay, no processing or lens corrections, IBIS off, standard sharpening, all WB identical (except the RX1).
When at similar apertures, to my eyes, RX1 > 31 ltd > CV 35 1.7 > CV 35 1.2 > CV 35 2
Take aways: The RX1 Sonnar is special as always, the CV 35 1.7 and Pentax 31 ltd are similar in both and do well. The CV 35 1.2 has more abrupt or thinner DOF at comparable apertures and does well for bokeh but the transition zone is busier. The CV 35 f2 loses at everything, except character ...Show more →
That's very useful. Thanks for posting. The CV 35/1.2 compared well against the 35/1.7 and that's a surprise to me. The Sonnar 35/2 always takes the cake in rendering.
I don't have many 35mm lenses anymore but will compare the CV 35/1.2 to the RX1R II and CV 40/1.2 E-mount lenses. However, I am not expecting the CV 35/1.2 to perform optimally off-axis on the Sony due to induced field curvature from the thicker sensor stack.
p.5 #9 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's very useful. Thanks for posting. The CV 35/1.2 compared well against the 35/1.7 and that's a surprise to me. The Sonnar 35/2 always takes the cake in rendering.
I don't have many 35mm lenses anymore but will compare the CV 35/1.2 to the RX1R II and CV 40/1.2 E-mount lenses. However, I am not expecting the CV 35/1.2 to perform optimally off-axis on the Sony due to induced field curvature from the thicker sensor stack.
You're welcome.
Do you have a ZM 35 1.4 or Sigma 35 1.2 or FE 35 1.8 to test heads up? Those are three lenses I'd like to see this new 35/1.2 against. I just sold my ZM 35 1.4 a while ago, but I feel like does a bit worse with bokeh but better with transitions than the CV 35/1.2, and comparable overall in this sense.
Everything in the outer fifth of the frame and far corners I disregard as my Sony is a stock sensor.
p.5 #10 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Also Fred, I feel like this new CV 35/1.2 has a little less CA of both types and performs better at MFD than the 40/1.2. If you could check or weigh in, I'd be curious to know.
p.5 #11 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Got the CV 35/1.2 III today and here are my first impressions:
1) My copy is well centered
2) On the Sony and at infinity, the corners are soft from f/1.2 until f/2 but starting at f/2.8 this area looks "ok". There is a big jump at f/4 where it's very good with f/5.6 being great. Getting great corners with the Sony A7R4 sensor was a surprise. I will test it against my 40/1.2 E-mount but I don't think the latter does any better. Center is great at f/2.8 but best at f/4.
3) It's very compact. The smallest 35/1.2 on the market. With adapter (50g) it's about the same weight and size compared to the CV 40/1.2. So don't expect the E-mount version to be lighter nor smaller than the 40mm. (It has an extra element)
4) Rendering very similar to CV 40/1.2's.
5) LoCA and LaCA are very noticeably (Also similar to CV 40/1.2)
6) Nicely defined 12-point sunstars starting at f/2.8.
7) Some persistent ghosting flare but low veiling.
8) High spherical aberration at close distance.
9) Very low focus shift.
10) The front element is concave instead of convex.
p.5 #12 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
The weather changed over here and it's now raining.
In the meantime, here is are some crops showing the center, mid and extreme corners at f/5.6 (optimal for this lens at infinity on the Sony). Actually great performance for a lens not designed for the Sony sensor stack thickness.
PS: Keep in mind that this was done 'handheld' just to get a feeling of the performance yesterday. I will test it properly whenever the weather cooperates.
p.5 #13 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Something curious I saw today.
I had a chance to compare the CV 35/1.2 to the CV 40/1.2 and RX1R II at infinity and to my surprise, I could not detect any field curvature for the CV 35/1.2 III VM on the A7R4!
You may be wondering how this is possible since the lens was not designed for the Sony thicker sensor and to be honest I do not know the answer to this yet. Perhaps a future E-mount will have the exact same optical design without any tweaks.
p.5 #14 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Very unusual in a 35mm of this speed. Could Cosina be pre-visioning VM lenses for later E versions in their light path optimising, so the reformulation is much easier? We might see a proportionately lighter E lens here. Or greater flexibility for dual E/M mount users with the VM depending on what else shows up. If it satisfies the a7rIV. Handheld? Congratulations!
p.5 #15 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
philip_pj wrote:
Very unusual in a 35mm of this speed. Could Cosina be pre-visioning VM lenses for later E versions in their light path optimising, so the reformulation is much easier? We might see a proportionately lighter E lens here. Or greater flexibility for dual E/M mount users with the VM depending on what else shows up. If it satisfies the a7rIV. Handheld? Congratulations!
I've never seen this before. It would be interesting to see how it performs on a Leica body in regards to field curvature.
p.5 #16 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
Something curious I saw today.
I had a chance to compare the CV 35/1.2 to the CV 40/1.2 and RX1R II at infinity and to my surprise, I could not detect any field curvature for the CV 35/1.2 III VM on the A7R4!
You may be wondering how this is possible since the lens was not designed for the Sony thicker sensor and to be honest I do not know the answer to this yet. Perhaps a future E-mount will have the exact same optical design without any tweaks.
Weird, cool, good find and and maybe it has perfect coma correction too lol.
So odd though. Maybe CV is tired of releasing duplicate lenses for e and m mounts.
p.5 #17 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Weird, cool, good find and and maybe it has perfect coma correction too lol.
So odd though. Maybe CV is tired of releasing duplicate lenses for e and m mounts.
I checked the resolution comparison and the CV 35/1.2 III (M-mount) performs very similarly to the CV 40/1.2. That's great news for those willing to adapt the M-mount to Sony. If anything the CV 35/1.2 did slightly better at center and extreme corners (surprise) while the 40/1.2 performs slightly better at mid-field. This is probably within copy variation.
Having said all that, I'd forgotten how good the RX1RII's Sonnar 35/2 is.
It's sharp and contrasty across the field from wide open without any weakness. It gets better until about f/4 but aside from the Sigma 35/1.2, I have not seen anything better at 35mm. Also, it's very clear how much wider the Sonnar 35/2 is compared to any other 35mm lens including the new Voigtlander.
p.5 #18 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
I checked the resolution comparison and the CV 35/1.2 III (M-mount) performs very similarly to the CV 40/1.2. That's great news for those willing to adapt the M-mount to Sony. If anything the CV 35/1.2 did slightly better at center and extreme corners (surprise) while the 40/1.2 performs slightly better at mid-field. This is probably within copy variation.
Having said all that, I'd forgotten how good the RX1RII's Sonnar 35/2 is.
It's sharp and contrasty across the field from wide open without any weakness. It gets better until about f/4 but aside from the Sigma 35/1.2, I have not seen anything better at 35mm. Also, it's very clear how much wider the Sonnar 35/2 is compared to any other 35mm lens including the new Voigtlander....Show more →
Yes, when people say the RX1 Sonnar needs an update, I think it’s a head scratcher. It does have some (very manageable) CA wide open, but I do think that helps the bokeh, and I just don’t want that lens touched at all—it’s really pretty impressive. I’ve been skipping the sigma 35/1.2 because I’m not interested in lenses that large, but from what I’ve seen they stand apart.
And yes, the RX1 and the Pentax 31 Limited are the rare and essentially exact same focal length which is really 32/33 mm. It’s the best focal length in my opinion. 21 mm and 75 mm gets a lot of use for me too.
I don’t know why the front element of the new CV 35 is concave. If I remember correctly the ZM 35 1.4 does this as well.
Anyone know what the purpose is/what a concave front element does optically?
p.5 #19 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yes, when people say the RX1 Sonnar needs an update, I think it’s a head scratcher. It does have some (very manageable) CA wide open, but I do think that helps the bokeh, and I just don’t want that lens touched at all—it’s really pretty impressive. I’ve been skipping the sigma 35/1.2 because I’m not interested in lenses that large, but from what I’ve seen they stand apart.
And yes, the RX1 and the Pentax 31 Limited are the rare and essentially exact same focal length which is really 32/33 mm. It’s the best focal length in my opinion. 21 mm and 75 mm gets a lot of use for me too.
I don’t know why the front element of the new CV 35 is concave. If I remember correctly the ZM 35 1.4 does this as well.
Anyone know what the purpose is/what a concave front element does optically?...Show more →
Moving far out on a limb I say;
The front element is a negative lens, which means that it spreads light like a presvription glass for near sighted persons. This means that it contributes to make the lens more retrofocus. The light rays will hit the sensor more straight on than they otherwise would have. This should improve corner performance, maybe make help make the sensor cover induce less field curvature.
Please, someone correct me if I’m wrong.
p.5 #20 · In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've never seen this before. It would be interesting to see how it performs on a Leica body in regards to field curvature.
You say that the 40 does a little better at midfield?
It could be that the induced field curvature on the 35 is visible at midfield, not the corners. That's pretty much how it goes on the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM if I recall...
Yeah, I haven't seen much, so I thought people might like to see those samples. I can check other parameters if you'd like, just let me know. I do notice similar amount of lateral and longitudinal CA to the 40, but I feel like it's a little less. I also think this 35/1.2 performs better at MFD where there isn't quite as much SA, but I don't own a 40/1.2 to test heads up.
