I am definitely getting this lens in native SE version. Until just now I didn't realize this thread was about SE version as it was named differently (thought it was the M-mount).
I'm just selling my dear old 40mm Nokton (found a buyer already) which I'm replacing with this one. Gonna miss it though, until I get the 35mm. Thinking of pairing it with the 75mm f/1.5 Nokton as a lightweight but fast manual kit, alongside my af-lenses. And maybe will get the 21mm Nokton as well some day.
Justin Stone wrote:
Who’s interested? Or is this just not the 35 to own in E mount?
fplstudio wrote:
any optical reason to replace the 40 Nokton with this SE? 10 vs 12 blades?
No it looks like the new CV 40 f/1.2 SE will also have 10 blades. It seems to be just a difference lens housing.The tradeoff seems mostly to be a lighter weight vs. the ability to declick the aperture.
Definitely looks like the 35 to own IMO, but maybe most of us are already committed to the 40 and 50s to consider this one right now.
I would've scooped this up when I was buying my Voigtlander 40 towards the end of 2018, but I've since then begun to like 40mm as an alternative to having to decide between a 35 vs 50 for my outings.
Also, I'm not a fan of the SE focus ring vs the older ones, so I'm happy for now.
Justin Stone wrote:
Is this lens inspiring anyone? I was very interested in it, although I think I would have preferred the standard Voigtlander housing, but I just don’t see much interest or activity. I’m bumping Fred’s mini review from 5 days prior?!
Who’s interested? Or is this just not the 35 to own in E mount?
The 40/1.2 is a charming lens with attributes that gel really well with its focal length. It may be that users are looking for something very special in a 35mm MF lens at present, as is true also of the 28mm focal length.
I've always liked the 35mm FL, but my Voigt 40/1.2 fits in better with my CV 21/1.4 and I still have a Zeiss 35/2 that probably outdoes the Voigtlanders in color and contrast, though it falls far behind in size and convenience. I would be very interested to see how the 35/1.2 stacks up against the 40/1.2.
Has anyone seen crops of this compared to the SE version? I know the corners are improved at mid-distance regarding bokeh because FC is better corrected with the SE (matched to the Sony sensor stack).
I'd love to see how my VM 35 1.2 iii compares to the VM on a stock Sony...
I know this isn't really a landscape lens, but I would love to see test images at infinity (Like Fred's shots) comparing this to the Tamron 35mm f2.8.
I really want a 28mm lens but 35 is closer to 28mm than CV 40mm is so might be between this, the Tamron and Loxia 25mm for those looking for landscaper in the range
fededuran wrote:
What are your impressions on the 35mm 1.2 so far, Fred? I think we are a legion waiting for your verdict.
Stevvi wrote:
Correct, and also how it compares to the CV40 1.2
I'm getting to know the lens a bit better. My first copy was a bit asymmetric and the second 100% centered.
Here are my initial thoughts:
1) The CV 35/1.2 SE and VM versions perform similarly on the sensors they were designed for. (Sony and Leica respectively)
2) The CV 35/1.2 III VM shows a small induced field curvature when used on a Sony body with adapter. This is visible off-axis and especially at mid-zone. By f/2.8-4, the induced field curvature is completely masked by depth of field and the VM version actually performs great on the Sony.
3) The CV 35/1.2 SE is a great performer on the Sony and it's actually slightly better than the CV 40/1.2 E away from center. At center though, the CV 40/1.2 performed a tad better. (I've tested two copies of each and they perform the same way)
4) Both CV 40/1.2 SE and CV 35/1.2 SE have similar optical characteristics and signature character. There is no floating element for either design and therefore higher resolution wide open is only possible at mid-distance (~1.5m+). At close distance and wide apertures, images will have lower contrast and a decrease in resolution due to spherical aberration. They perform similarly in regards to lateral and longitudinal CA. The latter is particularly troublesome at wide apertures for both lenses.
Which one to choose for the Sony? 35/1.2 SE or 40/1.2 SE?
It really depends on your focal length preference. Their performance and rendering are very similar. It's worth mentioning that the CV 40/1.2's physical length is noticeably shorter than the 35/1.2 SE (as seen here), so this may also be a factor when deciding between these lenses.
I will post crops comparing the CV 35/1.2 SE vs CV 40/1.2 SE as well as CV 35/1.2 III VM + adapter vs CV 35/1.2 SE on the Sony body.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm getting to know the lens a bit better. My first copy was a bit asymmetric and the second 100% centered.
Here are my initial thoughts:
1) The CV 35/1.2 SE and VM versions perform similarly on the sensors they were designed for. (Sony and Leica respectively)
2) The CV 35/1.2 III VM shows a small induced field curvature when used on a Sony body with adapter. This is visible off-axis and especially at mid-zone. By f/2.8-4, the induced field curvature is completely masked by depth of field and the VM version actually performs great on the Sony.
3) The CV 35/1.2 SE is a great performer on the Sony and it's actually slightly better than the CV 40/1.2 E away from center. At center though, the CV 40/1.2 performed a tad better. (I've tested two copies of each and they perform the same way)
4) Both CV 40/1.2 SE and CV 35/1.2 SE have similar optical characteristics and signature character. There is no floating element for either design and therefore higher resolution wide open is only possible at mid-distance (~1.5m+). At close distance and wide apertures, images will have lower contrast and a decrease in resolution due to spherical aberration. They perform similarly in regards to lateral and longitudinal CA. The latter is particularly troublesome at wide apertures for both lenses.
Which one to choose for the Sony? 35/1.2 SE or 40/1.2 SE?
It really depends on your focal length preference. Their performance and rendering are very similar. It's worth mentioning that the CV 40/1.2's physical length is noticeably shorter than the 35/1.2 SE (as seen here), so this may also be a factor when deciding between these lenses.
I will post crops comparing the CV 35/1.2 SE vs CV 40/1.2 SE as well as CV 35/1.2 III VM + adapter vs CV 35/1.2 SE on the Sony body....Show more →
Many thanks for sharing your impressions, Fred. Any thoughts on rendering/contrast differences to the Loxia 35? You mention that the 35 1.2 is similar to the 40 1.2. Do I correctly infer from this observation that in a typical stopped down landscape situation, the Loxia will offer more contrast/"Zeiss punch" than the CV 35?
Fred, is the 35's lens hood a thread-in hood like the 40mm's? I really like that kind of hood for the easy use of CPL, just turning the hood to rotate the CPL, without taking of the hood to turn the CPL.
kdrk888 wrote:
Fred, is the 35's lens hood a thread-in hood like the 40mm's? I really like that kind of hood for the easy use of CPL, just turning the hood to rotate the CPL, without taking of the hood to turn the CPL.
Yes, same hood as before. The new CV 40/1.2 SE is noticeably more compact compared to the previous version.
Thanks a lot Fred, I do prefer the 40 mm focal length. Being smaller with a "similar" performance compared to the CV 35/1.2 III, I will stick to it and will wait for a possible e-mount version of the CV 75 1.5 VM :-) ....fingers crossed!
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's worth mentioning that the CV 40/1.2's physical length is noticeably shorter than the 35/1.2 III (as seen here), so this may also be a factor when deciding between these lenses.
I will post crops comparing the CV 35/1.2 III vs CV 40/1.2 (both E-mount) AND CV 35/1.2 III VM vs CV 35/1.2 E on the Sony body.
Hi Fred, thanks as always for all the useful information.
I was wondering if there will be a comparisons between this lens and the voigtlander ultron 35 1.7 with pcx on sony (as an owner of this combo it I'll be very interesting) but I don't know if you have access to it. A rough opinion on the differences between them would be appreciated too.
A few words about my experience so far with Voigtlander 35 / 1.2 SE:
This is clearly a modern design. At a fully open aperture pictures are sharp,despite the shallow depth of field. That's why I liked him the most.More - even in harsh,ugly light,at full aperture, spherical aberrations are not obtrusive, and chromatics rather moderate (mainly LoCA).All easily correctable in PP.
Closed down to f5.6-8,the lens is very sharp and contrasty,with nicely saturated colors. Background blurr is smoothest in close-up photos and pretty nice overall.
I'd rather make him look like his brother with the Leica VM mount, but hey, he can do the job too.
A7R2+Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 SE (Sony E mount) at f1.2,dim light:
A7R2+Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 SE (Sony E mount) at f1.2,dim and harsh light:
A7R2+Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 SE (Sony E mount) at f1.2,mixed dim and harsh light:
A7R2+Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 SE (Sony E mount) at f5.6,harsh light-the sharpest setting to me:
A7R2+Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 SE (Sony E mount) at f8,harsh light:
