Fred Miranda wrote:
I consider the Voigtlander 35, 40 and 50mm f/1.2 character lenses with pleasant rendering. They are very similar in terms of color aberration correction and resolution/contrast across the field. (The 50mm performs slightly better though)
Without any floating element, they are not capable of high resolution at close distance but starting at 1.5m, they are relatively sharp at center even at f/1.2. However, f/2 or f/2.8 is needed to achieve similar sharpness away from the center area.
I've compared the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM vs the Voigtlander 35/1.2 VM on the Leica and the former did way better in regards to resolution (especially at wider apertures) but rendering was much harsher in comparison. This is very subjective....Show more →
The ZM 35/2 is my work horse lens on the M10. Do you think the VM 35/1.2 replaces the ZM 35/2?
EltonTeng wrote:
The ZM 35/2 is my work horse lens on the M10. Do you think the VM 35/1.2 replaces the ZM 35/2?
I never tried the 35/2 ZM. Only the 35/1.4.
I don't know how their rendering compares but the 35/1.4 ZM's rendering is harsher compared to VM 35/1.2.
Going to a f/1.2 lens will give you more dof options.
Last weekend I took my 35mm Contax (as a compliment to my 65mm APO-Lanthar) down to San Francisco to validate whether the 35mm or 40mm focal length appealed to me more. With the architecture there it was pretty clear that 35mm was the schniznit. However, the Contax was so good, I had to pixel peep at 200% to see differences when shooting the same subject. Of course the Nokton is 1.2 vs 2.8 CY and you get the metadata.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I never tried the 35/2 ZM. Only the 35/1.4.
I don't know how their rendering compares but the 35/1.4 ZM's rendering is harsher compared to VM 35/1.2.
Going to a f/1.2 lens will give you more dof options.
...but why not the Sony 35mm f/1.8.. it is the sharpest prime I ever had... very nice colors too. I am saying instead of the 35mm f/2.8, which is just a little bit shorter/smaller.
The_Mechanic wrote:
...but why not the Sony 35mm f/1.8.. it is the sharpest prime I ever had... very nice colors too. I am saying instead of the 35mm f/2.8, which is just a little bit shorter/smaller.
I've tested a few copies of the Sony 35/1.8 and it did very well at center. However, it needs some stopping down to be optimal off-axis.
Here is a comparison to the Loxia 35/2 at f/7.1 (optimal aperture for great performance across the field for both lenses at infinity)
So, Fred, in the end, do you have a preference between the 40 SE and the 35 SE? Other than a bit more glow with the 35 wide open and up close, I guess it really just boils down to which angle of view is preferred?
goo0h wrote:
So, Fred, in the end, do you have a preference between the 40 SE and the 35 SE? Other than a bit more glow with the 35 wide open and up close, I guess it really just boils down to which angle of view is preferred?
Quite interested in your opinion too. And what effective FL you consider the 35, as you mentioned the 50 is about 49, and the 40 about 42.
(I'll add, saving 47g and ~100€ if you choose the 40 over the 45)
goo0h wrote:
So, Fred, in the end, do you have a preference between the 40 SE and the 35 SE? Other than a bit more glow with the 35 wide open and up close, I guess it really just boils down to which angle of view is preferred?
---------------------------------------------
azath wrote:
Quite interested in your opinion too. And what effective FL you consider the 35, as you mentioned the 50 is about 49, and the 40 about 42.
(I'll add, saving 47g and ~100€ if you choose the 40 over the 45)
Personally I like both lenses. It's mostly a matter of focal length preference. The Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE seems to be a true 35mm while the 40/1.2 Nokton FOV is closer to 50mm than 35mm.
Some differences:
The CV 40/1.2 has 10 aperture blades (for a 10-point sunstar) vs 12 points for the CV 35/1.2. I prefer 12 points but it's subjective.
The CV 35/1.2 SE (or VM) do not show traces of onion ring pattern on specular highlights which is not the case with the CV 40/1.2. (all versions)
Neither lens is equipped with a floating element group so expect to see similar amount of spherical aberration at close distance when shooting wide open. (<1m). However, I've noticed that it's more prominent on the CV 35/1.2 since I tend to focus closer to my subject at 35mm. The closer, the higher SA.
The CV 35/1.2 performs slightly better towards the corners
Rendering signature is very similar at same distance to subject. I find the CV 50/1.2 has the best rendering of the three with smoother transition zone
I found that the 35/1.2 III VM works quite well adapted to the A7R IV. It's sharp from center to edge at f/5.6 and at mid-distance, it performs great from wide open around the center area.
The slight induced field curvature on the Sony sensor is noticeable though. It's apparent when shooting wide open at mid-distance where the OOF rendering is a tad sharper towards the corners. This ill-effect also happens with the 40/1.2 E-mount due to its native field curvature -- although less pronounced.
It's ideal to get the CV 35/1.2 SE for the Sony and the CV 35/1.2 III VM for the Leica. However, the latter performs great on both systems in my opinion.
Minimal focus distance
About 1.2m. Very smooth rendering wide open. Just beautiful.
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Personally I like both lenses. It's mostly a matter of focal length preference. The Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE seems to be a true 35mm while the 40/1.2 Nokton FOV is closer to 50mm than 35mm.
Some differences:
The CV 40/1.2 has 10 aperture blades (for a 10-point sunstar) vs 12 points for the CV 35/1.2. I prefer 12 points but it's subjective.
The CV 35/1.2 SE (or VM) do not show traces of onion ring pattern on specular highlights which is not the case with the CV 40/1.2. (all versions)
Neither lens is equipped with a floating element group so expect to see similar amount of spherical aberration at close distance when shooting wide open. (<1m). However, I've noticed that it's more prominent on the CV 35/1.2 since I tend to focus closer to my subject at 35mm. The closer, the higher SA.
The CV 35/1.2 performs slightly better towards the corners
Rendering signature is very similar at same distance to subject. I find the CV 50/1.2 has the best rendering of the three with smoother transition zone
