highdesertmesa wrote:
I also shoot in rangefinder mode on the M10-R to avoid any shutter shock from the shutter having to close to stop Live View before it can reopen to start the exposure sequence. Unfortunately there is no EFCS or ES mode on the M cameras yet.
realVivek wrote:
Interesting to hear about the M quirks.
How does the CV AL 35/2 do on the GFX?
I need to revisit, but I think the APO had hard corners + heavy vignetting on the GFX whereas the 32 1.2 III just had heavy vignetting (correctable). This is all at close distance. Infinity for either is bad in the corners on the GFX (as are most adapted full frame wide angle lenses except some T/S lenses).
---------------------------------------------
apatel wrote:
Thanks for posting. seriously looking at swapping my Summicron for the APO. Thoughts?
I had the Summicron-50 (current v5) and thought the CV 35 1.2 III (didn't have either CV APO at the time) was better. The 50 Cron was better in the corners, but the CV had better color/contrast to my eye. But the 50 Cron – I think the optical design is from 1979, so the 35 Cron may be better. Maybe ask over on l-camera-forum.com. If I were in your shoes I would order and try the 35 APO – you can always return it.
ftllens wrote:
can you stick it on your gfx and see how bad it vignettes? Im about to order the m mount on cameraquest lol
If you give me a few minutes, I'll post a comparison of the 35 1.2 III and the 35 APO on the GFX in the GFX adapted lenses. Will add a link to it in this thread as well. I think the APO has hard corners and the 1.2 has a larger image circle, but let me verify.
ftllens wrote:
Yes, please give me hope. Thank you lol
I'm going to post these here since we can see APO vs 1.2 bokeh when both are shot at f/2.
Forgive the framing differences and slightly different distance. This is CV 35 APO and 35 1.2 III both at f2 on the GFX. Light falloff correction of 100 in C1 was applied to both.
Looks like the APO does not have hard corners once I opened the files in post (they look really bad on the LCD) – but they also would need a custom radial mask to remove the very last bit of vignetting from the far corners.
On full frame, I'd say the APO is a better landscape lens and the 35 1.2 III is a better character lens. On the GFX, infinity landscape using the entire 44x33 frame is not really an option with either, so the 35 1.2 looks to be the more fun lens to adapt to the GFX for close to mid distance.
EDIT: Crap, I shot both of these with a filter AND the hood on the lens. Not sure it makes a difference on the APO though since the front element is so small. Still, maybe that farthest bit of vignetting on the APO was from the filter.
realVivek wrote:
Of course, the filter/hoodcombo is not a good choice. Looks like, without them, there could be full coverage? May not at infinity?
I just double-checked shooting the APO without the hood and filter. Exact same results. The APO has a very small front element. The 35 1.2 may benefit more from removing, but I don't have time right now to check.
Infinity focus is a wasted effort since both have smeared corners at that distance.
CV 35 APO w/out hood or filter (vignette corrected)
The APO looks pretty good actually. I think it would be perfect for 16:9 video. I know the focused plane was different due to the different framing but the little foliage hairs look a touch cleaner for the APO.
I had the 35 1.2 iii on my A7R4 and sometimes liked it and sometimes didn't. Seeing these samples makes me wanna try the 35 1.2 again.
Maybe the 52mm front and the shorter length of the 1.2 helped with the image circle vs the APO.
Apparently the 1.2 had pretty bad distortion on the gfx, did you notice any difference between the two?
Thanks for these, wasn't expecting such a fast specific comparsion, the power of FM forum lol
ftllens wrote:
The APO looks pretty good actually. I think it would be perfect for 16:9 video. I know the focused plane was different due to the different framing but the little foliage hairs look a touch cleaner for the APO.
I had the 35 1.2 iii on my A7R4 and sometimes liked it and sometimes didn't. Seeing these samples makes me wanna try the 35 1.2 again.
Maybe the 52mm front and the shorter length of the 1.2 helped with the image circle vs the APO.
Apparently the 1.2 had pretty bad distortion on the gfx, did you notice any difference between the two?
Thanks for these, wasn't expecting such a fast specific comparsion, the power of FM forum lol...Show more →
No problem. Any excuse to let me photograph the same plant in my yard over and over
At closer crop, the APO of course doesn’t have as much bokeh fringing, but the 35 1.2 has quite a bit. I usually accept that as character.
I don’t know about distortion. At these distances at f/2 can you even tell? Maybe you see that more in video if you pan across a subject and see it warp.
Telegraph poles in #2 crop are 'interesting'. Bokeh resembles the Sony blur out effect #2. Much prefer the detail and colour treatment in lens #1 bokeh. A big thanks. It's so often thankless work, quite literally.
ftllens wrote:
I don't think I'd notice unless I shot something very geometric.
Iunno what to do now. The 1.2 is about what I expected, but the APO could be better still.
Maybe I'll just buy the 1.2 then wait until someone sells the APO here lol
---------------------------------------------
philip_pj wrote:
Telegraph poles in #2 crop are 'interesting'. Bokeh resembles the Sony blur out effect #2. Much prefer the detail and colour treatment in lens #1 bokeh. A big thanks. It's so often thankless work, quite literally.
In case this helps as well – both wide open right at MFD. The APO will probably need a crop – looks like a very small hard corner at MFD wide open (hood removed, but filter was left on). No fringing correction was done on either. Note that these examples largely hide the green fringing since the plant is green, but you can see it if you look closely enough.
highdesertmesa wrote:
It’s difficult to tell what your point was, but your posts read like you’re trying to support a lens you own at the expense of one you don’t. These are just lenses, not our children performing at the school play. How ‘bout we share a big nothing burger until I or FM does side by side?
While we enjoy that nothing burger, do you have a post in the CV 35 1.2 III thread showing its performance at f/2 near MFD with crops?
Yeeeah sorry. Taking images of plants at MFD and pixel peeping crops is not my thing. I kinda test lenses by simply shooting them as I would use them. But to each their own. Yes I currently own the 1.2. No, not defending it at all, why would I ? That said I really have not owned a bad CV lens. My comment was based on the fact I wanted the APO but now I'm just not seeing a reason to sell the 1.2 for it. Again that is not a negative for the APO. Yes I could buy both and keep both like you. But now a days I would never carry two 35mm so what would be the point. Are there differences between the two, sure. Enough that it will make any difference in real world landscape shooting for me, nope. Doesn't make it bad. In fact I'm sure it's great. If someone doesn't need or use 1.2 then that's probably the direction to go. It was a simple original comment coming from someone that has the 1.2 that was not meant to bring out the "defenders" of the APO. Just a simple observation. Nothing more nothing less. Never know, maybe someone that has neither might find it helpful. If not, that is perfectly fine as well. Back to my nothing burger
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Yeeeah sorry. Taking images of plants at MFD and pixel peeping crops is not my thing. I kinda test lenses by simply shooting them as I would use them. But to each their own. Yes I currently own the 1.2. No, not defending it at all, why would I ? That said I really have not owned a bad CV lens. My comment was based on the fact I wanted the APO but now I'm just not seeing a reason to sell the 1.2 for it. Again that is not a negative for the APO. Yes I could buy both and keep both like you. But now a days I would never carry two 35mm so what would be the point. Are there differences between the two, sure. Enough that it will make any difference in real world landscape shooting for me, nope. Doesn't make it bad. In fact I'm sure it's great. If someone doesn't need or use 1.2 then that's probably the direction to go. It was a simple original comment coming from someone that has the 1.2 that was not meant to bring out the "defenders" of the APO. Just a simple observation. Nothing more nothing less. Never know, maybe someone that has neither might find it helpful. If not, that is perfectly fine as well. Back to my nothing burger...Show more →
I just put the crops because people always want to know. It's more relevant on the landscape shot for those who print large, probably 40"+.
I really like the 1.2. Not sure which I would choose if I could only have one, probably the 1.2 due to the shorter length and the ability to have f/1.2 when I want it.
