Per lenstip, Sony 50mm 1.2 matches CV 50mm f2 in the center wide open at 70 lppm, lags in the corners.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think he got a marginal copy of the lens or Voigtlander didn't fully optimize the design for the Canon sensor stack. At f/1 on the M11, it's extremely sharp in the center at close distance.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Beautiful B&W samples Jim! I wonder which one you prefer shooting with? CV 50/1 or LLL 50/1.2.
Good question…I’ve had the Voigtlander for longer. I feel more comfortable using it. The ergonomics are mostly very nice (appropriate focus throw, good fit n finish), but it is large. The LLL is quite a bit smaller, but it’s heavier and the focus throw is very long (the build quality is also phenomenal).
Image-quality-wise the Voigtlander is sharper and more contrasty with way less geometric distortion (as you’d expect from a more complex lens designed in the last five years). The LLL is more vintage looking, but the bokeh is very smooth and the rendering is quite unique. I’m just waiting for the weather to get better (it’s 16 degrees F outside) to be able to use it more.
For me, the Voigtlander is certainly going to be more useful/dependable in more situations. The LLL is more of a fun challenge.
One of several things that make this one interesting is that it's rather spare by modern standards. Cosina say the 'primary element' the lens is built from is the new GA (asph) front element. The lens is really a showcase for this new process.
It's a humble 9/7 design with a second (rear-most) asph element, and no APD glass apart from the front element the design rests on. Cosina generally rely on APD glass formulations more heavily than the asph processing that they include sparingly by today's standards, but not here.
'Fabricating the aspherical front element is a more challenging process than producing a general mold aspherical lens, due to the high melting point of the high-refraction glass, which cannot be used in the mold manufacturing method. By grinding and polishing the aspherical front element it is possible to simplify the lens configuration, while ensuring high performance even when shooting with a wide-open aperture.'
Some other (half stop slower) 50s are: Sony's 50/1.2 mentioned above is a 14/10 design with no fewer than six asph surfaces; Canon's RF 50/1.2 is a 15/9 design; Nikon's 50/1.2 at 17/15 has three asph and two special elements.
At the other end of things, Leica's reimagined 50/1.2 comes from a 'slightly soft' 8/5 design with two asph elements. The CV 50/1 has carved out quite a niche for itself already, as a true aficionado lens. More please.
xmas eve with an LED light panel (interesting interaction between it's light, the not-quite-panchromatic sensitivity of Fomapan 400 and people with with mostly light colored eyes).
_jim_ wrote:
xmas eve with an LED light panel (interesting interaction between it's light, the not-quite-panchromatic sensitivity of Fomapan 400 and people with with mostly light colored eyes).
I've been following this thread and just came back from a trip where I did a bit of shooting with my CV 40 1.2 on the SL2-S. I definitely want a fast 50 now and am still torn between the 1.0 and 1.2. The cost difference isn't a factor. I will be using it for standard through environmental portraiture with 1/2, 3/4 and full body shots but I also need to be able to use it on a helicoid adapter to reduce the minimum focus distance (some of you know I do a lot of food photography). I should probably post this on the comparo thread as well.
saxguy wrote:
I've been following this thread and just came back from a trip where I did a bit of shooting with my CV 40 1.2 on the SL2-S. I definitely want a fast 50 now and am still torn between the 1.0 and 1.2. The cost difference isn't a factor. I will be using it for standard through environmental portraiture with 1/2, 3/4 and full body shots but I also need to be able to use it on a helicoid adapter to reduce the minimum focus distance (some of you know I do a lot of food photography). I should probably post this on the comparo thread as well. ...Show more →
I would definitely recommend the f/1.2.
The 1.0 is too heavy for a helicoid adapter and the field curvature is rather annoying for full body shots.
BastianK wrote:
I would definitely recommend the f/1.2.
The 1.0 is too heavy for a helicoid adapter and the field curvature is rather annoying for full body shots.
Thanks. Does the 50 1.2 appear to isolate the subject better than the 1.0 in general? When I look at images it seems that maybe the falloff is more gradual in the 1.0 but perhaps I’m missing something.
BastianK wrote:
Wouldn't say it isolates better, the 1.2 simply draws less attention to the corners at longer distances because they don't look as wonky as is often the case with the 1.0.
Leica M5, Voigtlander 50mm f/1 Nokton VM, Cinestill 800T (last image was the first frame on the roll with the classic from-the-factory Cinestill light leaks).
