kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Besides Jordan’s great review, this one includes a number of center and corner crops and demonstrates a bit of field curvature at infinity that can be compensated for with careful mid-field focus selection:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-40mm-f1-2-nokton-aspherical-rolling-review/
Again, that’s the Sony version but there seems little difference with the Z version.
I have the Z version and it is really a delight to use, though I haven’t gotten to use it very much yet. Many say it is like having two lenses in one: a bit dreamy rendering at F/1.2 and then great acuity already at F/2.0. That matches my limited experience so far. It is quite sharp in the center at F/2 to F/2.8 (see reviews) but again field curvature means this isn’t an astro-lens. By F/8 it works as a good landscape lens, but again read reviews on best practice to mitigate field curvature.
I really like the rendering at F/1.2 though of course for something so compact and fast there are some compromises well covered in reviews of the Sony version.
Using the Z version on a Z camera is great, you get phase detect focus confirmation, unlike most adapted MF lenses, which is super helpful.
I really like 40mm compared to 50mm as the bit extra field of view is helpful for environmental portraiture.
Of course the Nikon Z 40/2 is even smaller, less expensive and has autofocus. There is probably not a lot to distinguish these two lenses beyond say F/5.6. So if you go for the weight and cost of the 40/1.2 you need to care about the F/1.2 shallow DoF rendering and the sharper performance at F/2 and F/2.8 compared with the 40/2.
Anyway, having shot a few outings with the family this past week I’m fairly certain it is a keeper for me and despite how delightfully compact the Z 40/2 is the likelihood is that I’ll always be bringing the 40/1.2 with me instead.
|
