The rally was in favour of ceasfire and a free Palestine and against Israels participation in the Eurovision song contest thats taking place in my home town.
It 'adds a little bit more perfection' if you prefer 50mm over 35mm. They are very close to being identical in most respects. The APD glass was used in different elements in each lens block, but both use two asperical elements and five APD elements. The 35mm adds a rounded aperture at f5.6 - very handy for some images.
In fact, one of the best ways to gauge sheer performance is to look at the on-axis MTF wide open and at best aperture (f4 for these two). The 35mm is a little stronger at both apertures, maybe 3-4%. See here, under specifications:
Hey Scott, that 40/2 shot above is phenomenal and I'm curious about your 28/2.8 as well. I just picked up a 40/2 SE and have a 28 2.8SE on order. I have a couple of days to pull out of the 40/2 which I'm not too worried about, but I'm not 100% happy with the IQ of the SEs and you have me wondering about the two Voigtlanders above. Mind sharing your setup and thoughts vs the SEs if you can compare?
urbanwild wrote:
Hey Scott, that 40/2 shot above is phenomenal and I'm curious about your 28/2.8 as well. I just picked up a 40/2 SE and have a 28 2.8SE on order. I have a couple of days to pull out of the 40/2 which I'm not too worried about, but I'm not 100% happy with the IQ of the SEs and you have me wondering about the two Voigtlanders above. Mind sharing your setup and thoughts vs the SEs if you can compare?
Thanks!
Rich
I have no firsthand experience with either SE lenses, nor am I sure the CVs should be compared against them purely from a versatility standpoint. The SEs are the smallest Z primes, have decently fast AF, and are two of the very few Z lenses that have some vintage character to their rendering. They are very unique in that regard. Both are rightfully the defacto choice for the ZF based on that size and utility.
Of course the CVs have character in spades...focusing is super smooth, MFD is crazy close on both, my 40 is pretty darn sharp wide open, the 28 a bit less so, but neither exhibit the horrific CA as the 40/1.2 does wide open. I can use both CVs on my Nikon film camera as a bonus (which is why I bought them to begin with).
Honestly different use cases for the SE and CV from where I sit, but if you are wanting a cheap MF lens with character, both CVs are a good choice at their respective focal length.
Regarding "setup" I just slap them on my FTZii for focus confirmation, aim, and fire
RoamingScott wrote:
I have no firsthand experience with either SE lenses, nor am I sure the CVs should be compared against them purely from a versatility standpoint. The SEs are the smallest Z primes, have decently fast AF, and are two of the very few Z lenses that have some vintage character to their rendering. They are very unique in that regard. Both are rightfully the defacto choice for the ZF based on that size and utility.
Of course the CVs have character in spades...focusing is super smooth, MFD is crazy close on both, my 40 is pretty darn sharp wide open, the 28 a bit less so, but neither exhibit the horrific CA as the 40/1.2 does wide open. I can use both CVs on my Nikon film camera as a bonus (which is why I bought them to begin with).
Honestly different use cases for the SE and CV from where I sit, but if you are wanting a cheap MF lens with character, both CVs are a good choice at their respective focal length.
Regarding "setup" I just slap them on my FTZii for focus confirmation, aim, and fire ...Show more →
Thanks Scott....I wasn't sure if they were for a different mount (Sony, etc). So are these the two you have?
