Picked up an F 58/1.4 and have no idea what to make of it. So far, 1.4 seems to be largely unusable, the bokeh is beyond "character" and just flat erratic. No idea what the ideal distance/aperture is yet for this lens, but clearly spoiled by the APO output I've been playing with recently. I took some of the same walkabout pictures with this to get a sense of what the lens is wide open. Loads of blooming at closer focus distances wide open along with loads of purple and green fringing even in the bokeh balls.
Overall, it's safe to say that Noktons are my least favorite CV variants. I may yet end up just rebuying the 40/2 Ultron. The 58's focus throw is also insanely long. In no way is it a fun or satisfying lens in hand during use (so far).
Roaming, it can be a gorgeous lens, but I find subject selection and post processing are key. That said I've never personally been aware of so much bubble focus look with the 58mm.
I don't want to dilute this Voigtlander thread and so I won't post 58mm images directly here, but instead here's a few links to images I've shot with the lens.
Nikon Z8 & Voightlander 35 f2 APO Z all shot at F2. Just received this lens yesterday.
Let me know if these links work to Flickr. Or how do I post a picture within this message?
Thanks
Use the BB code, then the images will be displayed in the forum.
Otherwise nobody will bother to click on the individual links.
In Flickr simply click on share photo and then on BB Code and the desired resolution, copy the BB code link and paste it into your posting.
I’ve got a chance to buy a 35/2. I had been thinking about the 40/1.2 but I keep straying back to the 35/2. My main purpose for the lens would be for use on my Zf as a walk around lens in the U.K. countryside and historic properties & towns. Colour, 3D pop and resolution are drawing me to the 35/2…any thoughts on my preference?
I’m trying to discount that the 40/1.2 is lighter and smaller as ultimately I need the right photographic characteristics from the lens for my use case.
I’ve had them both, the APO is far more enjoyable in terms of the output for me.
Clivem2 wrote:
I’ve got a chance to buy a 35/2. I had been thinking about the 40/1.2 but I keep straying back to the 35/2. My main purpose for the lens would be for use on my Zf as a walk around lens in the U.K. countryside and historic properties & towns. Colour, 3D pop and resolution are drawing me to the 35/2…any thoughts on my preference?
Clivem2 wrote:
I’ve got a chance to buy a 35/2. I had been thinking about the 40/1.2 but I keep straying back to the 35/2. My main purpose for the lens would be for use on my Zf as a walk around lens in the U.K. countryside and historic properties & towns. Colour, 3D pop and resolution are drawing me to the 35/2…any thoughts on my preference?
I’m trying to discount that the 40/1.2 is lighter and smaller as ultimately I need the right photographic characteristics from the lens for my use case.
You could be looking into 35 1.7 Ultron. Real fun with Zf.
The 58/1.4 really does clean up starting around 2.2 and seems "fully functional in the low 3s...1.4 to 2.8 is a "funky" dial, and then you have a regular "character" 58 after that. These are at 2.2
Depends on which look you prefer. The APO is sharp with incredible contrast and a flat field from f2 and will get a bit better from there. I use it almost exclusively for B&W where I find it rendering beautiful. Colors are rich and saturated and complement the jewel like JPEG colors that Nikons produce SOOC (which is how I use it if I do shoot color- mea culpa)!
I did not get the 40mm since I already have the 35 and 50 APOs, but trying it out, it had a softer rendering at f1.2 to around f2.8 or so and then sharpens up considerably from from f4 or 5.6. Colors, JPEG again, are just as beautiful. Think of it as two lenses in one! Damn, I don’t need it, I don’t need it…
Clivem2 wrote:
I’ve got a chance to buy a 35/2. I had been thinking about the 40/1.2 but I keep straying back to the 35/2. My main purpose for the lens would be for use on my Zf as a walk around lens in the U.K. countryside and historic properties & towns. Colour, 3D pop and resolution are drawing me to the 35/2…any thoughts on my preference?
I’m trying to discount that the 40/1.2 is lighter and smaller as ultimately I need the right photographic characteristics from the lens for my use case.
RoamingScott wrote:
The 58/1.4 really does clean up starting around 2.2 and seems "fully functional in the low 3s...1.4 to 2.8 is a "funky" dial, and then you have a regular "character" 58 after that. These are at 2.2
So would you say the 58 is somewhat similar to the 40mm 1.2? My experience with my 40 so far is (referring to centre to mid-frame):
1.2 is extremely hazy (some would say dreamy) but improves the farther out I go from MFD.
1.4 tightens things up a tiny bit… in fact, there is a slow progression from 1.4 to 1.8 where contrast slowly starts to increase, as does perceived sharpness.
At f2 the lens is quite contrasty but the sharpness is riding that line for the perfect balance of sharp, but not too sharp for portraits, but I wouldn’t describe it as exhibiting a 3D pop.
f2.8 and the lens is very sharp (even to the corners)… not APO levels, but very good for a modern lens. Things improve only slightly from there, with 5.6 seeming to be the peak.
It’s a fun lens to use… but the combo between the dreamy character and how thin the dof is at 1.2 make it a tough lens to make a quick portrait with… a tiny move forwards or backwards by the subject and the focus goes to the eyelashes or cheeks.
If I were only going to have one, and 3D pop was at the top of my list of priorities, I’d definitely go 35 APO… the micro-contrast is as good as any lens I’ve owned and I personally find the Bokeh to be extremely attractive and it’s a much more reliable portrait lens (at least for my unskilled butt).
