The family and I drove into Toronto this afternoon to visit the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum). I brought along my Nikon Zf + Voigtlander 40mm F1.2 for Z-mount.
KLaban wrote:
My two walk around lenses are Voigtlander Z mount 40mm f/1.2 and Nikon Z 40mm f/2, both particularly useful when shooting in those locations where discretion is key and where photography can and does offend. One MF and one AF. Both very compact and lightweight. The Voigtlander serves both as a characterful and exceptionally sharp lens.
My Z 50mm f/1.8 S and Z 85mm f/1.8 S rarely get a look in on location these days.
Really curious to know how these two 40mm lenses compare at f5.6-f11 in terms of sharpness, contrast and colour.....and also compared to the 35 apo. I now have both 35 and 50 apos and will start using them this week. I also have the 40mm f2 SE and it's good, but not amazing. Thought I would replace it perhaps with the CV 40 1.2 (or keep both if I want an AF 40).
urbanwild wrote:
Really curious to know how these two 40mm lenses compare at f5.6-f11 in terms of sharpness, contrast and colour.....and also compared to the 35 apo. I now have both 35 and 50 apos and will start using them this week. I also have the 40mm f2 SE and it's good, but not amazing. Thought I would replace it perhaps with the CV 40 1.2 (or keep both if I want an AF 40).
The Voigtlander Z mount 40mm f/1.2 is in reality two lenses in one small package. Shot at < f/2 it is comparatively soft, ethereal and characterful. Once stopped down to > f/5.6 it is comparatively sharp, contrasty and clinical. That said, - from what I can see, - it is not as sharp, contrasty or clinical as the two Voigtlander APO lenses. The Nikon Z 40mm is rather soft wide open but sharpens up when stopped down and is more characterful than my Z 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 S lenses.
I now have the Leica Q3 43 APO, which with my limited use has so far proved to be my sharpest lens when compared with my Z series 50mm and 85mm S f/1.8 lenses. The comparatively compact Q3 43 is now my preferred walk-around when AF is key.
urbanwild wrote:
Really curious to know how these two 40mm lenses compare at f5.6-f11 in terms of sharpness, contrast and colour.....and also compared to the 35 apo. I now have both 35 and 50 apos and will start using them this week. I also have the 40mm f2 SE and it's good, but not amazing. Thought I would replace it perhaps with the CV 40 1.2 (or keep both if I want an AF 40).
My take on the 40mm 1.2 vs the 35mm APO is that the APO has a lot of resolution which is not particularly clinical in my view, probably this is to do with it being very contrasty and saturated. This results in the APOs producing images which often need little to no work in post.
The strength of the 40mm f1.2 (which I’ve briefly tried) is when you use it close to wide open. The results are special as noted by KLaban, whereas stepped down it’s very good. If you don’t expect to use it at f1.2 - f2 then consider the APO. If you value the character of the 40mm @ f1.2 - f2 then get the 40mm.
I still have a place in my heart for the 40mm f1.2 so even though I have the 35mm and 50mm APOs, I am likely to buy the 40mm f1.2 as well.
I also have the Nikon 40mm f2 - it works well and of course, it's AF, it's a very sensible lens to own. If you purely want decent results and don't care about how a lens feels in your hand then the Nikon is a good option at a bargain price.
I’d like to add that (just like the 58G) the 40/1.2 is quite a bit sharper wide open when you increase your distance a little bit. Close up you will indeed get a more dreamy look than when shooting at medium distances. At least that’s my experience.
Thanks everyone! Would it be safe to say then that the image quality of the 40mm f2 SE and the CV 40mm f1.2 wouldn't be very different when shooting at f8? Sifting through Flickr would suggest there's a big difference but I find I often have to be careful with comparisons with such a variety there.
This is one of those highly subjective things that you need to have the lens in your own hands to figure out for yourself. I see little reason to own the 40/1.2 if you’re not using it wide open 90% of the time. That’s the reason it exists and there are overall better lenses in this space if that’s not how you plan to use it.
urbanwild wrote:
Thanks everyone! Would it be safe to say then that the image quality of the 40mm f2 SE and the CV 40mm f1.2 wouldn't be very different when shooting at f8? Sifting through Flickr would suggest there's a big difference but I find I often have to be careful with comparisons with such a variety there.
