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.
The colour rendition will be different between the two lenses… contrast too… but a lot of that can be overcome in post. What I would say it comes down to is your budget and what you want out of the shooting experience. Manual focus lenses are a whole different animal in terms of handling and you either enjoy it (and are willing to pay a premium for it) or you don’t.
My two cents… I’ve just bought the Leica q3 43 and have been trying to decide which of my three z-mount Voigtländers I want to keep (40/35APO/50APO) and the 40 is the most difficult to imagine parting with, despite the overlap with the Q.
A few more from my visit to Toronto yesterday… all using the 40mm f1.2:
RoamingScott wrote:
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.
Thanks Scott. This is helpful. The catch for me is that there are no voigtlander dealers nearby and there's no used market for them here either....so I just have to buy, have shipped and hope for the best.
Raptor_Fan76 wrote:
The colour rendition will be different between the two lenses… contrast too… but a lot of that can be overcome in post. What I would say it comes down to is your budget and what you want out of the shooting experience. Manual focus lenses are a whole different animal in terms of handling and you either enjoy it (and are willing to pay a premium for it) or you don’t.
My two cents… I’ve just bought the Leica q3 43 and have been trying to decide which of my three z-mount Voigtländers I want to keep (40/35APO/50APO) and the 40 is the most difficult to imagine parting with, despite the overlap with the Q.
A few more from my visit to Toronto yesterday… all using the 40mm f1.2:
Thanks for this. I need to put them to use but so far the 2 apos fantastic. I'm new to manual focusing and zone focusing, so that's my dilemma....do I really want a manual focus lens with short depths of field. We'll see what Black Friday brings perhaps
Here’s a photo using the Nikon 40mm f2, maybe it gives a sense of how the lens renders, apologies for polluting this Voigtlander thread 😀. This is unedited except for cropping. This is from a show I was employed to cover yesterday. The lighting was less than ideal as with most rooms the hifi systems are placed under a window so I have to shoot into the light.
Raptor_Fan76 wrote:
The colour rendition will be different between the two lenses… contrast too… but a lot of that can be overcome in post. What I would say it comes down to is your budget and what you want out of the shooting experience. Manual focus lenses are a whole different animal in terms of handling and you either enjoy it (and are willing to pay a premium for it) or you don’t.
My two cents… I’ve just bought the Leica q3 43 and have been trying to decide which of my three z-mount Voigtländers I want to keep (40/35APO/50APO) and the 40 is the most difficult to imagine parting with, despite the overlap with the Q.
A few more from my visit to Toronto yesterday… all using the 40mm f1.2:
Would love to see a side my side of your Zf with the 40mm 1.2 and the Q3 43, to get an idea of physical size differences. I know that’s not the purpose of this thread, so I’d love a PM if you are willing to take a few to share.
I’d be happy to do that once it arrives… scheduled for tomorrow, so fingers crossed.
ggweci wrote:
Great photos!
Would love to see a side my side of your Zf with the 40mm 1.2 and the Q3 43, to get an idea of physical size differences. I know that’s not the purpose of this thread, so I’d love a PM if you are willing to take a few to share.
For about a year I shot Voigtlander E-mount lenses adapted to a Nikon Z7. Here are some of my favorite shots. The first few are close up with the 110 f/2.5 macro--a lovely lens and it adapts very well--and then a portrait from that lens and it does portraits too. The a couple portraits with the 65 f/2 macro, a portrait with the 50 f/1.2, which I like better for portraits, and a landscape from the 50 f/1.2.
NIKON Z 7110.0 mm f/2.5 lens110mmf/5.61/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 7110.0 mm f/2.5 lens110mmf/2.51/400s64 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 7110.0 mm f/2.5 lens110mmf/2.51/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 7110.0 mm f/2.5 lens110mmf/2.51/400s64 ISO0.0 EV
Voigtlander 65 f/2 APO Macro
NIKON Z 71/160s200 ISO0.0 EV
Voigtlander 65 f/2 APO Macro
NIKON Z 71/320s800 ISO0.0 EV
Voigtlander 50 f/1.2
NIKON Z 70.0 mm f/0.0 lens1/160s4000 ISO0.0 EV
Voigtlander 50 f/1.2
NIKON Z 70mmf/0.01/2000s64 ISO0.0 EV
Oct 07, 2024 at 10:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
@Steve Spencer, do you use the e or m mount version. Have you noticed any issues adapting this lens to the Z ? Wish they made a z version of this lens !
Picture This! wrote:
@Steve Spencer@, do you use the e or m mount version. Have you noticed any issues adapting this lens to the Z ? Wish they made a z version of this lens !
I used the E-mount version, and it was a bit finicky about the adapter. It was important to get the adapter thickness right, but once you got that right it worked very well. I had two adapters: the ETZ that was a bit thin and a simple dumb adapter with no contacts. This lens worked better on the dumb adapter that I think was just a bit thicker than the ETZ.
