This is more Voigtländer ON Nikon...E-mount CV 50mm f/1.2 Nokton on the Zf. I contemplated shelling out for the 50/1.0, but after looking at a bunch of images, I prefer the rendering of the f/1.2 (and the fact it's $900 cheaper is a very nice bonus). The f/1.0 looks awesome in the central 80% of the frame, but I'm really not a fan of the mechanical vignetting and outward field curvature that drastically reduces blur at the edges. I do really like the rendering of the 50/1.2, though.
Jman13 wrote:
This is more Voigtländer ON Nikon...E-mount CV 50mm f/1.2 Nokton on the Zf. I contemplated shelling out for the 50/1.0, but after looking at a bunch of images, I prefer the rendering of the f/1.2 (and the fact it's $900 cheaper is a very nice bonus). The f/1.0 looks awesome in the central 80% of the frame, but I'm really not a fan of the mechanical vignetting and outward field curvature that drastically reduces blur at the edges. I do really like the rendering of the 50/1.2, though.
I split the 50/2 for architecture (and day) and the 50/1 for portraits (and nights). I'd have gotten the 50/1.2, instead of the both the Z 50s if it were native, but I have a long-time, sometimes misplaced hatred of adapters. It's a costly prejudice.
ZF + 50 APO...still on the fence about keeping this lens long term. More than half the time I'm out with it, I'm wishing I had the 35 on instead. The images are fine, just tighter than I like working with.
RoamingScott wrote:
ZF + 50 APO...still on the fence about keeping this lens long term. More than half the time I'm out with it, I'm wishing I had the 35 on instead. The images are fine, just tighter than I like working with.
You 'need' the 40/1.2.
Most of the time, I use a 50 like a short tele for isolating a subject,
35 (most of the time) adds the environment and groups.
I’ve already owned it and didn’t get on with it, I doubt a second attempt would be much better.
I actually quite enjoy using a 60mm macro for the type of things that I think you probably use a 50mm for, and the gapping is a little more interesting to me.
taildraggin wrote:
You 'need' the 40/1.2.
Most of the time, I use a 50 like a short tele for isolating a subject,
35 (most of the time) adds the environment and groups.
RoamingScott wrote:
I’ve already owned it and didn’t get on with it, I doubt a second attempt would be much better.
I actually quite enjoy using a 60mm macro for the type of things that I think you probably use a 50mm for, and the gapping is a little more interesting to me.
Yeah, when I go out with just my Voigtländers I tend to take my 21/1.4, 34/2 and 65/2. The 50 I tend to take by itself, which is why I got the 50/1.2 and am selling my 50/2 AL. Gives me something different there and I tend to use zooms for landscape work and I like the gapping better with the 65/2. It helps that I really love the 65/2 overall as well.
