RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
RoamingScott wrote:
What the 40/1.2 gives you is a darn-close-to-medium-format look on FF at 1.2...and in my experience, comes with a ton of CA, far more than I cared to deal with in post.
Many of the best looking shots I've seen with the 1.2 seem to be in somewhat dreary/overcast conditions...not a "luxury" I have here 
The 40/2 focusing feels better to my hand, which is pretty important with these lenses. I also like how it pulls double duty on my Z and my F film bodies...it's a great, tiny lens on the FM3A.
I had taken some direct comparison shots between the two, but I fear those were lost in my great PC>Mac switchover...don't see them anywhere or I'd post them. Long story short was, the 40/2 has the better MFD, is BETTER at/near MFD, and for me, has the more pleasing bokeh at f2.
Again, all very personal opinions that hardly seem mirrored by the majority....Show more →
Thanks, I hear ya ... just wondering, as I consider what 40 I might consider, if I should move off my 40 Cron (or just add to it). Granted, the Ultron isn't an option for the M (well, not via rangefinder, just LCD or Visoflex), but still good to hear your .02 on it.
I'm currently researching the Nokton 50/1.2 ... 1.5 II ... Lanthar as possible (although, longer FL) options, too from Voigt.
The achilles heel of the 1.5 II is the really, heavy vignetting for me. The size / weight of the 1.2 is the other side of that coin.
Edited on Feb 15, 2024 at 01:50 PM · View previous versions
|