Good stuff, Steve. I have a little flame of envy over that lens. If I could pick on of the CV X-mounts to get ported to Sony, that would be the one I'd want on my 6700.
freaklikeme wrote:
Good stuff, Steve. I have a little flame of envy over that lens. If I could pick on of the CV X-mounts to get ported to Sony, that would be the one I'd want on my 6700.
Thanks Brad. I don't know why there are no Cosina APS-C lenses for Sony. It seems that all the Voigtlander APS-C lenses could be made for Sony, and some of them would be interesting options. IMore generally Sony hasn't tried too hard to make a good APS-C camera for quite awhile. Maybe that is a strategy on their part. Do you want an EVF with decent resolution? You have to get full frame. Do you want the best IBIS? You have to get full frame. Do you want resolution greater than 26 MP? You have to get full frame. Do you want to use manual focus glass? You have to get full frame. I love my Sony A7r V, but many of the things I love about it just aren't available for Sony APS-C. If Sony had a camera even a bit like the Fuji X-T5 and Cosina offered their APS-C lenses for Sony, then I would get that Sony APS-C camera so it could share my E mount lenses. Too bad Sony doesn't really try to compete at the higher end of APS-C any more. At least it seems that way to me.
The CV 35 f/2 APO Ultron is a brilliant lens. Performance wise it reminds me of the FF 65 f/2 APO a lot, but it is so much smaller. It is a lens that simply works well at any focus distance and any aperture. I have yet to find a fly in the ointment.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks Brad. I don't know why there are no Cosina APS-C lenses for Sony. It seems that all the Voigtlander APS-C lenses could be made for Sony, and some of them would be interesting options. IMore generally Sony hasn't tried too hard to make a good APS-C camera for quite awhile. Maybe that is a strategy on their part. Do you want an EVF with decent resolution? You have to get full frame. Do you want the best IBIS? You have to get full frame. Do you want resolution greater than 26 MP? You have to get full frame. Do you want to use manual focus glass? You have to get full frame. I love my Sony A7r V, but many of the things I love about it just aren't available for Sony APS-C. If Sony had a camera even a bit like the Fuji X-T5 and Cosina offered their APS-C lenses for Sony, then I would get that Sony APS-C camera so it could share my E mount lenses. Too bad Sony doesn't really try to compete at the higher end of APS-C any more. At least it seems that way to me.
The CV 35 f/2 APO Ultron is a brilliant lens. Performance wise it reminds me of the FF 65 f/2 APO a lot, but it is so much smaller. It is a lens that simply works well at any focus distance and any aperture. I have yet to find a fly in the ointment....Show more →
I have no idea. My supposition is that Sony doesn't take APSC seriously enough and/or hasn't launched a cool, retro-style half-frame that would give them an excuse to design retro-style Minolta-like bodies for the lenses. My conspiracy theory answer is Fuji and Nikon demanded E-mount exclusion to license their mounts.
I generally like what Fuji does. They don't make it at all difficult to find a camera I'd be delighted to use. I think Sony likes them even more, which may help to explain why Sony doesn't take APSC as seriously. As their, from what I can tell, sole sensor provider, maybe a healthy Fuji is worth more to them than launching their own higher-speced half-frame to directly compete. Personally, as much whining as I've done over the years about Sony not being more invested in the format, all it really took to win me back was a control dial on the grip, a BSI sensor, and some shockingly sticky AF. Of course, not having to invest greatly in teles helped seal my happiness.
Still, I do hear the siren call of the X-E5. "I'm small. Sigma makes the 10-18 you like so much for me, too. Add the CV 35 and let me take over your business travels and family snapshots. You can keep the Sony to bug hunt and get all filthy on your hikes." I'm doing my best to ignore it, but your shots with the CV aren't making it any easier.
No, no Zf-style focus confirmation. In addition to peaking there are a couple of other (mediocre, IMO) focus aid options such as "digital split image" and "digital microprism" (I've used the latter and it's OK in some circumstances but peaking or punching in usually work out better for me).
mivadep wrote:
No, no Zf-style focus confirmation. In addition to peaking there are a couple of other (mediocre, IMO) focus aid options such as "digital split image" and "digital microprism" (I've used the latter and it's OK in some circumstances but peaking or punching in usually work out better for me).
Got it, thank you.
I have several m mount lens, and still thinking to get a fuji adapter or native x mount.
Almost all the adapters have the same issue that focus at the wrong distance.
I have several m mount lens, and still thinking to get a fuji adapter or native x mount.
Almost all the adapters have the same issue that focus at the wrong distance.
Yeah, most adapters are slightly too short which leads to focusing past infinity. I bought the Fujifilm adapter off of someone here in Buy & Sell and it appears to be spot on as far as can tell. I would also expect the Voigtlander adapter to be good, too.
Just started using the 27mm f2 on a X-Pro2 and X-T4. Been considering it for a long time, and I wished I had bought it earlier. Exceptional in every aspect. Specially the image quality from wide open on... coupled with the X-Pro2 is the replacement for my X100V I sold a while ago...
vallejo wrote:
Just started using the 27mm f2 on a X-Pro2 and X-T4. Been considering it for a long time, and I wished I had bought it earlier. Exceptional in every aspect. Specially the image quality from wide open on... coupled with the X-Pro2 is the replacement for my X100V I sold a while ago...
Same here. Recently added it to my kit with the 23/1.2, 35/1.2 and 50/1.2. So I didn't exactly need it, but it's proven more useful than I thought. Perfect on my X-E5 as an EDC kit, or even an only lens. Less in-your-face character than the 23 and 35 Noktons. Also tiny with a great feel and ergo.
I’m curious about the 50 1.2….on longer focals autofocus really helps, and as I have the Fuji 56…don’t know, would like to see the two of them side by side…my next shall be the 18…
twelveish wrote:
Same here. Recently added it to my kit with the 23/1.2, 35/1.2 and 50/1.2. So I didn't exactly need it, but it's proven more useful than I thought. Perfect on my X-E5 as an EDC kit, or even an only lens. Less in-your-face character than the 23 and 35 Noktons. Also tiny with a great feel and ergo.
vallejo wrote:
I’m curious about the 50 1.2….on longer focals autofocus really helps, and as I have the Fuji 56…don’t know, would like to see the two of them side by side…my next shall be the 18…
I have the Voigt 50 f/1.2 and I don't find that I need AF for portraits, or for anything that isn't moving fairly quickly. I do have the Viltrox 56 f/1.2 for those situations. I also picked up the tiny and lovely Voigt 27 f/2, and looking forward to using it more.
To me the biggest difference between the Voigt 50 f/1.2 and the Viltrox 56 f/1.2 is the rendering. The Voigt is a pretty classic Sonnar with the bokeh that is typical from such lenses. The Viltrox is a very modern, very sharp, and with to my eyes less appealing bokeh. Both have their place in my kit. I will tend to use the Voigt when I want what I see as a more artistic look as I like that look better, but I will tend to use the Viltrox when I have to get the shot and there is action. In my specific case, I will use the Voigt for most portraits, but I want the Viltrox for shots of my son playing basketball.
Fell free to post some photos with it so we can see!…or a link if you don’t post here…
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have the Voigt 50 f/1.2 and I don't find that I need AF for portraits, or for anything that isn't moving fairly quickly. I do have the Viltrox 56 f/1.2 for those situations. I also picked up the tiny and lovely Voigt 27 f/2, and looking forward to using it more.
To me the biggest difference between the Voigt 50 f/1.2 and the Viltrox 56 f/1.2 is the rendering. The Voigt is a pretty classic Sonnar with the bokeh that is typical from such lenses. The Viltrox is a very modern, very sharp, and with to my eyes less appealing bokeh. Both have their place in my kit. I will tend to use the Voigt when I want what I see as a more artistic look as I like that look better, but I will tend to use the Viltrox when I have to get the shot and there is action. In my specific case, I will use the Voigt for most portraits, but I want the Viltrox for shots of my son playing basketball....Show more →
