Re: FM Review of the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton
saxguy wrote: antst wrote: saxguy wrote:
If you didn't have a lens in the 35-40 range, assuming size wasn't an issue, would you choose the 40 1.2 or the Distagon 35 1.4 ZA?
I have the A7r iii and I'm torn between the two.
Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. They belong, IMHO, to a different categories, despite of their close focal length and speed.
Would you kindly further expand on this?
Distagoin is large and heavy. It is rather speciality lens. Not allarounder/walking lens...whatever people like to call this use pattern. Not lens which can spend most of the time on the camera. It is sharp, fast autofocus lens which has to be used in cases where it needed. Maybe not perfect comparison, but kind of the same category as 135/2 lens would be. Use it when it is required. Lens with "speciality".
CV 40/1.2 is very different beast, it is manual (this already makes some non-overlapping use pattern with Distagon), which balances on camera extremely nice and has quite reasonable size/weight. This lens has quite a potential to be "default" lens. I.e. lens which someone keeps on camera, unless there is particular need for "speciality" lens. Lens which you take (as single lens) when you go to walk, or to bar with friends, or whatever/whenever else as single lens. Just "default lens". (it doesn't mean that it can not be used as "speciality" lens, of course). Plus, 40mm vs 35mm...40mm (depending on taste) might be indeed good compromise/fusion between 35mm and 50mm (two most typical "standard lenses" of choice) in single lens, covering most of what one does with either 35mm or 50mm.
At least, this is how I see it.
And, to be honest, there is this irrational thing I have only with, CV 40/1.2 : when I take camera in my hands, I want to keep it in hands forever, feels so nice! )))
And Distagon just heavy and large and doesn't balance so nice on A7R II/III, in my opinion. As "standard lens" it calls for battery grip At least this is how I see it.