GMPhotography wrote: vdo1 wrote: GMPhotography wrote:
Now is the CV 65 the better lens is really the question one would have to ask as that lens to me would be the changing of the style of look your after . Its a APO lens so sharpness does not back off so that lends itself to being more clinical in look. Now I loved the CV 65 and if you where primary a landscape type shooter than it maybe the better choice here. Actually it maybe the better choice of anything out there, its a brilliant lens. For me I may add the 110 so i have one rocket ship of a lens in my bag. I would use the 110 more for landscape with my 50 . 21
My real question to myself is I had the Leica Summarit 75 2.4 which i liked but got caught up in another lens purchase so i sold it. Is this better and to be honest I think the Leica was identical on Big Bronco. Here I get a faster lens for focusing to as Im going to shoot a lot of F2 but damn some of these 1.5 shots are really sharp
It depends. The problem with the 75mm is that it sits right in the middle of the 65mm on one side, and a plethora of 85mm on the other side. No matter what rendering style you prefer, you'll find fierce competition, one side or the other. So the only outstanding qualities recommending it so far are size and nice construction and haptics, but once you'll have to also use an adapter, it pretty much goes away. Makes sense for L users but not so much adapted on E mount. A native one would make much more sense.
Sure would love it if it was native and yes it battles hard between 65/85 lenses as its the odd ball. I get that . Frankly one would be better owning the CV 40 to pair with this instead of the CV 50 which I have. Here is the other BIG problem none are small and lighter the CV 65 is a big lens . The Loxia 85 is a long lens and the ZM 85 is a F4 but gets its ass kicked by the Loxia 85. We really dont have a small 65,75,85 or even a 90. I would jump on a 90mm but finding one that's kick ass and small just don't exist. Now maybe some obscure brand like Olympus or Minolta but you on adapters as well.
Id call this lens the feel good lens. And it may not be for everyone for sure
I think this lens pairs wonderfully with the CV 40 f/1.2. It has a similar look. They both are fast. They both are a bit dreamy with some aberrations wide open (although the 40 has more). They both sharpen up and have way less aberrations at f/2 which is a great aperture to use for both. The both have nice bokeh (the 75's, however, looks better to me). Even as an M mount lens, I would say this lens seems to slightly outperform the CV 40 f/1.2 and is at much the same level as the CV 50 f/1.2 or perhaps a bit better. This is a fantastic trio of moderate focal length lenses. The hardest decision is which lenses to get and how to use them together.
Personally, I am getting the CV 50 f/1.2 in E mount and the 75 f/1.5 and I will wait awhile to see if it is offered in E mount. If it is I will get it in E mount, but even if it is not I will get in M mount. It still looks exceptional as tested here. I do wish it was better for close up performance, but close up performance is not a strength of all of the lenses in this trio. One advantage of the M mount lens is that you can put it on a close focus adapter, stop it down to f/2 or f/2.4 and get quite decent close up performance. I also have the CV 65 f/2 (the one I got from you actually Guy) when I need optimal close focus performance.
That said, I will rarely carry these two lenses together. The CV 50 f/1.2 will be part of my fast lens kit, and although the 75 f/1.5 is pretty fast it actually fits in my small lens kit better and its super small size allows that.
Aug 15, 2019 at 10:33 AM
Previous versions of Steve Spencer's message #14946278 « Voigtlander 75mm f/1.5 Nokton Review »
