LBJ2
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: In Stock: Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton III Aspherical | |
Fred Miranda wrote:
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
LBJ2 wrote:
I'm still trying to get over, Fred with a Leica Rangefinder camera  Go Fred Go !
---------------------------------------------
GMPhotography wrote:
OMG Fred bought a Leica. I missed all of this. I’m lost on this lens if it’s good or not for our Sony. There talking a E mount
I purchased a minty M240 from the buy and sell board so I can finally test M-mount lenses on it.
So far I have two lenses for it. CV 35/1.2 III and Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM. (Staying away from Leica lenses )
I find it quite surprising that the rangefinder allows me focus with great accuracy with both 35mm lenses wide open for environment portraits. I was not expecting that.
The 35/1.4 ZM in particular is a lens I always loved. From what I can tell, on the Leica thin sensor, it's the only lens that challenges the Sigma 35/1.2 at all distances. For those who tried it on the Sony with a PCX front lens, rendering is quite smooth but not at the same level as the Voigtlander since the Zeiss is better corrected for SA.
@Steve Spencer@@@@@@, the issue with the weird rendering on the Sony towards the corners was due to induced field curvature + optical vignetting. On the Leica, rendering is more even across the frame. (Same for resolution at infinity). For the FE 50/1.4 ZA fans, the 35/1.4 ZM has a very similar look imo. (high resolution/micro-contrast + neutral rendering)
I've compared the CV 35/1.2 III to my CV 40/1.2 E-mount and found the former was even sharper at center. I was hoping for a strong mid-field but found it a bit softer than the 40/1.2 until about f/2-2.8. The Zeiss on the other hand is sharp at all field zones from wide open. Aside from rendering and color error correction, that's the main difference between the two.
Fred,
The issues of the bokeh in the corners is not just on Sony, which made it worse, but it was noticed first by Ron Scheffler (rscheffler) when he first tested it on his Leica M240, when the lens first came out. I can't find those original posts, but I am pretty sure I am remembering that right. I also saw it on my Leica M10, when I had that camera and the lens. The field curvature was a big deal for Sony, and the weird corners were probably worse on Sony, but the problem was still there, IMO, on Leica as well.
Edit: Here is a summary from one of Ron's early posts on the lens. You will see he mentions some of the bokeh issues even in this early post:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1318450/10&year=2014#12697578
Yes, on the thin sensor, that remaining rendering issue towards the corners is due to optical vignetting which is pretty common with fast + compact wide lenses. At least on the Leica, FC is a non-issue while on the Sony, it makes the corners appear sharper depending on subject distance.
Unfortunately, the Voigtlander Nokton lenses are no different. At the corners the Voigt 35/1.2 III and 35/1.4 ZM are pretty equal rendering wise. The Voigtlander smoothness advantage is only noticeable at center and mid-field.
I'm not so sure they are equal in the corners, especially the highlights which are not the typical cat's eyes with the 35 ZM f/1.4, but an unusual rhombus shape that I haven't see with any other lens and that is true on the Leica camera as well. As I said, even, on the Leica I never took to the ZM 35 f/1.4 for moderate distance shooting and the bokeh was the main reason, as always, however, YMMV.
I will post side by side samples comparing the CV 35/1.2 III vs Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM's resolution at long distance and rendering at close and mid-distance soon. (Leica body)
I've seen the rhombus shape but I think that is due to coma.
So I think there are three distinctive things happening here:
1) Induced field curvature: That happens when using the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM on a Sony (due to thicker glass). Not an issue on the Leica. The ill-effect is more 'in-focus' corners compared to the center and mid-field when shooting at mid and long distance on the Sony without any PCX mod.
2) Optical Vignetting: This also affects the corners making rendering harsher than the center and mid-field. It's also responsible for cat-eye bokeh
3) Coma: This has an effect on corner bokeh shape as well. With wide angle lenses, it can make them appear non-oval in a shape of a cone or rhombus as you described.
Do you enjoy the RF experience/way of shooting? Not a loaded question--I picked up a m-mount film RF recently and absolutely love it even if I don't have blazing AF and such. From the way people talk about it online and some Leica reviews, you'd like we in the Paleolithic era. I'm on on the fence about picking up a digital RF myself.
I've always loved shooting with manual focus lenses so it's not a big change for me. Even during my Canon days, most of my lenses were manual (TS-E lenses) but I had to rely on live view for accurate focusing. I was curious about rangefinders but since I mainly shoot landscapes, sensor and high MP were always a higher priority for me. I'm very happy with Sony for this type of photography. The bodies are compact, the lenses are outstanding and the price is right.
I decided to try a Leica rangefinder as a second system for three main reasons:
1) I can test lenses designed for the Leica mount on a Leica sensor.
2) I can disconnect from all the modern electronic marvels keeping things simple and exercise creativity. This can also be done with my A7R IV but I am surprised how much the rangefinder and simplicity of the Leica body can be satisfying to the shooting experience.
3) Pricing of the M240 camera. I've happy with the M240 sensor's DR for non-landscape applications and 24MP is enough for that. At current used prices, it was hard to resist and I think it's definitely worth it.
Slippery slope Fred! I am myself ensnared and loving it Love my Sony's too, but a whole different kind of tool.
|
