highdesertmesa wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: nhsonyshooter wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: nhsonyshooter wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: nhsonyshooter wrote:
So far with the limited images I'm not seeing why you would pick this up over the 1.2.
I think the major reason for me to pick this lens is the much better control of axial CA and much better out zone performance. I can see that even in the few examples we have seen so far. Now I am talking vs. the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2, not the Sigma 35 f/1.2. The big reason to pick it over the Sigma for me is size, although better control of axial CA and better outer zone performance are probably reasons as well.
Well my opinion may change as more examples come out. But currently there is nothing I have seen that the 1.2 can't do at this point.
Well the five abnormal partial dispersion elements vs. zero for the 35 f/1.2 SE does pretty strongly suggest that 35 f/2 APO is going to handle CA and particularly axial CA better and it isn't much of a stretch to argue that it can do that better than the 35 f/1.2. The samples show remarkably low axial CA and that definitely is not a strength of the 35 f/1.2 SE. Then there is the unique aperture of the 35 f/2 APO. It has round highlights at f/2; f/2.8; and f/5.6 but will still produce excellent sunstars at f/4; f/8, and f/11. Really nice innovations, if you ask me and these are things that are easy to see.
Yeah, blah blah blah numbers, elements, shaped blades etc... That's all great. Like I said though, I have not seen an image yet that I felt the 1.2 could not replicate at the same stop. Let me clear, I'm by no means saying it's a bad lens. I'm just saying if you have the 1.2 I have not seen anything that would make me want to give up the versatility of that lens. The difference between F2 on both lenses appears to be not as big a deal in real world use. And I'm to saying that to discourage anyone from getting it. I'm saying that from the point of view from someone that was very interested in this lens and excited about it even before it was even officially announced.
...I think from what I have seen of the 35 f/1.2 SE I will like the bokeh a bit better on that lens. I think the bokeh on the 35 f/2 APO is good but not great, whereas I think the bokeh on the 35 f/1.2 SE is very good to excellent. From Fred's shots with the 35 f/1.2 SE for landscapes I will be disappointed if the 35 f/2 APO isn't quite a bit better in the outer zone, but again we can wait for Fred's usual thorough test to demonstrate that. ...
I have the 1.2 and the APO and think both will stay in the bag. Also thinking about adding the 50 1.2 as an option to the 50 APO.
So far my impression of the CV 35 APO bokeh at close distance is that it's much smoother than the 1.2. It reminds me more of the Fufjilm GF lens bokeh (except the GF 80). The GF 80 wide open looks more like the CV 1.2 – more painterly and more character in the bokeh.
Not sure if you have ever had previously or currently have a Leica Summicron 35mm ASPH. Seems that the performance of the CV 35 APO surpasses the Leica. So other than size and portability and view finder blockage seems that for the price of a used 35 Summicron one can have both the CV 1.2 and APO.
