akul
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Nikon Z Images Thread | |
Jman13 wrote:
akul wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really pleased with it too. If you zoom in on specular highlights, they are far from perfect, but in most situations I quite like the rendering, and in general, transitions are pretty smooth...just some outlining on highlights. In other ways, the lens is brilliant. Tack sharp across the frame from wide open, excellent CA control (as you'd expect), though you can see a little purple fringing in some scenarios, but it's minor. That awesome Voigtlander contrast profile. The aperture iris is interesting too - some funky star shapes at some apertures, perfectly circular at f/2, f/2.8 and f/5.6, and straight bladed at f/11 for good sunstars.
Great to hear that. I do like 40mm/1.2 but, I have not figured out its characteristics yet. From f1.2 to 3.2 it is predictable with sweet rendering. Not razor sharp but good. From f4 and down for landscape shots, it isn’t always giving me the sharpness I expect from lenses these days. It could be the CP filter, but I have tried two different filters (BW and Nikon) with same challenge. So, it maybe my focusing (zooming in and focus, but may need to open up to f5.6 to focus then close down to the particular f stop) that need adjusting to the lens peculiarities, thinking about the field curvature reported in 40/1.2 thread. Or, it could be a bad copy. I need to do some analysis, not my favorite, but may be needed.
Regarding the specular light. I find that to be one weakness of 40/1.2 as well. Even with CPL, it tends to blow out rather quickly, so needing to adjust exposure setting with that in mind. It could be the character of some of the Voigtlander lenses? I don’t have enough experience to say one or the other.
The rendering of 35 Apo makes me wonder I might give it a try, but I also don’t want too many lenses in too close range. (35 and 40)
Luka
I've owned the 40/1.2 before on Sony, and I loved that lens. Surprised to hear you say it isn't all that sharp stopped down, as my copy was very good beyond f/2.8 (and good at wide apertures).
In any case, the 40/1.2 and 35/2 APO are very different lenses. The 40/1.2 is sort of a more modernized classic look, with some spherical aberration at wide apertures and emphasizing rendering over pure optical prowess. The 35 APO is an extremely highly corrected lens, and as such is very sharp across the whole frame right from f/2 (mine is essentially perfect over about 90% of the frame, with just a small amount of softening towards the corners at f/2 where sharpness is only very good, instead of bitingly sharp), and is impeccable down a stop or two. Very good CA control (though a tiny bit of purple fringing in some situations). The 40/1.2 definitely has creamier bokeh, and the 35/2 can get rough in some areas, but as you noted, overall, I think it renders very nicely.
I probably shouldn't say it is to that all that sharp. It is just not predictable, or relyable. It looks sort of ok on the screen or EVF when shot, but on computer, some seem to lack the acuity and I can't quite feel confident with this lens for the results when shooting close down. I get more constant result from 24-70/f4 S and 35/f1.8S, so something is not right. I still am thinking / hoping it is the operator error, and I just need to figure out its characteristics.
|
