For all those who own or will own this lens, what do you use it for? I would love to pick up a copy but my brain can't wrap itself around 65mm. Portrait - I use an 85mm or 135mm or 50mm. Landscape - anywhere from 16-400mm, but I can't see myself saying, "this is perfect for a 65mm!" Most of my landscapes are stopped down to f8 anyway where my zooms shine.
Sports? Seems too short. Help me out! I'd love the lens but might never use it.
mudlake wrote:
For all those who own or will own this lens, what do you use it for? I would love to pick up a copy but my brain can't wrap itself around 65mm. Portrait - I use an 85mm or 135mm or 50mm. Landscape - anywhere from 16-400mm, but I can't see myself saying, "this is perfect for a 65mm!" Most of my landscapes are stopped down to f8 anyway where my zooms shine.
Sports? Seems too short. Help me out! I'd love the lens but might never use it.
I use mine for Macro and as a regular prime .. It fits in nicely with my other MF primes 21/40/65. I also have AF 25/55/85 for action stuff
I am certainly not the caliber of many of the people on this site .. just a hobbyist .. and I find myself often cropping images to some extent which I am fine with. I do not need th e"perfect" focal length .. would prefer to have the best lenses possible in the approx range I shoot
here is a recent shot with the lens .. I cropped out some shrubs on the left
mudlake wrote:
For all those who own or will own this lens, what do you use it for? I would love to pick up a copy but my brain can't wrap itself around 65mm. Portrait - I use an 85mm or 135mm or 50mm. Landscape - anywhere from 16-400mm, but I can't see myself saying, "this is perfect for a 65mm!" Most of my landscapes are stopped down to f8 anyway where my zooms shine.
Sports? Seems too short. Help me out! I'd love the lens but might never use it. [/quote
Suppose its a funny Fl if you are already covered in the 50 and 85,
I wanted a M only prime set for general (serious) photography, I started with the cv40f1.2 so 35 and 50 where too close, the 65 is a logical step, I also wanted a macro somewhere in this set so the 65 fulfils that for me, what i add next I dont know yet, but i dont have to worry about that for a year as i have spent up my photography budget,
it will work as a portrait lens, as in if you are out then it will do the job, but if i was going out with the intention of shooting portraits then AF and eye af are just to valuable to do without,
I have the 12-24 and 24-105 as my landscape setup, when i next get a weekend up to the lakes i will take the 40 and 65 and do some direct comparisons, they seam to have something special about them, but until i do a comparison in the real world i wont know for sure
mudlake wrote:
Well, I guess I meant other than macro. It seems not many on this forum shoot macro but many want the lens.
Depends for many of us it’s a gap lens and also we use it as our 85 in a way which most of us went for AF in our 85 lenses like the 1.4 and 1.8 generally speaking not a landscape type lenses. For me it’s my new 50/85 because I don’t like 50 so I’m 15,28,40,65 . I need to buy this back but that’s my landscape kit. My Af kit is completely different. Now also this is the sharpest lens you can buy for this system and many of us want it just for that and will find use for it. It has no distortion, no CA and is a freaking laser and we are sucking every pixel out of these 42mpx sensors. Yes some of us are pigs I admit but it’s really hard to ignore the IQ of this lens. It’s a APO design
I taught workshops for many years and the hobbyists that came to those workshops had the best gear you can buy. Reason can’t blame the gear for bad results. I’m not joking either, people want the best they can buy and it’s just because. No other reason
Frankly this is just as good as those 8 grand lenses I bought for Medium format but now in 35mm land. Honestly this is kind of cheap for what your getting. Don’t tell Voightlander that.
I do use macros. I have the Canon 100L and it is very nice but I feel it could be better. I have the 180L and really like it but sometimes it is too long. The 65 would get me pretty close, I like the distance of 100 or 180 but what I read about this lens would be very welcome when I do some of my scientific studies and documentation.
I am not a macro shooter. But I do like close up photography. This lens is perfect for it. I also use it as a walk-around lens. Some people say it's heavy for that; I don't find it heavy at all.
Used this for some food shoots the other day. Lovely results. I will most likely only be using it with food and products shots, but I'm keeping it for that reason.
Got my 65 this week but haven't had the chance to test it yet in proper conditions! Weather in Sweden is still merky and to be frank a bit dull :/ Hoping for better light soon!
I tried one and basically felt the same way its not as good a macro as my 90 macro, not as good a portait lens as either my 85GM or 50 1.2 ZA and MF prohibits my using is for street or a walk around so it went back.
I understand if you are a Voightalnder shooter and have a 40 a 65 it might make sense, but I am a Sony shooter and for me it doesn't I already have too many lenses to choose from. If it were AF I would much more interested but even then not being surrounded by two of the best e-mount lenses that exist.
Thanks. I can but just like you know when something is sharp or isn't, I can tell you that wide open, the one I have here isn't. The contrast drops and it is more like a middle of the line lens, nothing exceptional. Stopped down it sharpens up. I think it will go back as it is nice to have the sharpness wide open for certain images, as you know. I find the 85 1.8 Sony wide open sharper.
And it's sharp 😍👍