trstahly wrote:
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. ...Show more →
If AF is of main importance, this lens is out of course. Regarding resolution center to corner, contrast and aberration control, there aren't many lenses like it.
jamato8 wrote:
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.
I've never seen a CV 65/2 sample that is not very sharp wide open anywhere in the frame at any distance. That's why I got curious to see it.
The images within this group are just shockingly excellent. I do wish that I could see the influence of processing though. My wallet is starting to hate this forum
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've never seen a CV 65/2 sample that is not very sharp wide open anywhere in the frame at any distance. That's why I got curious to see it.
I would normally be using it stopped down for some scientific documentation but I also like to shoot other stuff of my own, wide open. Not to be dramatic but I was surprised and a little shocked at the loss of quality wide open. Once to f4 it is exceptional. I also wish companies made longer extension tubes like for Canon, that start out at 36mm but for some strange reason, no one steps out of the box on the Sony tubes beyond a 10mm and 16mm. I will use around 130mm of tubes. I have searched but can't find anything longer for Sony.
jamato8 wrote:
I would normally be using it stopped down for some scientific documentation but I also like to shoot other stuff of my own, wide open. Not to be dramatic but I was surprised and a little shocked at the loss of quality wide open. Once to f4 it is exceptional. I also wish companies made longer extension tubes like for Canon, that start out at 36mm but for some strange reason, no one steps out of the box on the Sony tubes beyond a 10mm and 16mm. I will use around 130mm of tubes. I have searched but can't find anything longer for Sony. ...Show more →
Can you post a crop wide open? If you do, we will be able to know if what you are seeing is normal for this lens. There is variation with any lens but I was under the impression it was low for this one.
jamato8 wrote:
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.
Is the issue contrast or resolution wide open? I don't have this lens but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
pdmphoto wrote:
Is the issue contrast or resolution wide open? I don't have this lens but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
Wide open, contrast decreases and resolution. I took an image over and over because I could believe the difference, like a totally different lens and then f4 and some at 2.8 but mostly f4, it all snaps together. Others don't seem to have this issue.
The first is f2 200 iso100. Mounted on a tripod and a timer used. Contrasty natural light so in this you can't see so much of the contrast loss. The second f4 50 iso100. IS off. Even on the EVF wide open you can see the difference. 3rd image uncropped of the f2 shot. Second full sized f4.
On my computer screen and even viewing the image once taken on the EVF the difference is more obvious.
So I wonder, since I have read a number of times that wide open the lens is excellent, does anyone see much difference when stopping down to f4 or 5.6.
Just looked under light through the lens. Surprised, there is dust on the inside element. Really surprised by this.
luismanibarro wrote:
bloody sunday, reading 66 pages is some photo forum and now my wallet is empty
Be prepared to be annoyed by your other lenses once you have used the cv65 a bit since you will start to see how imperfect they are
Feb 11, 2018 at 04:51 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jamato8 wrote:
The first is f2 200 iso100. Mounted on a tripod and a timer used. Contrasty natural light so in this you can't see so much of the contrast loss. The second f4 50 iso100. IS off. Even on the EVF wide open you can see the difference. 3rd image uncropped of the f2 shot. Second full sized f4.
On my computer screen and even viewing the image once taken on the EVF the difference is more obvious.
So I wonder, since I have read a number of times that wide open the lens is excellent, does anyone see much difference when stopping down to f4 or 5.6.
Just looked under light through the lens. Surprised, there is dust on the inside element. Really surprised by this. ...Show more →
From my perspective this is still fine performance wide open at 1:2. I don't doubt these is a slight drop in resolution, but what is more noticeable here is a razor thin depth of field that makes judging sharpness very difficult. DOF is so thin it is easy to judge aspects of the images that are not in the best plane of focus. I love shallow DOF close ups/macro, but on this shot I think the DOF is just too shallow in the wide open shot and that is in my view the primary reason the stopped down shot looks better.
Steve Spencer wrote:
From my perspective this is still fine performance wide open at 1:2. I don't doubt these is a slight drop in resolution, but what is more noticeable here is a razor thin depth of field that makes judging sharpness very difficult. DOF is so thin it is easy to judge aspects of the images that are not in the best plane of focus. I love shallow DOF close ups/macro, but on this shot I think the DOF is just too shallow in the wide open shot and that is in my view the primary reason the stopped down shot looks better....Show more →
There is no question that stopping down normally will help with most lenses. It is hard to show the change on this image and I could have choses something better. I shot some more this AM in the hard on tripod and could still see that wide open, it isn't excellent but a little above what I would call average for a good lens. I guess I was expecting more having read that wide open the lens is excellent but I don't see it and have shot for many years and used many lenses. It most likely is the copy I have since there are so many with experience here that state that the lens is of excellent optical quality.
I agree, jamato8. Micro-contrast has a huge impact on perceived sharpness, as well as on the other big factor here - color strength. It's not always noticed, as it is dwarfed by DOF increases. But look at the few contents in the f2 image that are identifiably in the focal plane, then scroll down, or even better set up another session to view side-by-side.
Pretty noticeable highlight ball outlining. Not the ideal form of image for comparison because it really depends on the items in focus jumping out from the background. I'm more noticing the greenish furry fluff left of the main pod (f2 image). Can't expect a 65/2 to be diffraction limited wide open, even one this good. Not even Leica's 50/2 AA manages that feat, it peaks at ~f2.8. You may be judging it harshly, for these reasons. A strictly controlled comparison is required against its peers would establish if it is merely average..what would you use for such a project at/near this FL?
I think Jim Kasson’s blog measurements of this lens found it was sharpest at F2.8 if I recall correctly. The Len IS remarkable in that it has really good sharpness corner to corner from wide open, but for best results, most all lenses benefit from stopping down 1-2 stops from wide open.
Steve Spencer wrote:
From my perspective this is still fine performance wide open at 1:2. I don't doubt these is a slight drop in resolution, but what is more noticeable here is a razor thin depth of field that makes judging sharpness very difficult. DOF is so thin it is easy to judge aspects of the images that are not in the best plane of focus. I love shallow DOF close ups/macro, but on this shot I think the DOF is just too shallow in the wide open shot and that is in my view the primary reason the stopped down shot looks better....Show more →
I agree that DOF plays a role on jamato's example, giving the f/4 crop the impression of more sharpness.
As with any lens, there is always a bump in contrast/resolution from wide open (This is the case with outstanding lenses like the ZF 135/2 APO)...so we can't expect the CV 65/2 to be any different. However, with this lens, I think the difference is very tiny and f/2.8 is already as sharp as it can be at center even at infinity distance.
Here is an example with a somewhat flat subject. It shows a dog's can food with very small lettering and as you can see, the focus area does not change much in terms of contrast/resolution from wide open to f/4 but it greatly varies as the can starts to curve (DOF). Look at the logo and then the word "Manufactured". The word starts very similar between the two apertures but at f/4 is much sharper at the end of it as the can curves very slightly.
@jamato8, if you can't duplicate the below with your lens, I would try a different copy.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree that DOF plays a role on jamato's example, giving the f/4 crop the impression of more sharpness.
As with any lens, there is always a bump in contrast/resolution from wide open (even with outstanding lenses like the ZF 135/2 APO)...so we can't expect the CV 65/2 to be any different. However, with this lens, I think the difference is very tiny and f/2.8 is already as sharp as it can be at center even at infinity distance.
Here is an example with a somewhat flat subject. It shows a dog's can food and as you can see, the focus area does not change much in terms of contrast/resolution from wide open to f/4 but it greatly varies as the can starts to curve (DOF). Look at the logo and then the word "Manufactured". The word starts very similar between the two apertures but at f/4 is much sharper at the end of it as the can curves very slightly.
@jamato8@, if you can't duplicate the below with your lens, I would try a different copy....Show more →
I can't get that type of quality at f2. Thank you for posting this! That gives me a much better idea and I can see what people are talking about.
I ordered another one and am sending the one I have back.
I tested again and no way even on print like Fred did, does the one I have here do as well as what he shows. It degrades quite a bit wide open. I have a feeling even though it is good stopped down, a normal copy will be even better at the same f stop be that f4 5.6 etc.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree that DOF plays a role on jamato's example, giving the f/4 crop the impression of more sharpness.
As with any lens, there is always a bump in contrast/resolution from wide open (This is the case with outstanding lenses like the ZF 135/2 APO)...so we can't expect the CV 65/2 to be any different. However, with this lens, I think the difference is very tiny and f/2.8 is already as sharp as it can be at center even at infinity distance.
Here is an example with a somewhat flat subject. It shows a dog's can food with very small lettering and as you can see, the focus area does not change much in terms of contrast/resolution from wide open to f/4 but it greatly varies as the can starts to curve (DOF). Look at the logo and then the word "Manufactured". The word starts very similar between the two apertures but at f/4 is much sharper at the end of it as the can curves very slightly.
@jamato8@, if you can't duplicate the below with your lens, I would try a different copy....Show more →
I have sent back the 1st 65 and got the second today.
Immediately through the EVF I can see the difference. More contrast wide open and just sharper. With images taken, there is little difference in sharpness from wide open with f4 just slightly better. This is more like what I was seeing on here and thank you Fred for posting the images of print as that really helped to define what I was and wasn't seeing with the first copy. This second one has what you are getting on the images you posted.
