DavidBM wrote:
I've just purchased my review copy!
OK I think this means C-Sonnar has to go, because that's the lens I use in a similar way..
im thinking the same .. i have both the CV 35/1.7 (which i will put up FS), contemplating about the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar though. Love the compactness of it so we'll see.
davewolfs wrote:
Could someone kindly provide some details on what it is about the Leica mount which allows for an overall lighter lens?
Is this potentially a less sharp lens since the sensor is unable to resolve as many details or is the mount itself more conducive to achieving similar image quality using less glass?
Leica has a slightly longer flange focal distance: so the lens can be shorter, that's why you can adapt them to Sony with an adapter.
So the Leica lens can be a little shorter. Optically it's the same (or almost?) as the Sony: you can add an adapter to the Leica and use it on sony, of course this brings the weight back to a similar amount.
It's also got a smaller filter diameter, probably so as to reduce blockage in a Leica viewfinder. I don't think that reflects a different optical formula though.
My guess is that the Leica version will be optically identical. It's just possible that it has a slight tweak for the different filter stack. If so, the Leica will be a touch better on a Leica, and the E mount a touch better on Sony.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The CV 65/2 does not have it. True.
But the CV 40/1.2 E-mount has it and the aperture is at the front. (Same for their 10, 12 and 15mm E-mount versions)
From the picture below, it does not seem the VM version has this option and that should be a weight advantage.
The focusing ring is also thinner in comparison.
The E-mount version has three rings: de-clicking ring, aperture ring and focusing ring.
Huh.
Looking at the images, the Leica version has got much less recess, and much more exposed front element!
This is presumably so as to be able to get the filter diameter down to 52mm, so as to block the finder less.
But I'd much rather have the extra recess for safety and flare prevention! (even at the cost of maybe 30g)
It also fully explains the weight difference: part of it is the Leica mount version being shorter at the rear, part of it is the lack of the recess at the front...
Looking at the images, the Leica version has got much less recess, and much more exposed front element!
This is presumably so as to be able to get the filter diameter down to 52mm, so as to block the finder less.
But I'd much rather have the extra recess for safety and flare prevention! (even at the cost of maybe 30g)
It also fully explains the weight difference: part of it is the Leica mount version being shorter at the rear, part of it is the lack of the recess at the front...
yeah, this great for me since i'm all about size reduction. recessed front elements always bug me with the wasted space (if i wanted a hood i'd use a hood). yay for choices.
jhinkey wrote:
I find it hard to believe that they'd have a different optical formula for the VM version . . .
The exact text on the site says this:
"This lens shares the same optical configuration as the NOKTON 40mm F1.2 Aspherical E-mount lens, however the NOKTON 40mm F1.2 Aspherical VM is optically adjusted with consideration for use on both film and digital and features a focus-coupling cam that enables focusing with optical rangefinders."
I don't know how they would have adjusted it but I suppose the same exact configuration couldn't be very optimal for both film and Sony sensor stack whereas there could probably be some optimization to make it work well on Leica M and film.
The E-mount version is about 10mm wider and 16mm taller. The focusing ring is thicker and it has an extra de-clicking ring and mechanism. That should make most of the weight difference.
There are many disadvantages of adapting the VM version on the Sony body. The most critical is going from 0.35 to 0.5m MFD...that will take some fun from those close-up shots. Another is no electronic data transmission. which is a negative for many shooters that would have to go without auto IBIS, auto focus magnification or any EXIF data.
There is also a possibility of IQ deterioration and issues with adapter mount-parallelism. The final weight savings when adding an adapter become almost irrelevant and some helicoid adapters could make the final weight even heavier.
So, unless there is no change in IQ and one really wants to use an AF adapter with it, I see more negatives than positives. I enjoyed using TAP for almost a year but have to confess that now much prefer focusing these lenses manually.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
The exact text on the site says this:
"This lens shares the same optical configuration as the NOKTON 40mm F1.2 Aspherical E-mount lens, however the NOKTON 40mm F1.2 Aspherical VM is optically adjusted with consideration for use on both film and digital and features a focus-coupling cam that enables focusing with optical rangefinders."
I don't know how they would have adjusted it but I suppose the same exact configuration couldn't be very optimal for both film and Sony sensor stack whereas there could probably be some optimization to make it work well on Leica M and film.
Hadn't seen that, Juha, I revise my view: sounds like it is indeed optically a bit different.
If you look a the ZM biogon 2/35 and the Loxia biogon 2/35 there's nothing you can see at the level of the crude optical diagram, but some difference in geometry of elements or spacing has been made to account for the difference in sensor stacks. Likely the same here. I guess with a 1.2 it's more critical than the slow wides.
If so, the M version likely won't work as well on Sony.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The E-mount version is about 10mm wider and 16mm taller. The focusing ring is thicker and it has an extra de-clicking ring and mechanism. That should make most of the weight difference.
There are many disadvantages of adapting the VM version on the Sony body. The most critical is going from 0.35 to 0.5m MFD...that will take some fun from those close-up shots. Another is no electronic data transmission. which is a negative for many shooters that would have to go without auto IBIS, auto focus magnification or any EXIF data.
There is also a possibility of IQ deterioration and issues with adapter mount-parallelism. The final weight savings when adding an adapter become almost irrelevant and some helicoid adapters could make the final weight even heavier.
So, unless there is no change in IQ and one really wants to use an AF adapter with it, I see more negatives than positives. I enjoyed using TAP for almost a year but have to confess that now much prefer focusing these lenses manually....Show more →
Funny about TAP. I had a lot of fun with it, but now I use it basically for selfies or group shots using the playmemories remote control, where AF is essential. If I'm holding the camera, for critical focus on eyes and so on manual is more reliable, and no slower than the average speed of TAP: especially if your subject is off-centre.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There are many disadvantages of adapting the VM version on the Sony body. The most critical is going from 0.35 to 0.5m MFD...that will take some fun from those close-up shots.
ah, but with a helicoid adapter the m-mount version will focus much closer than the e-mount.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Another is no electronic data transmission. which is a negative for many shooters that would have to go without auto IBIS, auto focus magnification or any EXIF data.
auto focus magnification annoys me no end (it's just terrible for moving subjects), the rest i've never had so i won't miss.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is also a possibility of IQ deterioration and issues with adapter mount-parallelism. The final weight savings when adding an adapter become almost irrelevant and some helicoid adapters could make the final weight even heavier.
So, unless there is no change in IQ and one really wants to use an AF adapter with it, I see more negatives than positives. I enjoyed using TAP for almost a year but have to confess that now much prefer focusing these lenses manually.
i don't have any interest in TAP as i also prefer manual focus (especially at f/1.2) but the hawk's adapter is decently light. adapter mount-parallelism is more of an issue with ultra wides than normalish lenses, but it could be a slight issue
I also don't like automatic magnification, but luckily it's easy to turn off. On A9 I use the joystick press to start magnification (when I want it) and the joystick to choose magnification area, that's very convenient.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I also don't like automatic magnification, but luckily it's easy to turn off. On A9 I use the joystick press to start magnification (when I want it) and the joystick to choose magnification area, that's very convenient.
in the bad old days of the NEX, the only way to turn it off was to turn off all magnification.
sebboh wrote:
ah, but with a helicoid adapter the m-mount version will focus much closer than the e-mount.
auto focus magnification annoys me no end (it's just terrible for moving subjects), the rest i've never had so i won't miss.
i don't have any interest in TAP as i also prefer manual focus (especially at f/1.2) but the hawk's adapter is decently light. adapter mount-parallelism is more of an issue with ultra wides than normalish lenses, but it could be a slight issue
A helicoid adapter could allow the lens to focus closer but how good IQ is going to be? In the case of the CV 28/2 and CV 35/1.7 Ultron lenses which also don't have a FLE design there is a big drop in resolution beyond the lens' MFD.
My impression is that the 40/1.2 E-mount is already not optimum at minimum focus distance.
I agree on the auto-focus magnification, and don't use it either but I am assume that most Sony shooters find it useful.
Regarding the Hawks, I have encountered some issues with it. From three I've tried only one didn't have a mount tilt.
DavidBM wrote:
Funny about TAP. I had a lot of fun with it, but now I use it basically for selfies or group shots using the playmemories remote control, where AF is essential. If I'm holding the camera, for critical focus on eyes and so on manual is more reliable, and no slower than the average speed of TAP: especially if your subject is off-centre.
Aside from the annoying AF noise, that's my main issue with it. Whenever placing the subject for a rule of thirds comp, PDAF will start hunting, especially in low light.
Fred Miranda wrote:
A helicoid adapter could allow the lens to focus closer but how good IQ is going to be? In the case of the CV 28/2 and CV 35/1.7 Ultron lenses which also don't have a FLE design there is a big drop in resolution beyond the lens' MFD.
My impression is that the 40/1.2 E-mount is already not optimum at minimum focus distance.
I agree on the auto-focus magnification, and don't use it either but I am assume that most Sony shooters find it useful.
Regarding the Hawks, I have encountered some issues with it. From three I've tried only one didn't have a mount tilt....Show more →
oh yeah, IQ goes down a lot when you break mfd, usually due to increased SA. i consider that a feature though – usually when i'm close focusing with with fast lens it's not to do copy work, it's to shoot a flower, abstract, or person and those types of subjects are usually benefited by a little extra glow (imo of course, lots of people disagree).
my hawk's tilts extended, but not retracted, which works fine for me. i've been meaning to get one of those all metal ones with an infinity lock though...
sebboh wrote:
in the bad old days of the NEX, the only way to turn it off was to turn off all magnification.
After getting tired of the weight of my old Canon 5D mk2 setup, I converted to a NEX-6 user (still have it but it doesn't get much use) just after it was released. I had only a couple of native AF lenses for it and I never used MF with those so I didn't suffer from the auto-magnification problem Then I started buying and adapting all the nice manual lenses for it. My very first one was CV 35/1.2 v1, which I used as my main lens for 1-2 years. The new 40/1.2 is bringing back some of the old memories from using that old combo.
Then I started buying and adapting all the nice manual lenses for it. My very first one was CV 35/1.2 v1, which I used as my main lens for 1-2 years. The new 40/1.2 is bringing back some of the old memories from using that old combo.