sebboh wrote:
wait, why not? wouldn't the camera just do it based on shutter speed independent of lens?
but yeah, that'd be sweet.
You are right. My bad. It would work with adapted lenses as well. Exposure (shutter speed, ISO) is set by the camera and not the lens. I just want that option!
I have a couple more. I got the lens very late on Thursday went to a big dinner and libations and did not feel that great Friday walking the park. Before that i really shot my CV 28 a lot, 65, Laowa 15 and surprisingly very few Loxia 21 shots.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Nice series Guy! is the CV 40/1.2 ever going to see Big Bronco?
First thing in the morning. Its not going to be a fair fight for a lens like this but hey we need to see the flaws and all.
As you know Fred Big Bronco is just brutal on lenses. But its a great mid range detail resolution tests across the frame not to mention great at showing CA
I think between your infinity tests and Big Bronco we really get a great idea on how a lens operates
You can see the CA on his zipper as well. Just need to understand this lens so you can try to control something like this. Here maybe heavy backlight get it to 2.8, I think the bokeh balls would look better and CA disappear
The water fountain above looks pretty good for instance at F3.5 as the CA is well controlled.
nampramos wrote:
Ah that's too bad! I'll wait for a direct comparison but the M version would interest me more. Not that I have the TAP but could be a nice addition in the future. For MF experience I actually prefer the M and used an adapter.
When is the M version supposed to come out?
November, but no specific date yet for the M-version. I guess it'll be early to mid-November since they already announced it.
One of the issues that is keeping me (so far) from ordering this lens is the focus shift it seems to suffer from. How pronounced is it? It matters to me because I routinely focus wide open, and then stop down. Not ideal with focus shift...
So, how bad is it, say between f:1.2 and f:2.8, which would be typical for me?
I’ll do Big Bronco this morning with one series focus wide open and just run the F stops. Second series I’ll refocus at working aperture each time. I’ll post both Raws. I want to know that as well.
One other thing the most important reason I like EXIF is I can see my aperture in camera being used without looking at lens. So never have to take my eye away to look. Thats a big one for me
Btw I bought my 40 at Photo Village in NY. The east coast distribution center . It’s right across the street from B&H
GMPhotography wrote:
You can see the CA on his zipper as well. Just need to understand this lens so you can try to control something like this. Here maybe heavy backlight get it to 2.8, I think the bokeh balls would look better and CA disappear
The water fountain above looks pretty good for instance at F3.5 as the CA is well controlled.
The lens shows heavy bleeding(?) around bright parts. It is less pronounced from the lightsource to the border of the picture. In the center of the image (letter "C") it's in all directions. The same shot at f2.8 does not show it. Maybe some of the heavy chromatic abberation we talked up to now is rather this bleeding than real CA. But maybe this is CA or purple fringing? I don't have knowledge here. I just try to avoid it or know workaround for it.
sebbe wrote:
The lens shows heavy bleeding(?) around bright parts. It is less pronounced from the lightsource to the border of the picture. In the center of the image (letter "C") it's in all directions. The same shot at f2.8 does not show it. Maybe some of the heavy chromatic abberation we talked up to now is rather this bleeding than real CA. But maybe this is CA or purple fringing? I don't have knowledge here. I just try to avoid it or know workaround for it.
Lovely mix of axial CA and spherochromatism!
Bleeding is usually some kind of SA effect; and spherochromatism is just SA that's different for different colours, so that you get a coloured bleed rather than a glow..
DavidBM wrote:
Lovely mix of axial CA and spherochromatism!
Bleeding is usually some kind of SA effect; and spherochromatism is just SA that's different for different colours, so that you get a coloured bleed rather than a glow..
Thank you very much for that helpful reply.
But I'm not sure if I would call it a "lovely" mix.
I did two different focusing methods and at first blush it seems better wide open than stop down to shoot at this distance but closer up test of little wall it looks better to focus at working aperture
For right now Im going to load the Raws for the big wall
1st Series i opened up to focus and just stopped down without refocusing
2nd series starts after my hand but I focused at all working apertures until F5.6 than just did 8 and 11
Couple things I noted was some pincushion distortion but purple fringing is really quite good. I have to sit and analyze this better but I need to go pick up my dog and see grandkids
Please download the Raws and start analyzing these files. Try CA off in your software and on also. Play around with the distortion as well. Find the happy spot
I will be working on this today at some point. Golf is calling me , wifey still in NY.
