Really, you seem pretty stubborn. It's fine if you don't agree with the definition but your arguments aren't extremely credible either. It's one thing to say something is your opinion but it becomes problematic when you say it's factual.
GMPhotography wrote:
Great question . With the PCX 5000 the Cv 35 is a tough lens to beat. It’s really the landscape type lens. I think at 1.7 it will still be a touch sharper on center but it’s close. The 35 does not have onion rings or any of this crazyiness so technically the CV 35 1.7 is the better lens and more predictable in use. I do like shooting the 40 better operational wise but that’s a personal preference. I like a real focusing ring. Where I am surprised is the corners get really good at F4/56 on the 40. That was a surprise.
I think one has to think hard on what your after between the 2 . Forget 35/40 that’s so close don’t go by that but go by the end images . One reason I say that is because the 35 1.7 at 1.7 is not going to give you any lens issues like the 40. So more care is going to be needed on this 40.
I don’t like saying this because I treat everyone here as equals but I think the 40 is more for experienced shooters just because you have to keep on your toes with it. For instance the Asian gentleman under the bridge it got ugly in the background. So you have to pay attention to that. Please no one take offense I’m here to help and not hurt anyone’s feelings. ...Show more →
I think that's right, Guy. I love the 40, but it really keeps you on your toes as you say. The FC and focus shift, the way the bokeh is often glorious but in some circs less so, the fact that the sharpness varies with distance (best at 3-4 metres, worst at close, OK at infinity) and so on.
Although I agreee there is not a huge difference between 35 and 40 there is some. And if you find yourself constantly cropping 35 just a little, you will probably get more effective sharpness with a 40 you don't have to crop. It's a 15% difference in FL, which is not nothing.
philber wrote:
Twomblywhite, you have now been sharply critical of two FM members with many thousands of posts to their credits, and many fine images. Well respected members, and deservedly so, as far as I am concerned. Do you believe that the sharpness of your words absolutely needs to match that of your lenses? Just sayin'...
If I'm making incorrect statements you can point it out, I'd appreciate it. Just because someone has a thousand posts doesn't mean that their statements aren't any less subject to criticism. That's how misinformation spreads and grows - when people stop questioning those with perceived authority.
Also, not speaking of anyone on this forum when I say that a total newbie to photography who is very talented can take better images than an untalented professional. I have always been very against people in authoritative positions (professors and professionals) who use their credentials as proof of anything. Their are loads of them unfortunately.
I apologize if I typed anything extra in any of my posts that doesn't add to a point. I edit my posts if I feel they're "sharp". I'm not here to flame anyone. I appreciate all of the helpful posts and the fact that this site is free to all who are interested.
Yea 35/40 is some difference but I was trying to put a little more emphasis on lens rendering. Admittedly have a 28 getting a 40 between it and the 65 is a perfect gapping scenario too, so yes there is a difference and one reason I wanted the 40 I should add.
GMPhotography wrote:
No but I think it’s worth talking about. I think this is one of those lenses that falls in the love / hate arena. Let’s face it it’s got some issues with onion rings ,CA, now discovered distortion as you can see in Big Bronco and the Bokeh is kind of crazy looking. A lot will depend on subject, light and all the things involved but I’m starting to view this as two different lenses from 1.2 to let’s say 2.8 it has the crazyiness but from F4 down it’s a damn good general purpose lens that settles down the craziness. So I kind of like the split personality but you really have to be careful on what it will do in those issue areas or you can have a bad day. I’m still learning this lens but end of day it’s fun as hell. Now I’m not really counting on it for landscape personality but heck 5.6 looks outstanding for it. Now I’m covered there with 15,21,28 and can go right to 65 if I had too shooting landscapes. But this is going in the bag. I got some nice sharp images that look more normal stopped down. I keep thinking of Fred’s carnival shots, they remind me of my Kodachrome days so this has a very cool look but it’s got some issues too. Maybe that’s a little old dog feeling I get from it it’s a more classic look than modern. You have to like that or this lens will not work for you. But I do think it’s nice to have one of these type of lenses available in your kit.
This maybe the great girlfriend, wife or S.O. Lens to have. It’s got character ...Show more →
Yeah it does have something of a 'classic' look form wide open to f2.8; but what i love about it is that it's the classic look with a bit more contrast and resolution and flare resistance than the actual f1.2 classics!
yeah im contemplating on either 35/40 as an all rounder lens with my 15mm(for really wide shots) for travel. I dont like carrying too many lenses, so I wanted to stick to a super wide 15mm and somewhere from 35-50mm. The 40mm pop at 1.2 looks really good, but the 35mm is really sharp and also can have a pop at 1.7. I was thinking about using a TAP adapter if I have the ultron 35 1.7, but im not sure if there is any performance degradation with that or lack of infinity? Im not an advanced photographer so I was hoping to look for something simple
DavidBM wrote:
Yeah it does have something of a 'classic' look form wide open to f2.8; but what i love about it is that it's the classic look with a bit more contrast and resolution and flare resistance than the actual f1.2 classics!
I agree and that’s where the Asphericals come into play and I believe that was Cosina intention. F1.2 looks darn good over some of the other mush lenses in the past at 1.2
hsiunghsiung wrote:
yeah im contemplating on either 35/40 as an all rounder lens with my 15mm(for really wide shots) for travel. I dont like carrying too many lenses, so I wanted to stick to a super wide 15mm and somewhere from 35-50mm. The 40mm pop at 1.2 looks really good, but the 35mm is really sharp and also can have a pop at 1.7. I was thinking about using a TAP adapter if I have the ultron 35 1.7, but im not sure if there is any performance degradation with that or lack of infinity? Im not an advanced photographer so I was hoping to look for something simple...Show more →
There should not be any IQ degradation with TAP if it's a good parallel sample, but you might have problems getting to infinity.
One reason I rarely use my TAP unless I have to (for remote shooting) is that while it works pretty well dead centre, by the time you are not far off-centre with your focussing point, it gets slow and unreliable (especially in low light, or focussing stopped down) to the point that manual is better and faster. And focus and recompose will give you less good results.
hsiunghsiung wrote:
yeah im contemplating on either 35/40 as an all rounder lens with my 15mm(for really wide shots) for travel. I dont like carrying too many lenses, so I wanted to stick to a super wide 15mm and somewhere from 35-50mm. The 40mm pop at 1.2 looks really good, but the 35mm is really sharp and also can have a pop at 1.7. I was thinking about using a TAP adapter if I have the ultron 35 1.7, but im not sure if there is any performance degradation with that or lack of infinity? Im not an advanced photographer so I was hoping to look for something simple...Show more →
Given you have a 15 you could pass on the 21 gap and go CV 28 ultron with a PCX which I have a new 4000 coming to test on it. Than you could do a 40.
So 15,28,40 is a nice kit too. I think Fred did a test between the 40/35 at infinity that maybe worth looking at.
You could add a ZM 85 on the end of that and have a very small travel kit. I gave up on the Tap I like to focus, it’s just embedded in me from the years at it.
DavidBM wrote:
I think that's right, Guy. I love the 40, but it really keeps you on your toes as you say. The FC and focus shift, the way the bokeh is often glorious but in some circs less so, the fact that the sharpness varies with distance (best at 3-4 metres, worst at close, OK at infinity) and so on.
Although I agreee there is not a huge difference between 35 and 40 there is some. And if you find yourself constantly cropping 35 just a little, you will probably get more effective sharpness with a 40 you don't have to crop. It's a 15% difference in FL, which is not nothing....Show more →
It's been a week since I got the CV 40/1.2 and after analyzing many images, I believe it's optimized for mid/long distances. To get similar performance at MFD, I need to stop it down to f/2.
We can blame it on the lack of FLE.
Yea Big Bronco is about 30/40 feet so at that mid range I think it did very well. I need to test infinity at some point. The shots look nice in NY but it needs to be tested at those distances. Fred on up close what range would you say . I did some and looked pretty good but not tested against anything else.
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea Big Bronco is about 30/40 feet so at that mid range I think it did very well. I need to test infinity at some point. The shots look nice in NY but it needs to be tested at those distances. Fred on up close what range would you say . I did some and looked pretty good but not tested against anything else.
What I mean is that it's not as great at minimal focus distance or close to it. (0.35m)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's been a week since I got the CV 40/1.2 and after analyzing many images, I believe it's optimized for mid/long distances. To get similar performance at MFD, I need to stop it down to f/2.
We can blame it on the lack of FLE.
Exactly. In fact while there are many ways the lens could be better, but probably larger, adding an FLE is something I really wish they had done, and could (probably, what would I know) have been done without too much extra bulk.
Love to see images like Guy's, but with 42.5MP . . . this may be a lens to rent first, if in fact, anyone of the lens rental houses will have it in stock anytime soon.
The detail on center wide open certainly is impressive at least on the A9.
