twomblywhite wrote:
Wow. Great samples Fred! Love the rendering in that last image.
Thanks! Something else I should add to my summary is that the CV 40/1.2 is capable of high contrast images even at wide apertures. That's when you know you are shooting with a modern lens.
All these images were treated with minimum post-processing and I used Sony's Standard profile. (Even automated CA reduction was unchecked)
I really enjoyed shooting with the CV 40/1.2 today. It's a perfect walk-around lens mainly for its size and overall rendering.
jaybr wrote:
So Fred,
Is the Voigtlander FE 40mm f1.2 a keeper (for you) despite all the reported flaws?
BTW: I love the colour and bokeh in your photos.
J
I can't answer this question, but not for lack of information! I have to send my review copy back soon, and I like it so much in some ways, and it is so frustrating in others....decisions!
Heh, yeah David I understand what you're saying.
When I got mine, I did my usual testing and decided to keep it within a couple of hours.
The Voigtlander's unique qualities, colour rendition, flexibility of the speed (f1.2), sun stars (from f2.8), build quality, handling and most of all the convenience of size and weight, far outweigh the deficiencies of the lens.
IMO, Fred's photos also support that the Voigtlander FE 40mm f1.2 is a keeper, especially as an all in one lens, it's just so versatile.
J
For me a 40mm lens has to be, or close to a pancake lens.
how good does it need to be? i'm digging my rokkor 40/1.7 that i ripped off a hi-matic E.
i have two of them ( from Revue 400se which has the same Lens) adapted on sony e mount.
but wide open they have low contrast, and mfd 90cm is nearly not acceptable for me.
rsrsrs wrote:
i have two of them ( from Revue 400se which has the same Lens) adapted on sony e mount.
but wide open they have low contrast, and mfd 90cm is nearly not acceptable for me.
I have an Oly SP lens, frankenmounted to E mount. I enjoy it nostalgically, I had an SP film rangefinder back in the day, it’s remarkably good for the era - one of the very best fixed RF lenses - but the CV is in another league...
There will be an M-mount version of the 40mm 1.2.
If the data I received is correct it will feature a 52mm filter thread (E-mount version has 58mm) and is to be released in November.
I think Leica-M might have still been the lead platform for this, which would explain the field curvature.
So I am tempted to see if that 5m PCX filter has the same effect on this one as it has on the 35mm 1.7...
DavidBM wrote:
Yep some of those fairground images of Fred's are one of the things that this lens does very distinctively: you get a sense of the environment from it being a fair bit wider than a 50-55 class lens, but you get the blur levels of a fairly fast 50. It's a great niche to fill.
Then the other issue is the size quality tradeoff. The lens would have to be bigger than Otus to be Otus grade at this speed. I don't want that. How much better would it be if the designers gave themselves, say, the form factor of the 65 to play with? If the answer is a tiny bit better, maybe what we've got is the best tradeoff. If the answer is a lot better, but not Otus better, maybe that would be my preference/...Show more →
I used to own the Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron during my Canon days and that lens was also full of compromises being a pancake and all. It was much softer wide open compared to the 40/1.2 Nokton.
However, I remember thinking that 40mm was a great one-lens solution FL and got that feeling again when taking the CV 40/1.2 for a spin around town.
BastianK wrote:
There will be an M-mount version of the 40mm 1.2.
If the data I received is correct it will feature a 52mm filter thread (E-mount version has 58mm) and is to be released in November.
I think Leica-M might have still been the lead platform for this, which would explain the field curvature.
So I am tempted to see if that 5m PCX filter has the same effect on this one as it has on the 35mm 1.7...
I do see some field curvature so that's actually possible. It's very similar to the amount and shape I see on the Loxia 21/2.8. The hard stop will give us the best corner and a tad before infinity, the best center.
I really like the carnival shots and given I have the Ultron 28 I could give up my CV 35 1.7 adapter and PCX but I leave in morning for NY. I need a really quick sale and enough to cover the costs well almost at least. I really want to shoot this in Central Park with changing colors.
rsrsrs wrote:
i have two of them ( from Revue 400se which has the same Lens) adapted on sony e mount.
but wide open they have low contrast, and mfd 90cm is nearly not acceptable for me.
oh yeah, definitely glowy wide open (that's good for me though). it cleans up pretty quick though on my kolari UT at least. my mod also allows focus down to ~.3m. the pen 38/1.8 is definitely more contrasty wide open, a bit overly swirly for my taste wide open. i'll be curious to see the LC.
BastianK wrote:
There will be an M-mount version of the 40mm 1.2.
If the data I received is correct it will feature a 52mm filter thread (E-mount version has 58mm) and is to be released in November.
I think Leica-M might have still been the lead platform for this, which would explain the field curvature.
So I am tempted to see if that 5m PCX filter has the same effect on this one as it has on the 35mm 1.7...
that's exciting news. hopefully (from my perspective), the e-mount version is a slightly compromised design corrected for the thick sensor stack and the m-mount version will perform more evenly across the frame on thin sensored cameras similar to the zm 50/2 vs loxia 50/2.
MF on a lens like this is not for me, but I can see this being exactly what some people have been waiting for. Hey, if a Leica M version comes out, we can have autofocus too
Wow, thanks for posting so many excellent samples! I actually love the field curvature of this lens and the 35mm F1.7. It makes for some very dynamic environmental portraiture that is literally impossible to capture with other lenses. Looking forward to getting one once it's down to about $650 used! (not because the lens isn't worth the money, I'm just a cheapskate)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I used to own the Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron during my Canon days and that lens was also full of compromises being a pancake and all. It was much softer wide open compared to the 40/1.2 Nokton.
However, I remember thinking that 40mm was a great one-lens solution FL and got that feeling again when taking the CV 40/1.2 for a spin around town.
Huh! I had the 2/40 Ultron in *my* Canon days! I think of it as my "Chicago" lens, as I had it glued to my camera when I was visiting there for a couple of weeks back in 2010. I liked it; unsharp peripherally wide open but I kind of liked the look when that didn't matter, and such a nice FL for just wandering around.
