Another example of how, with a number of technical flaws, you can get some cool images with the CV that it would be hard to get by other means...(sorry more of my dog: I'm on writing retreat in the country with no-one around to photograph!)
What I find striking is the combination of detail and bokeh in the background. A longer lens would give you the same or more blur, but it would be pure colour wiht little sense of what's there.
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 →
Voigtlander knows it has something unique with the CV 40/1.2 and priced it accordingly. I agree with you that it has a special look being moderately wide while capable of high amount of blur and smooth rendering.
One can get a lens capable of similar or higher blur but it won't match the CV 40/1.2's IQ, wide focal length or size. On top of that you get full native electronics.
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'm surprised that Cosina would have developed an M-version in parallel without announcing anything about it. Previously they always announced the lenses under development well in advance and with the 10mm and 12mm they announced from the beginning that they were going to bring these out for both E-mount and M-mount. So it would be a shift in this strategy if they now bring out an M-version already in November without any prior information.
Anyway, I think there would be demand in M-mount too and for me it wouldn't change anything as I would have opted for the E-mount version regardless. It might be a new strategy based on their learnings from the previous launches...
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
The PF scares me a bit, and no one likes onion rings, but there is lots to like here with special f/1.2 character, good punch, and small/light package.
At first I had mixed feelings about it but after a couple days of tests, I decided keeping it. I see a lot of pop and 3d with the CV 40/1.2. It's a dangerous lens and it will win you over...stay away from it!
Can’t decide but I would have to give up my CV 35mm +PCX 5000 plus adapter for near the cost of this and even than not sure I want to give up my 35 1.7
I know one fact for sure the resale value on this will suck. Hate to say that but it’s overpriced to me considering the 65 APO is 60 dollars less. I don’t care what they put in it I go by IQ but yet I’d like to have it bitching all the way to B&H checkout counter.
I’ll be in NY tomorrow too. I got my wife to protect me. Lol
Can’t decide but I would have to give up my CV 35mm +PCX 5000 plus adapter for near the cost of this and even than not sure I want to give up my 35 1.7
I know one fact for sure the resale value on this will suck. Hate to say that but it’s overpriced to me considering the 65 APO is 60 dollars less. I don’t care what they put in it I go by IQ but yet I’d like to have it bitching all the way to B&H checkout counter.
I’ll be in NY tomorrow too. I got my wife to protect me. Lol...Show more →
I don't know if it's overpriced.
Basically the same price as the 65 APO
You choice of optical perfection and slow (for a prime) or optical compromise and basically the fastest speed that production lenses get (barring Noctilux and Mitakon). And optically it's a lot nicer that Mitakon, especially in contrast.
Sure you can have optical perfection AND speed if you buy an Otus. Then you get Apo-Lanthar quality (or marginally more) with speed, but it's slightly less speed, and it's quadruple the price! (to be fair the ZA is not too far off for much less)
It’s 60 dollars more than a CV 65 APO that’s basically perfect optically. If your going by that standard I’m sorry but I’m scratching my head over the price. This has a look and it ends there. It’s also got lots of issues. Let’s just be real honest about it. I want it don’t get me wrong but if you take a very neutral stance on it which is really easy for me. I’m buying one thing that’s a look because everywhere else the CV 35 1.7 + PCX smokes it optically. This is a character lens pure and simple and honestly when I hear it’s good at F2 than a red flag goes off. This is a 1.2 lens I should be able to shoot it at 1.2
Someone has to be the jerk here. I’m glad to be that guy because I’m brutal on this stuff but again I want one. Same argument on the Batis 135 I ponied up to the bar dropped my 2 grand bitched about it and moved on.That’s life I get it. But the problems here have been seriously downplayed. That CA is freaking horrific, there is no one on the planet that can tell me any different. Lol
Please don’t say it can be fixed, that’s a cop out answer. Let’s just say it sucks but somewhat expected given the lens design. But I can give a honest opinion because that’s what I do and still buy the thing. I’m not saying not buy it but what I am saying is your buying a look otherwise buy something else. The fruity smelling perfume talk does not work for me folks. I’m brutally honest to a fault but that’s me.
GMPhotography wrote:
It’s 60 dollars more than a CV 65 APO that’s basically perfect optically. If your going by that standard I’m sorry but I’m scratching my head over the price. This has a look and it ends there. It’s also got lots of issues. Let’s just be real honest about it. I want it don’t get me wrong but if you take a very neutral stance on it which is really easy for me. I’m buying one thing that’s a look because everywhere else the CV 35 1.7 + PCX smokes it optically. This is a character lens pure and simple and honestly when I hear it’s good at F2 than a red flag goes off. This is a 1.2 lens I should be able to shoot it at 1.2
Someone has to be the jerk here. I’m glad to be that guy because I’m brutal on this stuff but again I want one. Same argument on the Batis 35 I ponied up to the bar dropped my 2 grand botched about it and moved one. That’s life I get it...Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
It’s 60 dollars more than a CV 65 APO that’s basically perfect optically. If your going by that standard I’m sorry but I’m scratching my head over the price. This has a look and it ends there. It’s also got lots of issues. Let’s just be real honest about it. I want it don’t get me wrong but if you take a very neutral stance on it which is really easy for me. I’m buying one thing that’s a look because everywhere else the CV 35 1.7 + PCX smokes it optically. This is a character lens pure and simple and honestly when I hear it’s good at F2 than a red flag goes off. This is a 1.2 lens I should be able to shoot it at 1.2
Someone has to be the jerk here. I’m glad to be that guy because I’m brutal on this stuff but again I want one. Same argument on the Batis 35 I ponied up to the bar dropped my 2 grand botched about it and moved one. That’s life I get it...Show more →
Sure if you don't what it brings to the table, then you don't want it, and that's the end of that discussion. It's not value for money for you.
But I guess I was thinking of the more general question. F 1.2 lenses have always cost more than slower lenses which are (holding fixed age and ambition) always better. And this is better at f1.2 than any other f1.2 I know. Usable for some very interesting images. That doesn't make it great at f1.2; that lens has yet to be built and will cost a bomb if and when it is. So I don't think the price is wrong; but of course no-one should buy it for whom it's particular set of compromises is a bad fit.
I think the price is essentially the same as CV 35/1.2 II which comes without a hood in the box, so in that sense it's not overpriced. Usually the E-mount glass has been more expensive than the corresponding M-mount glass from CV, they have the electronic contacts etc.
MRSP for 40/1.2 and 35/1.2 II is exactly same in Japan (135K JPY) but 35/1.2 is old by now and discounted just a bit more.
I do think APO 65/2 is possibly underpriced in comparison to other CV E-mount glass.
DavidBM wrote:
Sure if you don't what it brings to the table, then you don't want it, and that's the end of that discussion. It's not value for money for you.
But I guess I was thinking of the more general question. F 1.2 lenses have always cost more than slower lenses which are (holding fixed age and ambition) always better. And this is better at f1.2 than any other f1.2 I know. Usable for some very interesting images. That doesn't make it great at f1.2; that lens has yet to be built and will cost a bomb if and when it is. So I don't think the price is wrong; but of course no-one should buy it for whom it's particular set of compromises is a bad fit. ...Show more →
No I like what it is bringing to the table but some things I like to see fall off the table. Yes I know it’s a 1.2 lens and that brings a very small benefit over a 1.4 .
Anyway I’ll step away from this as I just don’t really want to get into it too much. Have fun
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I think the price is essentially the same as CV 35/1.2 II which comes without a hood in the box, so in that sense it's not overpriced. Usually the E-mount glass has been more expensive than the corresponding M-mount glass from CV, they have the electronic contacts etc.
MRSP for 40/1.2 and 35/1.2 II is exactly same in Japan (135K JPY) but 35/1.2 is old by now and discounted just a bit more.
I do think APO 65/2 is possibly underpriced in comparison to other CV E-mount glass.
When I first saw the CV 40/1.2's price I thought it was a bit overpriced but soon realized there is really nothing we can compare it to in FL, speed and size. On top of that, I don't mind at all shooting at f/1.2 and I'm picky about sharpness wide-open. Yes, fringing is excessive wide open for sure but that's the size compromise.
I think you said it right Juha. We can't compare the 40/1.2's price to the CV 65/2 APO because this lens is imo grossly underpriced. Good for us.
