GMPhotography wrote:
Besides I had to listen to that steeeeeep price talk for the Batis 135 for so long. My payback
Anyway 899 would feel better to me at least.
We always talk about how good IQ is versus money output right. Given some of the issues makes you wonder but like I said your buying a look and that’s the justification.
Where just fallen in that 1.2 dream land. Lol
Leica just proved that under-correction of spherical and color aberration doesn't have to reflect negatively on the asking price.
Character lenses like the new Leica Thambar-M 90/2.2 can still cost $6,495!
Seriously this is what we want is too see real images so we can judge this lens. Technically it’s a tough lens to buy in a way but by look it’s pretty easy too. My goal is to get my Ultron 28 with the PCX to be a really good landscape lens than I can get funky if I want and sell the 35 1.7 . Just got in NY and maybe I’ll go look at it at B&H.
GMPhotography wrote:
Seriously this is what we want is too see real images so we can judge this lens. Technically it’s a tough lens to buy in a way but by look it’s pretty easy too. My goal is to get my Ultron 28 with the PCX to be a really good landscape lens than I can get funky if I want and sell the 35 1.7 . Just got in NY and maybe I’ll go look at it at B&H.
They should get some in stock on Thursday. Avoid the 9th Ave!
Thanks Fred, David, Juha and others for posting their results with this lens.
I've heard it said before that everyone should own at least one f1.2 lens. Although I own the Fuji 56/1.2 that doesn't count because it's not FF . I always thought I'd try the Rokkor 58/1.2 first, but with this lens being 40mm, it's a much better fit for me and probably many others too.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is one more sample at f/1.2. This aperture seems to be glued on my lens.
Honestly I'm happy with the resolution wide open (even off-axis). It's similar to what I was getting with the FE 35/1.4 ZA wide open. Rendering and colors are just gorgeous to me. This was taken under the worse lighting possible!
That's the sharpest image that I've seen yet - seems like many others wide open are less sharp when seen at 100% - focusing error? Post processing?
With my 50/1.2 the DOF was so shallow that you can miss best focus by a mile if not careful and even when perfectly focused the post-processing needed a well applied sharpness boost to make even a small size image appear sharp (like hair, eyelashes, etc.).
That's the sharpest image that I've seen yet - seems like many others wide open are less sharp when seen at 100% - focusing error? Post processing?
With my 50/1.2 the DOF was so shallow that you can miss best focus by a mile if not careful and even when perfectly focused the post-processing needed a well applied sharpness boost to make even a small size image appear sharp (like hair, eyelashes, etc.).
Good stuff.
I could post the 1:1 crops with my samples images if it helps. Here is another one at f/1.2 with the 1:1 crop below it.
it's nice to shoot at ISO 100 under dusk lighting.
Here is a sunstar rendering sample image at f/2.8. Nice defined edges only possible with straight blade apertures. This lens has 10 blades for 10-point sunstars. Most lenses could only accomplish this definition at much smaller apertures and rendition wouldn't be quite the same. IMO, a big strength for most Voigtlander, Loxia and ZM lenses.
When you all are posting 1:1 crops - what's your sharpening workflow? What settings are you using? These don't look like you are upping the sharpening a significant amount if at all.
jhinkey wrote:
When you all are posting 1:1 crops - what's your sharpening workflow? What settings are you using? These don't look like you are upping the sharpening a significant amount if at all.
The one I posted of the 1:1 had none. Only the web version of the whole photo had sharpening after resizing
Thanks for the crops. My copy arrived today and I will pick it up after work. It's good to have some references.
It seems there is not much copy variation. Or did someone had a lemon up to now?
PEKA62 wrote:
Damn.
I have the Lox 35 and 50.
Tell me, why I don't want and don't need this 40/1.2
Can you?
I also have the Loxia 35 and 50, and I ordered the Nokton yesterday. My plan is to get rid of both Loxias, but only if the Nokton is good enough across the frame (stopped down) with flat subjects. If not, I'll keep the 50.
