I am liking the CV 1.2 paired with my Zeiss 1.4 Distagon, when I want low light and modern, computer-feeling images. For more contrasty, classic Leica-like images I take the 50 lux and the 35 Summicron...
Probably would be happy with just the Leica 35 and 50 Summilux, but I have kept away from the 35 Summilux due to troubling reviews and high price...
My current favourite pair are the 24mm Lux with the 50mm 1.2 Nokton, there rendering seems very similar and the two focal lengths are spot on for my needs.
If I was traveling light and just wanted a single lens then I would deffintly opt for the Zeiss 35mm 1.4. It's a brilliant on the M10 and the A7RMKII.
GMPhotography wrote:
I’d be selling the Lux myself put that money towards more lenses.
The only thing that's making pause is the fact that the lens is beautiful and it handles so well on the M10, and that is part of the reason I got into Leica.
SharpContrast wrote:
The only thing that's making pause is the fact that the lens is beautiful and it handles so well on the M10, and that is part of the reason I got into Leica.
Is it Shallow? Pertentious? I don't think so, I just appreciate well made things, and that makes you feel good when you work with them.
No nothing wrong with that I shot Leicas for years and was very good friends with Leica. Helped them on a lot of testing and such. I had the DMR, M8 and 9. Loved there lenses but one thing about this VC is it is well built like the 40, 65 and some others they do give you a good feeling in hand as well as some ZM glass. But like you I’m a lover of manual focus lensesvwith that feel and quality build. One thing Professionally for me is these really expensive lenses that can get damaged. I had the famed Leica R 24-70 2.8 which only 600 where made cost ME 6 grand to own it. Loved it but was afraid to shoot the dang thing as there a bitch to repair and cost a fortune if you needed to repair it. I wound up selling it but I think today’s value is up to 10 k for collectors. My point if I lost or got mugged today with my MF kit the hit would be expensive but not Leica expensive for 4 lenses. But if you can get very close or equal Leica glass than it does make you wonder. I’m not a collector so I have a little different take on things like this. But I do understand that Leica ownership feeling. I still love Leica stuff but I have to be realistic about it too.
Guilty as charged. Now that I use and own a Leica system. I totally get all those cliches!
Had great fun comparing the new Voigt to the Lux 50 ASPH and in my mind the Lux 50 ASPH stays without a doubt.
The Voigt on the other hand is a really nice lens too. 1.2 is very well executed and I'd also say the build quality and MF experience is impressive too. Of the two, If I didn't own a Leica M camera the Voigt would be my preference to adapt to the A7 cameras or just wait for the Emount version. If you do own a Leica camera the Voigt is a very good relatively affordable alternative to the Lux.
On the other hand the native FE 50 F1.4 also rocks wide open and while it's a beast in comparison to the small Voigt, and 1.2 will always be considered sexier in title than 1.4 don't forget we already have an extremely high quality native 50 1.4 for our Sony cameras if you can handle the size/weight for your particular application.
GMPhotography wrote:
I’d be selling the Lux myself put that money towards more lenses.
SharpContrast wrote:
The only thing that's making pause is the fact that the lens is beautiful and it handles so well on the M10, and that is part of the reason I got into Leica.
These are the intangibles that can't really be determined online comparing specs, test images, etc., which I think is true for any system.
Size (girth) and ergonomics are factors about the 50/1.2 I anticipate would appeal less to me, as an M user, compared to the 50 Lux ASPH. But I still want to try one as a 50 Lux alternative or back up (given that mine is in the shop every couple years for tune ups). That said, I have a bunch of 50s in M or LTM mount, but it's the Lux ASPH that is the everyday carry.
I started my digital M 'journey' with Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander lenses, to test the waters. Eventually most of those were supplanted by Leica M lenses for a variety of reasons - perceived rendering qualities, overall image quality, but also ergonomics and more harmonious integration into the overall Leica digital M ecosystem. Some of those may seem to be very minor points, but have solved functional or ergonomic annoyances with the 3rd party lenses. In the Sony mirrorless ecosystem, I would equate this, to some degree, with the early adopters adapting 3rd party lenses and later eventually migrating to native lens options as they became available. That said I still 'persevere' with the CV35/1.7M. I love its optical qualities despite its ergonomics, which IMO are worse than the 40 and 50/1.2 designs. Cosina showed a more compact prototype 35/2 in M mount at Photokina, which may fix some of the 1.7's ergonomic deficiencies, but of course the question will be optical quality.
Consider that the 50 Lux ASPH was released in 2006 and what the state of optics was then, from Voigltander, for example, and every other brand. Most of the older CV M and LTM glass IMO does not come even close in optical quality, manufacturing consistency/tolerances to what is generally available now. As the 50/1.2, 40, 35/1.7M, 21/1.8 and other more recent Cosina lenses demonstrate, they've come a long way, to the point where the 50 is neck and neck with the 50 Lux in most aspects, at a much kinder price point. This is a reason why I think Leica will eventually refresh the Lux ASPH...
I don't want to think about the Leica tax on a new/refreshed Lux 50 ASPH 😱
I agree. The new Voigt 50 F1.2 is a very good lens even better for the price.
SharpContrast wrote:
Has Voigtlander made a lens as sharp as Leica that has no fle and is faster by half a stop and, with no real size or weight disadvantage?
These three shots were taken at the minimum focus distance of both lenses.
rscheffler wrote:
These are the intangibles that can't really be determined online comparing specs, test images, etc., which I think is true for any system.
Size (girth) and ergonomics are factors about the 50/1.2 I anticipate would appeal less to me, as an M user, compared to the 50 Lux ASPH. But I still want to try one as a 50 Lux alternative or back up (given that mine is in the shop every couple years for tune ups). That said, I have a bunch of 50s in M or LTM mount, but it's the Lux ASPH that is the everyday carry.
I started my digital M 'journey' with Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander lenses, to test the waters. Eventually most of those were supplanted by Leica M lenses for a variety of reasons - perceived rendering qualities, overall image quality, but also ergonomics and more harmonious integration into the overall Leica digital M ecosystem. Some of those may seem to be very minor points, but have solved functional or ergonomic annoyances with the 3rd party lenses. In the Sony mirrorless ecosystem, I would equate this, to some degree, with the early adopters adapting 3rd party lenses and later eventually migrating to native lens options as they became available. That said I still 'persevere' with the CV35/1.7M. I love its optical qualities despite its ergonomics, which IMO are worse than the 40 and 50/1.2 designs. Cosina showed a more compact prototype 35/2 in M mount at Photokina, which may fix some of the 1.7's ergonomic deficiencies, but of course the question will be optical quality.
Consider that the 50 Lux ASPH was released in 2006 and what the state of optics was then, from Voigltander, for example, and every other brand. Most of the older CV M and LTM glass IMO does not come even close in optical quality, manufacturing consistency/tolerances to what is generally available now. As the 50/1.2, 40, 35/1.7M, 21/1.8 and other more recent Cosina lenses demonstrate, they've come a long way, to the point where the 50 is neck and neck with the 50 Lux in most aspects, at a much kinder price point. This is a reason why I think Leica will eventually refresh the Lux ASPH......Show more →
The last 4 or 5 lenses from CV have been extremely good and optically have become either very close or equal to some really outstanding lenses both in Zeiss and Leica they are not to be ignored. The 65 maybe the sharpest lens we have seen in any brand. The new 40/ 50 1.2 are killer starting at F2 resolution wise. The new 110 promises to be outstanding and even some of the older designs like the 35 1.7 have such a nice look to them. You get a good 15 it will be as good as anything else in 15mm.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Leica looks sharper at MFD by a good margin. Can you post 1:1 crops instead?
If you would set the lens to 1.5m and attach the Marumi 3+ achromat on it, I think it would look better than the Leica at same magnification.
As Fred has said and I agree both the 40 and 50 1.2 are not great at MFD wide open. Need to get to line F2 or use a closeup type filter. So yes not perfect but for the money I’ll take it
Seems like the M-mount 50/1.2 performs better on e-mount than the M-mount 40/1.2. For people who have used both, would you say that's right? It looks like the field curvature isn't so pronounced. If so, I'd think the 50/1.2 is a better option for AF with a TAP.
I can’t answer on the 40 M mount since I had the FE mount 40 but it seems the 50 1.2 M mount does very well in the corners as the 40 FE mount. Have to look at my two Big Bronco tests but they seem pretty equal. So that would mean the 50 has less field curvature for sure over the 40 M mount as we have seen here on the forum the 40 M has more FC than the 40 FE. As much as I loved my 40 FE I don’t feel like I’m missing anything with the 50 M and actually I think it’s sharper on center. But Fred did side by sides so he may have a better perspective on that. We can certainly look at the Big Bronco tests but obviously they are shot at different times and days.
grahamgibson wrote:
Seems like the M-mount 50/1.2 performs better on e-mount than the M-mount 40/1.2. For people who have used both, would you say that's right? It looks like the field curvature isn't so pronounced. If so, I'd think the 50/1.2 is a better option for AF with a TAP.
I have no doubt the CV 50/1.2 VM performs better on the Sony compared to the CV 40/1.2 VM.
The question is: How much better the upcoming CV 50/1.2 E-mount will perform compared to the 50/1.2 VM version? I'd guess not that much.
