nehemiahphoto wrote:
Great to know--thank you! Do you have any info how the m 40 1.2 covers?
My understanding is that the 40mm f1.2 also covers the 44x33 sensor but with a more pronounced vignette, but it can be corrected. There are plenty of samples in the GFX Facebook group.
Can someone please tell me if the CV50 has less mid dip sharpness as the Loxia 50mm.
Pro's and Con's of both lenses? Not looking at the price.
Better to wait for the E-mount version to make a decision anyway.
Fred did a L50 comparo upthread here I believe, the read is worthwhile. Many will like the versatility. Not many lenses do this well from f1.2 to f8. It lacks onion rings and is very light, with fine ergo. What little is known suggests the VM version is a good bet for FE, though the niceties of own mount lenses are attractive. Will you want to use it on other mounts in the future? I'm not in a rush, but 3-4 months max would suit.
Chaliel wrote:
Can someone please tell me if the CV50 has less mid dip sharpness as the Loxia 50mm.
Pro's and Con's of both lenses? Not looking at the price.
Better to wait for the E-mount version to make a decision anyway.
I’m not sure if waiting for the E mount maybe worth it as I really love the M version of the 50. If anything your corners may get better sooner than the M mount . The 50 M mount I think is actually sharper on center than the Cv 40 E mount. Obviously this all has to be tested. But sure I would like the E mount version but I want to rent it first against my M mount. I like the way the falloff is on the M mount, gives a nice 3d look. Fred did a infinity test I believe on the CV 50 and he should have a answer on the mid zone dip.
Chaliel wrote:
Can someone please tell me if the CV50 has less mid dip sharpness as the Loxia 50mm.
Pro's and Con's of both lenses? Not looking at the price.
Better to wait for the E-mount version to make a decision anyway.
See page 3 of the thread for Fred's tests vs. the Loxia 50. As a quick summary, for landscapes the CV is slightly better in the center, they are about the same at mid zone, but the Loxia is quite a bit better in the corners especially at wider apertures. The major advantages of the CV 50 f/1.2, however, are not at landscape differences but at closer distances where it has a stop and half faster aperture which allows more out of focus blur and IMO the blur is much more pleasing as well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
See page 3 of the thread for Fred's tests vs. the Loxia 50. As a quick summary, for landscapes the CV is slightly better in the center, they are about the same at mid zone, but at Loxia is quite a bit better in the corners especially at wider apertures. The major advantages of the CV 50 f/1.2, however, are not at landscape differences but at closer difference where it has a stop and half faster aperture which allows more out of focus blur and IMO the blur is much more pleasing as well.
Well said Steve I’m really more interested in the 50 over the 40 for more people type shots. Here corners when at more open apertures will just be more effective for people type shots. Honestly I would not shoot a Loxia 50 per say trying to do like a 3/4 shot of a person. I’d grab this CV 50 first, one reason I maybe more reluctant to buy the E version of it as I think the corners will get better and than the lens changes character. I do have other options for landscape but but this will do in a pinch at F8 too. I view this lens more as a two for one lens. Really going to depend on your expected use case.
Thank you Steve Spencer and GM Photography. I do want to use it for street and concerts, so ease of focus is important for me. Do use the AF FE55mm F1.8, but it's not easy to focus manually. I do not think I will use the lens wide open à lot, f1.2 is a too shallow DOF for my purposes. Better sharpness in the corners can be importent for whole stage images..., the mid dip is about the same for both though...
And as you look at the samples, the old Canon f1.2 looks sharper at small lens openings... Anyway the new one is much too big and heavy for my taste and purposes.
I am wondering how much IQ improvement the new 50/1.2 E-mount version will have since it will be optimized for the Sony sensor. The 50/1.2 VM performed well towards the corners being ahead of the the 40/1.2 VM but still behind the 40/1.2 E-mount.
The Sony's thicker sensor coverglass is still an issue at 50mm as we've seen with other lenses (ZM, Leica, etc.)
Bokeh balls aren't round from f2 on in his samples. I expected a bit more to be honest.
This lens is very impressive. The aperture blades could indeed have been more circular, but what I was expecting was a little bit less mechanical vignetting wide open. It's absolutely on par with their old DSLR 50 1.2 in this area, I thought that they could do better with their new mount.
This thread has made this more difficult. Looking to purchase a fast 50. I had the CV40mm 1.2 and loved it but sold it after testing my new 24GM in crop mode (36mm) at 1.4 against it. I do miss the manual focusing of the 40 but the versatility of the GM was more important. So I was almost ready to pull the trigger on the Zony 50mm 1.4 until I read this thread Now not so sure. So thinking now maybe go with the CV50 1.2 and TAP along with a regular adapter. That gives me the ability to have AF when needed or just use it as a manual lens. The 50mm 1.4 is real nice as well but obviously very big and not the same manual focus experience. Cost wise they would be about the same with the adapters. Just can't seem to make up my mind Anyone have any thoughts I missed to push me one way or the other
Tough call . I have this lens and really like how it renders. I though a couple times of maybe selling it and wait for the E mount version and even thought about the CV 65 again since it’s on sale but totally a diffrent lens. Part of the issue is having the CV 35 1.7 with the PCX filter is sort of similar in look to this 50 although the 50 is sharper wide open. The Sony 50 is a beauty but it’s kind of big and heavy.
Tough call here but this is a lot like the CV 40 but longer and I think actually sharper on center
BTW it does work nicely on the TAP I m just over that thing and sold it. I have a nice Kipon adapter on mine and it’s really nice fit.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I am wondering how much IQ improvement the new 50/1.2 E-mount version will have since it will be optimized for the Sony sensor. The 50/1.2 VM performed well towards the corners being ahead of the the 40/1.2 VM but still behind the 40/1.2 E-mount.
The Sony's thicker sensor coverglass is still an issue at 50mm as we've seen with other lenses (ZM, Leica, etc.)
I'm wondering how dependent the IQ will be to how close the specific body (sensor and/or IBS seating, cover glass & mount etc registration) is to exact spec. There were some interesting (possibly/probably outlier) sample results posted on DPR when the 40 was released.
GMPhotography wrote:
Tough call . I have this lens and really like how it renders. I though a couple times of maybe selling it and wait for the E mount version and even thought about the CV 65 again since it’s on sale but totally a diffrent lens. Part of the issue is having the CV 35 1.7 with the PCX filter is sort of similar in look to this 50 although the 50 is sharper wide open. The Sony 50 is a beauty but it’s kind of big and heavy.
Tough call here but this is a lot like the CV 40 but longer and I think actually sharper on center
BTW it does work nicely on the TAP I m just over that thing and sold it. I have a nice Kipon adapter on mine and it’s really nice fit. ...Show more →
Thanks for the thoughts. Since you have had both. What is your take on the rendering when comparing the two?
The CV 40 and 50 are very close. Little nicer bokeh on the 50 since it’s a touch longer. The 40 corners are a little better faster since it’s made for the Sony but on center I think the 50 is sharper. Fred did some comparisons between the two which are on the forum but I know he really liked the 50 as well. He stayed with the 40 for focal length reasons and Exif. There both very nice choices
GMPhotography wrote:
The CV 40 and 50 are very close. Little nicer bokeh on the 50 since it’s a touch longer. The 40 corners are a little better faster since it’s made for the Sony but on center I think the 50 is sharper. Fred did some comparisons between the two which are on the forum but I know he really liked the 50 as well. He stayed with the 40 for focal length reasons and Exif. There both very nice choices
Thanks ! My fault was not clear. I meant between the Sony 50 1.4 and the CV 50 1.2.
Well they both hit there sharpness peak at about 1.7 on center. The Sony has smoother bokeh and round balls that I can remember. It’s been awhile since I had the Sony so be nice to run them together now. The Sony has no CA at all or so little you don’t notice it. Overall I’d say the Sony is the better lens. Maybe I’ll rent one and test it against the CV
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Thanks ! My fault was not clear. I meant between the Sony 50 1.4 and the CV 50 1.2.
Tricky. The FE version of the CV isn't out yet, and might have a little less field curvature on the Sony sensor compared to the M version.
But assuming it's very similar, the Sony will have very much smoother bokeh towards the periphery. The CV gets a rather smaller effective aperture which, probably in tandem with some FC, can give very distracting bokeh in the corners - @Bastian Kratzke will be publishing his review soon which will show some of that.
They are both terrific stopped down, but you wouldn't buy either of them for stopped down work was your primary goal - though it's good to know they can be used that way with good results.
The CV is smaller, and cheaper, and (a little bit) faster. There will be conditions when there's nothing potentially distracting in the periphery when it'll give as good results. If, like one forumner here @genji you tend to crop to 1:1 then the CV might give as good results, as much of the problematic areas will be missing. Of course eyeAF is a nice feature on the Sony. Some people I know have had problems with it front focussing, but I haven't.
Now not so sure. So thinking now maybe go with the CV50 1.2 and TAP along with a regular adapter. That gives me the ability to have AF when needed or just use it as a manual lens. The 50mm 1.4 is real nice as well but obviously very big and not the same manual focus experience. Cost wise they would be about the same with the adapters. Just can't seem to make up my mind 