And about "smooth Bokeh" - I want Bokeh to be creamy and interesting, like from a Nikkor AF 105mm f2 DC or a Pentax Takumar 50mm f1.4. If its just neutral Bokeh, like from a Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm f2, thats kind of boring really.
DavidBM wrote:
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.
It's a tough call, leaning toward the CV just because of the size. But I really love the images I see coming off the Zony. Good problems to have as Sony shooter, options
I’d try to rent them and see what you like more. Depends on your needs too as the Sony does have AF but the TAP does work nicely on the CV. When the E mount version comes out the only thing it may improve is the FC and if your using it more for people you would probably not want nicer corners more wide open anyway. I said earlier I may not want the E mount as it may change the lens style of rendering
For the AF lens I bought the 55 as that would be faster anyway for PR work over the 50 Sony
I have an A7R3 and the 40 F1.2 (I bought it because of Fred Miranda site-THANKS I love it!!!), I just went a bit crazy and traded in my Leica Q and got a new M10. I love the 40 on the my A7r3 but was thinking to get something different for the M10, I am quite a bit over spent so I can't do a Leica Summilux or anything at the moment...seems silly to get another 40F1.2 for the M10, would you get this 50F1.2 for the M10 or an M version of the 40F1.2?
I’m outshooting the CV 50 right now. Post some images. I need time on this compared to my Cv 35 Ultron 1.7 they maybe too similar which may not be good. I’m actually out with Cv15,21,35,50 and my Sony 24mm. I’ve tested all of them but real world playing around I’ve yet to get out. Told everyone to go pound sand this morning and told them goodbye for the day. I’m a photographer need to go shoot.
DavidBM wrote:
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.
One of my aesthetic goals is to have my street pictures look as though they were made in the 1950s with a twin-lens Rolleiflex. Hence the 1:1 crop--which will certainly eliminate problematic corners if the subject occupies the central two-thirds of the frame. But my "shoot from the hip on the fly off the LCD screen" working method means that I can't always compose centrally and, in those cases, the flat field of the Zony Planar 50/1.4 often saves my bacon.
jainbaby wrote:
Looking for some potential help...
I have an A7R3 and the 40 F1.2 (I bought it because of Fred Miranda site-THANKS I love it!!!), I just went a bit crazy and traded in my Leica Q and got a new M10. I love the 40 on the my A7r3 but was thinking to get something different for the M10, I am quite a bit over spent so I can't do a Leica Summilux or anything at the moment...seems silly to get another 40F1.2 for the M10, would you get this 50F1.2 for the M10 or an M version of the 40F1.2?
I don't actually use mine that much (not much of a 50mm shooter) but when I do, I enjoy it. Fingers crossed that CV releases/announces a killer compact MF 28mm and 75-85mm option in the next 18 months. Their recent offerings have been a very nice counter balance to the current lens paradigm.
genji wrote:
One of my aesthetic goals is to have my street pictures look as though they were made in the 1950s with a twin-lens Rolleiflex. Hence the 1:1 crop--which will certainly eliminate problematic corners if the subject occupies the central two-thirds of the frame. But my "shoot from the hip on the fly off the LCD screen" working method means that I can't always compose centrally and, in those cases, the flat field of the Zony Planar 50/1.4 often saves my bacon.
Ah, yes. In fact if you want to crop off centre to 1:1 and make it look like 6x6 then corner oddness will be extra bad, because it’s asymmetry will give the game away...
jainbaby wrote:
Looking for some potential help...
I have an A7R3 and the 40 F1.2 (I bought it because of Fred Miranda site-THANKS I love it!!!), I just went a bit crazy and traded in my Leica Q and got a new M10. I love the 40 on the my A7r3 but was thinking to get something different for the M10, I am quite a bit over spent so I can't do a Leica Summilux or anything at the moment...seems silly to get another 40F1.2 for the M10, would you get this 50F1.2 for the M10 or an M version of the 40F1.2?
The 50 F1.2 is a very good lens in general and for the M10. Side by side, I still prefer the Summilux on the M10, but the Voigt 50 F1.2 M is an exellent runner up. You will not be dissappointed if you decide to purchase the Voigt 50 F1.2 and if you like shooting wide open and from what I have seen posted, the Voigt 50 F1.2 might just have the edge over the 40 F1.2 wide open.
Since I shoot both M10 and Sony FF, I much prefer the M mount Voigt lenses and use the imperfect but great when it works,TechArtPro AF adpater for VM lenses on Sony mount.
I went out yesterday and shot a lot with this lens along with several others . My one issue is this lens and the CV 35 1.7 Ultron are very similar and also very close in focal length. Im still debating on what to do but have to say i love the look of this lens. It makes me warm inside. Most of the tests with data are here.
But im just going to post to fill this thread but no lens data . Just want you all to see images on how this renders.
I would consider trading it for the CV 40 1.2 as im more a 35mm guy and a test that never been done is the 40 versus the CV 35 ultron with PCX and than i could test the crap out of those two and decide. Im just really torn on this lens.
FYI for anyone looking I just popped on Camera Quest site and they have the 50 1.2 in stock as of right now. Bought one along with the version II adapter.
GMPhotography wrote:
You where too fast. I was thinking of going back to the 40.
After testing the 24GM in crop mode(36mm) I was happy with the results vs the CV40mm. The 50 will hopefully fill that 40mm void, just give me alittle more space. Fills out my prime kit a little better. 15mm f2 (22mm crop), 24GMf1.4 (36mm crop) , 50mmF1.2 (75mm crop), 85mm 1.8 (127.5mm crop). Little mix of AF and manual
GMPhotography wrote:
Your going to like this 50. I love it but it’s so close to my 35. Renders similar too
These samples are lovely. Now you have me wondering if I should wait for the E-mount version. And I must have been wandering around with my eyes closed because I don’t recall seeing anything from the Ultron 35/1.7 + PCX that matches what you’ve just posted.
