Fred Miranda wrote: OOF rendering compared to FE 50/1.4 ZA at same distance
Honestly the 50/1.4 ZA is sharper at center but I much prefer the CV 50/1.2 E-mount's smoother rendering at f/1.4. (Same as f/1.2)
Rendering for both lenses do not improve when stepping the aperture down, so the Voigtlander is always smoother in comparison.
Why in the pictures at the link below is the grass in the lower left corner sharper with the ZA than with the CV? I think that grass should be very close to the plane of focus for both lenses.
chiron wrote:
Why in the pictures at the link below is the grass in the lower left corner sharper with the ZA than with the CV? I think that grass should be very close to the plane of focus for both lenses.
It's curious that the Voigtlander 50/1.2 SE's size and weight savings compared to the original version is not as relevant as the Voigtlander 40/1.2 SE's.
CV 50/1.2 (Original): 434g, 58.8mm long
CV 50/1.2 (SE): 383g, 58.5mm long
No changes in length and only 50g savings
______
CV 40/1.2 (Original): 420g, 59.3mm long
CV 40/1.2 (SE): 340g, 51.9mm long
I just received the new 50mm f/1.2 SE and it overall feels very much like my previous and beloved 40mm f/1.2 did. A bit slimmer and lighter. But the weight difference is negligible. To me the biggest gripe with the old ones was that they were a bit on the "thick" side. Never ever used the clickless thingy. The new slim SE feels nice even if I liked the ring texture more on the old one.
Damn this is one sexy lens.
My copy seems to have hard stop at infinity. Although no great vistas here I could confirm that with. As I'm looking at my earlier pics with 40mm Nokton, it seems that the 50mm has a little bit more glow wide open near MFD, but when the subject is at 2m or beyond, it seems to sharpen up even more than the 40mm did. Very nice and sharp with smooth rendering. So far, I'm loving what I'm seeing. I can already tell that I'm going to enjoy shooting with this baby.
Here is a recent shot of my son while we were on a hike near Lion's Head on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario. I am really liking this lens for portraiture.
Tonzah78,
thanks for the samples on flickr !
The sharpness at f/1.2 looks quite good already, and a great bokeh as expected. I really like what I see here. I think I'm going to replace the 55mm with this one.
Fboss wrote:
The sharpness at f/1.2 looks quite good already, and a great bokeh as expected. I really like what I see here. I think I'm going to replace the 55mm with this one.
Just mind that my samples were reduced to 4000px (I never like to upload larger than those to flickr). But even originally this lens really is surprisingly sharp from f/1.2 at medium to long distance. I can only tell that Fred's and other people's previous reviews have been pretty spot on. This really is remarkable lens and I like the SE form factor a lot. And my copy seems centered enough. Don't notice anything strange. So I think I've found my holy grail of nifty-fifties.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's curious that the Voigtlander 50/1.2 SE's size and weight savings compared to the original version is not as relevant as the Voigtlander 40/1.2 SE's.
CV 50/1.2 (Original): 434g, 58.8mm long
CV 50/1.2 (SE): 383g, 58.5mm long
No changes in length and only 50g savings
______
CV 40/1.2 (Original): 420g, 59.3mm long
CV 40/1.2 (SE): 340g, 51.9mm long
7.4mm shorter and 80g savings
Fred, I remember a rendering comparison between the nokton and the planar, and also you have recently posted infinity sharpness comparison between the Nokton and the Apo. But have you made a "rendering" comparison between those two lenses.
What we know is that the Apo is incredibly sharp across the frame from F2, which is not the same for the Nokton until F5.6. We also know that both lenses have really nice rendering, but it might be nice to compare them in same situations, as you did with the planar!!
I feel this 50mm lens has the same lovely "analog" feel as the 40mm Nokton. In my mind I don't see a huge difference to the
40mm which I also loved. I also like to add a little vintage vibe in post to my images to enhance this analog look. I just went
sailing with a friend couple days ago. Here's a few picks with the 50mm Nokton.
After we had landed to Suomenlinna (a sea fortress just in front of Helsinki), I headed home with a ferry while friend stayed
overnight at the guest harbor. Got a few shots in almost pitch black darkness.
Tonzah78 wrote:
I feel this 50mm lens has the same lovely "analog" feel as did the 40mm. In my mind I don't see a huge difference to the
40mm which I also loved. I also like to add a little vintage vibe in post, to my images to enhance this analog look. I just went sailing with a friend couple days ago. Here's a few picks with the 50mm Nokton.
After we had landed to Suomenlinna (a sea fortress just in front of Helsinki), I headed home with a ferry while friend stayed
overnight at the guest harbor. Got a few shots in almost pitch black darkness.
Tonigh was the generale piano at the Opera de Rouen. So happy to be able to sing again after this long period... and to take some pictures of my colleagues
Tonzah78 wrote:
Now that would be nice. I just sold my 55/1.8 to fund this Voigtländer. Earlier I owned the 40mm Nokton and it wasn't as sharp as the Sonnar. Sony 55mm has been the sharpest lens I've owned. But the 40mm was more than sharp enough for me on my 24Mp body and was my favourite lens of all time (which title this 50mm might dethrone). The Nokton rendering is just something special.
I now own both 55/1.8 and 50/1.2 Nokton SE. I haven't compared them side by side. I bought 55 on a whim not planning to keep it long term, but I am so glad I bought it. Eye-AF and 55 is a irreplaceable combo IMO. Most my photography these days is running behind my 15 months old daughter and I'd say 90% of my shots are in focus. That would not be possible with another AF system, let alone a completely manual lens. 55/1.8 is super sharp and has great rendering, at least to my eyes.
I love the dreamy rendering and build quality of CV 50/1.2 SE, but it won't be replacing my 55/1.8 any time soon.
I think you pointed the real advantage of the 55mm: its af reliability!
I also have both, and compared them side by side, from a sharpness point, the nokton is always better in the center, and they are both equal from 2.8 at mid frame and equal in the corner at 5.6. I compared them on an a7rIII with sharpness at 0 on C1.
On a 24mp sensor, really hard to see a difference from 2.8.
From a rendering point... well I have made hundreds of portraits with both, and can nearly always say which lens I used. And nearly always prefer the nokton.
The Background of the zony is really smooth, but the problem is really in the out of focus transition just behind the focus plane. This area is not really smooth, and sometimes it really bores me...
But you're right, there are times where AF is more important than rendering! And for these times, the zony is the best 50 you can have!
hesb wrote:
I think you pointed the real advantage of the 55mm: its af reliability!
I also have both, and compared them side by side, from a sharpness point, the nokton is always better in the center, and they are both equal from 2.8 at mid frame and equal in the corner at 5.6. I compared them on an a7rIII with sharpness at 0 on C1.
On a 24mp sensor, really hard to see a difference from 2.8.
From a rendering point... well I have made hundreds of portraits with both, and can nearly always say which lens I used. And nearly always prefer the nokton.
The Background of the zony is really smooth, but the problem is really in the out of focus transition just behind the focus plane. This area is not really smooth, and sometimes it really bores me...
But you're right, there are times where AF is more important than rendering! And for these times, the zony is the best 50 you can have!...Show more →
I also have the 55/1.8 and the Nokton 50/1.2. This ^^^^^^^ is right on the money, couldn't have said it better. Same findings on my A9 (24MP) and my A7RIV (61MP).
hesb wrote:
I think you pointed the real advantage of the 55mm: its af reliability!
I also have both, and compared them side by side, from a sharpness point, the nokton is always better in the center, and they are both equal from 2.8 at mid frame and equal in the corner at 5.6. I compared them on an a7rIII with sharpness at 0 on C1.
On a 24mp sensor, really hard to see a difference from 2.8.
From a rendering point... well I have made hundreds of portraits with both, and can nearly always say which lens I used. And nearly always prefer the nokton.
The Background of the zony is really smooth, but the problem is really in the out of focus transition just behind the focus plane. This area is not really smooth, and sometimes it really bores me...
But you're right, there are times where AF is more important than rendering! And for these times, the zony is the best 50 you can have!...Show more →
yes, and that area gets a bit harsh at mid-distance shooting where the transition zone lens becomes the OOF background.
The 55/1.8 performs better up close but at mid-distance the Nokton at f/1.8 is capable of higher contrast and resolution, especially at center.
