Memory may fail here, but I'm petty sure Fred recently said the later CV lenses had less asph artefacts than earlier releases. Not that they were a problem, in my view. And the SE is lighter by 50g (always welcome) and 5mm shorter, it may even lack the de-click thingy, details earlier in the thread or one dealing with the SE release.
It also has the new age Sigma/Sony thin ribbed rings as opposed to the trad scalloped rings of the early version. You can check out Cosina's pages here:
Same formula, yes. I'm talking about the actual surface production of the aspheric, to the same dimensions and shape. Artefacts have been a bugbear seemingly forever, especially in zooms, like this 2016 Sony:
'At the time Sony announced their new GM lenses, they were claimed to have a superior bokeh due to Sony's new XA element. The XA element is supposed to deliver clean highlight discs due to precision manufacturing. We'll not dispute that the Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM delivers a better than average bokeh but it is certainly not flawless.
It may well be that the XA element alone is superior to other element types but here it is still accompanied by two aspherical elements and as you can see below, these two are probably introducing the usual onion-like substructure in highlight discs plus some outlining ... just like in many other standard zoom lenses.'
The makers each have made big strides in the past just 2-3 years. You may come across this in PR blurbs. We're all cynical but they have focused more attention on the problem and it appears to be paying off. Once a deficiency gains a certain level of user support to want it fixed, the makers will get going on it. [I want focus breathing and out-of-lens distortion looked at.]
The new lenses gain from not just better formulations, it's also newly realised knowledge on how to combine some of the many grades/types they have. Cosina maintain hundreds of grades of glass. It's a system of many stages, and each stage gets pushed along, like CAD. And the production technology is where there has been a lot of progress.
Here is a mention of the new Cosina process called GA:
'By adopting a uniquely developed GA (grinding aspherical surface) lens for the optical system, it is possible to design with a high degree of freedom using a glass material with a high melting point that cannot be used with a glass mold aspherical surface.'
The lens here is the new 29/f0.8 700g lens for m43, an $1800 item:
Thanks for the precisions, it is interesting. But I doubt that cosina makes different glasses for their se and non se versions... It is more probable than only the housing differs. If the classic version had been released years ago, then it could have been improved in the meantime, but how many years has there been between the two versions? 2 years?
However, between the 40 and the 50, there sure has been an improvement, because the 50 is much better corrected regarding onion rings and corner sharpness than the 40mm.
'cosina makes different glasses for their se and non se versions'
You can re-read the first few words: 'Same formula, yes. I'm talking about the *actual surface production* of the aspheric.'
An analogy: when you wipe a glass table top with a better cloth, you are not changing the glass molecules in the table top itself, even as the surface is cleaner and shines more. But as in all things, opinions will differ and it has to be respected.
Interesting. I guess I would lean toward an SE version but may buy whichever comes up on used market. I have the 50 APO and in love with it but kinda miss some extra 3D punch of the Summilux so might try both for a while for fun.
what is hard for me to understand is why the 2 lens used on Sony body do perform in a different way and have different minimum focus distance, looking at lens chart the look exactly the same
Maybe the differences are due to sample variation? different minimum focus distance might be due to a different helicoidal mecanism, which does not affect the performances.
what is hard for me to understand is why the 2 lens used on Sony body do perform in a different way and have different minimum focus distance, looking at lens chart the look exactly the same
Where did I say that?
It's my understanding that the CV 50/1.2 Nokton's aperture has been always equipped with 12 blades for both E and M mount versions.
The CV 40/1.2 Nokton is the one with 10 blades. (for both mounts too)
hesb wrote:
Maybe the differences are due to sample variation? different minimum focus distance might be due to a different helicoidal mecanism, which does not affect the performances.
Yes, differences in focus distance should not affect performance in any way since this lens is not equipped with a floating group.
However, I have seen a lot of RF mis-calibration with this lens. It took me several copies to find one perfectly adjusted. Of course this only affects the M-mount when using the Leica M body's rangefinder.
I purchased a used e-mount version of this lens and the hood was not supplied but didn't notice until after the sale was complete. A costly mistake, it seems. Does anyone know of proper avenues to get a replacement hood for the best price? Or are there third party hoods available that might work? Thank you for any help you can provide.
