DaveFP wrote:
Lovely couple but the focus point is quite soft.
SA + low shutter speeds?
I don' t have this lens yet, but I had the 40 f/1.2 and now have the 50 f/1.2 and all these lenses, IMO, share a common look at f/1.2. There is a fair bit of SA, which prevents the lens from being super sharp at this very wide aperture. I still really like the rendering, but I think that is a pretty subjective judgment. For me it does provide a limit on print size for wide open shots, but by f/2 the SA is reduced and they sharpen up a lot, by f/2.8 the SA is essentially gone and they are quite sharp. So, if I want to have the capability for a bigger print I stop down. I shoot these lenses most often at f/2, but I find some shots I prefer to open up the aperture and others I prefer to stop down.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don' t have this lens yet, but I had the 40 f/1.2 and now have the 50 f/1.2 and all these lenses, IMO, share a common look at f/1.2. There is a fair bit of SA, which prevents the lens from being super sharp at this very wide aperture. I still really like the rendering, but I think that is a pretty subjective judgment. For me it does provide a limit on print size for wide open shots, but by f/2 the SA is reduced and they sharpen up a lot, by f/2.8 the SA is essentially gone and they are quite sharp. So, if I want to have the capability for a bigger print I stop down. I shoot these lenses most often at f/2, but I find some shots I prefer to open up the aperture and others I prefer to stop down....Show more →
Like the Zeiss Planars and other "dual character" lens.
That said I am a little surprised at how soft the images are; especially given my perception of the perspective.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don' t have this lens yet, but I had the 40 f/1.2 and now have the 50 f/1.2 and all these lenses, IMO, share a common look at f/1.2. There is a fair bit of SA, which prevents the lens from being super sharp at this very wide aperture. I still really like the rendering, but I think that is a pretty subjective judgment. For me it does provide a limit on print size for wide open shots, but by f/2 the SA is reduced and they sharpen up a lot, by f/2.8 the SA is essentially gone and they are quite sharp. So, if I want to have the capability for a bigger print I stop down. I shoot these lenses most often at f/2, but I find some shots I prefer to open up the aperture and others I prefer to stop down....Show more →
It can be quite sharp even wide open at mid-distance. (>1.5m)
When getting a bit too close for portraits, SA becomes more noticeable and that's a character I personally like. (Same for Sigma 45/2.8)
Like Steve wrote, stopping down gives this lens a different look (sharper, lower CA) and all that's needed is about a stop (f/1.8).
At f/2.8, it's optimal at center and sharp across the field. f/4 optimal for the mid-zone and f/5.6 optimal for the corners.
DaveFP wrote:
Both portraits of the kids seem to lack a sharp area.
Not being critical mind you.
The lens just seems to offer a very relaxed image wide open.
I agree with you of course; that is a lovely characteristic for portraiture and airey images of flowers; etc.
I guess one needs to pop for the Sigma if we want a sharp wide open 35/1.2.
How would compare this lens to the Loxia 35 Fred?
It's definitely a trade off between resolution, contrast and rendering. The Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM for example is not under corrected for SA and it's noticeably sharper and more contrasty. -- however rendering can be harsh at the transition zone. So, depending on the subject, the Zeiss may work better but imo for environment portraits, I prefer a softer look with the option to stop down the lens for better correction.
It's definitely a trade off between resolution, contrast and rendering. The Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM for example is not under corrected for SA and it's noticeably sharper and more contrasty. -- however rendering can be harsh at the transition zone. So, depending on the subject, the Zeiss may work better but imo for environment portraits, I prefer a more softer look with the option to stop down the lens for better correction.
When you type 'optimal', do you mean that it takes near full or full advantage of the sensor, or that it is just the best aperture, to get the most out of the lens optically?
I have been considering a 35mm for a while for landscapes, street and sometimes but rarely some portraits, but I'm not satisfied with the current options. I actually just bought the Sony 35mm f/1.8 for some casual street photography, but I'm not quite satisfied, and I prefer the look and feel of Cosina lenses for sure, especially for landscapes. I might pair it with a future Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN (and also pair this with the great 85mm DN) if they release one. The Sony never gets outstanding in the corners. Would you say that this 35mm f/1.2 is better than the Loxia 35mm on the a7R IV? I heard that it isn't really shining on that sensor, but it's just tempting, as it can be bought pretty cheap used (pretty much a trade for my Sony 35mm f/1.8).
I was going to wait for a CV 35mm APO to replace my 50mm APO and pair it with my 65mm APO, but I'm not so sure. I might just keep the 50mm, get this 35mm f/1.2, and a longer 1:2 macro than the 65mm (I have tried the 110mm, but not sure if it's for me. I rarely need 1:1, and it's just not practical for me when I mostly just photograph handheld and want to get just a bit close). I like to have 35mm, 50mm and 85mm all covered, as I don't use any zooms but a ultra wide one and longer telephoto. Hoping for either a 90mm,135mm or even longer APO. If the 35mm f/1.2 SE is outstanding at f/5.6 all around, then I will just get that, as I also like more of a vintage blur sometimes when I don't use something like a near-perfectly corrected f/1.2 - f/1.4, which makes it a some of a dual-purpose lens as some have mentioned already.
Frederik0711 wrote:
When you type 'optimal', do you mean that it takes near full advantage or full of the sensor, or that this is just the best aperture, to get the most out of the lens optically?
I have been considering a 35mm for a while for landscapes, street and sometimes but rarely some portraits, but I'm not satisfied with the current options. I actually just bought the Sony 35mm f/1.8 for some casual street photography, but I'm not quite satisfied, and I prefer the look and feel of Cosina lenses for sure, especially for landscapes. I might pair it with a future Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN (and also pair this with the great 85mm DN) if they release one. The Sony never gets outstanding in the corners. Would you say that this 35mm f/1.2 is better than the Loxia 35mm on the a7R IV? I heard that it isn't really shining on that sensor, but it's just tempting, as it can be bought pretty cheap used (pretty much a trade for my Sony 35mm f/1.8).
I was going to wait for a CV 35mm APO to replace my 50mm APO and pair it with my 65mm APO, but I'm not so sure. I might just keep the 50mm, get this 35mm f/1.2, and a longer 1:2 macro than the 65mm (I have tried the 110mm, but not sure if it's for me. I rarely need 1:1, and it's just not practical for me when I mostly just photograph handheld and want to get just a bit close). I like to have 35mm, 50mm and 85mm all covered, as I don't use any zooms but a ultra wide one and longer telephoto. Hoping for either a 90mm,135mm or even longer APO. If the 35mm f/1.2 SE is outstanding at f/5.6 all around, then I will just get that, as I also like more of a vintage blur sometimes when I don't use something like a near-perfectly corrected f/1.2 - f/1.4, which makes it a some of a dual-purpose lens as some have mentioned already. ...Show more →
When I mentioned optimal, it meant optimal compared to itself. The CV 35/1.2 can be used for landscapes at f/4-5.6 and smaller apertures but lateral CA never goes away when stopping the lens down (can be corrected in post). Off-axis, resolution never gets to high levels which is similar but slightly better to how the CV 40/1.2 performs. I'd say the CV 35/1.2 performs better than the Loxia 35/2 even at smaller apertures but no longer have the Loxia to compare them side by side.
When I mentioned optimal, it meant optimal compared to itself. The CV 35/1.2 can be used for landscapes at f/4-5.6 and smaller apertures but lateral CA never goes away when stopping the lens down (can be corrected in post). Off-axis, resolution never gets to high levels which is similar but slightly better to how the CV 40/1.2 performs. I'd say the CV 35/1.2 performs better than the Loxia 35/2 even at smaller apertures but no longer have the Loxia to compare them side by side.
Thank you!
Yeah, I just wanted to make sure. I'm probably just waiting for a CV 35mm APO.
Here is an example at 1.16m distance. The CV 35/1.2 captures fine detail wide open at this distance and longer. Perhaps f/1.6 is the optimal aperture for higher resolution and contrast while still having a lot of blur.
Since some of you guys have tried both the M & E mount version of this lens, which one is better at not showing field curvature when shot wide open at environmental portrait distances? Kinda ruins a picture when the corners are in focus, even though they're farther than the main subject in the center.
I kinda preferred how the 40mm 1.2 M mount rendered over the E mount in these instances as it kept the corners out of focus, at least from some of the samples I saw.
omarccx wrote:
Since some of you guys have tried both the M & E mount version of this lens, which one is better at not showing field curvature when shot wide open at environmental portrait distances? Kinda ruins a picture when the corners are in focus, even though they're farther than the main subject in the center.
I kinda preferred how the 40mm 1.2 M mount rendered over the E mount in these instances as it kept the corners out of focus, at least from some of the samples I saw.
I'm itching to hit the buy button on this lens.
If you don't want any adverse effects to rendering, stick with the lens designed for its specific sensor:
E-mount ->> Sony
M-mount ->> Leica
SoundHound wrote:
Depressing to buy a superspeed lens only to stop it way down for better IQ.
Hmmm...I say inspiring to have a lens that performs so well wide open and stopped down too.
Fred, thanks so much for this and all your reviews. I'm still wondering about focus shift with this lens.
I would definitely prefer a 35 for MF street shooting, but tending toward the CV 50 APO and hoping for a 35 APO soon.
The 35mm 1.2 looks great but since I picked up the 50mm 1.2 SE I think it's alittle to close. Waiting for a 28mm or even 24mm. The 21mm looks good as well, just alittle to wide for me for a 2 lens kit.
