RustyBug wrote:
I'm starting to come around to a similar thought ... getting the pair to match with the Mono body.
I need to repurchase the 40 2.8 after having sold all my M lenses a while back.
Right now I have the 28 2.8 Color-Skopar Type II (aluminum, 0.5m MFD, matte black), and I'm thinking of adding the Type I to decide which I like best. The 0.5m MFD of the Type II doesn't make as big of a difference at 28mm as I thought it would.
I also have the 28 1.5 Nokton Type II (brass/black paint). I feel like the rendering of the Nokton near MFD wide open might be a better match to the 40 2.8 wide open at the same distances.
RustyBug wrote:
My 40 Cron is pretty clean. A small bit of paint missing from a few dof lines, but otherwise, I've got a nice one.
As you know, the flare is a thing, but just how much "worse" is the handling on the CV? I typically shoot my 40 Cron via zone shooting, and kinda switch between two different "focus settings", with my aperture set to 4.5 (or 6.3, if I want a bit more dof).
Not a lot of changes when I'm working "quick". If I'm working slow ... who cares.
Basically changing the aperture will change the focus unless you have it locked on infinity. So you have to set exposure first, then focus. It is a great lens and really nicely made, this is a handling quirk you need to be aware of.
Desmolicious wrote:
Basically changing the aperture will change the focus unless you have it locked on infinity. So you have to set exposure first, then focus. It is a great lens and really nicely made, this is a handling quirk you need to be aware of.
Some may not appreciate how the aperture and focus mechanics are connected, but I've become accustomed to it, having used the Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 HELIAR M, which functions similarly but lacks an infinity lock.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I need to repurchase the 40 2.8 after having sold all my M lenses a while back.
Right now I have the 28 2.8 Color-Skopar Type II (aluminum, 0.5m MFD, matte black), and I'm thinking of adding the Type I to decide which I like best. The 0.5m MFD of the Type II doesn't make as big of a difference at 28mm as I thought it would.
I also have the 28 1.5 Nokton Type II (brass/black paint). I feel like the rendering of the Nokton near MFD wide open might be a better match to the 40 2.8 wide open at the same distances.
If I am not mistaken, in another thread you mentioned how much you like the rendering of the CV 40/2.8 Heliar. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts about it?
Fred Miranda wrote:
If I am not mistaken, in another thread you mentioned how much you like the rendering of the CV 40/2.8 Heliar. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts about it?
From MFD to around tight portrait distance, I really like how it renders backgrounds at f/2.8. It reminds me of how backgrounds look to my eye in real life when I look at something up close up – not literally how the background looks, but like the memory of it, if that makes any sense. This is because the bokeh is varied just enough to be not too smooth/modern but is also not too busy or distracting. And there is uniformity in the bokeh appearance for close up and wide open shots such that the bokeh of objects behind the subject at mid distance look very similar to the background at infinity.
Then there is the subject in focus, which this lens renders in a very sharp, detailed, and modern way. I feel like this is an unexpected result given how it renders backgrounds, so it makes the subject jump off the screen more than I expect given the f/2.8 maximum aperture. It's as if I the subject were shot with a modern lens and pasted it onto a background shot with a more classic lens.
highdesertmesa wrote:
From MFD to around tight portrait distance, I really like how it renders backgrounds at f/2.8. It reminds me of how backgrounds look to my eye in real life when I look at something up close up – not literally how the background looks, but like the memory of it, if that makes any sense. This is because the bokeh is varied just enough to be not too smooth/modern but is also not too busy or distracting. And there is uniformity in the bokeh appearance for close up and wide open shots such that the bokeh of objects behind the subject at mid distance look very similar to the background at infinity. (This is purely about daylight shooting, not shooting at night with points of light out of focus in the background. I didn't get to shoot it at night while I had it.)
I remember seeing those images! Yes, I agree, the rendering is pleasing. There's some noticeable structure because it's not a fast lens, and the transition isn't overly smooth like many modern lenses.
Do you think there will be a Type II version with more classical barrel like the new Color Heliar 28mm 2,8 ?
I'm interested into the 28+40mm as pocket lenses but I would like them to look and feel similar. As I want to use them on mirrorless, type II design will suit me better...
p.16 #11 · Voigtlander 40mm f/2.8 Heliar VM Review
Northern View from Mt. Michell (2037m) in May 27, 2024
Mt. Craig (2nd highest Mt in eastern USA 2026m - higher than Clingmans Dome 2025m - 3rd highest) is shown (left side)
Very small (pocket size) and very sharp lens
Sony A7R2 and Voigtlander 40mm f2.8 Heliar Asph (VM)
p.16 #19 · Voigtlander 40mm f/2.8 Heliar VM Review
The lens came in today and just messing around I pressed a B+W 39mm 007 MRC filter into the lens hood where it popped into place and it's pretty snug. Don't think it will fall out easily..
p.16 #20 · Voigtlander 40mm f/2.8 Heliar VM Review
M_Wales wrote:
The lens came in today and just messing around I pressed a B+W 39mm 007 MRC filter into the lens hood where it popped into place and it's pretty snug. Don't think it will fall out easily..
You must have pressed hard because my B+W 39mm "clear" filter didn't fit inside the hood. This was one of the first things I tried when I got this lens.
