Well - if the CV 35/1.4 is viable, there is no reason to turn it down.
can you compare and contrast the differences between the 1.2 vs 1.4 version? Is the barrel distortion really visibly disturbing with the 1.4?
The CV 35/1.4 should be awful on all of them, but it was even decent on the original A7r:
cv 35/1.4 by
unoh7, on Flickr
Of course it's good in a situation like this, like many RF 35s: central subject, edges immaterial. These sort of shots are often used as "proof" a lens works on the A7. They are true but useless as a test for the real issues.
cv 35 1.4 by
unoh7, on Flickr
Now here is something we can really look at, though still not an optimal test shot. This is at 5.6 or 8. First look, you think ahhhh! But a close look will show some wavy rez across the frame.
What we have here is a quirky lens meeting a quirky sensor in a way which is more or less positive. The A7r kind of likes the CV 35/1.4 quirks.
a better test of A7r, unmodified at f/8:
cv3514f8 by
unoh7, on Flickr
How should the lens really perform?
DSC02987 by
unoh7, on Flickr
Here it is in a true test shot (for sony issues) on the A7.mod, that is, an A7 with the thick cover glass stripped by Kolari and replaced with thinner glass.
This is a very sharp lens at f/8. Pretty even too.
It has huge barrel distortion on every camera, but this is really a non-issue as there are profiles for the lens in Lightroom which adjust the distortion in a click.
Compared to 35/1.2? Well I'd take the 1.4, because having the 1.2 (which I own, love and often use) on the camera is like carrying two cameras. Handling is terrible. For IQ, the 1.4 should be better at f/8: it is on the M9. But the Sonys do like the the CV 35/1.2 family well, here it is on a stock A7 at around f/8 or 5.6:
DSC02304 by
unoh7, on Flickr
How do we look at these? Go to the flickr fulls and pan across the frames center to edge. Edges are the main issues, as corners can vary with design even on a M body. If the edge seems great we have to check the center carefully, as it may be because of the focus.
No reliable infinity stop is a huge bugaboo for testing. "Smearing" is a very misleading way to describe the Sony issues: because it is not smearing at all, it's a field curve. Than means you can cure a smeared edge: just focus on it. But now the center is gone
🙁
That last shot is pretty good, a very close look shows the "smear" on the ridgeline as you approach the edge. It does the same thing on the M9 LOL
Who cares? Well why even pick a great lens if you don't care about performance? The designers work hard, and I like to see the lens showing it. Any landscape shooter cares.
One other note: the A7 and A7II sensors are supposedly the same. Much better than the A7r. However the A7rII is a new sensor, which still smears, but is much better with color shift. The A7S has huge pixels which are more forgiving, but still the smearing happens.
Kolari Mods are available for all these cameras. I would like someday a A7s with the Kolari, as a dedicated low light shooter. That camera has the best high ISO performance of any FF by a light year. The new Leica Q, which is well ahead of all the other Sony A7 series fro ISO, still is not close to the A7s in this regard, but of course it has many more pixels. The Q also has a much better EVF than the Sonys and better AF as well.
