40mm / 1.2 is great, but ...

[ptpdprinter]

Why is a 40mm lens popular, indeed a grail lens, for a camera with no 40mm framelines? At best you are guessing using the 35mm or 50mm framelines. Is it shoot now, crop in enlarger/post, and don't worry about the loss in quality by not using the whole negative? Why would VC even make 40mm lenses? Puzzled.

 

[fotomeow]

Technically, it turns out to be a "grail lens", it's very, very good: plenty sharp wide open, and undramatic vignetting - the first 1.2 lens that I could use for landscapes @f1.2. Beautiful bokeh, and only the faintest hint of distortion (pin-cushion at 2m in the corners). And small, smooth to operate, and easy 52mm filters. And with LV, I do like 0.5m min. focus.

Then again: it's a 900$ lens. And a hood is not included. Seriously ?

Roland.

"Technically a grail lens". After shooting, and I'm not tying to be a smart-ass, but is this a "grail lens non-technically" as well?

How do you find the non-technical subjective qualities?

 

[ferider]

"Technically a grail lens". After shooting, and I'm not tying to be a smart-ass, but is this a "grail lens non-technically" as well?

Personally, by really using it and counting "keepers", fotomeow. Haven't had the lens long enough yet, obviously; the next year or so will tell ....

 

[fotomeow]

I'm hearing a few different things about the hood;

. that it would be nice if a hood were included, but does not guarantee that it is a decent quality hood, and you might want to replace it anyway.

. that manufacturers cut costs and increase profits by first not including a hood, then charging more than may want to spend on one.

. that the burden is transferred to the customer, and some customers want that burden, but most do not, b/c its just a hobby, and who wants to spend hours searching to net to save $100.

Fair enough. But for me personally, and others will disagree, but I usually end up buying the hood (or whatever other accessory) as Used if I can find one.

But if I dont find it Used, I usually buy new, b/c I know when I want to sell it, that I can get a pretty good return on my money. The cost of the accessory remains inflated, but I'm not necessarily stuck with a big loss .....

 

[Daryl J.]

The other part of the equation I am missing is this whole thread: Why on earth do I need a lens hood for a lens to be primarily used at......night??

 

[retinax]

The other part of the equation I am missing is this whole thread: Why on earth do I need a lens hood for a lens to be primarily used at......night??

I doubt it will be used at night more than in the daytime. Doesn't make a difference though. If there's light to take a picture, there's light that can potentially cause flare.
In other words: When the signal is weak, a similarly weak disturbance will have a big effect.
Practically, at night there often are lights from all kinds of strange angles that shine onto one's front lens.

 

[Daryl J.]

Thank you.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Why is a 40mm lens popular, indeed a grail lens, for a camera with no 40mm framelines? At best you are guessing using the 35mm or 50mm framelines. Is it shoot now, crop in enlarger/post, and don't worry about the loss in quality by not using the whole negative? Why would VC even make 40mm lenses? Puzzled.

The FOV of my CV 40mm lens matches the 35mm framelines of my 35mm Zeiss Ikon camera exactly. Closer than the 35mm Carl Zeiss lens does.

But exact framing is not important to me when shooting with a 35mm RF camera. When exact framing is critical, I shoot with a 6x7 camera on a tripod.

My style is such that I must shoot fast. So I am mentally composing the image and positioning myself for the lens on the camera as I am raising the camera to my eye. I cannot tell any difference when actually photographing between a 40mm and 35mm lens.

 

[sepiareverb]

B&H doesn’t even list a hood as an accessory for this lens. I’m guessing the one for the 35/1.2 fits? Yes, I see that it does at CQ.

 

[michaelwj]

Thanks Roland - your examples and analysis are welcome, as always.

On the issue of hoods - if a manufacturer felt a hood would appreciably improve the quality of their lens’ output, then I would hope they would include it as standard.

I’m certainly not questioning the comparative value and quality of this particular lens - a great achievement , kudos to Mr K and his team. And I will probably buy one when I can.

But why would you release a product to market that is not performing at its optimum ? Where is the pride in your product being the best it can be?

I’m not directing this solely at CV but at any manufacturer that asks “would you like firies with that?”

I'm with John,

If the manufacturer wants it to be used with a hood then included it.

How about this scenario, if a review was to come out which bagged the lens based on how much it flares when shooting as delivered (without hood), would the manufacturer be happy, or would they say that the review isn't fair and you should use a hood to avoid lens flare? If the later, then they should include the hood.

In response to Stephens earlier reply, if CV want this to be a flagship product, then make it one by including a hood. Price it accordingly, we're not cheap (just easily irritated). Why someone would make an awesome product and then open the door to such easily avoided criticism is beyond me. That goes for ZM lenses too. Actually, I wonder if CV made the decision not to include the hood with the ZM lenses?

 

[Brooklynguy]

$108 piece of plastic? LH-8

. that manufacturers cut costs and increase profits by first not including a hood, then charging more than may want to spend on one.

. that the burden is transferred to the customer, and some customers want that burden, but most do not, b/c its just a hobby, and who wants to spend hours searching to net to save $100.

Hoods are like UV filters--some need them, some don't. I've found the Zeiss and CV bayonet hoods are made of metal and well made. They are not cheap pieces of plastic. Maybe not worth $100, but neither is anything Leica at that price either.

Certainly I can't blame Cosina/Voigtlander, just like all businesses, for wanting to increase its profits (accessories, extended warranties, doodads, etc.). Otherwise it risks failure and that would be worse IMO. Notice that the same lens in Sony mount cost $160 MORE, but it does include a hood. Generally $899 sounds much better than $1,059. I'd rather have the choice to add accessories (hoods, filters, cases, etc.) as needed/wanted.

One can also buy a fleabay threaded vented hood for a couple dollars and call it a day.

 

[fotomeow]

I doubt it will be used at night more than in the daytime. Doesn't make a difference though. If there's light to take a picture, there's light that can potentially cause flare.
In other words: When the signal is weak, a similarly weak disturbance will have a big effect.
Practically, at night there often are lights from all kinds of strange angles that shine onto one's front lens.

... and the fact that many of us leave a hood on all the time to protect the lens, b/c we don’t put filters over our front lens, .... and/or don’t like putting caps on, taking caps off, putting caps on etc etc ...

 

[fotomeow]

Hoods are like UV filters--some need them, some don't. I've found the Zeiss and CV bayonet hoods are made of metal and well made. They are not cheap pieces of plastic. Maybe not worth $100, but neither is anything Leica at that price either.

Certainly I can't blame Cosina/Voigtlander, just like all businesses, for wanting to increase its profits (accessories, extended warranties, doodads, etc.). Otherwise it risks failure and that would be worse IMO. Notice that the same lens in Sony mount cost $160 MORE, but it does include a hood. Generally $899 sounds much better than $1,059. I'd rather have the choice to add accessories (hoods, filters, cases, etc.) as needed/wanted.

One can also buy a fleabay threaded vented hood for a couple dollars and call it a day.

You are correct about the LH8, my mistake, thanks for pointing that out. I was led to believe it was a plastic POS by the treachery of my own mind.

You see, the problem was that earlier today, while selling my Lux 35/1.4 Asph, I was thinking how the hood for this phenomenal lens is plastic, with a plastic cap, and sells for about $219.

 

[CameraQuest]

I'm with John,

If the manufacturer wants it to be used with a hood then included it.

How about this scenario, if a review was to come out which bagged the lens based on how much it flares when shooting as delivered (without hood), would the manufacturer be happy, or would they say that the review isn't fair and you should use a hood to avoid lens flare? If the later, then they should include the hood.

In response to Stephens earlier reply, if CV want this to be a flagship product, then make it one by including a hood. Price it accordingly, we're not cheap (just easily irritated). Why someone would make an awesome product and then open the door to such easily avoided criticism is beyond me. That goes for ZM lenses too. Actually, I wonder if CV made the decision not to include the hood with the ZM lenses?

This is a flagship product. The 40/1.2 absolutely far outperforms ANY Leica 40mm M lens in current production! 🙂

Regardless of what decision any manufacturer makes on any product,
someone, somewhere, will not agree. oh well.

I thought the new Tesla Roadster should be faster than 1.9 seconds to 60 MPH, but NO, we are stuck with the SLOW version.

Is it better to have a lower priced lens with the vented hood optional,

or to charge everyone a higher price including the people who do not want to pay extra for the vented hood?

There is no real correct answer.

Another poster, mentioned a comparison between the hoods of the Sony mount and Leica mount,
but its a poor comparison as the hoods are of different types and costs. The M mount benefits from the more expensive vented hood, while the sony needs the less expensive straight hood.

 

[Daryl J.]

Flagship product?

I am in.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Will it be easy to find a hood for this lens of another make? It must be mounted via a special bajonet-mount. So you are forced to use the VC option I guess.

Erik.

 

[Daryl J.]

Vented 52mm screw in suitable for 35mm should get most of the work done. They run under $6 on eBay plus shipping if one is so inclined.

That being said, I have the CV hoods for my 40mm Nokton Classic and 35mm Color Skopar PII. No regrets there.

 

[borge]

The Sony E-mount version of this lens includes a metal hood, although it is on the small side... And it is a screw-in hood which makes using filters a pain. You have to screw a filter into the inside of the hood, which isn't an easy feat, cause the filter needs to be held by the glass to even make it possible, which requires proper cleaning of the filter after mounting or removing it.

The performance on the A7RIII is great, but it's no match for the Summilux 50 ASPH in regards to sharpness. The 40/1.2 is a great "mood lens" though, similar to older Noctilux f/1's. The colors are great, and the build quality seems good. Just don't use it at f/1.2 at night (high contrast light) - the amount of purple fringing at f/1.2 is quite high.

 

[Sykomor]

I thought I’d just swap muonts with my now unused 35/1.4 since I won’t be using it after the purchase of the 40/1.2. Don’t do it. I’m still struggling to get the 35 in one piece again. I’ll be filing down the mount on the 40mm when I have decided to keep it or not. For now I’ll just lock the lever in place to show the 35mm frame.

After some searching I found out that it will probably show very near what’s been captured on the negative on the M6.

 

[scautez]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone has compared this lens to the 35mm f1.2 voigtlander nokton?