Daryl J.
Well-known
I wish Tom A was around to comment.
CV 40/1.2 for M announced
- Thread starter Archlich
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 10K
Huss
Veteran
It is interesting to note that Cosina has said the Leica version is different than the Sony version so that it also works well on film.
Personally I have never met a 'digital' lens that has not worked well on film. Usually it's the other way around.
Wait - edit! - I tell a lie. Many digital lenses are full of distortion that is corrected for in camera with software. The lens on the Leica Q as well as the Summilux 50 SL.
And my Nikon 24-120 VR4 G lens. Great on digital, lousy on my F6 as film does not correct for distortion.
Personally I have never met a 'digital' lens that has not worked well on film. Usually it's the other way around.
Wait - edit! - I tell a lie. Many digital lenses are full of distortion that is corrected for in camera with software. The lens on the Leica Q as well as the Summilux 50 SL.
And my Nikon 24-120 VR4 G lens. Great on digital, lousy on my F6 as film does not correct for distortion.
I wish Tom were around.
BillBingham2
Registered User
BillBingham2
Registered User
Love the look of the new metal finder. Is the finder included?
Seems like a perfect lens for Ms. Hill.
B2 (;->
Seems like a perfect lens for Ms. Hill.
B2 (;->
bayernfan
Well-known
i've had two minolta m-rokkor 40/2 lenses milled to pull 35mm framelines. DAG does it for not much money.
def interested in this lens. would make a fantastic combo with the M6 or M7 (shrunken frame lines).
def interested in this lens. would make a fantastic combo with the M6 or M7 (shrunken frame lines).
michaelwj
----------------
I'm with Ko.Fe,
Unless Voigtlander are going to bring out another body with 40mm framelines then why? The only way to frame it would be with a modern digital M via liveview/EVF, in which case why the RF coupling?
There is already a 1.2/35 and a 1.1/50. I'd prefer them to try to make the 1.2/35 a bit smaller.
I know a set of people really like the 40mm focal length, but it is an orphaned focal length with no body, just like the 85mm ZM lenses. Sure you can use the 90mm frame, but why not just buy a 90mm?
Really guys? you are not able to mentally add the 40 frameline by expanding outside of the 50mm?
Its easy. Spend more time shooting.
Focus tab? you don't need no stinking focus tab on a lens this size.
And if it were there, it would seem very out of place.
what?
no Humphrey Bogart High Sierra fans out there?
no Humphrey Bogart High Sierra fans out there?
BillBingham2
Registered User
Huss
Veteran
Who's Humphry Bogart and what's his connection to a blazing saddle? Medical condition?
Huss
Veteran
It has really bad focus shift. See the full review here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1512530/0#14213980
This is for the Sony version, but Cosina says the formula is the same for the Leica version.
michaelwj
----------------
Shooting! You've got to be kidding! We could be spending time talking about shooting!
But seriously, expanding by how much? Do we guess, or do we burn a few rolls of film on the way? And what if we then swap between a 50 and a 40? Does it get tricky?
They're trying to sell lenses into a crowded market, so for me there's no point making my life harder than it needs to be. There are many options for a 1.4/35mm or faster so I don't need the hassle. On the other hand, they're trying to sell lenses into a crowded market so they need something different. Different strokes.
jmilkins
Digited User
Just when I was thinking of selling my Bessa R3As and Rollei 35 RF this tempter comes along! I guess 40 VF bodies might creep up in value a bit with this quite exciting new option.
When using film think I prefer the classic rendering of the older lenses like the rokkor 40/2, rollei sonar 40/2.8 or CV40 /1.4 than what the new 40/1.2 may produce. But many will differ in their tastes.
If I’d spent more time shooting, I’d know...😱
Credit to CV for keeping the Rangefinder rennaisance humming and I hope there will be plenty of people that buy this partly because they say they haven’t forgotten film users - be interesting to see examples of this illustrated.
When using film think I prefer the classic rendering of the older lenses like the rokkor 40/2, rollei sonar 40/2.8 or CV40 /1.4 than what the new 40/1.2 may produce. But many will differ in their tastes.
If I’d spent more time shooting, I’d know...😱
Credit to CV for keeping the Rangefinder rennaisance humming and I hope there will be plenty of people that buy this partly because they say they haven’t forgotten film users - be interesting to see examples of this illustrated.
taomei
Established
Omg I'm going to have to see how this reviews / fares in tests - my 40mm Sonnar HFT Rollei F2.8 doesn't want for speed during the day-time but having a low light companion like this would be a dream. I'm hoping it's not a somewhat-sterile bad-bokeh modern rendering like the 50/1.1 was.
Huss
Veteran
Erik van Straten
Veteran
It will be easy to file off a piece from the bayonet claw to bring up the 35mm frame.
Of course the 35mm framelines will be much better when using this lens than the 50mm framelines.
Erik.
Highway 61
Revisited
Sounds like truly excellent news for all M4-P and later M film bodies with 0.72 VFs and M8/M9 owners.
Filing down one of the bayonet tabs so that it displays the "35" framelines once mounted is a very easy DIY job (+1 with Erik here).
Filing down one of the bayonet tabs so that it displays the "35" framelines once mounted is a very easy DIY job (+1 with Erik here).
of course its just a matter of preference which frameline is better,
but the most common complaint of the 40/1.4
is that it does not bring up the 50 frameline.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Article
