CV 40/1.2 for M announced

I am interested in this lens. I planned in the past to buy the CV 35/1.2, but it looked to be too large and too heavy for what I would carry with me on trips. The 4 aspherical elements ihe 40/1.2M and the smaller size make it a great travel all-purpose first quality lens.
 
If you are concerned about size, the 40 1.4 is tiny. And this 40 1.2 lens may have aspherical elements but it still has focus shift, coma etc as demonstrated by the tests on fredmiranda.com. So it still is a 'character lens' (designed to be used wide open), but now bigger and more expensive.

This lens is really expensive for what you get. For example, Voigtlander's SL 58 1.4 is almost half the price, and is chipped and has an auto indexing aperture control.
The Voigtlander 40 1.4 is $449. Less than half of the price of the 1.2 and you gain maybe 1/4 stop for that money. You definitely are not getting a well corrected lens like a Milvus.
 
Huss said:
If you are concerned about size, the 40 1.4 is tiny. And this 40 1.2 lens may have aspherical elements but it still has focus shift, coma etc as demonstrated by the tests on fredmiranda.com. So it still is a 'character lens' (designed to be used wide open), but now bigger and more expensive.

This lens is really expensive for what you get. ...
The Voigtlander 40 1.4 is $449. Less than half of the price of the 1.2 and you gain maybe 1/4 stop for that money. You definitely are not getting a well corrected lens like a Milvus.
Click to expand...

I have the 40 F1.4, which I like very much, but am still interested in this one. (I love the 40 1.4 especially on m4/3 where it makes for a very compact short telephoto lens.) My 40 has had stiff focusing from the start. I'm not as critical about the bokeh as some others who find it harsh, but the samples of the new lens, especially in the Fred Miranda review and discussion, have a beautiful smooth bokeh that looks a lot like that of the 35 F1.2 (which I still regret passing on when I was covered a used one for a great price). The samples also show a sharper, more modern look. That said, I haven't decided if that's a good thing or not. I have the SC version of the 1.4, and kind of like the lower contrast look, and I'm not so keen on the modern look of the 50 F1.1 Nokton, which I have, but rarely use. Anyway, I'm still some time away from being able to afford it, so I have lots of time to think about it.
 
Huss said:
This lens is really expensive for what you get.
Click to expand...

But it's a rangefinder coupled M mount lens. They're almost always expensive for what you get. For example, a 50 year old Canon 1.4/50 LTM sells for about the same as a brand new Canon 1.4/50 USM.
 
CameraQuest said:
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.
Click to expand...
Curious... mine does. "Nokton Classic S.C." #95107xx brings up 50mm on M2 and Zeiss Ikon, etc, and 40mm on CLE. If it were set for 35mm frames in an M body, then that would mean 28mm frames in the CLE, not so useful. No complaints here, just a bit of mental expectation of getting a little more than I see within the frames. :)
 
interesting new lens. looks smaller than 35, which is cool considering its fast aperture. thanks to Cosina making it possible :)
 
michaelwj said:
But it's a rangefinder coupled M mount lens. They're almost always expensive for what you get. For example, a 50 year old Canon 1.4/50 LTM sells for about the same as a brand new Canon 1.4/50 USM.
Click to expand...

The Voigtlander 40 1.4 is as you know an RF coupled lens, and is $449. This 1.2 is almost triple the cost.
The difference in exposure and DOF between 1.2 and 1.4 is negligible. The 1.2 will have a different rendering, but not improved focus shift etc. You are paying for a different render, not a more perfect lens. I think it is really pricey for that.
 
Maybe I am the Odd Duck Out here, but I buy my lenses specifically for their different renderings. For example the 1.5/50 C Sonnar and old 1.5/50 Summarit render far differently at 1.5 and 2 from each other; both are different than my 3.5/50 Elmar ltm at F3.5. And I love that. It makes photography a blast.

Based on the renderings over on Fred Miranda, I could see this new lens easily becoming my most-used film lens in M mount. Period. Whether it be Velvia 50, FP4, TMax 400, Vista 200, whatever. And should I take the M-mount digital plunge someday, it would come right along.

I already use my 1.4/40 Nokton Classic SC a lot because the focal length works well with my habits. To add a "summilux-like" rendering to my kit would be simply great.

I'm pretty stoked about the news.
 
I just got mine, can't wait to try it out!

Here it is:
P1070924.JPG


P1070925.JPG


P1070927.JPG


P1070930.JPG
 
jsrockit said:
How do you like it?
Click to expand...

I like it a lot! I was out yesterday having a ball with it; it's fun!. It's like using the Voigtlander 50mm f1.1 Nokton VM lens only it's smaller and I can focus closer on objects. The 40mm focal length is a little more versitile for street photography than the 50mm.

Also, I live in a country that has a fair share of overcast cloudy days and I'm the kind of guy that likes to shoot at low ISOs (preferably between ISO 50 and 400) so a fast lens is good for me.
 
No mention of focus shift in the review I posted but elsewhere there is mention that the Sony version is affected - not an issue with live view but on a rangefinder it could be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom