Cv 40/1.4

[Doug]

You could ask Sean about his reasoning...

 

[ferider]

Any update Dan ? How do you like it ?

Unattractive bokeh for one person is lovely for the next...

For me, if I could keep only one lens of the ones I own - it would be this one (50/2 Heliar, 50/1.5 Nokton, 35/2.5, J-8. I-61, I-22, summitar...).

I'm with Kully. Great lens, and optically very good. Nice bokeh too, wide
open, better than the "bokeh king" IMO, but YMMV. Almost every
lens can be used to create the "bad bokeh" examples that have been
shown on-line, I have even seen 50/1.4 Summilux shots that look similar.

Here is a bokeh shot:

Crop for sharpness:

I love the fact that it focuses down to .7m.

It does slightly vignette under certain conditions. Still haven't figured
out when exactly. For example:

Roland.

 

[dostacos]

I like it, I took it out on a snap shot trip [no art involved, just shots at a conference] but I liked the way it handles could not make the LA meet, [honey do's] but I like it, used it on the 35 framelines

 

[Xmas]

I shoot while wearing glasses and have a hard time seeing the 35mm lines in my M4. As a result I use the 50mm lines and frame a little tighter than usual. The 40mm f/1.4 is a damn fine lens, and have been using it more than my old pre-asph 35mm Lux. Great for available darkness shooting......

Here's a shot at f/1.4 and 1 second, handheld.... Was resting my elbows on a wall for a little extra support. Film was 400asa Fuji.

Glenn

Were you using a filter?

Noel

 

[Xmas]

Any update Dan ? How do you like it ?



I'm with Kully. Great lens, and optically very good. Nice bokeh too, wide
open, better than the "bokeh king" IMO, but YMMV. Almost every
lens can be used to create the "bad bokeh" examples that have been
shown on-line, I have even seen 50/1.4 Summilux shots that look similar.

Here is a bokeh shot:

Crop for sharpness:

I love the fact that it focuses down to .7m.

It does slightly vignette under certain conditions. Still haven't figured
out when exactly. For example:

Roland.

Roland
Were you using a hood?
Noel

 

[Glenn2]

Were you using a filter?

Noel

Nope! No filter, and no lens hood either. Am finding that I've been leaving my Leitz glass at home and often take just the 40mm CV along with a 15mm to keep it company. East is east, and west is west, and the twain meet quite well.... ;-)

It makes for a very compact camera that goes under a jacket without producing too big a bulge.

Glenn

 

[kshapero]

I use 50mm cause I wear glasses.

 

[Xmas]

Nope! No filter, and no lens hood either. Am finding that I've been leaving my Leitz glass at home and often take just the 40mm CV along with a 15mm to keep it company. East is east, and west is west, and the twain meet quite well.... ;-)

It makes for a very compact camera that goes under a jacket without producing too big a bulge.

Glenn

I asked because of the star points you were getting on the lights, the two lenses I have used in the past were/are worse, current lens on trials is a canon 35mm f/2, it is so good so far dont want to risk damage. But I know filters can cause problems, with lights.

The advantage of a SLR was you knew whan you had to take off the filter. You could then lock up the mirror and take the shot, ok if it was static.

Noel

 

[jdos2]

Right now, I'm using a Summicron-C 40mm, as my 40mm f/1.4 has gone back to Japan for adjustment (back focus).

I use the 35mm framelines for guidance, but only as guidance, as most of what I shoot is closer than the "6 meters" I've seen referenced as to where the 35mm framelines and field of view of the 40mm coincide.

So... 50 close up, 35 for the rest, comparing the two. The way I hold the M8 makes that easy.

 

[erikhaugsby]

I've got a 28 Rokkor, but never have felt a need to buy an external VF when I've got 35 framelines on my M2. If anything else, using "longer" framelines only ensures that I have everything I want in my picture. Using a "shorter" framelines leaves the possibility of inadvertently missing a part of the picture that was intended to be taken, but the longer lens didn't see it.

 

[jsuominen]

I bought recently a Rollei Sonnar 40mm/2.8 and I have been using it mostly with 1:1 50mm external finder with Bessa T. I also have a CV 28/35 finder, but it gives me more errors with 40mm lens, because I sometimes use 28mm frames by accident, when I'm in hurry... 🙂

My 40mm/2.8 photos are here at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/40mm28/

 

[Didier]

This 40 mm 1,4 seems like a practical proposition. It is flat and compact and very fast. But how is the opical qualities? What I have heard,- correct me if I am wrong, is that the 40 mm 1,4 has been tested by Sean Reid and have been found to have a rather mediocre optical quality. One of the poorest for the Leica M system. Comments..?

Check the archive, there are lots of threads about that lens, like this one for instance. The lens is IMO better than Reid says, it's sharp and contrasty, only the bokeh of background highlights below f2 is doubtable.
Didier

 

[ferider]

Didier I have seen your posts in the thread that you mention.

I am coming to believe that newer versions of the lens behave
better than older ones - there is a documented mechanical update at
least.

WRT wide open bokeh, the lens shows the slightest bit of coma and
donuts in extreme situation - but so do other lenses including the Leitz
Summicron 35/2.

Roland.

PS: I'm sure you have seen this, but two older pictures from my test
(with relatively new lenses):