Does anyone dislike the CV 35/1.2 ii on the A7(R/S) for IQ and Aesthetics?

[aly324]

Has anyone used and disliked the almost universally lauded CV Nokton 35/1.2 on the A7R for aesthetic reasons (and not ergonomics or weight or price)?

I don't mean to start arguments or invite rebuttals--I've used 4 copies of this lens on different bodies and am well aware of its technical merits. I also love its ergonomics and don't mind its weight whatsoever. But the images I got with it just seem to lack the nuance and inviting richness of images from my Contax and Leica lenses. I could go into more detail but here I really just want to do an informal poll of sorts.

Thanks.

 

[uhoh7]

I prefer V1:


DSC00955 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC01047-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

In some indoor situations this lens affects WB in a strange way both on M9 and A7x. But if shot raw, this is gone in PP.

I found the lens better on A7 than A7r.

But it's heavy.

 

[Darshan]

I don't know about the lens but I love this cabin of yours 🙂
Where is it located?

I prefer V1:


DSC00955 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC01047-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

[uhoh7]

LOL yes as a leica user I have cabins strewn everywhere

just as context, here is the same lens on M9:

L1020085 by unoh7, on Flickr

PS actually the 'cabin' in earlier post is a client mac mansion in ski country.

I find CV 35/1.2 best lowlight lens for me on M9, because DOF is better and it can be shot with slower shutter than a fast 50. I also have 50/1.1 which has totally different character--but I like it too.

 

[YYV_146]

IMO tonality is somewhat weaker than the Leica 35mm lenses, but Bokeh is very nice.

 

[rscheffler]

I've primarily use this lens (the v.2) on the M9 and somewhat on the M240. It's a great lens for the price. That said, I do feel its rendering is somewhat weaker than what I see from my Leica lenses. Colors don't seem as lush/rich. Nor does it have the pop of many of the Zeiss ZMs I've tried. I'm very curious to try the new ZM35/1.4 in comparison...

 

[aly324]

IMO tonality is somewhat weaker than the Leica 35mm lenses, but Bokeh is very nice.

I agree. Everything else was fine--bokeh, price, ergonomics, resolution. Coma handling better than my older Contax and Lux, barrel distortion at close focus a bit stronger, but all fine. Default 0.5m MFD was great.

It was the tonality that turned me off, and I'm glad I'm not the only one. What do you mean by "weak"?

My experience is that colors from the Nokton and A7R combo (don't know about Leica M) tend to be untrue--either too bright or too drab. Certain colors tend to be exaggerated at the expense of others. And those colors tend to look flat and lifeless, as if missing some subtle transitional tones.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but I do know it was consistently true in the results I got--results that my Contax and Leica lenses never produced.

My experience with the CV 21/1.8 and 40/1.4 was similar.

 

[aly324]

Thanks Ron. Echoes my experience.

Likewise interested in the upcoming ZM, although I hear corners and edges on the A7R may not be so hot.

 

[aly324]

I prefer V1:

In some indoor situations this lens affects WB in a strange way both on M9 and A7x. But if shot raw, this is gone in PP.

I found the lens better on A7 than A7r.

Thanks uhoh. I tried the v2 on my girlfriend's A7 casually, and didn't notice any big difference.

Re: the WB weirdness, the v2 seemed to cause WB weirdness on the A7R even outdoors. I remember getting chemical blues in evening skies, for example. That's part of what I meant by "certain colors get exaggerated."

 

[aly324]

This illustrates what I found consistently so weird about the CV's color response...

Shot RAW on the A7R, on auto WB, and processed in Lightroom using the default "medium contrast curve" setting.

The primary colors seem to get exaggerated and flattened to a monotone, and then the rest looks drab.

I do admit to being a rather impatient and inexperienced Photoshopper, though.

And this was probably an objectively crappy scene. Still, I don't think it looked like this to me at the time, and I've never seen such weird colors from my Contax's and Leicas.

 

[YYV_146]

I agree. Everything else was fine--bokeh, price, ergonomics, resolution. Coma handling better than my older Contax and Lux, barrel distortion at close focus a bit stronger, but all fine. Default 0.5m MFD was great.

It was the tonality that turned me off, and I'm glad I'm not the only one. What do you mean by "weak"?

My experience is that colors from the Nokton and A7R combo (don't know about Leica M) tend to be untrue--either too bright or too drab. Certain colors tend to be exaggerated at the expense of others. And those colors tend to look flat and lifeless, as if missing some subtle transitional tones.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but I do know it was consistently true in the results I got--results that my Contax and Leica lenses never produced.

My experience with the CV 21/1.8 and 40/1.4 was similar.

People tell me it's the "Voigtlander draw". I certainly noticed the same with the CV 50 1.5 ASPH, and to a limited degree the 12mm F5.6. Perhaps the designers actually wanted this to be the styling of their lenses?

The contrast delivered by the lenses are too strong, and require robust processing to fix. OOC output really cannot compare to Leica's. That's one of the reasons I've shifted away from CV to modern M lenses - the output is definitely more preferable.

 

[aly324]

People tell me it's the "Voigtlander draw". I certainly noticed the same with the CV 50 1.5 ASPH, and to a limited degree the 12mm F5.6. Perhaps the designers actually wanted this to be the styling of their lenses?

The contrast delivered by the lenses are too strong, and require robust processing to fix. OOC output really cannot compare to Leica's. That's one of the reasons I've shifted away from CV to modern M lenses - the output is definitely more preferable.

I think you're right. I was watching from GH4 videos shot with the f/0.95 CV lenses, and I immediately recognized the "Voigtlander draw." Another consistency I seem to notice is a certain "wooly," uncommitted rendition of things that are OOF but not very OOF. It's different (and imo less pleasant) than the cut planes of modern asph Leicas, but also from the busy (but classic-looking and not unattractive) background rendition of my Mandler R 35 and 80 at smallish apertures and far-ish focal distances.

For me the 35/1.2 was definitely too macro-contrasty on the A7R. But I'm often surprised to read that some other users find it not contrasty enough at large apertures.

Cynically, I wonder if it's simply that CV prioritizes certain trendier and/or more easily observable qualities -- particularly bokeh and resolution -- at the expense of subtler ones, which I presume depend on fancier and more expensive glass and coatings.

Do CV-made Zeiss lenses share the qualities of the "Voigtlander draw" (I've only used Contax Zeiss)? If they don't, then perhaps the "Voigtlander draw" is indeed by design--a way for CV to differentiate its look from Zeiss and Leica.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[mcfingon]

I have a CV 50/2.5 and two ZM's made by CV, a 50 Planar f2 and 50 Sonnar f1.5. They do not look the same at all in their rendering. The Zeiss look is more contrasty and gives more clear-cut shapes, giving really dark blacks which lead to the 3D pop that people speak about.

 

[Turtle]

My CV 35 1.2 II is significantly lower contrast than any of my modern Leica lenses, from Summarit-M up to 24 Lux and 28 Elmarit-asph. The MK 1 is lower in contrast still.

I'd suggest shooting identical scenes with both and the lower contrast of the CV should be pretty obvious. Colours are less saturated with the CV 35 1.2 (both versions) as well.

As for out of focus areas, personally, I find the CV 35 1.2 far nicer looking than any Leica lens I own aside from the 35 Summarit-M, which is smooth as a baby's bottom.

I can't speak for the 50mm 1.5 CV, but I also have the 35mm f2.5 pancake II and it has no more contrast than the 35mm Summarit-M. My 21mm and 25mm P lenses are about the same and I'd put them a notch below lenses like the 28 Elmarit asph or ZM biogons for contrast.

Bokeh of the 35mm f1.2 is not quite as lovely on the A7 as on the M, but its a tremendous performer a few stops down and the contrast is comparable to my old FDn lenses and not nearly as high as my Leica asphs or native Sony Zeiss FE lenses (35 and 55).

 

[aly324]

We may be talking about different kinds of contrast. On the A7R I've used Lux R 35, Lux M 35 pre-FLE, Contax 35 1.4 -- the CV had by far the strangest and least attractive colors (as in the sample I posted above). It's as if the subtle tonal transitions were missing, and the colors look muffled. I don't know if this happens on the M too, but I often recognize it in photos taken with the CV on the A7R. If this means it lacks "micro-contrast," then I'd call it low contrast indeed.

I like both punchy modern high contrast (like the ZM 50/2) and vintage-ish lower contrast (like the 35's I mentioned above), but to me the CV is neither. That's the problem I've been trying to articulate. Its OOF rendition is fine, I agree.

My own pet theory now is that the CV's coatings/glass don't handle high contrast lighting conditions as well... such that although it may have low contrast, it gets overwhelmed more easily and "blows out," which gives an impression of contrastiness. IDK if this makes any sense, but if there's something to it, it may also explain why some people find it too contrasty and others not.