Question: Who's Got a CV 40/1.4 and How Is It at Full Aperture?

[ranger9]

Okay, I got on here hours ago to ask this question and got sidetracked reading Jason Schneider articles, so finally: who owns a Cosina Voigtlander 40/1.4 and what do you think of it, especially in terms of full-aperture performance?

Why I'm asking: I'm thinking that for 2022 I should get a frequent-use lens specifically for my Pixii A1571 (on the well-known principle that if you've got a temperamental French girlfriend, you need to buy her presents.)

I've been pleasantly surprised with the results on the Pixii from my plebeian 7Artisans 35mm f/2, but I'd like something with a wider maximum aperture, and I like the idea of the 40mm focal length (which is a longish "normal" on the Pixii) partly because I'm an introvert and partly because I could also use it on my Bessa R3M film camera, for which 40mm is the widest frameline.

The obvious choice would be the CV 40mm f/1.2 lens, which seems to have a great rep for full-aperture performance. Unfortunately, according to my own dodgily-researched what-fits chart, this lens would sing the Too Fat Polka on the Pixii... it's 43.3mm long and 60.8mm in diameter, which means it would intrude into the rangefinder window even at infinity focus.

So the next-most-obvious choice is the CV 40/1.4, which has no fitment problems because it's 55mm in diameter and only 29.7mm long. But... what concerns me about this lens is the following line from the Head Bartender's website: "With a great bokeh and great look wide open, it sharpens up by f/4."

Well, a "great look" is fine, but what I want is a lens that's usably sharp wide open, not just by f/4. And by "sharp" I mean, for example, crisply-differentiated eyelashes on people's faces at a distance of 1 meter or so on a 26-megapixel digital file.

So, who's got this lens and can tell me whether it's up to this, or whether it's just another lens with mushy "vintage-look" full-aperture performance? I've already got plenty of those...


And if the 40/1.4 gets the raspberry from the collective wisdom of RFF, is the 35mm f/1.4 Nokton II any better? Of this one, the Head Bartender says: "...moody 1970's vintage look, by 5.6 it sharpens up to look like a modern sharp lens..." which doesn't sound like a step forward...

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I like the 40/f1.4 and really enjoy its rendering wide open, but it’s certainly a ‘classic’ type lens. As is the 35/f1.4. If crispy eye lashes wide-open on high-res digital is your aim I wouldn’t look at either of the f1.4 Noktons.

Perhaps the recently discontinued (but still available new) 35/f1.7 Ultron might be more to your liking? It is a much more modern optical design with very high performance. Might obstruct the finder a little bit though.

 

[ranger9]

Thanks, I really appreciate the honest answer!

The 35/1.7 Ultron sounds like a good thought (I used to have the screwmount version and recall it as very sharp) but I don't know that the 1/3-stop difference between that and f/2 is significant enough... might almost as well go with the newer 35/2 Ultron II Aspheric, by which Matt Osborn was very impressed.

I'm even tempted to take a flyer on the TTArtisan 35/1.4, but none of the reviews I've read seem at all enthusiastic about its full-aperture performance. The 35/1.4 7Artisans Wen (which is a completely different lens) looks to be too long to be Pixii-friendly.

Heck, maybe I should just keep my money in my pocket and stick with the 7Artisans 35/2! Being a Sonnar-based design, it has its flaws, but it's centrally sharp and I've had it long enough for it to be a known quantity.

Unless anybody else has any nominations for an f/1.4-ish 35 or 40 in M mount with good full-aperture performance and a Voigtlander-range-or-less price tag...?

 

[scautez]

I have had the 40mm f1.4 nokton for about a year and used it only on film, but I actually really like the rendering of the lens. It is not clinically sharp as most modern lenses, but has that "character" look. I think it depends on your use of the lens and the look you want to achieve as to what lens might be best suited. If you want a more modern sharp centre wide open perhaps consider the 35mm f1.7 voigtlander...that is a sharp lens and not as big as the 1.2 variants. But if you would be happy with a more "classic" look then the nokton may impress you. I recommend checking out Mr Leica's pages, pics, and video on using this lens. He used it for years for portraits. That will give you a great idea of what you will get at 1.4. Also, if you want to stick to 40mm there is the 40mm rokkor and 40mm summicron lenses that give a more even performance. Good luck!

 

[Dogman]

I have a 40/1.4 adapted to my Fuji XPro bodies. It's the S.C. version and I love it. But I did not want a modern look. I get that with Fuji lenses. My desire was for a lens with character and the 40 fills that requirement. I also have a selection of Chinese lenses that have all the "good" aberrations...the ones that give character more than precision.

The 40mm is sharp at ƒ/1.4 but it's "sharp/soft", which I really like. It's not razor/tack/pin sharp. To my eyes, it's excellent by ƒ/2.8 and plenty good at ƒ/2. I suspect the M.C. version of it would have more snap if you want a more modern look but still keep the classic edge.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I've owned three examples of the 40mm Nokton f/1.4. The first two were MC versions (used on a Leica M film camera); the 3rd one was the SC version. It's been awhile, but I found the MC version to be sharp enough wide-open (both examples) - I just couldn't get into the 40mm FL at the time. The last copy (SC) was terrible - far too much "character" for my taste (but that was on digital).

I currently own the CV 40mm Nokton f/1.2 and it's far better on digital. It's sharp wide-open and it renders fabulously. IMHO, if used on digital it's worth the price difference. However, if you're shooting film you might be just as happy with the Nokton f/1.4 MC; it's not as sharp wide-open compared to the f/1.2, but it renders well on film.

 

[qqphotos]

I have the 40mm f/1.4 SC version, which I mostly use as the standard lens on a CL. It's totally acceptable stopped down a little, and wide open it's a bit flat and has lots of coma etc, while the center isn't awful. On digital (sony a7r3) it produces a noticeable yellow-blue color balance shift from center to corners which needs correcting, and seems to have more dropoff than on film. I assume this has to do with incidence angle with the sony sensor, but I don't know.

I also have the 40mm f/1.2 which is a very different lens both on film and digital. On digital there's no color shift and it's decently sharp in the center even wide open. I've never had a rangefinder that could focus accurately enough to shoot a f/1.2 lens wide open, but stopped down it's fantastic on my M2, very nice contrast, good rendering and bokeh is pleasant. It's just kind of bulky and heavy for a lens where you can't really use the wide apertures anyway.

 

[ranger9]

Thanks for all these great comments. I'd be all over that 40/1.2 in a heartbeat, except that according to the specs listed on the Voigtlander.de website and this little chart I made, it's a bit too thicc to use on my Pixii A1571 camera without risk of cutting into the rangefinder window, and qq's comment above suggests that the Pixii's short-base rangefinder probably would struggle to focus it accurately at full aperture and close distances.

So I guess I'll be sticking with my little 7Artisans 35/2 for now, and see what the future might bring...

 

[Dogman]

Here's a couple of shots from the 40/1.4 lens. Both on a Fuji X-Pro2.

The first is at maximum aperture: ƒ/1.4, focused on the eyes (what eyes I could see on her).


This was at ƒ/2 or ƒ/2.8 and it sharpens up here.



Sorry for the dark setting. It's what I have readily on hand. The subject is a Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier and her hair doesn't show sharpness with any lens. Plus I always process the files to my taste and that's to reduce what I consider too much sharpness and to emphasize the tones over the textures. The 40/1.4 does what I want it to but it may not be your cup of tea.

 

[peterm1]

I like it.
Nice colours, nice bokeh and as sharp as you might reasonably wish at full aperture (as here). I would not regard it as unacceptably sharp full open - its perfectly suited to portraits with enough sharpness to satisfy me at least - though arguably here I have focused more one the subjects nose rather than her eyes. This is my fault and is a product of the difficulty that I found in focusing using the rear LCD screen on the old Panasonic DMC GF-1 which I just happened to use on that day.
This is the multi coated version of the lens. I eventually traded mine for a copy of the V1 version of the CV 35mm f1.2, more out of curiosity than anything else. I would happily own both.


Fiefy by Life in Shadows, on Flickr