OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,735
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've been following the rather slow moving Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 SE thread on Fred Miranda...
Reviews seem few and far between but this one caught my attention...
sonyalpha.blog
I'm undecided on this one. I bought the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 when it came out and then got the 35mm f1.4 when that came out and since getting that I've hardly used the 40mm as the 35mm f1.4 is much smaller and lighter and it's 35mm not 40mm. I also got the 50mm f2 and that is IMO a simply outstanding lens.
I started getting these because I wanted a couple of quality modern Sony mount MF lenses and in reality that's quite a limited list to choose from and I prefer the Voigtlanders over the Zeiss as I prefer the styling and handing of the Voigtlanders. I have thought about selling the 40mm f1.2 as it just isn't getting used but what stops me is that the 35mm f1.4 is poor in the corners and can give a very nervous and funky look at its widest apertures whereas the 40mm gives a much more modern and neutral look and is better into the extremes of the frame. So, the 35mm f1.2 could potentially replace my 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2 but from what I've seen of this new lens performance across the frame and into the corners is at best adequate and downright poor compared to some modern AF lenses, bokeh is ok but nothing too special and ca is awful in some situations. Also, although the 35mm f1.4 can be funky at f1.x it is very compact and I just love using it and I do really like the look it gives when stopped down a bit. This stopped down look is IMO sometimes maybe under appreciated as people look at the more obvious wide aperture bokeh look.
So, from what I've seen so far I'm not blown away by this new 35mm f1.2 but I can't quite completely discount it yet. I suppose I should just keep what I have, the 35mm f1.4 for when I want a compact and sometimes characterful lens and the 40mm f1.2 when I want a more modern look at wide apertures but I've convinced myself that I can tell the difference between 35 and 40mm and I prefer 35. I will keep the 50mm as it's a completely different lens from the 35 or 40mm ones.
Hmmm. First world problems. Sorry to go on
PS.
Another thing is that some old film era lenses are very good stopped down a bit even in comparison to modern lenses. A good example being that Nikon 50mm pancake which is IMO very good and even quite compact when used with an adapter, the only question mark against it being performance at f1.8 and nervous bokeh compared to much newer and much bigger and heavier modern lenses.
Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton Aspherical Review
www.fredmiranda.com
Reviews seem few and far between but this one caught my attention...
Sony Alpha Blog : Voigtländer 35mm F1.2 Nokton SE
in Blue English / en noir en Français Presentation Optical performances / Performances optiques Video Samples photos / Exemples de photos Conclusion Thanks to PCH store in Brussels I could test th…
sonyalpha.blog
I'm undecided on this one. I bought the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 when it came out and then got the 35mm f1.4 when that came out and since getting that I've hardly used the 40mm as the 35mm f1.4 is much smaller and lighter and it's 35mm not 40mm. I also got the 50mm f2 and that is IMO a simply outstanding lens.
I started getting these because I wanted a couple of quality modern Sony mount MF lenses and in reality that's quite a limited list to choose from and I prefer the Voigtlanders over the Zeiss as I prefer the styling and handing of the Voigtlanders. I have thought about selling the 40mm f1.2 as it just isn't getting used but what stops me is that the 35mm f1.4 is poor in the corners and can give a very nervous and funky look at its widest apertures whereas the 40mm gives a much more modern and neutral look and is better into the extremes of the frame. So, the 35mm f1.2 could potentially replace my 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2 but from what I've seen of this new lens performance across the frame and into the corners is at best adequate and downright poor compared to some modern AF lenses, bokeh is ok but nothing too special and ca is awful in some situations. Also, although the 35mm f1.4 can be funky at f1.x it is very compact and I just love using it and I do really like the look it gives when stopped down a bit. This stopped down look is IMO sometimes maybe under appreciated as people look at the more obvious wide aperture bokeh look.
So, from what I've seen so far I'm not blown away by this new 35mm f1.2 but I can't quite completely discount it yet. I suppose I should just keep what I have, the 35mm f1.4 for when I want a compact and sometimes characterful lens and the 40mm f1.2 when I want a more modern look at wide apertures but I've convinced myself that I can tell the difference between 35 and 40mm and I prefer 35. I will keep the 50mm as it's a completely different lens from the 35 or 40mm ones.
Hmmm. First world problems. Sorry to go on
PS.
Another thing is that some old film era lenses are very good stopped down a bit even in comparison to modern lenses. A good example being that Nikon 50mm pancake which is IMO very good and even quite compact when used with an adapter, the only question mark against it being performance at f1.8 and nervous bokeh compared to much newer and much bigger and heavier modern lenses.
Last edited:
DSC03461
Darkness
On the Edge
West Pier Ruins
Social Distanting Glasses
Shaking Stevens
The Reflection
Brighton Palace Pier
Flee the coming storm
