Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95 versus Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2

Started Mar 3, 2014 | Discussions thread
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 34,421
Re: Voigtlander 40mm f1.4?

jeffharris wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

For those of us who have IBIS.

Is AF really worth $600 and a 37% loss in light-gathering ability?

Is the Voigtlander usable in the f/0.95-f/1.2 range?

Why not throw the rather nice Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 Classic into the ring?

Smaller, quite capable and not too far away in the specifications. All manual and no IS of course but f1.4 is not to be sneezed at.

Quite a lot cheaper as well.

Possibly. I have the Voigtländer 35mm f1.4, but I can tell you that while the 35mm (by all accounts the 40mm is similar) is a very good lens, sized perfectly for M4/3 bodies even with the lens adaptor, the rendering isn't quite as nice as the 42.5mm and there's really no replacing f0.95 with f1.4. The 42.5mm also focuses down to 9" which I've found extremely

Jeff

I am not advocating the CV 40/1.4 LM as a direct replacement for the the other two lenses. I do like mine and I have had it for a while.

But am still on the market for the Nocticron for its AF and OIS which, combined with the type of glass one hopes to get for the extra entry price would make it a very happy combo on the GM1. In fact the lens itself pulled me into M4/3.

I can see the appeal of the PL42.5mm, but I just love solidly built manual lenses.

However those that like the idea of a good fast 40-something but don't want to spend quite as much there is another smaller and quite capable near-alternative.

That makes sense, I guess I was a bit vague, but I thought I was sort of saying the same thing as far as the Voigtländer 35/40 f1.4s go. They're great little lenses and a nice match for the system.

As a once and continuing Ricoh fan I aso have the Ricoh LTM 28mm f2.8 which is a relatively rare bird as one of only 10,000 or so made and mainly sold in Japan. It is also a lens of high standard. And of course the obligatory CV 15mm f4.5 that "everyone" has, but I could not bring myself to the funding necessary for the CV 12mm f5.6 and there are no second hand bargains in that particular lens. All of these of course are pre-GM1 but an adapter of ttwo and they are happily living in M4/3 land.

This of course is the beauty of having mount-independence and the danger of locking oneself into the M4/3 mount system by acquiring dedicated lenses. The fact that I have done this already and seem continuing to do so is more a tribute to the GM1 itself aas a very fine camera than to my continuing common sense.

True common sense says buy LM or LTM MF lenses and if ever another mount system beckons then an adapter in hand, you can easily move on - all the way to FF if that is the light that interests you.

Nikon F mount lenses are another way to go. I've got a bunch. Although, L and M mounts do make a bit more sense in terms of general size and flange distance vs. Nikon.

As you say, if I ever decide to experiment with a different format all I'll need are a few lens adaptors and I'm set.

As a long time Nikon user, I'd love to see Nikon release a real, full-bore 135 format mirrorless camera, but I fear they're so calcified the wait may be a long and pointless one. I guess a Sony A7r version 2 may have to suffice.

I have plenty of lenses I can use it is more wondering which one I will take today.  For some reason I get a kick out of the weird ones - like the Russian Industar-61L/Z which is a close focus 50/2.8 in M42 format and looks nothing like the better known Industar-61L/D which is a completely different shape and LTM mount.  They must use the same lens formula.  Hardly surprising that the Russian lens naming system confuses most.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow