Interesting. The Nokton 25mm and m.ZD 45mm are my two main lenses and that hasn't been my experience in real world use (never tested it properly though...)

__________________
At first blush I am tempted to conclude that a satisfactory hobby must be in large degree useless, inefficient, laborious, or irrelevant. - Aldo Leopold

EM5 + Lumix 7-14/f4 + m.ZD 12/f2 + Nokton 25/f0.95 + m.ZD 45/f1.8 + SMC-M 50/f1.4 + m.ZD 75/f1.8
Flickr
Hiking blog

Hmm, that's interesting. It wouldn't be that you don't notice because you'd normally use the 45 at a longer distance to your subject? I know that's fairly simplistic notion, just throwing it out there.

You can give it a try with something a few yards away.

__________________
GX1 - OM-D E-M5 - Lumix G 7-14 | 12-35 | 20 | 35-100 - Samyang 7.5 - 500px

I went to the store to see how the CV25 feels on the OM-D with the horizontal grip. I can definitely feel the weight of the lens.

It may feel like it has razor thin DoF because the focus ring is very fast between 2m and infinity. Focus ring has a lot of travel between minimum and 2m, so it makes it easy to focus on close subjects.

At first I only tried it out at 0.95 as it's obviously more difficult to focus like that. Then I stopped it down to f2 or 2.8 and then f4. It's clear how much sharper it is at f2 onwards...

I also noticed something odd when I was in magnified view 14x, the IBIS was working but slightly shaky (like slight erratic jumping). Maybe it was the way I was holding it since it's heavier than what I normally use? It was hard to focus at 14x because of that, I went to 10 & 5x. It's definitely something that I've never experienced with AF lenses in magnified view.

I've got some thinking to do...

__________________
GX1 - OM-D E-M5 - Lumix G 7-14 | 12-35 | 20 | 35-100 - Samyang 7.5 - 500px

That's one thing I notice, a lot of people complain about the CV 25mm being soft at the largest apertures but that hasn't been my experience. I feel like it's plenty sharp even at f/0.95 - for the (small) in-focus area. I'm not really a pixel peeper so maybe I'm just not picky enough though

__________________
500px | flickr

“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.” -- Dorothea Lange

I'm surprised to hear that, we both have the Oly 45 & the 7-14 which are as sharp as a 16MP 4/3 sensor could need, IMO. This copy that I tested at the store is not very sharp wide open. I have other photos that look like that, but this couple exemplifies it.

I can't tell myself that it's sharp wide open when the photos look like this, first 0.95, first at f/2 or 2.8. Focus is somewhere on the Sigma 10-22 or on its label in the first image. Wherever focus is, something should be in focus as there's depth to the frame and it's at 1/1000, no motion blur excuses. These are crops from the center.

At f0.95 - P7171752-2.jpg

At f2 or 2.8 - P7171753-2.jpg

It's sort of like using ISO 12800 or 25600 and then using a lot of NR... But the OOF areas look very nice.

P.S.: I don't know what the variation between copies is like, but to me it looks somewhat soft if you'd need to use the 1:1 photo. Of course at 1/4 size it's perfectly fine. Gets a little tougher to justify it over the PL25 (that I usually advocate against when it's compared to the 20)

__________________
GX1 - OM-D E-M5 - Lumix G 7-14 | 12-35 | 20 | 35-100 - Samyang 7.5 - 500px

It is soft at wide open. But for posting online, it doesn't make any difference.

I shoot mine at f1.4 usually.

Softness wide open need not be a major issue; my Zeiss 50/1.4 is hardly the sharpest lens in the arsenal until about 2.8, but it renders so beautifully that it doesn't matter much to me.

__________________
EOS: 5DII, 30DIR, 24-105L, 35L, 135L, 15/2.8 FE, Σ 50/1.4, Σ 105/2.8 macro
Mu43: GF2, E-M5, P14/2.5, P20/1.7, O45/1.8, P7-14, O12-50, P12-35, P100-300
Legacy: Contax Zeiss 50/1.4, 35/2.8, Leica R 50/2.0, 28/2.8, Pentax 50/1.7