There was a lot of flack going on over at dpreview how c-mount lenses would be just as good and cheaper. But looking at the results on Steve's page, I'm not sure a c-mount lens has that good of quality.
Interesting to compare this lens to the CV Nokton 50/1.1. No doubt the CV is sharper and better corrected, but the Noktor goes to f/0.95 and has a more unique character. I wonder how the Noktor performs at f/1.4.
Is there any advantage of an native m4/3 manual lens like this one, over a Voigtlander M mount lens mounted on a m4/3 camera via adapter? The M to m4/3 adapters are all pretty thin, so they don't add any bulk.
the image circle of a voigtlander lens must cover a full frame sensor, so the glass must be much bigger and the housing must be heavier,
the m 4\3 sensor is 1\4 the size of full frame no giant image circle to waste, less glass less money less size
compare the size of a 0.95 lens for the 2 formats ......i think ill go do that presently....
I don't like the bokeh, I think I'd rather spend my hard won wages on a slower more pleasing lens, I suppose there are some who have to have it, not keen on the fluorescent green/yellow makings either...
The bokeh reminds me of some of my Contax lenses with that 'Ninja Star' effect, this drives me mad and would pigeon hole the lens purely for wide open work ( well why else would you buy it )