p.4 #1 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
Andrew Gough wrote:
Yes, but most RF lenses are the rear focus type, hence the problem. It is a common assumption that lenses only come in two flavours, fixed helicoid and FLE, but this is not true. Most modern lenses are a fixed front group and a rear group that moves for focus. Because of this, the lens to sensor distance is as important as in a FLE lens.
Think about it this way, lenses do not just develop field curvature, it is a function of lens design. Placing a lens on a different sensor has absolutely not effect upon field curvature assuming the registry distance is correct. With a fixed lens group on a helicoid you are correct, there is nor "real" change. But change the distance on a FLE or rear focussing group lens and what happens - field curvature and focussing issues. you are attempting to focus the lens at a distance registry that does not correspond to the actual distance, this is why you distance scale does not match. Because the lens designer has optimized the filed curvature at given distances using the focussing group vs the sensor, moving the sensor(or lens placement via a poor adapter) throws the whole equation off.
Which rangefinder lenses are you specifically talking about? In all 10 rangefinder lenses that I've owned, the front elements extend when focused, and the rear elements move in unison (I don't any FLE lenses.)
It seems to me that the more things in front of the sensor, like AA and IR filter, the more chance for refraction to occur. So, it's not necessarily the sensor that's the problem, but the toppings, like the Zeiss paper alludes to.
p.4 #2 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
uhoh7 wrote:
re cron vs zeiss 2.8
One half the light.
There is no comparison at all. If you cannot see the huge dif between 2 & 2.8......You need another lens completely for indoor stuff
And 28 Cron is had for 2800, no need to spend 4 k--why does everybody scream 4k! 4k!?
You say it's a character lens and has no character on nex? A rash statement.
Frankly, u seemed to have utterly flipped out on the whole subject
I love the "28 cron is last lens I'd rec, get 24 summi, though i don't own or have never tried it"
But it's always good to see all sides and I like ur crops and nice comparisons w excellent zeiss
thank god rational sebboh is around to defend my "precious" . I could have said the same but i suspect you'd have scoffed.
The truth is that all things considered--putting price aside--but looking at footprint, sharpness, character together the 28 cron is probably the best normal lens available for the nex--bar none. It's EFL hits the definition of "normal" square on the head. It goes in your pocket. It's sharp----say what you want--it may or may not be ultimate. It is very sweet in character.
As to the money---it's not wasted, it's in the bank. And if the lens can replace a bunch of others its even more valuable---you don't have to think, what's my normal? You have it. That, my friend denior, is priceless....Show more →
Or it could be that I actually know what I'm talking about as I have the lenses and cameras in question The really good thing with having owned many cameras and lenses is that you after a while lose the "buyer's bias" and can look at them objectively.
I know it is ruthless and not very kind. People that have made or are planning to make a major investment do not like to hear that it's a bad one. However given precisely that it is a major investment for most, I think an objective evaluation is better than a romantic fantasy about the magical properties of one lens or another. It's not arrogance, it's simply sharing my experience in the hope it might be useful. I've received such useful information from others on this forum and elsewhere and this is my way of reciprocating.
There are two major arguments against the 28 Cron on a NEX and it ties into a third one. The first one is that contrary to what seems to be the popular belief here, it's not brilliant when it comes to raw optical performance. It's very good, but not as good as the best wide angles. The second argument is that the distinct signature of this lens comes from what goes on at the edges of the frame - namely its characteristic vignetting. It's not a usual subject of discussion but vignetting is as unique as bokeh and as difficult to replicate in post processing. On a crop camera you just get the middle of the frame. The final argument that it all ties into is the price. It's a very expensive lens and gives very poor value for money.
I brought up the ZM 25 as it does not have those three problems. It is an extremely high performance lens. It has flat rendering on FF as well, so not much is lost when using a cropper. It is affordable. It also focuses much closer than the 28 Cron. Yes, it's not f/2, but if you are looking for an 28/2 a more reasonable choice would be the CV 28/2 Ultron - at 1/8th of the price of a Cron. Yes, it's not quite as good, but the value for money is much better.
The whole value for money thing is relevant. I see people saving up for a long time to get one Leica M lens attributing all sorts of magical properties to it and then placing it on an APS-C camera. The only two possible outcomes are disappointment or self delusion - and there are much cheaper ways of getting either
If value for money wasn't an issue then this discussion would be superfluous as you'd be using the lens on a camera that it was designed for - an M rangefinder. Or to be more specific, the M9.
If you want an analogy, it's like buying $100,000 Formula 1 tires and mount them on a Chevrolet Impala. The benefit will be very slight and the cost ridiculous for what you get.
As for the resale value you are hinting at, don't count on Leica prices being so inflated indefinitely. They're currently building new factories and the production rates will increase dramatically over the next few years. Unless you plan to sell very soon, a Leica lens is not a good investment.
Edit: I should add that I did not know you had already bought it. I thought you were considering buying it. Had I known, I might have been a bit more diplomatic But I can't do anything but stand by my evaluation.
p.4 #3 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
Andrew Gough wrote:
Yes, but most RF lenses are the rear focus type, hence the problem. It is a common assumption that lenses only come in two flavours, fixed helicoid and FLE, but this is not true. Most modern lenses are a fixed front group and a rear group that moves for focus. Because of this, the lens to sensor distance is as important as in a FLE lens.
I would suggest that most RF lenses are of the fixed helicoid type, that is each element of the whole lens assembly does not change it's relative distance from one another. It's more rare to find a RF lens that has a floating element design. I guess I include the internal focusing type as floating element design, because the relative distance between some elements do change.
So the only FLE design RF lenses I'm aware of is the new Lieca Summilux wides, 35 Summilux ASPH, 50 Summilux ASPH, 75 Summicron ASPH, ZM 15, ZM 85/2, and a surprise to me, the Zeiss ZM18.
p.4 #4 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
denoir wrote:
Or it could be that I actually know what I'm talking about as I have the lenses and cameras in question The really good thing with having owned many cameras and lenses is that you after a while lose the "buyer's bias" and can look at them objectively.
I know it is ruthless and not very kind. People that have made or are planning to make a major investment do not like to hear that it's a bad one. However given precisely that it is a major investment for most, I think an objective evaluation is better than a romantic fantasy about the magical properties of one lens or another. It's not arrogance, it's simply sharing my experience in the hope it might be useful. I've received such useful information from others on this forum and elsewhere and this is my way of reciprocating.
There are two major arguments against the 28 Cron on a NEX and it ties into a third one. The first one is that contrary to what seems to be the popular belief here, it's not brilliant when it comes to raw optical performance. It's very good, but not as good as the best wide angles. The second argument is that the distinct signature of this lens comes from what goes on at the edges of the frame - namely its characteristic vignetting. It's not a usual subject of discussion but vignetting is as unique as bokeh and as difficult to replicate in post processing. On a crop camera you just get the middle of the frame. The final argument that it all ties into is the price. It's a very expensive lens and gives very poor value for money.
I brought up the ZM 25 as it does not have those three problems. It is an extremely high performance lens. It has flat rendering on FF as well, so not much is lost when using a cropper. It is affordable. It also focuses much closer than the 28 Cron. Yes, it's not f/2, but if you are looking for an 28/2 a more reasonable choice would be the CV 28/2 Ultron - at 1/8th of the price of a Cron. Yes, it's not quite as good, but the value for money is much better.
The whole value for money thing is relevant. I see people saving up for a long time to get one Leica M lens attributing all sorts of magical properties to it and then placing it on an APS-C camera. The only two possible outcomes are disappointment or self delusion - and there are much cheaper ways of getting either
If value for money wasn't an issue then this discussion would be superfluous as you'd be using the lens on a camera that it was designed for - an M rangefinder. Or to be more specific, the M9.
If you want an analogy, it's like buying $100,000 Formula 1 tires and mount them on a Chevrolet Impala. The benefit will be very slight and the cost ridiculous for what you get.
As for the resale value you are hinting at, don't count on Leica prices being so inflated indefinitely. They're currently building new factories and the production rates will increase dramatically over the next few years. Unless you plan to sell very soon, a Leica lens is not a good investment.
Edit: I should add that I did not know you had already bought it. I thought you were considering buying it. Had I known, I might have been a bit more diplomatic But I can't do anything but stand by my evaluation. ...Show more →
Well I've always been a fan, so I can't really go into attack mode here
I just don't think you have remotely made the case to support "the 28 cron is the last lens to buy for the nex"
The case for "its the best normal nex prime" is much stronger.
The issues are out there so there's no need to go over them, except price
The nex 7 is due out soon. You really think a good 28 cron will not fetch 3k 5 years from today? Accessiblity to the Ms is going to grow faster than production. I doubt the 28/2 is first on their list to ramp up production.
Anyway I love your posts even when, or perhaps espceially when, you are fired up!
best always
Charlie
Everyone will have to suffer through endless 28/2 pics for the next year from me, so we can revist the issue
p.4 #5 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
Well, I'm certainly looking forward to your shots Charlie. And I assure you nobody will be more happy than if I'm proven wrong. Remember, I also have a NEX and seeing the lens produce something interesting on that system would delight me
p.4 #6 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
denoir wrote:
I brought up the ZM 25 as it does not have those three problems. It is an extremely high performance lens. It has flat rendering on FF as well, so not much is lost when using a cropper. It is affordable. It also focuses much closer than the 28 Cron. Yes, it's not f/2, but if you are looking for an 28/2 a more reasonable choice would be the CV 28/2 Ultron - at 1/8th of the price of a Cron. Yes, it's not quite as good, but the value for money is much better.
but the cv 28/2 (or 28/1.9) is noticeably bigger and sucks in the corners on NEX and you can see it looking at the whole picture not just pixel peeping. there is also is a starker difference in performance wide open between the leica and the cv (the cv is too glowy) than between the zm 25 and 28 cron.
denoir wrote:
The whole value for money thing is relevant. I see people saving up for a long time to get one Leica M lens attributing all sorts of magical properties to it and then placing it on an APS-C camera. The only two possible outcomes are disappointment or self delusion - and there are much cheaper ways of getting either
If value for money wasn't an issue then this discussion would be superfluous as you'd be using the lens on a camera that it was designed for - an M rangefinder. Or to be more specific, the M9.
value for money is definitely a reasonable argument, the increase in performance is much smaller than the increase in price, but there is literally nothing else that checks all the boxes for the NEX. expecting magical properties from a leica is silly, expecting good performance wide open with very nice colors is not.
the m9 argument isn't really relavent. some people would prefer the m9 if money was no object, others not so much. if i had unlimited funds i would buy the m9, but i'd still use the NEX more. i just don't like rangefinders. actually if i had unlimited funds, i would just pay somebody to custom make the FF mirrorless camera i want.
i actually am still on the fence about buying the lens. first i'm going to wait to play with the new zeiss to see if it is up to the task before i make any decisions though. i definitely appreciate your input luka, and i've heard similar things from other owners of the m9, NEX, and cron. what i haven't seen is any examples of the weakness of the cron on the NEX. all the pictures i've seen with the combo look great (or at least as good as i could hope for given the composition, light, and processing). if you have any illustrative shots showing why the cron isn't that great on the NEX i'd love to see them. showing how much better it is on the m9 doesn't tell me anything useful, the same is true of pretty much all lenses.
p.4 #7 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
How do you prove a negative?
I don't know, I guess that I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I'm seeing what you are missing out on and think it's a waste of a great lens rather than looking at what you are getting. You're spending some 5-8 times the price of the camera and then using some 40% of the image circle and missing out on the thing that I really think makes this lens special. There are other lenses where the loss is smaller when you switch formats, but perhaps there are no good alternatives to it if you are looking for a 42 mm equivalent f/2 lens.
I don't quite see why you'd want a 42/2 though rather than a say 50/1.4 equivalent (the 35 Lux ASPH comes close to that and isn't much larger).
p.4 #8 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
denoir wrote:
How do you prove a negative?
I don't quite see why you'd want a 42/2 though rather than a say 50/1.4 equivalent (the 35 Lux ASPH comes close to that and isn't much larger).
I've been using my ZM 35/2.8 for for a couple months now. It's my widest lens for my NEX and I can for certain say that there are a lot of shots I could have framed better with a 28 on my NEX versus the 35. For a walk around focal length on the NEX I think 25-28 would be perfect and 35 is a little tight.
As far as the ZM 25, based on the latest reports I guess since it's a s symmetrical design it won't work well on the NEX 7.
So I don't see a lot of alternatives to the Leica 28/2 for someone who wants a fast and compact "normal" that will work well on the NEX 7. If price is an object, the 28/2 Ultron is the way to go. If you're willing to pay a lot more for better quality, I think it's the Leica. If there are other options, I'd like to know.
Edit: Maybe somebody should make a nice 23/1.7 E mount lens:
p.4 #9 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
denoir wrote:
How do you prove a negative?
it's easy to show evidence of poor performance. i could toss up a edge crop from the sony 16 (maybe it wouldn't need to be a crop) or contax g 35/2 wide open and say this is part of why the lens fails for a certain kinds of shots. with the cron i feel like you could probably only say negative things about it terms of comparisons, e.g. see how it's not quite as sharp as zeiss's sharpest lens, or see how much more character it has on the m9.
denoir wrote:
I don't know, I guess that I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I'm seeing what you are missing out on and think it's a waste of a great lens rather than looking at what you are getting. You're spending some 5-8 times the price of the camera and then using some 40% of the image circle and missing out on the thing that I really think makes this lens special. There are other lenses where the loss is smaller when you switch formats, but perhaps there are no good alternatives to it if you are looking for a 42 mm equivalent f/2 lens.
I don't quite see why you'd want a 42/2 though rather than a say 50/1.4 equivalent (the 35 Lux ASPH comes close to that and isn't much larger). ...Show more →
i'm very tempted by 35 lux and 50 lux as well. i could only afford one though and i much prefer 28mm to 35mm on crop and i already have ~50mm lenses i'm pretty happy with. if i had some evidence that somebody would come out with a non rangefinder FF mirrorless in the not to distant future that would allow m-mount lenses the choice would definitely be the 35 lux.
p.4 #10 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
Jeff Kott wrote:
I've been using my ZM 35/2.8 for for a couple months now. It's my widest lens for my NEX and I can for certain say that there are a lot of shots I could have framed better with a 28 on my NEX versus the 35. For a walk around focal length on the NEX I think 25-28 would be perfect and 35 is a little tight.
As far as the ZM 25, based on the latest reports I guess since it's a s symmetrical design it won't work well on the NEX 7.
So I don't see a lot of alternatives to the Leica 28/2 for someone who wants a fast and compact "normal" that will work well on the NEX 7. If price is an object, the 28/2 Ultron is the way to go. If you're willing to pay a lot more for better quality, I think it's the Leica. If there are other options, I'd like to know.
Edit: Maybe somebody should make a nice 23/1.7 E mount lens:
I agree that 28mm might be the better focal length for me, too, but I've resigned myself to 35mm, because of there are so many options, and I can't spend $4K on a Leica right now. FWIW, the ZM 35/2.8 is actually a little longer than 35mm, so it gives a slightly tighter view even when compared to other 35s.
At this point, if one can deal with the size and slight color shift (and potentially questionable bokeh,) I still think that the ZM 35/2 (which I recently returned, oddly) is probably the overall best bang for the buck for a single, standard-ish lens on NEX. I may buy one again, but I really like my current little standard lenses that are only 30mm long or less and lightweight. Plus, I'm shooting a lot of square format, so edge issues are less of an issue.
Has anyone seen many tests with the 28/2 Ultron on the 5N?
p.4 #11 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
I tried out a 28mm Ultron outside a local store for a good 20 minutes on my 5N and took the photos home to have a look.
I wasn't so impressed - it didn't really get going until F4 in the middle and 8 across the frame. Could be sample variation. Was quite long and heavy too, given the F2 wasn't very usable.
p.4 #12 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
I like the CV lenses but everyone one of them I've tried so far has been so-so if looking at wide open sharpness. If you like a little soft glow then by all means they're excellent wide open.
The 40/1.4 for example is like two different lenses at f1.4 and f2.8.
The only exception to this in my experience has been the 90/3.5 which is very sharp wide open. It looks like the 35/1.2 is also sharp wide open from what I've seen (?)
p.4 #15 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
I've heard good things about all of the FDn lenses in 2 and 2.8 from 24mm to 35mm. If you can deal with the size, and want good sharpness across the frame, this seems a very good and inexpensive route. I've got an old FDn 28/2.8 from high school, and it seems pretty darn good on the 5N. These lenses are usually very light, too.
p.4 #16 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
douglasf13 wrote:
I've heard good things about all of the FDn lenses in 2 and 2.8 from 24mm to 35mm. If you can deal with the size, and want good sharpness across the frame, this seems a very good and inexpensive route. I've got an old FDn 28/2.8 from high school, and it seems pretty darn good on the 5N. These lenses are usually very light, too.
Ugh, I just decided to get out the old FDn 28/2.8 and shoot around with it, since I haven't used it much on the 5N. Well, it's pretty depressing, after spending so much money on rangefinder lenses, that a lens that can be had for $40 is more or less razor sharp across the frame at all apertures, and the look isn't bad, either.
Take this with a grain of salt, because I've just been shooting and chimping with magnification, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe I could deal with the length after all, since it is so lightweight. It's around 62mm-ish with the adapter (shorter than the Zeiss 24/1.8,) but it's very lightweight. This is making the FD 24/2 or 28/2 very tempting for only a couple of hundred bucks.
My non-scientific impression is that Jim's suggestion is alot sharper at infinity on the n5--but this may just be my errors. http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5059/5478922269_e936d5d4b5_z.jpg Here is a shot--I think I may have pulled up the exposure, but i think you can judge the edges and corners.
At f8 it seems pretty dang impressive in clean shooting---that sample has some noise. Obviously the footprint is fantastic, and the build is very heavy--nothing like the 21 or 35. Why it was discontinued, I can't say, but I think i might even be able to get 525 for this one. Was very hard to find. You don't see them much.
But you have to switch at night. It can't be your all the time normal.
now, another reason I don't agree with mean old denoir , is that the 28 cron is FANTASTIC on the m8. crop....crop....it's a crop..... yes I know it's 1.3
but another shooter who really impressed me before I ever thought of the leica is tightsqeez...he dunks his m9 in a pool and then takes it to afghainstan, but it's his shooting that sings
check out that 665 days set. this guy is the real deal. at multiple levels.
well out of the blue, he parachutes into the 28 cron thread with this
and declares: the 28 summicron is the best lens leica ever made! and that he's had most of em. I did not know he owned one--though I should have guessed.
p.4 #18 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
douglasf13 wrote:
Ugh, I just decided to get out the old FDn 28/2.8 and shoot around with it,
(...)
This is making the FD 24/2 or 28/2 very tempting for only a couple of hundred bucks.
I'm not sure... The FDn 24/2 is, or was, a great lens no doubt. But, as I recall it quite "soft" wide opento express it simply. Some of the old FD lenses also flares more than we are used to when comparing to modern lenses and better coating. So, sometimes definitely low contrast.
p.4 #19 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
Jonas B wrote:
I'm not sure... The FDn 24/2 is, or was, a great lens no doubt. But, as I recall it quite "soft" wide opento express it simply. Some of the old FD lenses also flares more than we are used to when comparing to modern lenses and better coating.
the lens is near flare proof and has most modern coatng of FD series---well I better test, since you show huge flare.
as you'll see this guy does a pretty serious test and has a bunch of FD lenses and knows a bunch of other FD specialists
in the end he says:
"Based on my own findings and results from a couple of independent websites and people who have tested these lenses I can comfortably say that the nFD 24mm f2.0 is probably the best lens of the Canon FD series."
Think about that. Canon optics are superb, so this is a spectacular statement. The FDs are disregarded why? The mount is dead and impossible to adapt to DSLRs--well not impossible--impractical.
I do not think a clean copy is soft at f/2. I will pull mine out and try one.
p.4 #20 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature?
Well, I can't explain that. The FDn 24/2 flare shot above was taken 3 years ago with a Panasonic G1. It was OK but had no bite wide open so I haven't used the lens since. I dug it out from a drawer and the coating looks fine and the lens is clear when looking through it. What wrong with the lens can cause flare? A mangled copy that has been cleaned and re-assembled improperly? I don't know, I just show you what I got from a "standard" test I always do (mainly for fun). Maybe the lens is better with film than with sensors?
, is that the 28 cron is FANTASTIC on the m8. crop....crop....it's a crop.....