Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              152      
153
       end
  

Archive 2013 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
  
 
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #1 · p.153 #1 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


ADDENDUM: three example shots, last one with some cropping but still show some bad effects (lower right corner for example)








Jan 26, 2014 at 11:02 PM
seekuh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #2 · p.153 #2 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


mark1958 wrote:
I think the Leica 16-18-21mm is stellar. Here is a shot at 16mm. No cropping-- just resized. Voigtlander adapter. f8 I believe


Very nice and rich tones. Is this the A7 or A7r?



Jan 27, 2014 at 06:58 AM
mark1958
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.153 #3 · p.153 #3 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


A7r

seekuh wrote:
Very nice and rich tones. Is this the A7 or A7r?




Jan 27, 2014 at 07:11 AM
beetlephoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #4 · p.153 #4 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


rscheffler wrote:
Hey guys, not sure if anyone cares any more now that we know most wider RF lenses don't play so nicely on the a7/a7R.... but I finally got around to processing a 24-lens a7R vs. M9 infinity shootout I did a while back. 21 of the lenses were rangefinder with the majority being 50mm and wider, plus the two FE primes, and the RX1 thrown in for an added data point.

It's over on my site with links to high-rez files.

http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/sony_a7R/20131226_0019.jpg

Lenses compared:

CV12, CV15, ZM18, 21 Lux, ZM21/2.8, 21 SEM, ZM25, 28 Cron, CV35/1.2 II, ZM35, Canon 35/2 LTM, RX1's 35/2
...Show more
Very useful, thanks so much.



Jan 27, 2014 at 09:52 AM
adnan76
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #5 · p.153 #5 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


I haven't seen much about the Leica 21mm Elmarit pre-ASPH. I bought one to use with my film body. I wanted to check out compatibility with the A7R.
The following images were shot at f/2.8, f/5.6, and f/8. Shutter was 1/200 for all (ISO varied). Tripod mounted/self timed.

The inset in the photo shows the 100% crop of the upper left hand corner of the wall.

May be quite usable at f/8 for outdoors... will have to check it out in real life. Otherwise, the Oly 24mm stays as the current wide, and the Elmarit stays on the M4.

f/2.8
http://monochromal.com/files/21mmElmarit_f28.png


f/5.6
http://monochromal.com/files/21mmElmarit_f56.png


f/8
http://monochromal.com/files/21mmElmarit_f8.png



Apr 01, 2014 at 09:48 PM
alwang
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #6 · p.153 #6 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Here's a quick, informal test of the CV 40/1.4 MC at infinity. This was handheld, at I believe f8.

The good: great detail in the center, and really, the edges are surprisingly good except the *extreme* corners. The color cast and vignetting are non-issues to my taste.

The bad: those extreme corners are terrible, and you definitely can see a midzone dip.



Apr 02, 2014 at 04:36 AM
alzurzin
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #7 · p.153 #7 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Some excellent, educational points in this thread. For the Zeiss dedicated lenses on the A7R, I find these lenses exhibit none of the faults noted in this thread. Non-dedicated lenses are a different issue. In my limited testing so far I have found the determining factor for a non-dedicated lens on the A7R is the lens design, not the WA, not the focal length, not the RF/SLR format, etc. I have the Contax G 28, 45, 90 lenses. The G28 is Biogon, and creates aberration (the magenta shift). The G45 is Planar, and is perfect. The G90 is Sonnar and near perfect, but I can get it to exhibit very slight magenta shift in specific circumstances. I have tried many Leica lenses (all of Sonnar design), and all created magenta shift and other CA. I have tried various Japanese lenses with very mixed results, which are unpredictable due to non-disclosure of the lens design. I have tried EL lenses with excellent results from the Planar designs. I have tried Zeiss SLR format lenses, notably the WA Distagon designs gave perfect results. This led me to a conclusion for non-dedicated lenses. For best IQ results from the A7R, only the very best lenses may be used. The brand and designs that work perfectly, consistently, and predictably for me (without post-pro or in-camera profiles) are the Zeiss Planar and Distagon. The aim of this post is to express a personal conclusion: not to denigrate any particular brand. Others may have completely opposing results, views and conclusions.


Jun 20, 2014 at 02:47 AM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #8 · p.153 #8 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


As is becoming better understood, perhaps thanks in part to the recent posts by Roger of Lensrentals on his blog, in addition to one of the papers by Dr. Nasse of Zeiss some time ago, the most critical aspect of a given lens's design, relative to how well it will work with any given digital camera, is its exit pupil distance (and the thickness of the sensor toppings).

Unfortunately most lens data sheets no longer list this information. But Zeiss did include it for the Contax G lenses, and it can be found on the old C/Y lens data sheets too. SLR lenses in general are going to work without problem on the a7/a7R because they're designed to sit well in front of the sensor to avoid the mirror box of the SLR design. That's in the region of ~45mm flange distance. Consider that the C/Y 28/2.8 has an exit pupil distance of 16.3mm in front of the last lens vertex, add that to ~45mm and it's quite far from the sensor. It means light rays arrive at the sensor pretty much perpendicular to it. Take the Contax G 28mm, and its exit pupil distance is 13.5mm in front of the last lens vertex. Add that to the Contax G flange distance of 29mm (which is nearly identical to Leica M), and the exit pupil distance is much closer than with the C/Y 28/2.8, meaning light rays pass through the sensor topping at a less perpendicular angle, which results in greater problems of refraction degrading image quality towards the image edges (which is unrelated to colour shift), unless the lens was designed to take this into account. Since the Contax G lenses were for a film system, the expectation is they weren't designed to compensate for additional glass in front of the image plane and will therefore underperform as the sensor toppings increase in thickness.

FWIW, the Contax G 45/2's exit pupil distance is 25mm in front of the last lens vertex. The 90/2.8 is 22mm, but the last lens vertex is probably physically farther away from the image plane than with the wider angle lenses. The G 35/2 is 27.7mm



Jun 20, 2014 at 05:22 AM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.153 #9 · p.153 #9 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


I've started a database of exit pupil distances, with a number of people measuring:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter

I've got another 50 lenses to add when I get back from vacation, but here are the C/Y that I have (FWIW most M-mount wide angles are in the 20-30mm range, which usually has the most). I just happened to have these available on my laptop because Brian Caldwell had just sent them to me.

Zeiss C/Y 15mm f/3.5 Distagon 55.70
Zeiss C/Y 16mm f/2.8 F-Distagon 68.10
Zeiss C/Y 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar (new version) 88.10
Zeiss C/Y 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar (old version) 88.30
Zeiss C/Y 18mm f/4 Distagon 48.20
Zeiss C/Y 200mm f/2 Aposonnar 114.70
Zeiss C/Y 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Tessar 62.00
Zeiss C/Y 21mm f/2.8 Distagon 56.20
Zeiss C/Y 25mm f/1.4 Distagon 77.20
Zeiss C/Y 25mm f/2.8 Distagon 54.40
Zeiss C/Y 28mm f/2 Distagon 63.60
Zeiss C/Y 28mm f/2.8 Distagon 54.10
Zeiss C/Y 300mm f/2.8 Tele-Apotessar 104.00
Zeiss C/Y 300mm f/4 Tele-Tessar 121.10
Zeiss C/Y 35mm f/1.4 Distagon 64.90
Zeiss C/Y 35mm f/2.8 Distagon 52.40
Zeiss C/Y 35mm f/2.8 PC-Distagon 66.60
Zeiss C/Y 45mm f/2.8 Tessar 42.60
Zeiss C/Y 500mm f/5.6 Tele-Apotessar 144.20
Zeiss C/Y 500mm f/8 Mirotar 120.60
Zeiss C/Y 50mm f/1.4 Planar 66.40
Zeiss C/Y 50mm f/1.7 Planar 67.10
Zeiss C/Y 55mm f/1.2 Planar 80.70
Zeiss C/Y 60mm f/2.8 Makro-Planar 62.80



Jun 20, 2014 at 11:05 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



carlitos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #10 · p.153 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


So is the conclusion that the exit pupil distance, and the resulting image quality, a purely geometric and linear relationship? Meaning that a lens of 3x exit pupil distance will be of better image quality (in the corners) than a lens of 1x exit pupil distance.

It would be nice if that were true, but I suppose it is more of a guide.



Jun 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.153 #11 · p.153 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Carlitos, 4 factors combine to give problems (not necessarily in linear or equal fashion). These are not particularly in order of importance.

1) Difference between actual stack thickness and designed stack thickness.
2) Exit pupil distance (shorter distance gives more problems)
3) Aperture (wider aperture gives more problems)
4) Angle of view (wide angle gives more problems)

So the worst case scenario, as many have already discovered, is a wide-aperture, wide-angle rangefinder (because they have short exit pupil distances) designed for film (no sensor stack) and shot on micro 4/3 (the thickest sensor stack).

An f2.8 SLR lens designed for digital and shot on an A7r should have less problems.

And of course this doesn't take into account anything having to do with the sensor's microlenses.



Jun 20, 2014 at 02:40 PM
twoeye
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #12 · p.153 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


RCicala wrote:
So the worst case scenario, as many have already discovered, is a wide-aperture, wide-angle rangefinder (because they have short exit pupil distances) designed for film (no sensor stack) and shot on micro 4/3 (the thickest sensor stack).


It seems to me that wide aperture wides like Voigtlander 21/1.8 and the Summiluxes generally has less problems than the more compact and less wide aperture alternatives, I guess because the slower and more compact lenses are designed with the exit pupil closer to the sensor.



Jun 20, 2014 at 03:19 PM
charles.K
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.153 #13 · p.153 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


RCicala wrote:
Carlitos, 4 factors combine to give problems (not necessarily in linear or equal fashion). These are not particularly in order of importance.

1) Difference between actual stack thickness and designed stack thickness.
2) Exit pupil distance (shorter distance gives more problems)
3) Aperture (wider aperture gives more problems)
4) Angle of view (wide angle gives more problems)

So the worst case scenario, as many have already discovered, is a wide-aperture, wide-angle rangefinder (because they have short exit pupil distances) designed for film (no sensor stack) and shot on micro 4/3 (the thickest sensor stack).

An f2.8 SLR lens designed for digital and shot on an
...Show more

Roger, excellent synopsis! I think there is also even more at play here. For example the 16-18-21 WATE, 21 Lux and 24 Lux are excellent on the A7r, and the WATE combined with the A7r is probably one of the best WA setups I have seen. Yet the 21 SEM, 28 Cron and even the 50 Lux Asph have issues.

It is a very interesting discussion, and hopefully Sony will take this with them on the next iteration of the A8r.



Jun 21, 2014 at 12:47 AM
snapsy
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.153 #14 · p.153 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Steve Huff is reporting the Voight Heliar is producing good results on the A7s

www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/06/20/quick-test-sony-a7s-and-the-voigtlander-15-heliar/



Jun 21, 2014 at 01:49 AM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #15 · p.153 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


It can be, but just in some circumstances.


Jun 22, 2014 at 07:00 PM
jgaster
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #16 · p.153 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


alzurzin wrote:
Some excellent, educational points in this thread. For the Zeiss dedicated lenses on the A7R, I find these lenses exhibit none of the faults noted in this thread. Non-dedicated lenses are a different issue. In my limited testing so far I have found the determining factor for a non-dedicated lens on the A7R is the lens design, not the WA, not the focal length, not the RF/SLR format, etc. I have the Contax G 28, 45, 90 lenses. The G28 is Biogon, and creates aberration (the magenta shift). The G45 is Planar, and is perfect. The G90 is Sonnar and
...Show more

I respectfully disagree with what is said here. I own a Minolta 50mm F1.4 that I would put up against any overpriced Zeiss or Leica lens. The Minolta lens I paid $35 from KEH. Both the Canon 55mm F1.2 and the Minolta I mentioned above easily out preform the Sony Zeiss 35mm, provided the lens are not pointed directly into the sun.

That said, I have found that results on the A7R vary with focal length. I recently purchased a Canon 200mm F2.8 that I am not happy with at all. My recent post of the dog was taken with that lens. And the Minolta 28mm W.Rokkor-x will not resolve perfectly at infinity, but has an up-side. The lens has wonderfully rich colors.

I have yet to find a wide-angle lens that I am truly happy with—I am open for suggestions, as long as the lens costs less than I paid for the camera. I was optimistic for my Canon 24mm F2.8, but sadly no…

I would not be happy at all if I zoomed in at 100% and my photographs looked like those posted by “adnan76” (please don’t take offense). If I can zoom in at 100%, and see out of focus blur, (unless it is in the very far corners), that is simple unacceptable. If I wanted out of focus and smeared color, I could simply use Sony E mount lenses.

Comments welcome...





Oct 10, 2014 at 01:06 AM
phuang3
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #17 · p.153 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


carlitos wrote:
So is the conclusion that the exit pupil distance, and the resulting image quality, a purely geometric and linear relationship?


To be exact, it's the angle of light which enters the filter stack (regardless of its thickness). The distance of exit pupil just happens to be one of the determinant. The shorter distance usually means more angle of light, but it gets less effect on telephotos if you know what I mean.



Oct 10, 2014 at 03:18 AM
alwang
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.153 #18 · p.153 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


jgaster wrote:
I respectfully disagree with what is said here. I own a Minolta 50mm F1.4 that I would put up against any overpriced Zeiss or Leica lens. The Minolta lens I paid $35 from KEH. Both the Canon 55mm F1.2 and the Minolta I mentioned above easily out preform the Sony Zeiss 35mm, provided the lens are not pointed directly into the sun.


I own the Contax G45, the Canon 55/1.2 FL, and the Minolta Rokkor 50/1.4 MC. All three are nice lenses, but the G45 is clearly the best of the three in terms of both microcontrast and fine resolution. The Minolta has the best bokeh, and the Canon is of course f1.2, so they each have their strengths. Also obvious: the Contax is much clunkier to focus (though it is smaller). I wouldn't call the Contax overpriced: I paid $50 more for my copy than I did the Canon.



Oct 10, 2014 at 03:51 AM
1       2       3              152      
153
       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              152      
153
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password