p.2 #2 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
snowboarder wrote:
I will later replace my wider M lenses with a native Zeiss "solution" and I will be all set.
But will does be compact and have good corner sharpness?
If I look at the 28mm and 35mm chart shots with the FE28-70, 28mm is far less than the good results at 35mm.
The other reason perhaps is expectation of legacy SLR (and RF) lens great performance on FF high resolution sensor based on prior experience (of not dealing with corners) with those lens on crop sensors.
p.2 #4 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
U.C. wrote:
But will does be compact and have good corner sharpness?
If I look at the 28mm and 35mm chart shots with the FE28-70, 28mm is far less than the good results at 35mm.
yeah, but this a cheap zoom, we are assuming/hoping for a wide prime.
I think it will be a FE version if their 21mm Distagon lens. Don't quote me on that, but that's what I heard...
p.2 #6 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
snowboarder wrote:
yeah, but this a cheap zoom, we are assuming/hoping for a wide prime.
I know it's a cheap zoom, but it works very well at 35mm and very bad at 28mm. That's very suspicious. Zooms tend to have different performance at different focal lengths, but 28mm is very close 35mm, but the difference in performance is quite large. I think it will be a FE version if their 21mm Distagon lens. Don't quote me on that, but that's what I heard...
It would be nice and a distagon design uses retrofocus, so it won't be very small, but less prone to bad corners.
p.2 #7 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
carstenw wrote:
Ouch, those results are pretty shocking. Make sure to do some horizon-testing tomorrow morning. Perhaps the close testing distance is skewing the results.
I will surely do that, infinity results are more reliable usually.
I worked as careful as possible but this testing is not up to the same standards as the professional tests by photozone and co.
p.2 #11 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
These are good to look at, Phillip - fascinating watching the corners clean up with stop down, but the better lenses are, well, better. That Canon 35/2 - whoa. The 45/2 looks very good.
And in general, it's a good demonstration why Sony is keen on slower lenses. f5.6 and be there!
p.2 #13 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
briantho wrote:
Hmmm... Minolta 35-70 looks like it outperforms nearly all of the primes... and that distortion of the kit zoom at 50mm looks horrible... I'm confused
we all are confused! Next two weeks will clarify a lot of things I hope.
p.2 #15 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
rera wrote:
Phillip, thank you for this test, kit zoom performance is still a missing piece in reviews and this is filling the gap.
Could you do similar shots at 50FL comparing to known reasonably sharp slr 50/1.4s (OM/FD/Takumar/etc)? Also if you have FD 35/2, could you throw this into the test?
The kit zoom's results remind me of what I got with it from my infinity test shots. Just click on my Flickr link/icon and dig through the image, it's towards the end of the city skyline series. Will be interesting to see Phillip's infinity shots from it, and how they compare.
IMO, it's not a great lens for technical applications, but should be fine for most day to day stuff...
p.2 #16 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
It's going to be interesting to see how the a7R fares but it's beginning to look as though RF lenses wider than 40-50 will have issues. This was the conclusion drawn from Ron Scheffler's extensive examination a week or so ago where even the ZM 35 2.8 (a Biogon design, of course) showed magenta banding. However, his test did indicate that both the new FE primes performed well and the 28-70 has done better here than I might have expected. Maybe we were all letting hope colour our expectations and after all the physics suggests that it was never goingto be a cakewalk for WA RF lenses - legacy SLR lenses may do better although the MC 28/2.8 did not do so well here. Conversely, I thought the MD 35-70 was rather good although it is not clear whether this was done at he macro or long end of the range.
Of course, while many of us have fond memories of some of these old lenses we never had the ability to stress test hem in the way we now an do with computer technology and I don't think corner softness and vignetting are necessarily a function of the SLR lens combinations being tested here - they are probably intrinsic to many of these lenses (and I don't include Leica / Zeiss RFs in that comment). I attach a link below which collates many users' experiences of a wide range of lenses and this truth becomes self evident. Nevertheless, I don't think we should become overly disappointed either because these new small FF cameras are a technological triumph and I am thrilled that we can anticipate a return to the days when we could take our SLR kits around without risking our backs.
p.2 #17 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
waterden wrote:
I thought the MD 35-70 was rather good although it is not clear whether this was done at he macro or long end of the range.
oops, my bad. this was done at 50mm.
Because of the rather large minmal focusing distance of the 35-70 I couldn't test it at 35mm with my chart which is about 40comx60cm. I am pretty sure that this is partially to blame for the bad results, the lenses are pretty close to the target. Most of them performed much better when I tested them at a longer distance on the a7r some weeks ago.
p.2 #19 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
I have never read so much contradictory reporting as on the subjects of how well/badly alt lenses perform on the A7, with or without R. For some, nothing wider than 40mm, for others, the CV 21 f:1.8 and the 'Lux 21 are fine. On some pics, the G 28 sucks, for another blogger, it is fine. For some, anything longer than 40mm will be fine, for others, the 'Lux 50 sucks.
I guess I just will have to try on my own, with my set of lenses and adapters. Too much dissent for me to form any kind of an opinion. Except that the FE 35 looks pretty stellar. That alone, to me, might be worth the A7R.
Phillip, thanks for the time and trouble. That others report other findings in no way impinges on your talent or credibility IMHO.
