uhoh7 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
expwmbat wrote:
Very interesting thread--thanks for the contributions and comparisons. It has all served to make me feel even better about my FD SSC 35/2 concave thoriated. It appears that even leaving aside the price/value part of the equation, the Canon competes head to head with the 35mm M glass on the Sony A7 series.
What difference, if any, does having the Kolari mod offer with regard to the wide Canon FD lenses?
Cheers,
Daniel
I thought the FD 35/2 got quite a bit better, but I don't have the data to prove it, and many think I'm nuts on that. Possibly on the plain A7, I am seeing the removal of the AA filter and reading that change as related to the thickness.
Here it is on the Kolari:
FJ by unoh7, on Flickr
And here it was before the mod on the A7:
DSC00114-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC00084-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
Very imperfect comparison, but I think you can see why I think it's improved. All these are at F/2
Also, today I tested the CV 35/1.2 more carfully at 4 apertures.
In that test I start at F/1.4, where there are actually some details on the edges, by F/4 the image is much improved (of course), but I would not shoot a normal landscape before 5.6, and at f/8 the lens seems very strong. In fact, though I did not include the shots, it was still good stopped past f/11.
I'm going to guess it beats my ZM 35/2 on this camera: the Kolari A7, which is news to me
But that point is totally moot: why would one want a LM 35 for A7? Compact performance. You can easily take 2 small LM mount lenses for the size and weight of either the 35/1.2 or adapted FD 35/2. The WO performance is somewhat academic for the landscapes, where 5.6 or F/8 or often F/11 (for DOF) are far more useful. The ZM 35/2 is a decent size (identical to SEM21) and here it is at 5.6 on the M9:
Wood River by unoh7, on Flickr
Now 5.6 or f/8 on the Kolari:
Foothills of Smoky Dome by unoh7, on Flickr
Another very imperfect comparison, A7m is at the disadvantage shooting right under the sun, but you get the point. They are really pretty close when you examine fine distant detail on the edge.
Since the ZM 35/2 is a real problem lens on the stock cameras, I think this implies the A7m is going to shoot basically all the LM 35s pretty well: asph cron included, which is probably the biggest punch in the smaller package of the class. But when I look very close, the M9 always brings the edges in several stops before the Kolari 35 and wider.
If you like RF glass, I don't think there is a more friendly digital than the M9, excepting of course the crop M8
Yes, it's better than 240, which cannot shoot the ZM 35/2 as well.....and actually will shift colors with that lens at times. Of course the 240 smokes with the modern Leica glass like the ASPH cron, where they have made a really good in-camera profile. But the overall draw does differ with various M lenses, like the 28 cron. Just does not appear to be the same lens. Sharp though They say the sensor cover is more thin on the M9, and thinnest on the M8.
|