Unfortunately the Contax G 21/2.8 seem not that good on a 5N due to color shift and possible defects concerning corner sharpness. I have not yet given it up totally, I have the G28, 45 and 90 and really like them despite the adapter-thingy - and relative slowness (compared to FF options that is). They all (>21) have absolutely great IQ on the 5N. This is the 28/2.8.
uhoh7 wrote:
Yes the zeiss 25 might/is sharper (though I'm not sure if that's so on the nex), but the lecia is so much faster and has more natural rendering OOF.
I did these *very* quickly this afternoon in between making soup and bread.
ZM 25/2.8, ZM 35/2 and a Yashica ML 50/2 just for fun, wide open and at f/5.6 only, in that order:
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
I have heard that conurus is working on an AF adapter for contax G for use on NEX. If it is reliable it might tip the balance towards G.
Wouldn't that be fantastic--we should all email them to encourage the effort. [email protected]
@2.8 wfrank shows the G IS the bang for the buck. Tommorrow I pay 2400 for 1 stop (over the price of a G 28)--that must be a record
It's a shame the 21 is not quite there. Who has a ZM 21/2.8? I'd love to see both samples and shots of the lens on the camera.
philber has sold me completely on the zm18--which I should find first, or even buy new. I'm not seeing alot of the ZMs at 18 or 21 up for sale used. Are their mechanical issues to watch out for in either of these lenses?
michael ty for shots--are we looking at crops (i asume not) or are these full size or reduced a bit?
Uhoh7,
what about those reports that a stop below 35mm only gives 1/3 to 1/2 a stop, or is this different on the 5n? I hope it is not 2400 for 1/3 to 1/2 a stop.
trying to be frugal about these things.
uhoh7 wrote:
I have some very good SLR lenses, but they simply cannot match the zeiss and leica RF glass---to my considerable surprise.
really? What lenses did you consider and gave up on using?
I really like my Zeiss 18 ZK - an SLR lens which is great on NEX crop sensor.
I also love my Leica 28 R ver2 - it would be really hard to match it,
but it's not that wide on NEX-5N.
inglis wrote:
Uhoh7,
what about those reports that a stop below 35mm only gives 1/3 to 1/2 a stop, or is this different on the 5n? I hope it is not 2400 for 1/3 to 1/2 a stop.
trying to be frugal about these things.
that is for all digital to varying degrees, but it is typically only seen faster than f/2.
e.g. most f/1.4 lenses are only 2/3 to 3/4 a stop faster wide open than at f/2. from f/2 to f/2.8 there is typically a full stop. i tested this on roughly 10 lenses on the NEX-3.
uhoh7 wrote:
michael ty for shots--are we looking at crops (i asume not) or are these full size or reduced a bit?
Those were full sized reduced to 1200 wide by my default LR export for web publishing; I'll re-export full sized files.
I did drag a tripod to the school so they shots should be representative of what the lenses do on the 5N. Distance was fixed, about 10 paces from the building.
I don't see smearing like in some of the awful NEX-7 shots we've seen, but wide open clearly they are a little soft on the edge, as you'd expect. I didn't have time to do a full set to did them at wide open and 5.6, the two apertures I often use on these. Even at f/5.6 the edges and even the corners look pretty good. Well let's see the full sized files first before declaring...
inglis wrote:
Uhoh7,
what about those reports that a stop below 35mm only gives 1/3 to 1/2 a stop, or is this different on the 5n? I hope it is not 2400 for 1/3 to 1/2 a stop.
trying to be frugal about these things.
haha, brutal
well we do know f/2 let's in twice the light as f/2.8---what happens after that......
I will say that the dif bewteen 1.2 and 1.4 is unmistakable.
What's even worse--I'm paying more than the lens sold for new--I'm pretty sure, though now they are up to 3995 ;(
plus its not even silver!
my only consolation is that its cheaper than the "ring" philber craves, the ZM 15/2.8---and thank god, one hellva lot smaller
In fact I blame this whole terrible turn on philber and his nasty little 18
snowboarder wrote:
really? What lenses did you consider and gave up on using?
I really like my Zeiss 18 ZK - an SLR lens which is great on NEX crop sensor.
I also love my Leica 28 R ver2 - it would be really hard to match it,
but it's not that wide on NEX-5N.
Well I can't argue with your results, but only consider my own. What cinched the deal for me was how my skopars crushed the nFD 20, 24/2 and nikkor 28/2 ai in the centers. I then pulled out my 28/3.5 PC nikkor, and it was murdered in turn. The 55 is another story--it out performs my summicron 50.
Then there is the size issue.
I'm sure your ZK is excellent--but is it better than philber's little ZM?
As to your leica R 28--again I don't doubt you--but at f/2.8 it has extreme competition with the new elmarit, the ZM and for relative penuts the G 28--all of which are far smaller adapted. It doesn't look cheap either. But you have superb results, no doubt.
When some faster than 2.8 lenses on a nex 5 the light did not appear to double for a full f stop. People were discussing the following articles and others over the last year which suggested that faster lenses do not always give the expected results. So I do wonder weigh the value of fast lenses. Maybe I am not reading this material correctly but it would be nice to know what you are able to achieve light wise with fast lenses. I only have one. But the micolenses on the 5n might be a game changer, if this is in fact an issue. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues
Just wonder whether others are concerned about this.
inglis wrote:
When some faster than 2.8 lenses on a nex 5 the light did not appear to double for a full f stop. People were discussing the following articles and others over the last year which suggested that faster lenses do not always give the expected results. So I do wonder weigh the value of fast lenses. Maybe I am not reading this material correctly but it would be nice to know what you are able to achieve light wise with fast lenses. I only have one. But the micolenses on the 5n might be a game changer, if this is in fact an issue. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues
Just wonder whether others are concerned about this....Show more →
Not sure if this helps or not, but I shot the same scene with a ZM 35/2 on the NEX-5 and NEX-5N, and the NEX-5 had around 3/4 of a stop more vignetting at the edges (as well as less detail.) Whether it's the micro lenses, IR filter, distance of the sensor toppings, etc., something sure seems improved in the 5N.
inglis wrote:
When some faster than 2.8 lenses on a nex 5 the light did not appear to double for a full f stop. People were discussing the following articles and others over the last year which suggested that faster lenses do not always give the expected results. So I do wonder weigh the value of fast lenses. Maybe I am not reading this material correctly but it would be nice to know what you are able to achieve light wise with fast lenses. I only have one. But the micolenses on the 5n might be a game changer, if this is in fact an issue. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues
Just wonder whether others are concerned about this....Show more →
How does the camera know to increase ISO if you are using a fully manual lens?
Beyond this, the article implies that DOF may not change either--
"In fact, is not even clear that large aperture lenses will deliver a shallower depth of field as intended. The DxO measurements to date prove that the marginal light rays just don’t hit the sensor. The point regarding depth of field is that these rays are also responsible for a larger blur spot when out of focus. If they are lost, they not only don’t contribute to the light intensity at the sensor, but they also don’t blur the out of focus planes as much as you would expect at wide apertures. "
yet anyone who has ever focused a CV 50/1.1 can tell right away it is not a 1.4 or f/2---the difference is---or very much seems to be very apparent http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5110/5602203282_23c3340f79_z.jpg
above canon LTM 50/1.2--you think maybe it's really at f/2?
and for that matter why do we see DOF increase as we stop from 1.2, to 1.4 to f/2? If what they are saying is correct--it should change little, no?
Just now, I mounted the 1.1, set iso to 100 and shutter to 30, and flicked between f/8 and 1.1. with my lamp accross the room center frame but out of focus. From1.4 to 1.1 the lamp explodes......a jump least as large as the other stops--though obviously this is subjective. There is no question it gets way brighter at 1.1 though.
And why can I not even use f/1.1 in sunlight while f/2 allows me 1/2500?
I think we all have 1.4 lenses of some description or faster---you guys tell me, does your DOF get bigger at f/2?
I don't know about other cameras but with a nex 5 or 5n a 1.2 lets in more light to the sensor than a 1.4 and the DOF is tighter. Whether its a full stop or not I don't know, but it's a very noticeable difference.
We will have to start doing some noise peeping to see if we can catch sony cheating. Since sony doesn't offer any emount faster than 1.8 they must really be thinking ahead to fool us so well
Perhaps we need to write an "open" letter to DXO....
or we could have Rock do it, since this may really be in his territory, hehe
uhoh7 wrote:
I don't know about other cameras but with a nex 5 or 5n a 1.2 lets in more light to the sensor than a 1.4 and the DOF is tighter. Whether its a full stop or not I don't know, but it's a very noticeable difference.
f/1.2 is actually only 1/3 of a stop faster than f/1.4 (some lenses are closer to 1/2 a stop faster though), f/1.1 is 2/3 of a stop faster than f/1.4, and f/1 is a stop faster.
the wide open aperture of a lens is always a bit slower than the label even on film because: vignetting is strongest wide open, manufacturers are just rounding, and being optimistic.
neither of those articles is talking about unchipped alt lenses, so iso compensation is not happening for our alt lenses on the NEX.
all my f/1.2 lenses are noticeably faster at f/1.2 than f/1.4, though vignetting is an issue. my pen f 42/1.2 is 1/2 stop faster than f/1.4 in the center, but there is no difference in brightness between the two apertures in the extreme corners.
sebboh wrote:
f/1.2 is actually only 1/3 of a stop faster than f/1.4 (some lenses are closer to 1/2 a stop faster though), f/1.1 is 2/3 of a stop faster than f/1.4, and f/1 is a stop faster.
the wide open aperture of a lens is always a bit slower than the label even on film because: vignetting is strongest wide open, manufacturers are just rounding, and being optimistic.
neither of those articles is talking about unchipped alt lenses, so iso compensation is not happening for our alt lenses on the NEX.
all my f/1.2 lenses are noticeably faster at f/1.2 than f/1.4, though vignetting is an issue. my pen f 42/1.2 is 1/2 stop faster than f/1.4 in the center, but there is no difference in brightness between the two apertures in the extreme corners....Show more →
TY for correction---I did not realise 1.1 was so much faster than 1.2 technically---which really explains the relatively huge DOF difference between my cannon and the nokton----and perhaps why the lens cannot handle lamps
sebboh wrote:
lookin forward to seeing how the cron performs for you, i'm considering doing this myself.
Its a considerable relief to think I'm not the only insane person around here--as I suspect neither of us are wealthy so it's a fairly frightening prospect.
I figure the lens will pay for itself in the time I save trying to figure out what lens to walk out the door with
which leaves us to ponder, what happened steve? Where did your cron go and what happened to your wallpaper and the very nice corner crops?
and I'll quote xtoph from DP
"my leica kit is basically the 28/2, 35/1.4 asph1, 50/1.4 asph current.
all superb lenses.
the 50 is essentially perfect, optically. the 35 is amazingly versatile, and i think it is the best all-round fl on ff m cameras. but the 28 is my favorite.
it is not at all perfect like the 50, but its quirks, unlike the 35 lux, are all beautiful. yes, it vignettes, but gently, with a falloff gradient which can make a photo all by itself. it has amazing bokeh, easily the best i've ever seen in this fl, and basically as good as the best i've seen, period. it is sharp, without causing harshness on some textures the way a few other sharp lenses can. and it controls flare better than the other two lenses (nowhere near as well as a 35 summarit, though). flare can still be visible, but for a fast wide angle lens, it holds up very well.
it is one of the only lenses i routinely feel a desire to use purely for its intrinsic character, yet it isn't so extreme that it imposes an indelible stamp on everything."
"Its a considerable relief to think I'm not the only insane person around here--as I suspect neither of us are wealthy so it's a fairly frightening prospect."
Way I figure it - like parents - we are just caretakers for high end lenses, and they repay you so well, and often appreciate over time And help keep the economy ticking over too.
