Douglas, normally you would have no problem picking up the 50mm of your choice on the NEX as soon as you give up the rangefinder/size consideration. I had a little defective C/Y Planar 1.4 around and put it on the NEX - of course it worked like a charm, but while on the 1Ds it looked a little lost, on the NEX it was really big.
Accept for a couple of fast 50s, like my ZM 50/1.5, the size difference isnt all that much between rangefinder and SLR fast 50s. My FDn 50/1.4 is 65mm long and 225g, the 50 Summilux Asph is
almost 64mm long and 335g (both including adapters.) One of the main reasons I went with FDn lenses is because of their light weight and adapter length, which is short for SLR.
Right now, I've gotta decide between a faster, larger, cheaper 50 vs. a smaller, better bokeh, better built 50. $1100 vs. $89 is noticeable.
douglasf13 wrote:
Right now, I've gotta decide between a faster, larger, cheaper 50 vs. a smaller, better bokeh, better built 50. $1100 vs. $89 is noticeable.
Right, that last parte sure is noticeable .
Keep us posted with impressions about the other lenses. I think it is one of the other strong points of the NEX : being able to slap any lens on to it.
douglasf13 wrote:
Accept for a couple of fast 50s, like my ZM 50/1.5, the size difference isnt all that much between rangefinder and SLR fast 50s. My FDn 50/1.4 is 65mm long and 225g, the 50 Summilux Asph is
almost 64mm long and 335g (both including adapters.) One of the main reasons I went with FDn lenses is because of their light weight and adapter length, which is short for SLR.
Right now, I've gotta decide between a faster, larger, cheaper 50 vs. a smaller, better bokeh, better built 50. $1100 vs. $89 is noticeable.
If you really love the ZM 50/1.5, you could always try to find one of the Canon 50/1.5 rangefinder lenses in LTM mount. Basically a clone of the Sonnar 50/1.5. It would be smaller, faster, better bokeh, surprisingly well built, and still about a third of the price of your ZM. You'd give up some contrast.
I guess I mispoke about faster; it's roughly as fast. The better bokeh comment was based on if Douglas prefers the bokeh of the ZM 50/1.5, the Canon 50/1.5 bokeh is very, very similar.
douglas, your tempting me with the zm 50/1.5. i love the size and look (only certain situations) of my jupiter-3, but it never sharpens up in the corners meaning i have to carry my contax 45/2 as well whenever i think i might want to take a picture with everything in focus.
I just found a Vivitar-Komine 28/2 in MD mount for a nice price, so I decided to give it a shot. This is the close focusing version, the MFD is something like 5". I believe this lens is even a little smaller and lighter than the OM 28/2, and the adapter should be a few mm shorter as well. Waiting on both lens and adapter to arrive.
It was bundled with a Rokkor 50/1.7 and 200/4.5 .... so more NEX fun is headed my way these holidays
sebboh wrote:
douglas, your tempting me with the zm 50/1.5. i love the size and look (only certain situations) of my jupiter-3, but it never sharpens up in the corners meaning i have to carry my contax 45/2 as well whenever i think i might want to take a picture with everything in focus.
Ooh, don't take my word for it. I'm not sure if it is 45/2 level sharp at the corner. Just sharper than the CV 50/1.5, and that was only at medium and short distances. I like the bokeh of the lens, but, of course, that is subjective. The Zm 50/1.5 is a cool lens, though.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ooh, don't take my word for it. I'm not sure if it is 45/2 level sharp at the corner. Just sharper than the CV 50/1.5, and that was only at medium and short distances. I like the bokeh of the lens, but, of course, that is subjective. The Zm 50/1.5 is a cool lens, though.
Douglas, for portraits, do you prefer the rendering of the ZM 50/1.5 or the CV 50/1.5?
Jacob D wrote:
I just found a Vivitar-Komine 28/2 in MD mount for a nice price, so I decided to give it a shot. This is the close focusing version, the MFD is something like 5". I believe this lens is even a little smaller and lighter than the OM 28/2, and the adapter should be a few mm shorter as well. Waiting on both lens and adapter to arrive.
It was bundled with a Rokkor 50/1.7 and 200/4.5 .... so more NEX fun is headed my way these holidays
i this lens as well. it is a fantastic bargain though not so sharp or contrasty wide open. stopped down just one stop it performs very nicely, better up close than at infinity though. overall a pretty good compromise, but i prefer my rokkor 28/2 for everything except size and mfd.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ooh, don't take my word for it. I'm not sure if it is 45/2 level sharp at the corner. Just sharper than the CV 50/1.5, and that was only at medium and short distances. I like the bokeh of the lens, but, of course, that is subjective. The Zm 50/1.5 is a cool lens, though.
i'm not expecting 45/2 levels of sharpness, just decent sharpness without too much CA. if you ever get a chance, i'd love to see a corner crop at f/5.6.
Jeff Kott wrote:
Douglas, for portraits, do you prefer the rendering of the ZM 50/1.5 or the CV 50/1.5?
Any sample images we can see?
Well, as you know, I've only had the ZM a few weeks. Unfortunately, I've only got portraits of my pregnant wife, and she'd not be very happy if I posted them.
Here's an unremarkable shot of a friend of mine with the CV 50/1.5, if that helps at all. I really never warmed up to this lens, for whatever reason.
sebboh wrote:
i'm not expecting 45/2 levels of sharpness, just decent sharpness without too much CA. if you ever get a chance, i'd love to see a corner crop at f/5.6.
I've only really tested edge sharpness of the ZM in context with the CV, and since I'm no imatest, I'm a little afraid to speak too much on it. I'll try to make something happen.
douglasf13 wrote:
Well, as you know, I've only had the ZM a few weeks. Unfortunately, I've only got portraits of my pregnant wife, and she'd not be very happy if I posted them.
Here's an unremarkable shot of a friend of mine with the CV 50/1.5, if that helps at all. I really never warmed up to this lens, for whatever reason.
I totally understand - my wife has complete veto rights on my posting of any photos of her.
Sean Reid was very effusive about the CV 50/1.5 in comparison to the 50 Summicron, but that's the only data point of really high praise for that lens.
I assume we'll be seeing a lot of baby pictures with the Sonnar soon?
Jeff Kott wrote:
I totally understand - my wife has complete veto rights on my posting of any photos of her.
Sean Reid was very effusive about the CV 50/1.5 in comparison to the 50 Summicron, but that's the only data point of really high praise for that lens.
I assume we'll be seeing a lot of baby pictures with the Sonnar soon?
The CV 50/1.5 is a strange lens. It is certainly sharp in the center. I just never really warmed to it, for whatever reason. I wonder if it is sharper in the corners on the M8 and M9, because of the sensor filter issue? Still, it's certainly a great deal in rangefinder 50s.
One thing to keep in mind about both of my 50/1.5 lenses is the purple fringe at wide apertures. Both of them get it pretty badly, although my CV 35/1.4 is probably the worst that I've seen in this regard.
sebboh wrote:
i this lens as well. it is a fantastic bargain though not so sharp or contrasty wide open. stopped down just one stop it performs very nicely, better up close than at infinity though. overall a pretty good compromise, but i prefer my rokkor 28/2 for everything except size and mfd.
Bargain is the key here, it was a $20 purchase... I've thrown away $20 on dumber things
If you have any NEX samples with the Viv I'd love to see them. I found a couple of high res samples from some other APS-C on the web, and it looked pretty sharp, a little glowy but I don't mind that for my purposes... depending on the extent.
I know you love the Rokkor's too... have you had the 50/1.7 on the NEX yet?
Charlie, you're gonna love this one. I took the 28/2 and 17/4 for some quick shots at distance, and I'm not very impressed. I expected more from the edges. As expected, CA from this older lenses isn't great, either. I think I may be getting off of this FD train, and returning to the land of expensive little jewels.
Dec 16, 2011 at 04:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Has anyone tried the 15mm and 21mm Pentax DA limited primes on the NEX 5n? It seems like they might be pretty good choices. They are quite small, but made for a DSLR, so they ought to have less corner issues. They are highly regarded in Pentax land, and I understand there is an adapter that can control their aperture. Maybe I am wrong about that, however. Anyone have any experience?
douglasf13 wrote:
Charlie, you're gonna love this one. I took the 28/2 and 17/4 for some quick shots at distance, and I'm not very impressed. I expected more from the edges. As expected, CA from this older lenses isn't great, either. I think I may be getting off of this FD train, and returning to the land of expensive little jewels.
ha. turns out wide angle slr lenses are actually really hard to make and 30 years ago most of them sucked by modern standards except for a few really expensive notables. in a lot of cases the high pixel density of aps-c makes even some of the good ones look bad. until fairly recently you could count on rangefinder wides to be better performers. zooms and wide angles are where designs have really improved in the last couple decades from what i've heard. this isn't terribly helpful for those of us looking for small manual focus wides on our NEX. any news on the possibility of AA removal?
. 
