sebboh wrote:
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?...Show more →
Yeah, it's an interesting battle between old lenses that have relatively soft corners vs. modern rangefinder lenses that have artificially soft corners on NEX. I was hoping that the small sensor size would negate the age of the FDs, but I was surprised to see that the CV 15 was better in the corners than my copy of the FD 17/4.
I like 28mm, but I'm not impressed with what I've seen with the Voigtlanders, and the Summicron is too expensive for me, so I'm going to give a ZM 35/2 another shot. It was the best standard-ish rangefinder lens that I've tried, and it was such a bummer to return it for mechanical reasons a couple of months ago.
I haven't received and email back from MaxMax about AA filter removal, but that could be a NEX game changer.
Charlie,
Do you think the tele-elmarit 90 is sharper for landscape shots than the contax 90? How do they compare in terms of OOF rendering at closer range ?
Thanks pete
Answering a bit to both Douglas and glacierpete.
I own a Contax-G 90 and a Nex-5. You may rest assured of the 90-G performance. I had in the past a Elmarit 90 latest version. an stellar lens in every aspect. Well, aside for the inconvenience of focusing with the adapter ring, I'm not missing the Elmarit 90 anymore. The Contax-G 90 has excellent sharpness and microcontrast, even full open, No visible laCA, distortion, or vigneting. Bokeh is a very subjective matter and I wouldn't say is bad or good. For me it's O.K., but not a Summilux 80, of course.
See the picture below : a 200% crop from the corner of a target test. Above Tamron SP 17/3.5 at f/5.6 below Contax-G 90 at f/4
I know isn't fair to compare a 17mm with a 90mm. but nevertheless ..
( Mind, I think the Tamron 17/3.5 is a very decent performer, for the price. Take into account that those are 200% crops. )
Concerning the question of SLR vs RF wide angles in a NEX, there's no free lunch.
For a focal of 24-25mm for instance, if you don't want to go the Sony-Zeiss 24/1.8 route, either you get an awfully expensive Summilux 24, a much slower ZM 25/2.8. ( not cheap either ) or you do, as I did, settle with a SLR solution, the Canon FD 24/2. A very good lens, not stellar-specially with laCA, but faster and cheaper than the affordable RF glass
Honestly. I don't think that the performance of the $1200 Zeiss 24/1.8 will be that much better than my $220 Canon FD 24/2. Not for the pictures I've seen so far and the ZM 25/2.8 on a NEX-5 /5N/7/ seems to be corner challenged,..
No free lunch.
Jacob D wrote:
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?
Thanks for those. You've got me all excited about the 28 now... the insect bokeh is lookin good Seriously though, at close range it looks pretty sharp to me, at least at these web sizes. I don't intend to use it for landscape, mostly indoor low-ish light. I'm hoping it works out (fingers crossed). Is yours' the 49mm filter version?
Thanks also for posting the 50/1.7 shots as well. I ended up figuring out how to do a thread search and found most of those on the big Rokkor thread. It looks ok, for the price pretty good I guess, as you mentioned the bokeh is a little wild. But no worse than my Nokton 40 which I'm planning on parting ways with sooner or later.
I see you also have the 200/4.5 which I picked up as part of the package. Are there any Rokkors you don't have?
glacierpete wrote:
Charlie,
Do you think the tele-elmarit 90 is sharper for landscape shots than the contax 90? How do they compare in terms of OOF rendering at closer range ?
Thanks pete
This is a very good question.
One thing I am learning: to judge landscape shaprness you must have those long infinity shots, the kit zoom is pretty sharp at 10 meters.
There may even be big differences between 1/2 mile and 3 or 4 miles--you cannot predict.
technically the contax 90 should out-perform all but the newest elmarits--I think. On the nex I have not seen it.
Apparently a good tele-elmarit (small one) like I have is pretty rare because most of them suffer from some strange haze issue which appears in time.
here is a full, even has some pp which does not help shaprness--but check ridgeline in sun, center frame.
I want to switch because the contax is about 1/3 cost of TE, but I think I'll have to actually get one and compare before I dare let my leitz go. Plus I'll have to see for myself how bad the focus thing is. I'm thinking contax 45 + 90 and I can sell several more expensive lenses.
I see the samples of the contax 90--they are good but not outstanding to my eye--but these are downsized etc.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, it's an interesting battle between old lenses that have relatively soft corners vs. modern rangefinder lenses that have artificially soft corners on NEX. I was hoping that the small sensor size would negate the age of the FDs, but I was surprised to see that the CV 15 was better in the corners than my copy of the FD 17/4.
I like 28mm, but I'm not impressed with what I've seen with the Voigtlanders, .
what 28 CVs have you owned?
the 3.5 seems equal to my summicron at f/8, it's tiny, fantastic lens by any measure. The ultron also looks to be very good at f/8 and is fast with excellent character. Samples tell you the lens will not be worse than X, not what it may do in good hands. You are forming some pretty fast opinions lately---but impending births are always intertesting
And at 28 the two zeiss seem to be SUPERB on the 5n--with the "ultimate-sharpness" denoir talks about, and denies to my princess summicrona (I don't know if I agree or not yet--but he may well be right)
What I see with the SLRs is some strong perfromance at 5-15 meters or less, but at a mile I cannot get them working like they should. However I still have not ruled out operator error--which is why I'm so interested in your results.
Again I feel the abosolute prioroty, rationaly, is to be sure you have a great 28. With the nice high ISO performance 2.8 is fine----though I think it's a real quandry as to whether I would prefer the ultron or a zeiss--I'd have to see just how much better the zm or G can do at 5.6 - 8. On a tripod, etc. F/2 is awful nice socially.
The caveat here is the utterly ecstatic reviews from boris and philber of the 24 elmar, which they seem to feel is the best 24-28 which can go on the camera. But again you a re stuck with a need for two lenses because 3.4 will not cut it inside, no matter how good the thing is.
After a 28, Philber has convinced me, you need a great wide--that's easy (maybe) a cv15 or zm18. 21 is close to 28 anyway, so it can be dispensed with in the minmalist bag (boris also thinks the 21 elmar is GREAT--and we know the skopar is quite good--not perfect)
Next important would be a 42-60, something in there, then a 75-90, and finally back to 35.
This logical progression is muddled by all the sexy 35s, hehe.
Yep, I too thought the SLR lenses were good at closer distances, but I was less than impressed at infinity. I've been happy with 50mm -ish equiv. lenses for a long time, and, now that I've tried my FDn 28 experimenting, I'm going back to my favorite setup. CV 15/4.5, ZM 35/2 and ZM 50/1.5. It was very tempting to keep the FL 55/1.2, but it's pretty big, and I'm not a lens collector, so I'm tired of having too many lenses laying around that I don't use.
Ever since I returned my ZM 35/2 a couple of months ago for a mechanical issue, I've missed it, so I ordered another one and I think I can be happy with that 3 lens setup on the 5N (with the occasional Contax G 90 usage.) I'll probably still sell my CV 35/1.4 SC, ZM 35/2.8, Contax G 35, CV 50/2.5, CV 50/1.5 and CV 85/3.5.
douglasf13 wrote:
I'll probably still sell my CV 35/1.4 SC, ZM 35/2.8, Contax G 35, CV 50/2.5, CV 50/1.5 and CV 85/3.5.
my only very very humble suggestion, would be to use some of that dough and have a contax 28/90 duo in addition to your fav 3 Maybe you already have the 90.
someday we can figure out why the SLRs are not putting out at long distance. SBs leica 28 R v2 seems great. Why my nikkor 28/2 is not incredible on the nex puzzles me. I still wonder if it secretly is but I am screwing up in some small way. Anyway I think it's worth 300 bucks in the spring..when the giant uhoh lens sale will occur.
Jacob D wrote:
Thanks for those. You've got me all excited about the 28 now... the insect bokeh is lookin good Seriously though, at close range it looks pretty sharp to me, at least at these web sizes. I don't intend to use it for landscape, mostly indoor low-ish light. I'm hoping it works out (fingers crossed). Is yours' the 49mm filter version?
Thanks also for posting the 50/1.7 shots as well. I ended up figuring out how to do a thread search and found most of those on the big Rokkor thread. It looks ok, for the price pretty good I guess, as you mentioned the bokeh is a little wild. But no worse than my Nokton 40 which I'm planning on parting ways with sooner or later.
I see you also have the 200/4.5 which I picked up as part of the package. Are there any Rokkors you don't have? ...Show more →
yes, mine is the 49mm filter version. it is surprisingly sharp wide open and close up. it loses a little at longer distances especially at the edges (the bokeh loses a bit to). overall it is a surprisingly strong performer. my biggest complaints are the colors and weird yellow loCA.
it's the rokkor 200/3.5 that i've shot with, not a f/4.5. it is actually my fathers and i just took a couple shots when i visited, so i haven't formed an opinion yet.
edit: and yes, i still need a rokkor 21/2.8 35/1.8, 85/1.7, 100/2, 135/2, and 400/5.6 apo.
that shot was taken at f/5.6 and is a stitch of 18 or so frames on a 4/3 camera, so it is heavily processed. individual shots are from it are quite sharp though.
I hear ya Charlie, but, yeah I've already got the 90. Rather than getting the 28, I can always just use the 35/2 and take a step back. Of course, if MaxMax gets back to me about ripping off my aa filter, I might have to reevaluate things again, but I think I'll be good with my 3 lens combo.
Agree that stitching is the best way getting a good (/fast) wide on the NEX. The funny thing with stitches is that even when a lot of people are moving around you can get an emptied scene. This is originally some 17-22 shots. When people showed up I shot another one. When importing I choose the ones most desolated before moving into PS - and it looks deserted which was not the case. This is from today (handheld and many overlaps).
Thanks uhoh. Yes, I'm no expert but I think it's more like medium format DOF. There's probably someone here at FM that could produce a formula that given a focal length, no of shots(/equaling a DOF) and F-number could give the equivalent sensor size for a specific stitch (and corresponding fictive lens) :-)
Frank, I like that image. I don't keep up with everything happening but somewhere I heard there are major plans for a complete reconstruction of Slussen. Can that be right?
I'm sure we can make up the formula. But as always, somebody else already did. Brenizer has this little tool on-line, here.
Thanks Jonas, going to use that link for sure. Yes, Slussen is going to be completely rebuilt. In just a few hectares some 50+ bus lines, a number of subway tracks, regional trains, 10+ roads from all directions in multiple levels and like a half a million people cross daily. It will be a total havoc that will be finished in 2021. In this very faked tilt-shift image the same herring-shop is visible as above. This is perhaps a quarter of the area how it looks above ground, looks quite calm on this sunday image. Underneath is where most of the traffic is happening in multiple levels. Sry quite OT but at least it's a 28mm Contax G shot by a NEX...
From Edgars Kalnins from post 20,
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. An interesting option for me seems the old Contarex 21mm f4.5. To my surprise I discovered that it is a biogon and, I presume, goes deep inside the lens body. That would explain the special viewfinder. Please, correct me if I am wrong here. Could make a well made and compact 21mm!
Here is Conurus's reply from this morning:
Hi John,
Thank you for your new product suggestion. We value your input but we are not able to confirm, deny or comment on anything about our future product plans.
any news on the possibility of AA removal?
Seriously though, at close range it looks pretty sharp to me, at least at these web sizes. I don't intend to use it for landscape, mostly indoor low-ish light. I'm hoping it works out (fingers crossed). Is yours' the 49mm filter version?
