dpap1978 wrote:
Ok, here are some real use samples with the VC Skopar 28mm, ZM 25 Biogon and ZM21 4.5 Biogon. I shot all of the at f8. There are unprocessed raws, straight from my hiking trip to the south of Argentina. I did not process any of them because i) I do not have photoshop on my laptop and ii) to show how the files look without sharpening and color shift.
These are not the best compositions, but I tried to pick samples where the corners have some detail. To my eyes and taste these look pretty good (colorshift aside), especially considering the tradeoff between size and quality...
I did not use a tripod, so these are not scientific tests. I will do some more when I get back home...Show more →
TY very much for those.
While there may be some issues deep in the corners, they do not seem obvious. All three seem OK at the edges to me.
Now what would be really interesting is similar shots with the kit zoom at the various FLs
Perhaps, sharpness wise, the zm 21/4.5 is the best we know--though the skopar is quite capable. One has to wonder about the various leica 21s on the edges.
I thought the same. That first photo from the ZM 25 seemed to pop more to me for whatever reason. I'll see if I can do a couple of side by side shots with the kit lens vs. CV 21 and 35. I have one or two with it vs. the CZ G 28 that I've already posted somewhere around here.
If anyone is willing and able to post them to the web I can email raw files.
(By the way, looks like an awesome hike! I was surprised to see so many day hikers, I take it the location is not as remote as one might guess?)
We hiked on top of the glaciar in El Calafate, and to the base of mount Fitz Roy in Chalten. Yes, it was quite full, mostly with North American tourists :-)
It's hard: I think the sharpest is the 21mm, but having to correct the colorshift makes it more of a pain. The 28mm is small, I love the fov, and sharp enough, but somehow it feels less sharp than the other two. The ZM 25 is great, but is somewhat bulkier...it might be my preferred choice, at least when my girlfriend does not steal it for the m8 :-)
uhoh7 wrote:
Now what would be really interesting is similar shots with the kit zoom at the various FLs
I did just that at 24/25, 35, and 50mm. Here's the 24/25mm comparison showing the NEX-5N with the kit zoom 18-55mm @24mm, and the ZM25/2.8. I picked the aperture which showed off the lens best but I might have mislabelled the ZM crops as at f/11 where they may be f/8.
When I first started using the ZM25 on NEX I wasn't all that thrilled. It was truly excellent close in, I loved the contrast and performance overall. At infinity it was "ok"; I'd hoped to be wowed a little more... and in fact the kit lens at 24 or 25mm focal length stands up painfully well.
Would I buy the ZM25 again? For use on the Ricoh I don't have a problem answering yes, but on the NEX probably it would make sense to qualify how it is going to be used, or if the lens fits into a longer term glass strategy.
I wish I could run that Sony E mount kit lens on the Ricoh GXR to get a measure of how it would perform on an anti-alias filter free camera.
I agree, the 21 in your samples is sharpest by a considerable amount--however the skopar #3 is sharper than the other two.
My little 28 CV can be seemingly shaprer than your other two skopar shots, but it may be my imagination. As you know focus is critical, and the slightest movement at f/8 is telling.
But the 21 is pretty impressive.
Another issue to note is that this really proves that sharpness and colorshift do not indicate one another, and we should throw out asumptions that the n7 will smear where the 5n does not.
It may, but it is no forgone conclusion
@MW well your GXR looks fantastic--you better watch out, people will start buying it Your nex shots do not look like they are as good as they might be, for whatever reason---f/11. motion blur or something else. No offense inteneded as many of my shots are not as sharp as they might be either
you can download the zm 25/nex on the glacier shots and see far superior rez to your crops---or to my eye anyway.
uhoh7 I was reluctant to ever post these because I didn't have a tripod with me, although this mirrors real life for me much of the time. While motion blur is certainly a possible explanation for the poor look of those edges, I'm not convinced. When I look at the images from every aperture opening in the same series (with shutter speeds from 1/4000 on down), the softness is the same. At f/8 or f/11 depending on lens no further improvement can be had.
I perch the camera on top of a wooden fence along that part of my walk; it is probably more solid than any of my tripods. I doubt I'd get the very same blur at every shutter speed in every frame I shot that day but not on other days. I used the same technique with the GXR shots. These aren't low shutter speeds by the way - 1/640th of a second for the crops in question. Also the center of the frame in every shot looks much better and responds to sharpening well - this is really an edge problem as near as I can tell and mirrors what I saw when shooting brick walls with a tripod and a timed release.
When I look at the ZM35/2 shots, same technique, same camera, same day, they all look better to my eye than the ZM25; the ZM25 just doesn't like the AA filter or microlenses or phase of the moon my NEX-5N was assembled under. Yet even on the ZM35 there is a marked difference between the center and edges although with sharpening you can minimize the difference to the realm of acceptable for most I'd bet. Even the ZM25 might be workable for most.
In the end I probably would not buy a ZM25 to run exclusively on the NEX; but I would buy it as part of a larger plan but if I had to do it over again perhaps I'd skip the focal length and stick with 18 and 35 until that larger plan started to play out (meaning a full frame digital M compatible body or a GXR or some other option as yet unknown but hopefully not far down the pike).
edit: let me add that closer in the ZM25 does great work on the NEX - I had no complaints at all. Coupled with a Hawk adapter, fantastic, able to shoot 6 to 8cm away from the front of the lens.
edit again: note the NEX shots were accomplished with a Hawk adapter which I do believe allowed these lenses to reach infinity but as it wasn't suspect at the time I did not perform any serious testing of this.
On the pictures of the ZM 25mm it looks like the lens ins't focused at infinity on 5N. Is there any chance that with your particular adapter it isn't actually reaching focus at infinity? I am trying to figure out why some seem very happy with ZM 25mm and others not so much. Is it really a problem with AA filter interaction? Or is there a chance it is a less than ideal adapter at play here?
I have the same confusion about the 21mm lenses. I couldn't drawn any definitive conclusion from this thread Is there any concensus here?
Here is what I do know:
Everyone loves the ZM 18mm
Everyone likes CV 15mm f4.5 or at least feel it is great value for money - Mine arrives Tuesday
Everyone likes IQ of 28mm G lens but no one likes adapter focus
Everyone likes Leica's, but only a minority feel they are worth the high price or have the money
Here is what I think I learned:
CV 28's not for me - low contrast
CV 20mm in Nikon mount may be a good choice in 20-21mm range, but doesn't have the total potential of rangefinder lenses
ZM 28 may be a safer bet than ZM 25 but that is not crystal clear
There is a choice between sharpness and color shift you may need to make at 21mm rangefinder lenses.
Sure there is a possibility that the adapter may not have properly allowed the lens to reach focus at infinity, but I am not the only one expressing concern over this particular lens on the NEX. In addition, on boring brick wall tests the lens performs the same way and I specifically chose a distance from the subject such that focus would be shy of infinity in order to rule out adapters on the NEX as a possibility.
While I'm not prepared to sign in blood and state my sample shots are definitive, I was unable to reach a different and more positive result every time I looked at this issue on my particular combo of ZM25 (and to a lesser extent the ZM35/2) and NEX-5N and Hawk adapter. I've since sold the NEX-5N and Hawk adapter.
Probably I can rule out my lenses; both the ZM25 and ZM35 perform extremely well on the GXR.
billsnature wrote:
I I have the same confusion about the 21mm lenses. I couldn't drawn any definitive conclusion from this thread Is there any concensus here?
Here is what I do know:
Everyone loves the ZM 18mm
Everyone likes CV 15mm f4.5 or at least feel it is great value for money - Mine arrives Tuesday
Everyone likes IQ of 28mm G lens but no one likes adapter focus
CV 28's not for me - low contrast
only the CV 28/1.9 is "low contrast". the 3.5 and f2 have good contrast.
The ZM25 you can see clearly in the glacier shots. Those are the ones to judge by, not the ships. The ZM 25 is not as sharp on the nex as it is on film.
The unsung really good, but under 2k wide is prolly the pre-asph v4 28 elmarit. I would guess this lens would possibly outperform the current asph 28/2.8 on the nex, but that is just speculation.
I believe that the problem with the ZM25 was a infinity issue, adapter related. Of all brands, cheap or expensive, Hawks seems to be the only one having problems in that matter.
I've been struggling with my Hawks for a couple of days trying to reach infinity with a NEX-5 and a Summicron 35/2. ( that combo focuses past infinity with a Metabones adapter )
Finally, after disassembling the Hawks unit and patiently grinding the side of the ring facing the back of the lens ( my God, wasn't hard that black anodized coating ! ) I think my Summicron reaches infinity. Not past, only just.
I went out today and found a good, expansive test scene from a rooftop downtown to put my tripod on. I'm not sure if or when I will post photos. I'm not a great "tester" and I believe I may have mis-focused my CV 21 any how. I will instead leave my opinions and encourage others to try out what they can to either refute or concur with them
These are the lenses I took with me, my main objective was to find out how they compared to the 18-55 kit lens for a reference point (this list transcends the "wides" but I'll include my feelings here for continuity).
Comments below pertain to how well detail was resolved.
CV 15 vs. 18-55 @ 18
The CV is definitely better at the edges and corners. Seemed just behind in the center (see my trailing comments)
CV 21 vs. 18-55 @ 21
As mentioned, I may have botched this, but the kit lens looks better all around. Previously I compared and thought them more or less even, so I will have to re-do and update. This is of course the one question mark I was hoping to nail down today, oh well.
VIV 28 vs. 18-55 @ 28
The kit is a little ahead. I had the Viv focused all the way to the infinity stop, it' possible with my adapter it's just a tad short of infinity.
CV 35 vs. 18-55 @ 35
The kit lens is out of its sweet spot now. The CV is better everywhere.
OM 50 vs. 18-55 @ 50
The kit lens looks pretty bad now. The budget priced Zuiko easily does better.
OM 50 vs. CV 40 (why not...)
The OM 50 looks better, maybe the CV is better at the edges. I suspect either field curvature of the 40, or I'm not reaching infinity.
My "test" was conducted at f5.6 and f8. For the most part the edges cleaned up at f8, with little improvement at the center. One observation that stands out to me is at focal lengths below 35mm the kit lens seems to have a very sharp central region, sharper than all the lenses I used in that range. This is either true, or exaggerated by my choice to focus using an area near the edge of the frame (or combination of both).
In any case, my opinion before today was that the kit lens may be a viable option from 18-28mm... and that really didn't change much based on today's experience.
The CV 15 is new to me, but I like it and would prefer to use it over the kit lens @ 18mm.
The Viv 28/2 is an interesting lens, and could make for a fun walk around lens with f2.0 and "good enough" IQ (IMO), but I think I'm done with SLR glass. It just feels clunky after having the tiny RF lenses mounted up.
I no longer have the Contax G 28/2.8 but I believe everyone already knows that lens very good on the 5N, so further testing would be pointless anyway.
The OM 50/1.8 proves to me that just about any inexpensive SLR 50mm is better than using the kit lens. I would prefer some RF 50mm if I was going to use that focal length.
The CV 40 is a nice portrait lens, I still would not choose it for landscape.
The CV 90 is technically very good and leaves little to be desired, except maybe a lack of charm.
The CV 35/2.5 still remains my favorite of the lot. I have the 35/1.7 coming and will compare them directly.
The CV 21 remains a mystery to me still. My hunch is that it's not much better on the 5N than the kit lens at this focal length. I have yet to convince myself though.
Thanks...No processing whatsoever, these are out of the camera raws. I have yet to have access to a computer with photoshop to look at these carefully
the thing is that I have both a hawk and a vc adapter, but I do not remember which one I used for those shots. I will test both adapters when I get back to get a sense if they both focus at infinity.
Also, in these shots the corners are not at infinity, maybe this explains why they look good?
jmiro wrote:
I realize the heading is "very best wides" but am puzzled why not merely here but in other Nex threads the Color Snapshot Skopar 25 f4 or the M mount later version is never mentioned one way or another.
The lack of rangefinder coupling of the original is not a problem on the Nex.
Is it that few have this lens in either mount or is there something inferior about the image quality and/or color cast on the Nex? Its pricing has been and continues to be more than reasonable in comparison to other rf alternatives.
I have the Snapshot-Skopar 25/4 and like it a lot (although I’m still in the early stages of learning how to use it effectively). Here are some pictures I took with it at the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race last week. Although I already posted this shot of the lens on the NEX-5N in the Pictures of NEX with Alt Glass thread, I’m including it again because it illustrates how I use the Snapshot-Skopar: at f/8, using the distance click stops to zone focus, and the Voigtlander D25 optical finder to frame the shot. The camera/lens combo is so small and unprepossessing that I can photograph at really close distances without upsetting anyone.
With the Hawk Peng adapter, it’s also good for flower (and, probably, cat) pictures:
billsnature wrote:
Here is one of 3 pictures from the Nex5N and the ZM 25mm that dpap1978 made available as a raw file for download. All I have done is download and resize as a jpeg.
This puppy is stunning! Actually all 3 of the ZM 25 pictures look better than the CV or ZM21mm pictures to me.
It is these three pictures that make me question if the issue is the Hawks adapter, and not the ZM 25.
I should probably be saying that the 25ZM sucks so the price drops, but this picture alone makes me want one.
To dpap1978... Any special processing?
Bill
Just looking at the sky has anyone else noticed the sever banding? The colors at the upper right (tonal separation?) looks to have been painted in with pen and ruler.
Genji, can I ask which wrist strap is this on your 5N? I'm a sucker for little things like this.... I have the Gariz right now but find it stiff and maybe a bit small, even though I have small hands...
genji wrote:
I have the Snapshot-Skopar 25/4 and like it a lot. Here are some pictures I took with it at the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race last week. It illustrates how I use the Snapshot-Skopar: at f/8, using the distance click stops to zone focus, and the Voigtlander D25 optical finder to frame the shot. The camera/lens combo is so small and unprepossessing that I can photograph at really close distances without upsetting anyone.
johnnydrz wrote:
Genji, can I ask which wrist strap is this on your 5N? I'm a sucker for little things like this.... I have the Gariz right now but find it stiff and maybe a bit small, even though I have small hands...
Thanks.
It's a Gordy's wrist pad strap. He also offers a plain strap without the wrist pad. Both types come in three different sizes, with a black rubber o-ring to protect the camera body. He provides instructions for attaching the o-ring strap bumper to a slot attachment like that on the NEX cameras. Gordy is very helpful and easy to deal with: I realized the one I'd ordered was too small and he was happy to exchange it for the larger size.
Be warned, however, that these straps are relatively heavy and stiff. It doesn't bother me and I suspect that they soften with use. If you want something lighter and more flexible, then you might want to consider the Mr Zhou strap. However, this is really designed for cameras with lug mounts and I gave up after a couple of attempts at attaching it to the 5N.
Is there any concensus here?
