rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #12 · very best wides for nex 5n...... | |
uhoh7 wrote:
WOW fantastic, Ron. What a shame--I'd been dreaming the zm 21/2.8 would run right out to the edges, but it looks just like the CV 21--till way down there anyway.
Not a landscape animal, but maybe great for mood and lowlight. Frankly--I wonder if it's better than the contax version.
I'm coming around on that CV 15, which you make a strong case about. I turned one down at 300USD a few weeks ago  LTM.
But philber has me 100% sold on the zm18, so better put my money there.
So...... who has a 21 summilux?
Your posts here expressing interest in the ZM 21 f/2.8 are what drove me to finally get around to posting these test images. I didn't want you to spend $1300 and be disappointed.
I think if you're shooting landscapes or anything where you want good edge resolution and you can't stop down to f/8, then look for something other than the ZM21 f/2.8. The f/4.5 version sounds promising, but I think the ZM18 is the best bet. Of the three, it has the best MTF values for an APS-C sensor. It does fall off into the corners, but that's on FF. For low light work where the subject will be fairly centralized, or where it's just one person and you've focused on them off-center, I think the ZM 2.8 version will be OK. But the lens I suspect you really want for corner to corner sharpness is the Leica Super-Elmar 21mm f/3.4. At 'only' $3K new, it's a relative bargain for a Leica. It's supposed to be as good if not better than the ZE/ZF 21mm and is likely the next RF lens I hope to acquire. (BTW, the ZM 21 f/2.8 is not in the same league, on paper, as the ZE/ZF 21, though in real life use on a FF camera is very good). Actually, I'd love to have the SE21 and the 21 Lux because 21mm on FF is one of my favourite focal lengths... but I doubt I'll have a Lux in the near future.
Sosua wrote:
Ron - fantastic tests and write up - really appreciate your hard work on this.
I have the M mount 15mm on the 5N and love it - i've been impressed.
However, your sample looks even better! It looks pretty much perfect wide open. Mine shows a slight softening on the extreme left edge wide open but is gone by F5.6 - it seemed like field curvature becasue if I focussed on the extreme left edge it was fine - could be my adaptor thickness, but its not noticeable in real world use.
But... if you ever sell your one - i'll buy it anyway haha......Show more →
Thanks Sam for your feedback here and on my blog post! I think I got pretty lucky with the CV15 and somewhat unlucky with the CV12. My hunch is there's a Voigtlander lottery and is also alluded to by Jeff Hapeman in his review of these lenses, IIRC. And I think there are a number of variables at play, such as copy to copy quality, adapters, the camera's lens mount... On the M9 my CV12 is pretty decent, just a bit softish along the left 'B' zone wide open but very decent by f/8. On the NEX my copy sucks. But I really should try another adapter to rule out that variable. BTW, my CV15 is the M version and the CV12 is the LTM (because I wanted a smaller, compact lens without that huge probably useless permanent hood of the M version). Another variable could be the LTM-M adapter... But it shouldn't really make a difference in terms of optical quality because both versions of both lenses are optically identical.
Doug: I'm pretty confident that the ZM results are OK and not thrown off by my focus method because it's consistent with what I see from the ZM21 on the M9. But on the M9 the central APS-C crop area is not as high rez as the 5N, and therefore doesn't amplify the effect as dramatically. For the building scene I focused in the center of the frame, wide open. For the forest scene, on the near tree trunk at the left 1/3 of the scene. My observations of the ZM images are that the sharpness falloff is consistent into all corners and is representative of the lens's MTF curves. It has a sharp central zone wide open and I suspect there is some field curvature because on the M9 I can focus on something 2-3m away and along the edges of the frame the background at maybe 10-15m will be in focus. It means that any scene with near foreground objects in the corners will look nasty, such as the forest scene. But I think if everything is at a similar farther distance, the ZM 21 f/2.8 will probably be reasonable at smaller than f/5.6. I did test the ZM 21 f4.5 on the M9 when I got the ZM 21 f/2.8 and the f/4.5 was better towards the edges, so this would correlate with dpap1978's findings, which I look forward to seeing... but stated earlier, I would agree that the ZM18 is probably the best of the three. Unfortunately it's not super compact for a RF lens, but still pretty small.
Ron
BTW, I posted another set of photos shot on the 5N with the Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2.8 and the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 version II: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=87
|
