uhoh7 wrote:
if you could have one leica lens, one only, a shooter not to resell.....which?
For me, the answer is the 50 Summicron because of the combination of compact size, ability to do landscape and portrait work and because of the longer than wide angle focal length, more opportunities for Leica bokeh.
I have one of these on order and after I receive it will test against my 50 ZM planar and keep whichever one I prefer. I tend to be more of a normal to short telly shooter than WA though.
Charlie, how about a photo of your new baby on your NEX?
Just got the NEX-5N so for the time being I'm using the $200 WA kit - NEX 16mm + NEX 0.75X wide adapter - to get 12mm (18mm equivalent) FOV. The center sharpness is very good and only the extreme corners are soft, but can be easily cropped out. The soft corners are gone in the 16:9 HD video. Considering the cost vs. performance, this setup is in the best value category.
This has been a great thread.....very stimulating. I am pretty happy with the CV Color Skopar 20/3.5.....small profile, saturated colors, very close MFD (just a few inches).
jeez I'm still up, but its the rape of the utterly innocent pen-f 38/1.8 at DP which has me still going at this point. Another boiling pot of opinion based on utterly nothing
that's a real slow link right now--but there are some interesting shots. The lens looks awful good, all I can do is pray for a good copy:
Rich: The 21 skopar is an incredible value, but I don't think anyone has shown good edges or corners at landscape range---that's the problem with all these 21s--with the possible exception of the zeiss 4.5 or various SLR lenses--but the zeiss shifts colors badly on the 5n.
Rich M wrote:
This has been a great thread.....very stimulating. I am pretty happy with the CV Color Skopar 20/3.5.....small profile, saturated colors, very close MFD (just a few inches).
uhoh7 wrote:
jeez I'm still up, but its the rape of the utterly innocent pen-f 38/1.8 at DP which has me still going at this point. Another boiling pot of opinion based on utterly nothing
Well, consider the source. DP has an extraordinarily high percentage of poop-flinging monkeys -- and that thread is far from the worst one there.
wfrank wrote:
I could live with that IQ, really like the colors on your images (+ sharpness)
What version of the lens is this, there seem to plenty? If I were to get a Canon/EF mount I could use it on the NEX too which would be a +.
I also shoot Pentax, so it's the SLii version in the PK mount.......handy to have since it's chipped for the Pentax, like it would be if you were to get the Canon version.
uhoh7 wrote:
-that's the problem with all these 21s--with the possible exception of the zeiss 4.5 or various SLR lenses--but the zeiss shifts colors badly on the 5n.
Now...who has a 21 summilux?
Uhoh, how is it that "all these 21s" could have this problem and not the ZM 18 ?
uhoh7 wrote:
...I don't think anyone has shown good edges or corners at landscape range---that's the problem with all these 21s--with the possible exception of the zeiss 4.5 or various SLR lenses--but the zeiss shifts colors badly on the 5n.
The 21/4.5 shifts badly on the 5N? Any samples you can link to? I don't think I have seen many/any so far, but I'm curious as this would likely be my upgrade path from the CV 21 eventually. The CV 21 shifts more than a little on the 5N, if the 21/4.5 is worse then that idea might be nixed.
Put a 21 Lux on my x-mas list too while you're at it
Actually, who knows... that one might perform badly too on the NEX... expensive experiment!
Jacob D wrote:
Here's a quick comparison of the corners of a few lenses that I have. Non scientific. These are just 100% screen grabs of approximately the same area from the same working distance (at this case, just past infinity at about 20 feet (6m). Next time I'll frame the shots the same, if I get around to another comparison.
When I shot these I skipped from f5.6 to f11 to save time. They are probably all a little better at f8, but that's just an educated guess.
Extreme upper right corner.
Once you compare extreme corers, quality of adapters becomes an issue. Did you focus specifically for the corners? I am not criticizing at all, this is just something I have been pondering over myself. If focused in the corner and through liveview then it should be fine for that area.
28 and 35 seem to be a bit better in these shots.
I focused at the center since that is more typical for me.
Both of the CV lenses were shot on the same adapter which is a Voigtlander adapter, good quality, although I only have one so I can't compare samples with a micrometer. The CZ G was shot on a Fotodiox adapter, again I only have 1 of them.
It would be optimal to have a few copies of each lens and a few copies of each adapter and really run them through their paces. I'd be very interested to see a comparison like that, but definitely not interested in doing it!
BTW, I agree that the 28 and 35 were both better than the 21. This is an extreme corner, the centers, and borders are a little better of course. Everything is probably better yet at f8. The blown sky is not helping matters here either, but I wanted to see how CA looked as well.
They have done well with regards to CA and Voigtlander adapter must be one of the best. Thank you, it is certainly an interesting comparison! What do you think of differences between voigtlander and contax G overall? I guess the first one has been influenced by Zeiss due to their cooperation?!
The Contax G glass has an almost instantly recognizable rendering. Most of the time when I see the excellent photos posted by members here I can tell if they are either the Contax G 28 or 45 before I read their comments. I guess this is due to their high microcontrast, but others would know better than me. The CV lenses that I own don't draw the same but they have their own look which I also like. More punch to the colors than Leica and less contrast than Zeiss is how I would describe it. What I really like about the CV lenses though is how they handle, and their tiny size.
For me, focusing the Contax lenses on the adapter left me cold. The Fotodiox adapter I have is an 'ok' size but the release lever is in the wrong place for my focusing grip. Focus is a little rough and occasionally hangs up a bit. The Metabones adapter focus smoother but takes up too much space on the camera body. If someone comes up with an adapter that is easy to use and ergonomically a good fit I would be more inclined to give the Contax lenses a more serious try. I'm sure the CZ G 28/2.8 must qualify as "one of the very best wides for the 5N".
Jacob D wrote:
The 21/4.5 shifts badly on the 5N? Any samples you can link to? I don't think I have seen many/any so far, but I'm curious as this would likely be my upgrade path from the CV 21 eventually. The CV 21 shifts more than a little on the 5N, if the 21/4.5 is worse then that idea might be nixed.
Put a 21 Lux on my x-mas list too while you're at it
Actually, who knows... that one might perform badly too on the NEX... expensive experiment!
here was my source--and perhaps I overstated--sry
rsolti13 wrote:
If you don't want to correct red edges I would say stay away from the ZM 21 f/4.5 on the NEX 5N. At infinity it is definitely there. If you move in a little closer the red edge goes away. It does smear slightly in the corners and heavy vignetting is there. Lack of distortion though is wonderful
Maybe it's no worse than CV 21--but I don't think it's any better--and this is blue sky--not even any clouds--but if it really does have great edges at some point--still unclear--that would make it the best landscape 21 with a short mount.
As to why the 18 seems awful good---good question philber. That's why I fell out of my chair at your paris shot! That showed the results of being extremely picky, inspired this thread, cost me a fortune, and provoked snowboarder to ask: why do you care anyway, uhoh? It's all your fault philber! ZM18 is one of the newest designs, no?
Should be here tomorrow or monday--mid-week next at latest. ZM 18 also 
