The camera makers know their processing and profiles intimately as you would expect, and they feel compelled to include s/ware with the cameras, but image processing is Adobe's core business, and they have decades of experience at it, with a bunch of feisty and very knowledgable old timers who clearly love what they do. And it shows.
If they fall behind in any one area, it is very likely they will not be behind in the next version, so we have a nice situation with independent developers breaking new ground and Adobe incorporating new techniques into the suite of industry-standard software. Room for both.
I generally use LR3, but I occasionally send to Raw Photo Processor if I want what I consider to be the best color and demoisacing. It's a matter of balancing the features of LR3 with the pure output quality of RPP.
philip_pj wrote:
The camera makers know their processing and profiles intimately as you would expect, and they feel compelled to include s/ware with the cameras, but image processing is Adobe's core business, and they have decades of experience at it, with a bunch of feisty and very knowledgable old timers who clearly love what they do. And it shows.
If they fall behind in any one area, it is very likely they will not be behind in the next version, so we have a nice situation with independent developers breaking new ground and Adobe incorporating new techniques into the suite of industry-standard software. Room for both. ...Show more →
That certainly seemed to be the case with Bibble, which pioneered much of what was done in LR. I tried to stay loyal to Bibble, but months stretched into years waiting for updates for new camera models. The last straw was when they retracted the license for an interim patch, leaving me with piles of processed images I could no longer access. I've been using LR2, and now LR3 for a couple of years, and couldn't be happier.
Ok, I have completed some quick tests with the VC 28/3.5, ZM 21/4.5, ZM35/2.8 and ZM25/2.8
My opinion is that all lenses exhibit color shift and vignetting WO, as expected, but much less than in the nex5. WO, corners are not "sharp", but I don't know if it is the lens or the body. By f8, corners are sharp enough for me.
dpap1978 wrote:
Ok, I have completed some quick tests with the VC 28/3.5, ZM 21/4.5, ZM35/2.8 and ZM25/2.8
My opinion is that all lenses exhibit color shift and vignetting WO, as expected, but much less than in the nex5. WO, corners are not "sharp", but I don't know if it is the lens or the body. By f8, corners are sharp enough for me.
yep, I know these pics are not ideal, but today is the first non-hazy day in Chicago for a week. Plus its something like 20F outside, so I am in no hurry to leave my appt. :-)
It looks like the zm18 may have the best edges of any RF 21
...
I'm confused a bit. The ZM 18 was not tested here, or are you saying it's better than any of these? Even though the shadows are there I think enough is visible to see that there is a decent amount of detail in the corners of that CV 28 shot. Looks good to me (setting the perspective distortion aside).
yep, I know these pics are not ideal, but today is the first non-hazy day in Chicago for a week. Plus its something like 20F outside, so I am in no hurry to leave my appt. :-)
freezing days are the only ones where you're going to get rid of the haze in chicago i'm afraid.
Douglas, I think the ZM18 does really well on APS-C. I think (it is just a hunch) that the distortion is cropped away to some extent, I am not sure of how the distortion is, curved, wavy, or moustache and where the "critical point" is located on the frame. There isn't much left on APS-C though and it sure looks nice on full frame.
Jacob D wrote:
I'm confused a bit. The ZM 18 was not tested here, or are you saying it's better than any of these? Even though the shadows are there I think enough is visible to see that there is a decent amount of detail in the corners of that CV 28 shot. Looks good to me (setting the perspective distortion aside).
My bad, typo
meant to say zm21/4.5 looks to have best edges of all RF 21s
dpap1978 wrote:
yep, I know these pics are not ideal, but today is the first non-hazy day in Chicago for a week. Plus its something like 20F outside, so I am in no hurry to leave my appt. :-)
when you have a chance, give us some corners on that 21 please
kosmoskatten wrote:
Douglas, I think the ZM18 does really well on APS-C. I think (it is just a hunch) that the distortion is cropped away to some extent, I am not sure of how the distortion is, curved, wavy, or moustache and where the "critical point" is located on the frame. There isn't much left on APS-C though and it sure looks nice on full frame.
Oh, I wasn't criticizing the lens at all. I was simply saying that distortion is usually a by-product of more retrofocal designs. Its distortion may very well be a non-issue, especially on aps-c. I've never used the lens, but it sure looks to be one of the best wide M lens for NEX.
Well, after 8 days of inspection, IMHO the VERY best wide currently available for the nex is most likely the leica 28mm f2 summicron ASPH.
Description from antique cameras:
"2000 - current. Leica Code 11604. Min. focus .7m, filter is E46. Optimum performance at F3.5. Considered to have outstanding contrast, resolution and be flare free ! At F2.0, performance is similiar to the Elmarit at F2.8. One of Leica's finest lenses in the modern tradition. Vignetting 2.1 stops. Designed in Solms."
While some question use of the 3000USD lens on APS-C, in fact it is renowned for superb performance on the M8 and RD1. On the nex it's 42 EFL makes it the ideal normal FOV for the camera. Hence the opposite arguement is a better case: 28 is fairly wide on the FF M9 so the big money is better invested in a strong 35. On an M9 the 28 FOV is roughly equivilent to a ZM18 on the nex. However there is no other more important FL than 28 on the nex, so if you are going to own one great lens, it would best be a 28.
There are a number of good SLR 28/2s, but all are quite large on the nex. The leica is about the same length as a v4 50/2; quite small and a bit fatish. It is 270 grams but feels lighter as it is very close to the body. Camera and lens fit in a coat pocket without issue.
All things considered it may be the single best lens you can attach to a nex for all around use. It is very sharp, but not clinical, and has very smooth and subtle rendering of color. At f2 it is just fast enough for serious indoor use and it excells in that enviroment. In practice it can easily keep pace with a 50/1.4 because you can go to at least half the shutter speed of the 50. It's bokeh is smooh and rich--you will see it less of course than a 50, but when you do its the best you will probably ever see from a 28mm lens.
The incredibly fine character of the 28 summicron is very obvious on the 5n---as are the traits of other unique lenses like the CV 35/1.2, or the Canon LTM 50/1.2.
My photography is not up to giving you the full picture, but
That 28 Summicron sure looks ideal. I'm a little jealous.
Do you happen to have an FDn 28/2 to compare it to, IQ-wise? I realize that there's a length difference between the two, but the weight is about the same, and, of course, the price is worlds apart. I'd also love to see a CornerFix profile (white tissue over lens shot into the sky, +2 EV) for the Summicron on the 5N, if you get a quick second. Thanks!
uhoh7 wrote:
"2000 - current. Leica Code 11604. Min. focus .7m, filter is E46. Optimum performance at F3.5. Considered to have outstanding contrast, resolution and be flare free ! At F2.0, performance is similiar to the Elmarit at F2.8. One of Leica's finest lenses in the modern tradition. Vignetting 2.1 stops. Designed in Solms."
I would beg to differ on flare - while lens flare isn't that common, it actually will happen with this lens and I recommend using the hood!
corposant wrote:
I would beg to differ on flare - while lens flare isn't that common, it actually will happen with this lens and I recommend using the hood!
I'd bet the nFD 28/2 is very very good. It will be fun to compare if you get one. Is it really as sharp as the leica? How does the OOF compare? Contrast?
I think the leica is one of those special lenses, like the CV 35/1.2, which is hard to follow. As Luka suggests, the zeiss 28s may be sharper----but Rock Huffwell states:
"This Leica 28mm f/2 is the world's highest-performance 28mm lens."
The bottom line is 2.8 is not fast enough for low light. F2 with twice the light, seems to be fine, though the CV 35/1.2 is obviously again more than 1.5 times brighter---but it is just as heavy and big as your nFDs and 35 is a tight veiw compared to 28.
Yeah, I hope the FD 28/2 is pretty good, although I'm not gonna hold any hope for it to be Leica good or anything. I really wanted a 28mm lens in f2 or faster, so there aren't a lot of options. I've been surprised how good my old, cheapie FDn 28/2.8 is, so I hope the 28/2 is at least that good. The only reason I've even considered an SLR lens is because these FDn lenses are so light (quite a bit of plastic in them.) The FDn 28/2 is almost half the weight of the CV 35/1.2. I'm finding weight bothers me more than a little bit of length, although I do like that the FD adapter is a few mm shorter than most SLR adapters.
Don't spend any extra time on a CornerFix profile on my account, but, if ya feel like it, f2 and f5.6 at infinity would give me a good enough idea. Toss a tissue over the lens, aim into a clear sky, use +2EV exp. comp, and WB from the center of the tissue. Thanks!
Can Douglas, Uhoh, or anyone else comment on the micro contrast of the FD in contrast to any of the Zeiss glass discussed above?
According to the Photozone tests the Minolta MD 28mm F2 appears significantly sharper than the FD when stopped down. http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp
Canon FD 28mm f/2 63 90
Minolta MD 28mm f/2 MC 62 96
