On the topic of low light lenses, the good news is that it (for me) doesn't need to be portable, since it'll be staying inside. Do you think optical performance is such a big deal if you're always going to be shooting wide open at 1600+ ISO?
loosh wrote:
On the topic of low light lenses, the good news is that it (for me) doesn't need to be portable, since it'll be staying inside. Do you think optical performance is such a big deal if you're always going to be shooting wide open at 1600+ ISO?
inglis wrote:
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
I have no idea, yet. If my cheapie FDn 28/2.8 is any indicator, I'm sure the FD lenses will be fine (as boring as buying a bunch of old, plastic Canons is for me!) Those survey results that you linked only had 4 user inputs for one lens and 7 inputs for the other, so I wouldn't put much into their reliability, but I'm sure the Minolta is a great lens. The later, AF Maxxum version was highly regarded. I do know that, according to tests that many members have done on this forum, the FDn 50/1.4 is among the sharper fast 50s. It seems sharper than the current EF 50/1.4 from .5m to infinity.
Yes, wide open performance is definitely important. It's especially important to me in evaluating wider primes for the NEX. If a lens has to be stopped down more than a little bit to be good, it's not likely to be appreciably more useful than the kit zoom, which is f/4 at 24mm, and very acceptable for casual use there. An SLR 24/2.8 that needs to go to f/4 to be good isn't an appreciable improvement in anything but manual focus feel. An f/2 that needs one stop down is potentially handy, but to be willing to really open up my wallet, it needs to be reasonably compact, decent at f/2 and better still by f/2.4. By f/2.8, it ought to be excellent.
All of that adds up to the new Zeiss looking pretty appealing at that focal length.
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.
The ZM18 MTF would indicate that its best performance is in the APS-C field. You'll notice it drops off into the corners on FF somewhat: http://zeissimages.com/mtf.php
It definitely has more distortion, of the wavy kind (on FF), compared to the 21 f/4.5. I think the 21 4.5 though looks to be a pretty close contender for sharpness and considering how small it is, if that's a primary criteria for use on the NEX, then it may be the better option.
uhoh7 wrote:
Mild vignetting compared to the wide bunch in general and I can't see the shift--most important the edges seem very good. It can take the place of both the 16 and the 21 for daylight work
I had to pay 1110 for one that is supposedly like new--I'd imagine a patient person could find one for 900. That price was only 15USD short of my max at gixen--so I barely took it.
At some point we are going to see more results from the leica glass. One that would be really intertesting--I'm sure someone has already mentioned it-- is the WATE 16-18-21 which is only 30 grams heavier than the ZM 18.
a mere 6k, the same price as a 21 summilux. I'm sure there is a lurker out there who has one or the other---
Considering the difficulty in getting some of the ZM glass at the moment, I doubt you'll easily find deals out there.
Regarding the WATE, you should contact Jeff Hapeman about doing some tests, if he isn't already planning to do so. He has the WATE, IIRC, as well as a number of other exotic Leica glass. He just posted a blog review about the Ricoh GXR and mentions a comparison coming of it against the M and NEX cameras.
these are just the raws above converted to jpeg and linked for quick access to full size
As to the corners we cannot tell from these shots because of the shadows
Looks a lot better than my results from the ZM 21 f/2.8. If you never plan to use a digital M and can live with f/4.5, then the 21 f/4.5 looks very good. If you might also use a digital M, then I'd opt for the ZM18 instead.
Looks a lot better than my results from the ZM 21 f/2.8. If you never plan to use a digital M and can live with f/4.5, then the 21 f/4.5 looks very good. If you might also use a digital M, then I'd opt for the ZM18 instead.
I think we all need to keep in mind that while these types of statements are good for the NEX 5N, we really don't have enough info to know if they will also be true with respect to the NEX 7 because of the issues previously discussed regarding the compatibility of the Biogen symmetrical design with the NEX 7 sensor.
rscheffler 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.
The ZM18 MTF would indicate that its best performance is in the APS-C field. You'll notice it drops off into the corners on FF somewhat: http://zeissimages.com/mtf.php
It definitely has more distortion, of the wavy kind (on FF), compared to the 21 f/4.5. I think the 21 4.5 though looks to be a pretty close contender for sharpness and considering how small it is, if that's a primary criteria for use on the NEX, then it may be the better option. ...Show more →
It seems that the ZM 18 is one of the better rangefinder wides on NEX. However, as indicated in that recent Zeiss wide angle paper, you can't really judge anything based on mtf, because mtfs are skewed on NEX, depending on the design of the lens. The ZM 18 is a bit more of an asymmetrical design, but it still isn't SLR asymmetrical, so the mtfs on the 5N sensor are likely different than advertised with all of the ZM wides.
My impression of the Ultrons (without using them) is that they were designed for edge to edge sharpness despite the semi-fast apertures. There seems to be a general disapproval of their "character" though as I have noticed a trend across different forums where they (Ultrons, especially the 28) weren't favorable. The discussions are almost all regarding Leica or Leica-Mount cameras though.
The 28 isn't super common and most I have seen have gone upwards of $500, which is more than I've been willing to spend for a not-so-fast heavy lens, which may or may not be great on the NEX.
I'm more tempted to try an OM 28/2 or FDn 28/2 which are +/- 10 grams of the CV 28, and $300 or more less expensive, although a little larger, and much less likely to have any color shift issues.
Regarding the 21/4.5 ... wasn't it established, or claimed, earlier in this thread (possibly another related one) that this lens wasn't a good performer on the NEX? Are we going in circles? Maybe it's just my brain.
That's kind of where my head's at, Jacob. That Zeiss paper really opened my eyes to how bad the AA/IR filter pack can influence things. The difference in mtf was surprising:
On the NEX-5, which seems worse than the 5N, that translates into this at f5.6, according to SLRgear, which isn't too impressive for a FF lens at f5.6:
Jacob D wrote:
I'm more tempted to try an OM 28/2 or FDn 28/2 which are +/- 10 grams of the CV 28, and $300 or more less expensive, although a little larger, and much less likely to have any color shift issues.
You really cannot overstate the size difference between the M mount ultron and any SLR 28/2 mounted on it's adapter.
The first goes in your coat pocket with ease, the second will tear out your coat pocket if you try.
What's that worth?
The ultron actually has many fans. The OOF is not at the leica level, but seems much better than the zeiss 2.8s Flickr has many examples. Someone like sebboh could make it look like the "bokeh king". But in general the lens is regarded as one of the best CVs. Most complaining is centered around focus shift and finder blocking, niether of which is an issue for us.
@ jeff: yes the 7 will be another story, hence specific thread title.
@ Douglas you are 100% correct about the zm18 and the mtfs; but philber has shown the lens is spectacular on the 5n. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/969329/120#10106093
Head to head against the CV 15 would be interesting, since that lens is now shooting so well. I would put my money on the zeiss. In fact in my early outdoor testing it seems sharper than the 28 summicron--obviously it's just me snapping away--but the thing is REALLY impressive.
as to the zeiss 21/4.5: we know now, it shift colors a bit, is pretty sharp to the edges at f8, corners are yet unknown. Best performance of any 21, but to be fair the skopar needs to be looked at closely at f8 also.
The three of us have thought far too much about all of this, but I think its useful for many folks who just want the answer, without learning the formula
PS every time I look at philber's shot I see new details It's not even a clear day.
as to the mtfs on the 21/2.8 this issue is really clear in the linked samples earlier in this thread, where I was warned off the lens. It's case by case as the variables are multiple.
That's kind of where my head's at, Jacob. That Zeiss paper really opened my eyes to how bad the AA/IR filter pack can influence things. The difference in mtf was surprising:
On the NEX-5, which seems worse than the 5N, that translates into this at f5.6, according to SLRgear, which isn't too impressive for a FF lens at f5.6:
Thanks Doug, I was just settling down to read that paper, so am quite interested to learn how the MTF can be influenced by the AA/IR layers.
And perhaps it explains my disappointing images with the ZM21 f/2.8 that I linked earlier in this thread. While it's not an outstanding performer wider than 5.6 into the corners on the M9, I never felt it was as terrible as it looks on the 5N.
Jacob D wrote:
My impression of the Ultrons (without using them) is that they were designed for edge to edge sharpness despite the semi-fast apertures. There seems to be a general disapproval of their "character" though as I have noticed a trend across different forums where they (Ultrons, especially the 28) weren't favorable. The discussions are almost all regarding Leica or Leica-Mount cameras though.
The 28 isn't super common and most I have seen have gone upwards of $500, which is more than I've been willing to spend for a not-so-fast heavy lens, which may or may not be great on the NEX.
I'm more tempted to try an OM 28/2 or FDn 28/2 which are +/- 10 grams of the CV 28, and $300 or more less expensive, although a little larger, and much less likely to have any color shift issues....Show more →
I did a side by side comparison of the 28 f/2 Ultron against the ZM28 on the M9, which I realize will result in differences compared to the NEX-5N... but... I didn't get the impression that the Ultron is designed for edge to edge sharpness. I thought it was rather disappointing for that. The ZM also isn't the hottest of the Zeiss lenses in this respect, but it has much better central sharpness than the Ultron until about f/11, by which point diffraction sets in. The Zeiss is also better into the corners sooner than the Ultron, which needs to be stopped down past f/8. Maybe on APS-C it would be better, but then, maybe not. On it's own the Ultron is not a disappointing lens and would be a decent reportage lens but it might be a disappointing choice for landscapes. It seems to have a smoother, gentler 'classical' character compared to the extreme (central) sharpness/contrast of the Zeiss. If you're looking for edge to edge sharpness in a rangefinder 28mm lens, it seems the best options on paper are the Leica offerings.
uhoh7 wrote:
You really cannot overstate the size difference between the M mount ultron and any SLR 28/2 mounted on it's adapter.
The first goes in your coat pocket with ease, the second will tear out your coat pocket if you try.
What's that worth?
....as to the zeiss 21/4.5: we know now, it shift colors a bit, is pretty sharp to the edges at f8, corners are yet unknown. Best performance of any 21, but to be fair the skopar needs to be looked at closely at f8 also.
The three of us have thought far too much about all of this, but I think its useful for many folks who just want the answer, without learning the formula
PS every time I look at philber's shot I see new details It's not even a clear day.
as to the mtfs on the 21/2.8 this issue is really clear in the linked samples earlier in this thread, where I was warned off the lens. It's case by case as the variables are multiple. ...Show more →
Howdy, Charlie. I'm not so sure about the extra pocketability of the 28 Ultron. With adapters, it's only about 10mm shorter and just a little lighter than the FDn. I'm not sure either the 28 Ultron or the FDn 28/2 are all that pocketable. Now, the 20mm difference with your 28/2 is another story.
The ZM 18 Distagon certainly seems to be asymmetrical enough, but I'm obviously at a little of a crossroads with rangefinder lenses. I love the build and size of these little rangefinder lenses, but, considering their sensor coverage and cost, these things should be pretty darn sharp and without issue across the frame at most, if not all, apertures. Plus, I've yet to see a rangefinder lens at 35mm or wider that doesn't at least have a little color shift or smearing (although it may not be noticeable in use.) The FDn lenses are the only SLR lenses that I've seen that are small and light enough to make me consider their use. Considering the performance of my $30 FDn 28/2.8 that I've had nearly my entire life, the performance/cost ratio of the rangefinder lenses has me scratching my head a bit. We'll see how it goes.
douglasf13 wrote:
Considering the performance of my $30 FDn 28/2.8 that I've had nearly my entire life, the performance/cost ratio of the rangefinder lenses has me scratching my head a bit. We'll see how it goes.
Well, you are not the only one, but this is the Leica efect I guess. That's my opinion at least, why all these lenses cost a lot - compared to the mass production lenses of the past, leicas were by far less produced, so second market prices are high and so new prices are allowed to stay high, esp. since with the digital M's and the mirrorless cameras there is a lot of demand for these lenses.
I for myself will probably get the ZM18 and keep the ZM 35/2 since I have not the financial resources right now to get a 28 Summicron. and one 50.
rscheffler wrote:
I did a side by side comparison of the 28 f/2 Ultron against the ZM28 on the M9, which I realize will result in differences compared to the NEX-5N... but... I didn't get the impression that the Ultron is designed for edge to edge sharpness. I thought it was rather disappointing for that. The ZM also isn't the hottest of the Zeiss lenses in this respect, but it has much better central sharpness than the Ultron until about f/11, by which point diffraction sets in. The Zeiss is also better into the corners sooner than the Ultron, which needs to be stopped down past f/8. Maybe on APS-C it would be better, but then, maybe not. On it's own the Ultron is not a disappointing lens and would be a decent reportage lens but it might be a disappointing choice for landscapes. It seems to have a smoother, gentler 'classical' character compared to the extreme (central) sharpness/contrast of the Zeiss. If you're looking for edge to edge sharpness in a rangefinder 28mm lens, it seems the best options on paper are the Leica offerings....Show more →
that sounds right on, I just wonder if the ultron might deliver a landscape shot at f/8. Somebody must have one.
leica 28/2 @f2 http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7023/6503773557_6f36f4b3b1_b.jpg
auto WB shot raw untouched in LR exported to jpeg as you see. full
@douglas . I'm not so sure about the extra pocketability of the 28 Ultron. With adapters, it's only about 10mm shorter and just a little lighter than the FDn. I'm not sure either the 28 Ultron or the FDn 28/2 are all that pocketable. Now, the 20mm difference with your 28/2 is another story.
This was exactly what I thought when I first started using RFs---I'd just bought a nice set of various SLRs.
the thinkness of the long register adapter and coresponding girth of the SLR just adds up. In my own experience---ski jackets etc.. its huge. These lenses go right in. None of my SLRs, even the konica 40 do. You forget the RFs. You lug the SLRs. No axes to grind here--I wish it were not the case for me. I only grudgingly came to see it.
But that's a priority for me--I'd like to have the camera on me--whenever. But that may matter little to you---I'm all for your tack into the nFD---but give the devil it's due I say.
Here is a 'Landscape shot with the 28mm Ultron (this was a poke outside the camera store where I was trying the lens out). On a 5N, focused on the distant houses. Processed in LR3 with sharpening at Amount 45, radius 0.5, detail 100, masking 10. Quite a lot of jaggies for some reason, I don't normally get them with that 'recipe'.
Its good at F8, but I didn't buy this one as it took until F4 to get sharp enough in the centre and F8 across the frame. I also found it a bit big given it wasn't usable wide open:
