ulrikft2 wrote:
Very good in extreme corners considering that it is a 35/1.2 being shot wide open.. Not "very good in the extreme corners at 1.2, rivalling the CV 125/2.5 stopped down to f/8 in the center".
Some things goes without saying (or so I thought).
Now please hold it a little Ulrik. It's a given we judge the lens(es) for what they are.
I was under the impression the context here is about the Nex-7 causing more problems than the 5N or not. Just saying one lens is very good in the extreme corners and leave it there is of no value in that context.
I bought the CV35/1.2 as I knew it was the best 35/1.2 available. It is (of course) and it _is_ very good.
When I said we need direct comparisons I was thinking about finding out about the possible differences we may find. For example, if you have a street scene and want it to look sharp printed in a medium decent size, do you then need to stop down the CV35/1.2 more when used with the 7 than with the 5N?
If I have misunderstood the on-going discussion please feel free to get me back on the track but please not with comments like "Some things goes without saying (or so I thought)." Thank you.
Well, the point of the debate (for me) was to argue wether or not the nex-7 was an "epic failure" from 1.2-2.8 in corners with all lenses, which was the postulate from Klaus over at PZ, I tested the 35/1.2 and 90/2.8 in the extreme corners wide open, and both performed on par with what they should look like (highly subjective, I know) wide open in extreme corners, aka: not super sharp or supercontrasty, but .. as expected. This is enough to disregard the "epic failure"-conclusions from Klaus for me. It does not say much about the corners of the nex-7 vs. the 5n, but I don't have a 5n to test, so..
And well, this is the second time you over-interpret what I say about "good" relating to wide open fast lenses, so I assumed I had to make my point with sufficient strenght so that would not happen again.
I don't believe that anyone thinks that the Nex-7 has issues with ALL lenses in the corners. Klaus is calling it an epic failure, I'd imagine, because there is so much variance depending on lens design, which makes things difficult for a lens testing site.
douglasf13 wrote:
I don't believe that anyone thinks that the Nex-7 has issues with ALL lenses in the corners. Klaus is calling it an epic failure, I'd imagine, because there is so much variance depending on lens design, which makes things difficult for a lens testing site.
As I understood him on the forum, he claimed that this was a problem with most/all lenses he had tested so far in the edges, including slr 85mm lenses etc?
ulrikft2 wrote:
Well, the point of the debate (for me) was to argue wether or not the nex-7 was an "epic failure" from 1.2-2.8 in corners with all lenses, which was the postulate from Klaus over at PZ, I tested the 35/1.2 and 90/2.8 in the extreme corners wide open, and both performed on par with what they should look like (highly subjective, I know) wide open in extreme corners, aka: not super sharp or supercontrasty, but .. as expected. This is enough to disregard the "epic failure"-conclusions from Klaus for me. It does not say much about the corners of the nex-7 vs. the 5n, but I don't have a 5n to test, so.. ...Show more →
OK, the I know you mean "as expected" = "very good". Then it turns out we just use the words differently.
And well, this is the second time you over-interpret what I say about "good" relating to wide open fast lenses, so I assumed I had to make my point with sufficient strenght so that would not happen again.
I know how my 58/1.2, 50/1.2 (nikkor) and my sigma 50/1.4 are at the edges both on a fullframe camera and on crop cameras, the 35/1.2 outperforms two of those and performs on par with the third, which is maybe the best fast 50 I have tried on a slr-platform. So yes, to me, that is very good AND as expected.
Klaus should do a bit more homework IMHO. Because the WATE works fien with the 7, it shows that even very wide (16mm) RF lenses can work SSOC. The rest is just to find which ones work and which don't. That the 7 requires such preparatory work and discriminating approach reflects that, as one gets closer to the limit, maximum performance is more difficult to achieve. As it is, for example with driving a very-high-powered thouroughbred car at max speed. Not on any open road and not any driver.
This makes the 7 a very different camera from the 5N, a vey fine product in its own right, targeted at other uses and users IMHO.
What I write about the 7 could also be written about the Leica M9, though for different reasons, and I am pretty sure that the Nikon D800/D800E will raise similar issues. Will Klaus also call these two "epic failures"? Or could it be that damning a product that is so much in the public eye is good for viewership?
As a former owner of the mentioned 58/1.2 and the Sigmalux and a FF camera I know how those lenses perform. If they are "mediocre" or "good" or "as expected=very good" is about semantics. I know of f/1.4 lenses being better than the Sigmalux in the corners wide open. I have used to call them "very good".
In the other discussion it was you not liking the way I expressed myself about the CV35/1.2, you replied to me and you also put words in my mouth. I don't understand how that became me over-interpreting what you said. It was actually the opposite situation.
philber wrote:
Klaus should do a bit more homework IMHO. Because the WATE works fien with the 7, it shows that even very wide (16mm) RF lenses can work SSOC. The rest is just to find which ones work and which don't. That the 7 requires such preparatory work and discriminating approach reflects that, as one gets closer to the limit, maximum performance is more difficult to achieve. As it is, for example with driving a very-high-powered thouroughbred car at max speed. Not on any open road and not any driver.
This makes the 7 a very different camera from the 5N, a vey fine product in its own right, targeted at other uses and users IMHO.
What I write about the 7 could also be written about the Leica M9, though for different reasons, and I am pretty sure that the Nikon D800/D800E will raise similar issues. Will Klaus also call these two "epic failures"? Or could it be that damning a product that is so much in the public eye is good for viewership?...Show more →
I completely agree. I am seeing very good images from the 7, but it sure is picky with the lenses...
philber wrote:
Klaus should do a bit more homework IMHO. Because the WATE works fien with the 7, it shows that even very wide (16mm) RF lenses can work SSOC. The rest is just to find which ones work and which don't. That the 7 requires such preparatory work and discriminating approach reflects that, as one gets closer to the limit, maximum performance is more difficult to achieve. As it is, for example with driving a very-high-powered thouroughbred car at max speed. Not on any open road and not any driver.
This makes the 7 a very different camera from the 5N, a vey fine product in its own right, targeted at other uses and users IMHO.
What I write about the 7 could also be written about the Leica M9, though for different reasons, and I am pretty sure that the Nikon D800/D800E will raise similar issues. Will Klaus also call these two "epic failures"? Or could it be that damning a product that is so much in the public eye is good for viewership?...Show more →
philber wrote:
Klaus should do a bit more homework IMHO. Because the WATE works fien with the 7, it shows that even very wide (16mm) RF lenses can work SSOC.
This is a pretty exotic, $6300! zoom design, multi- focal length wide angle so it's not really that relevant for most folks buying a $1200 NEX-7 unless they also happen to own a Leica system and use the lens there. If that's the only viable option, things are pretty bad.
I don't think this is going to be an issue with a Nikon D800. It's a design restriction of the NEX-7, it's very short flange and the poor sensor design for it's intended application. There is really not that much actual resolution difference between say 16MP and 24MP by the numbers.
Feb 29, 2012 at 09:41 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
What I would like to see tested is the Pentax DA 15mm f/4 limited. This is a pretty highly regarded lens in the Pentax community and Pentax limited lenses are generally very good. It is not hard to find one as they are still in production as well. It is also a pretty small lens even though it is an SLR lens. If that lens were to work reasonably well on the NEX 7, I think even knowing what we know now you could put together a quite reasonable kit. Pentax 15 f/4 limited; ZA 24 f/1.8; CV 35 f/1.2; Contax G 45 f/2; and Contax G 90 f/2.8. With the exception of the untested Pentax (I would also love to see the Pentax FA 77 f/1.8 tested which is another interesting lens on the NEX 7), the others all perform reasonably well on the NEX 7, so it is hard for me to see it as an epic fail. On the other hand, as a lens tester, I can see why all the issues with conerfix would make Klaus want to pull his hair out. What is interesting is that so far there aren't any clear rules about which lenses work. SLR lenses will always work--nope interestingly the ZA 85 f/1.4 isn't that great. Is it that symmetrical lenses don't work? That seems like an oversimplification as well--some lenses may be just fine with cornerfix or so it seems. Is it that wide angles aren't going to work? No, not the answer either as the WATE works well and the ZM 18 f/4 seems to be fine if you use cornerfix. So what we are going to need is a lot of testing and then pay close attention to the results, and realize that the answers are going to be nuisanced. Some lenses will work well in most situations. Some lenses will work well but have colour shift that has to be corrected. So lensed will work well for some applications but not for others, etc.
The ZA 85 F1.4 works fine, not sure what the problem is...
THe problem with the Pentax DA 15mm is no aperture control as far as I can tell. There doesn't seem to be an adapter that provides aperture control beyond on/off.
Feb 29, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I asked about aperture control with adaptors for Pentax lenses awhile back and someone said that such an adaptor does exist and I think even provided a link to one. I don't remember the details, however. With regard to the ZA 85, the discussion earlier in this thread suggests to me that it at least isn't a slam dunk that all SLR lenses will work. Particularly the Suede who suggested that it makes sense to him that the angles from ZA 85 might cause problems. My issue with the ZA 85 would actually be its size, but others don't seem to be totally convinced yet.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This is a pretty exotic, $6300! zoom design, multi- focal length wide angle so it's not really that relevant for most folks buying a $1200 NEX-7 unless they also happen to own a Leica system and use the lens there. If that's the only viable option, things are pretty bad.
Yes, and I would guess that it is way more retro in its design.
Per the Zeiss Nasse Distagon paper, page 11, "With symmetric lenses, the entrance and exit pupils are the same size"
As a point of discussion, my ZM25 with Entrance/Exit pupil of about 8.7/10mm is right in line with the Biogons ZM21/2.8 @ 7.7/10.3 and the ZM28 @ 9.9/10.9. Yep, the NEX7 gives magenta corners on the ZM25, as shown up thread, but the field really is quite flat.
My 35mm Summicron M ASPH, has equal entrance and exit pupils at about 15.5mm. It gives traces of magenta corners and there is a slight amount of field curvature at the edges, but after reading page 12, point #3, I wonder if the Nex7 sensor filter is aggrevating this condition.
It would be interesting to know what the Nokton 35/1.2 entrance/exit pupils are...
Has anyone shot resolution tests with the WATE on the 5N vs. the 7? This isn't about whether a lens performs good enough at the edges of the 7, it's about whether the 7 is still needlessly robbing edge resolution compared to other cameras. Maybe the WATE is very good on the 7, but perhaps it is supposed to be very, very, very good? We're starting to see more and more Nex-7 test examples, but I'd imagine that in another six months, once some are willing to take the time to shoot actual test targets, we'll get a sense of what is going on. Right now, it's still a lot of opinion based observation.
Remember, Klaus was attempting to use the Nex-7 as a basis for lens testing, so he cant use a camera that potentially has such wide swings in edge performance, depending on the lens design. It doesn't mean that the camera is unusable in real life, just his tests. Imagine trying to do Nex lens testing when the 5, 5N and 7 all seemingly have different reactions to edge performance. What a nightmare.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
There is really not that much actual resolution difference between say 16MP and 24MP by the numbers.
In the prints I had done at 16x20, 24mpx files look easily better than 16mpx. Part of it could just be that it's a FF A850 vs a APS-C 5N but I was using top lenses on both.
I have done a quick-and dirty test of ZM18 Vs WATE@18mm on NEX 5N, one of 5N + ZM 18 Vs 7 + WATE, one of WATE on 5N Vs WATE on 7, this time @ 16mm, plus checks of center Vs corners on 7 + WATE wide open @ 16mm.
The problem I have convincing you guys is that a lot of the finer details are going to get lost in downrezzing for the Net, and even what I see is far from "fair" because the way I view detail is to go to 100% magnification, obviously unfair to the 7 because of its higher magnification factor.
What matters IMHO, quite simply, is not how the 7 "may be needlessly robbing the pic of edge resolution", but how much the end result contains. Whether that much is "adequate" or not is a quastion each of us can answer to our satisfaction, and that is a matter for personal choice.
So far, I stand by what I see and wrote yesterday. The WATE on NEX 7 is clean to the point that anyone looking at the pics without knowing how particular the 7 is with WAs would have no chance, nada, zero, of knowing that there is such an issue. What he might see is that extreme corner sharpness wide open is a tad off from center. And that is always the case wide open, isn't it?
Right now I am looking at Cornerfixed ZM 18 + NEX 7 pics, and that is a bit time-consuming for a guy who also needs to put in a few rare moments of work every day. And I have no interest is putting time and energy into shooting targets and brick walls. Either I can see something in "real" pics, and it matters, good or bad. Or I can't, and then it don't matter, as they say. But if others want to,they are welcome to disagree. I ain't got no copyright on the friggin' Truth...
philber wrote:
I have done a quick-and dirty test of ZM18 Vs WATE@18mm on NEX 5N, one of 5N + ZM 18 Vs 7 + WATE, one of WATE on 5N Vs WATE on 7, this time @ 16mm, plus checks of center Vs corners on 7 + WATE wide open @ 16mm.
The problem I have convincing you guys is that a lot of the finer details are going to get lost in downrezzing for the Net, and even what I see is far from "fair" because the way I view detail is to go to 100% magnification, obviously unfair to the 7 because of its higher magnification factor.
What matters IMHO, quite simply, is not how the 7 "may be needlessly robbing the pic of edge resolution", but how much the end result contains. Whether that much is "adequate" or not is a quastion each of us can answer to our satisfaction, and that is a matter for personal choice.
So far, I stand by what I see and wrote yesterday. The WATE on NEX 7 is clean to the point that anyone looking at the pics without knowing how particular the 7 is with WAs would have no chance, nada, zero, of knowing that there is such an issue. What he might see is that extreme corner sharpness wide open is a tad off from center. And that is always the case wide open, isn't it?
Right now I am looking at Cornerfixed ZM 18 + NEX 7 pics, and that is a bit time-consuming for a guy who also needs to put in a few rare moments of work every day. And I have no interest is putting time and energy into shooting targets and brick walls. Either I can see something in "real" pics, and it matters, good or bad. Or I can't, and then it don't matter, as they say. But if others want to,they are welcome to disagree. I ain't got no copyright on the friggin' Truth......Show more →
I don't need a lot of convincing from you. I believe that, if the WATE is good for you on the 7, it'd likely be good for me, too...if I could afford the dang thing.
Still, I'd be curious to see if the corners suffer a little compared to what they could be with that lens design, if not for anything more than gear head interests.
Not "very good in the extreme corners at 1.2, rivalling the CV 125/2.5 stopped down to f/8 in the center".