sebboh wrote:
my c/y 35/1.4 seems to show similar astigmatism and bokeh funk in the corners on my NEX to what i see on FF corners (super weird). in any event i'd say the big difference using the same lens on FF and aps-c is that local problems like CA are magnified on the smaller sensors and, as you've pointed out, the equivalent mtfs are shifted down.
To give a case in point, the lens in question (Rollei version):
Open in separate tabs in your browser and flip between them.
Sorry, didn't have a bench The angle of view is of course different as I had to move the tripod, but you get the idea.
Anyway, the 7D shot isn't bad from an IQ point of view. More than adequate for web size.. but it could have really been shot with almost any lens. It's a very realistic looking shot but with little character. The FF shot on the other hand is less realistic, but has tons more character - you can really see the classic Zeiss 35/1.4 rendering.
douglasf13 wrote:
Sure, mtf of the smaller format is lower, but how big do you print?
I generally don't. The drop in MTF is across all spatial frequencies. It's quite visible at web size - look at the edge of the chair for instance in the 7D vs 5DII shots above.
As for near-perfect lenses without any vignetting and field curvature, you have you pick of tele-photo lenses there. The Leica 75/2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH is such an example. It comes down to personal preference of course, but it's one lens that I've never really liked - precisely because of its lack of character. My objections against it is the same that I have with most 135 FF lenses on crop cameras.
Anyway, I'm a believer in native format lenses - it's what they are optimized for and what they've been designed for. I also (from personal experience) think it is bad to use the same lenses on multiple formats. It just gets very weird when the same lens behaves in two different ways. And you are bound to be disappointed with the results from one format if you like the results from another.
Sorry, didn't have a bench The angle of view is of course different as I had to move the tripod, but you get the idea.
Anyway, the 7D shot isn't bad from an IQ point of view. More than adequate for web size.. but it could have really been shot with almost any lens. It's a very realistic looking shot but with little character. The FF shot on the other hand is less realistic, but has tons more character - you can really see the classic Zeiss 35/1.4 rendering. ...Show more →
Yeah, but you're talking about different angles of view and different equivalent apertures. I think part of the issue is that you have to build an aps-c lens setup from the ground up, rather than just using the same lens on both formats and comparing them at the same distance and f stop.
Of course, if I throw my 50 Summicron R on my A900 and 5N, and shoot both at ten feet away and f2, things will look WAY different, but I'd never consider that. Rather, I'd try to find an f1.4 35mm lens than gives the same general vibe as the Summicron on the A900. Surely, things will never turn out the same, but, at that point, we're just talking about personal preference. My search for lenses for my A900 and lenses for my 5N are two separate journeys, and I of course understand that, ultimately, the larger format ends up being superior in several ways, but I must weigh those against the size and price of the smaller format.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, but you're talking about different angles of view and different equivalent apertures. I think part of the issue is that you have to build an aps-c lens setup from the ground up, rather than just using the same lens on both formats and comparing them at the same distance and f stop.
Of course, if I throw my 50 Summicron R on my A900 and 5N, and shoot both at ten feet away and f2, things will look WAY different, but I'd never consider that. Rather, I'd try to find an f1.4 35mm lens than gives the same general vibe as the Summicron on the A900. Surely, things will never turn out the same, but, at that point, we're just talking about personal preference. My search for lenses for my A900 and lenses for my 5N are two separate journeys, and I of course understand that, ultimately, the larger format ends up being superior in several ways, but I must weigh those against the size and price of the smaller format. ...Show more →
I definitely agree with that. Of course, things get a bit complicated if you want to find a high performance 35 f/1.4 equivalent or say a 100 f/2. While you might find some exotic 24 f/0.95 lens, its performance at f/0.95 won't be anything like what you get at f/1.4 from a 35mm.
denoir wrote:
I definitely agree with that. Of course, things get a bit complicated if you want to find a high performance 35 f/1.4 equivalent or say a 100 f/2. While you might find some exotic 24 f/0.95 lens, its performance at f/0.95 won't be anything like what you get at f/1.4 from a 35mm.
Oh, don't get me wrong. One of the big advantages of the larger format is shallow DOF. On aps-c, you basically have to accept that you're not shooting sharp pics much faster than at an f2.8 equivalent on 135, outside of a few options.
Oddly enough, I actually have committed the greatest heresy of all in buying the king of character lenses specifically for the 5N...the C-Sonnar! While it certainly doesn't look anything like it would on the M9, it's a pretty interesting short-tele, portrait lens on the 5N ( and I usually shoot it at around f2-2.8.)
Luka - I fundamentally agree with what you are saying if you feel like the XP1 is strictly used to adapt FF lenses to a APSC sensor - but what about Fuji's own lenses, which are optimized for use on such a sensor?
douglasf13 wrote:
Oh, don't get me wrong. One of the big advantages of the larger format is shallow DOF. On aps-c, you basically have to accept that you're not shooting sharp pics much faster than at an f2.8 equivalent on 135, outside of a few options.
Oddly enough, I actually have committed the greatest heresy of all in buying the king of character lenses specifically for the 5N...the C-Sonnar! While it certainly doesn't look anything like it would on the M9, it's a pretty interesting short-tele, portrait lens on the 5N ( and I usually shoot it at around f2-2.8.)
I think actually the C-Sonnar might not be so bad on a cropper. On FF it has, not nice, but exceptionally weird field curvature. When you focus on something 2-3 meters away, center frame, the corners have infinity in focus.. Otherwise it's a nice little lens. Very compact and light
Eh, yes, hmm, the X1-Pro.. what can I say.. the high ISO performance looks very impressive and overall it seems like an attractive package. And I like that Fuji unlike Sony are really making some nice native lenses available from the start
corposant wrote:
Luka - I fundamentally agree with what you are saying if you feel like the XP1 is strictly used to adapt FF lenses to a APSC sensor - but what about Fuji's own lenses, which are optimized for use on such a sensor?
I think that's great - if the lenses are good. You still won't get the FF look but that's like complaining that you can't get an MF look on 135 FF.. not really a relevant objection
denoir wrote:
I think actually the C-Sonnar might not be so bad on a cropper. On FF it has, not nice, but exceptionally weird field curvature. When you focus on something 2-3 meters away, center frame, the corners have infinity in focus.. Otherwise it's a nice little lens. Very compact and light
Yeah, the crop chops off a lot of the weirdness, and, even at 14mm it's got "fullframe-like" edge sharpness, rather than being a razor across the frame, and it is still pretty vibey. Plus, no dreaded focus shift issues with an EVF. The ZM 50/1.5 and 35/2 are my 1-2 punch on the 5N, depending on the mood I'm after. Vibe vs. more sterile perfection.
denoir wrote:
And I like that Fuji unlike Sony are really making some nice native lenses available from the start
well yes, this is very important to me too. The importance of having native lenses for each format for me lies mostly in the spec: a lens with a bigger image circle will (generally) not be as small, or as wide, or as fast, or as corrected, or as cheap as an equivalent lens with a smaller image circle. Or all of the above.
Which is ok when we're talking large format where you get the benefit of movements and you have a massive tripod and very expensive peripherals anyway, but in smaller cameras where size, cost and low light ability/performance of the lens are a top priority, it matters heaps.
denoir wrote:
Anyway, the 7D shot isn't bad from an IQ point of view. More than adequate for web size.. but it could have really been shot with almost any lens. It's a very realistic looking shot but with little character. The FF shot on the other hand is less realistic, but has tons more character - you can really see the classic Zeiss 35/1.4 rendering.
the big difference here is fov and subject distance – a 50/2 is a lot more boring than a 35/1.4 and this is the biggest difference between how that lens looks on the 5D and how it looks on the 7D. if you compare your rollei 35/1.4 on your NEX to your 35 lux and zm 35/2 you'll see that the rollei has a very unique look compared to them i suspect.
Spyro P. wrote:
well yes, this is very important to me too. The importance of having native lenses for each format for me lies mostly in the spec: a lens with a bigger image circle will (generally) not be as small, or as wide, or as fast, or as corrected, or as cheap as an equivalent lens with a smaller image circle. Or all of the above.
Which is ok when we're talking large format where you get the benefit of movements and you have a massive tripod and very expensive peripherals anyway, but in smaller cameras where size, cost and low light ability/performance of the lens are a top priority, it matters heaps....Show more →
except autofocus versus manual focus usually means FF rangefinder lenses are smaller than aps-c mirrorless lenses of the same speed and focal length. price is another story...
i personally could care less what format a lens is for. what matters to me is how it performs on my current camera and how portable it is to another system. all of the current camera companies are making cameras that i think could be easily and drastically improved upon, so i don't want to be stuck in their system if suddenly somebody comes out with a camera i really like.
yes, and oh what a story it is!
Paying $600 for a native wide fuji lens with f2 is a long long way away from the closest full frame equivalent option I can think of http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520231-REG/Zeiss_1440_731_Super_Wide_Angle_18mm.html
not to mention that it is 2 stops slower, double the size, triple the weight etc
Even though it is non-AF.
So yeah, native lenses for me, thanks
(except for the M lenses I already own of course, ie not many)
Spyro P. wrote:
yes, and oh what a story it is!
Paying $600 for a native wide fuji lens with f2 is a long long way away from the closest full frame equivalent option I can think of http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520231-REG/Zeiss_1440_731_Super_Wide_Angle_18mm.html
not to mention that it is 2 stops slower, double the size, triple the weight etc
Even though it is non-AF.
So yeah, native lenses for me, thanks
(except for the M lenses I already own of course, ie not many)
certainly true for that example, but look at voigtlander's offerings at 35/1.4 and 50/2.5 (admittedly not a macro and a little shorter focal length).
yes CV is so incredibly cheap and small that it can actually compete with native lenses at some focal lengths. Which makes me wonder how much cheaper/smaller/faster their offerings would be if designed specifically for the X-mount
The other thing is that they are non-AF, which makes some sense on this camera for the occasional M lens cravings, but definitely not for heavy use (considering no MF aids and average EVF quality)
Spyro P. wrote:
yes CV is so incredibly cheap and small that it can actually compete with native lenses at some focal lengths. Which makes me wonder how much cheaper/smaller/faster their offerings would be if designed specifically for the X-mount
The other thing is that they are non-AF, which makes some sense on this camera for the occasional M lens cravings, but definitely not for heavy use (considering no MF aids and average EVF quality)
i'm sure most people agree with you, non-AF means nogo. even given the poor evf and lack of focus aids i would still prefer the real manual focus lens to the native autofocus lenses of the xp1 (especially given the user reports i've been reading about autofocus on this camera). obviously, i'd prefer the sony or ricoh plus manual focus lens solution more though.
I guess it's just a gut feel, I'll have to use the camera to form an opinion. I suspect with a fast manual lens wide open the dof will be more visible than it is on my X100 making it easier to focus even with a low res EVF. And the camera will not have the ability to change aperture at will to adjust EVF brightness or whatever reason it's doing it for (that lens "chatter" people are talking about). Also with slow M lenses with a tab it should be easy to zone focus by feel so I'm kinda looking forward to that too. We'll see... maybe MF is better, maybe it's better for some uses.
One question will be how good/accurate infinity focus will be with the adapter. Most M adapters for the NEX seem to allow some focus beyond infinity, and depending on the amount, could affect the accuracy of the distance scale on the lens for zone focusing.
This photographer has the M mount adapter for the XP1 and has posted a shot with the CV12. I asked him to try some additional shots at farther distances where edge color shift and sharpness will be more problematic than at near minimum focusing distance. He indicated he also has the CV15 and will give it a try...
rscheffler wrote:
One question will be how good/accurate infinity focus will be with the adapter. Most M adapters for the NEX seem to allow some focus beyond infinity, and depending on the amount, could affect the accuracy of the distance scale on the lens for zone focusing.
This photographer has the M mount adapter for the XP1 and has posted a shot with the CV12. I asked him to try some additional shots at farther distances where edge color shift and sharpness will be more problematic than at near minimum focusing distance. He indicated he also has the CV15 and will give it a try...
sebboh wrote:
i'm sure most people agree with you, non-AF means nogo. even given the poor evf and lack of focus aids i would still prefer the real manual focus lens to the native autofocus lenses of the xp1 (especially given the user reports i've been reading about autofocus on this camera). obviously, i'd prefer the sony or ricoh plus manual focus lens solution more though.
I knew full well going into getting a 5N that I would be using M lenses 90% of the time, and for $600, that was a worthy compromise.
I know that if I were paying $1700 for an XP1, the native lenses (quality, AF, etc) had better be compelling, otherwise it's just a waste of money.
corposant wrote:
I knew full well going into getting a 5N that I would be using M lenses 90% of the time, and for $600, that was a worthy compromise.
I know that if I were paying $1700 for an XP1, the native lenses (quality, AF, etc) had better be compelling, otherwise it's just a waste of money.
yeah, i know that no matter what camera i buy i'm going to be using 90% manual focus adapted lenses. at this point it appears this means that for me the xp1 is a waste of money, not because of the high price though so much as the poor manual focus implementation and extra features that i would pay for but not use (e.g. optical finder).
The angle of view is of course different as I had to move the tripod, but you get the idea. 
Of course, things get a bit complicated if you want to find a high performance 35 f/1.4 equivalent or say a 100 f/2. While you might find some exotic 24 f/0.95 lens, its performance at f/0.95 won't be anything like what you get at f/1.4 from a 35mm. 
While it certainly doesn't look anything like it would on the M9, it's a pretty interesting short-tele, portrait lens on the 5N ( and I usually shoot it at around f2-2.8.)