i shoot manual focus lenses because i much prefer the ergonomics of it and find autofocus on the NEX even slower and more prone to failure than it was on my dslrs (which I already hated). i don't think mf improves my photography any, but it makes it much more enjoyable for me. i agree about mf FF lenses being more future proof too. my mf lenses always sell for more than i paid, my af lenses for less. it'll be a while before any new tech makes FF lenses unusable.
I find manual focus to be more accurate. Also, I enjoy the more contemplative process. I shoot full manual all the time except when shooting the kid-- then its full auto and kit lenses out of self defense.
briantho wrote:
The problem with native lenses is that they are... native. Unusable on any other camera. I use NEX5N atm, but with all these mirrorless offerings, I have no clue which camera I'll be using this time next year. I do know which lenses I'll be using though, and I'll probobly be using some of those same lenses 10 years from now. I do understand the AF argument, but I'm all MF
I agree with you. I'd agree even more if I had a stable full of Contarex lenses like you do.. But the unique rendering of certain manual focus lenses can't be matched by any of the e-mount lenses.
briantho wrote:
The problem with native lenses is that they are... native. Unusable on any other camera. I use NEX5N atm, but with all these mirrorless offerings, I have no clue which camera I'll be using this time next year. I do know which lenses I'll be using though, and I'll probobly be using some of those same lenses 10 years from now. I do understand the AF argument, but I'm all MF
I feel the same way 1000%
millsart wrote:
I don't know if legacy lenses really have the future proofing they used to. Who for example could of ever guessed that APC-S was going to be used on some many mirrorless cameras, much less something even smaller like m4/3. Even if there was nothing like color shifts, you could still be looking at having your 24mm, which was normally your wide angle now serving as a normal 50mm equiv. Throws your whole kit off. With the Nikon's rumored entry level FF coming, it may be the start of a resurgence to FF, and FF lenses can be as small as crop lenses, it will just take some commitment by the manufactures to do it, no one is 100% sure what the global market wants 3 years from now, so the best we can do is speculate what may come to pass.
Then of course there is always the unknown of how a sensor will work on new bodies. NEX5n for example seemed to worked pretty good on some wider RF glass, but then you go and upgrade to a new body and boom, color shifts and bad smearing. I think as time goes on, sensors will become less and less of an issue with symmetrical lenses, there are a lot of what-if's in the camera world.
Maybe there will be a FF mirrorless that works great with legacy glass. Maybe there won't be. Maybe there will be a FF mirrorless but perhaps its going to have the same color shift issues we see now. Maybe someone is going to come out with a totally new technology in 5 years time with adaptive fluid based lenses and no one is going to have any real interest in shooting legacy glass. Maybe future lenses will have the ability to mimic the unique renderings of different optical formula's at the press of a button. Or maybe we could still be shooting the same old things, point is I don't think anyone knows. ...Show more →I don't know about 5 years time, maybe 10 where they will be able to replace glass optics in P&S lenses and larger systems, I can see cellphone lenses being replaced in less time.
I think for me, I'd be a little disappointed if theres no better tool than what I'm currently working with in 10 years time.
Do you mean bodies or lenses? Both?
And what will it matter when the end of the world is nearing. :P
Seriously, advances will come, but how much will be evolutionary vs. revolutionary?
legaltrouble wrote:
I agree with you. I'd agree even more if I had a stable full of Contarex lenses like you do.. But the unique rendering of certain manual focus lenses can't be matched by any of the e-mount lenses.
Maybe, but I'd contend that the rendering of some e-mount lenses can't be matched by manual focus lenses, either, especially if you agree with Luka that you loose a lot of lens' character when you shoot it on a format that it wasn't designed for (I'm not saying I do or don't agree with that.) FWIW, I find manual focusing my Sigma lenses better than the Contax G adapter rings.
millsart wrote:
I think for me, I'd be a little disappointed if theres no better tool than what I'm currently working with in 10 years time.
With regards to lenses, if you'd have said that in 2002, or even in 1962, you'd be pretty disappointed today. But then, what is really to be "bettered"? Yes, we got AF since 1962, and coatings have been improved, but not much else.
briantho wrote:
With regards to lenses, if you'd have said that in 2002, or even in 1962, you'd be pretty disappointed today. But then, what is really to be "bettered"? Yes, we got AF since 1962, and coatings have been improved, but not much else.
Well computer aided design means that a 30mm/2.8 $250 Sigma lens can be as sharp as a 24 mm/1.8 $1100 Zeiss lens that's actually a pretty significant improvement, if you think about it.--closing the gap as it were.
There's also been significant improvements in materials--which show up in those Sigma lense, e.g., no more radioactive glass, Ed elements on zooms, etc. Not to belabor the point, but those improvements have allowed Leica to come out with a 50 mm APO 'cron lens for only $8000
legaltrouble wrote:
Well computer aided design means that a 30mm/2.8 $250 Sigma lens can be as sharp as a 24 mm/1.8 $1100 Zeiss lens that's actually a pretty significant improvement, if you think about it.--closing the gap as it were.
There's also been significant improvements in materials--which show up in those Sigma lense, e.g., no more radioactive glass, Ed elements on zooms, etc. Not to belabor the point, but those improvements have allowed Leica to come out with a 50 mm APO 'cron lens for only $8000
there has also been significant degradation in build quality and building materials. most of the optical improvement has been on the lower end of the range. we can now get fantastically good cheap lenses. cameras have actually been getting steadily worse in their design since the 80s (just my opinion) in every area except the imaging sensor, which is luckily the most important part. i'm not terribly confident that the march of progress will lead to many cameras or lenses that i actually want to buy.
briantho wrote:
With regards to lenses, if you'd have said that in 2002, or even in 1962, you'd be pretty disappointed today. But then, what is really to be "bettered"? Yes, we got AF since 1962, and coatings have been improved, but not much else.
resolving power across the frame? coatings, color accuracy?
briantho wrote:
With regards to lenses, if you'd have said that in 2002, or even in 1962, you'd be pretty disappointed today. But then, what is really to be "bettered"? Yes, we got AF since 1962, and coatings have been improved, but not much else.
resolving power across the frame? coatings, color accuracy?
ulrikft2 wrote:
resolving power across the frame? coatings, color accuracy?
I mentioned coating. As for resolving power, for instance the 20 year old Contax G 45 beats most expensive modern lenses, and all modern "standard" offerings. When you say across the frame, remember old lenses are fullframe, not comparable with Sigma APS-C lenses. And about color accuracy I have no idea about what has been improved, all old Zeiss glass I've tried has been pretty accurate.
briantho wrote:
I mentioned coating. As for resolving power, for instance the 20 year old Contax G 45 beats most expensive modern lenses, and all modern "standard" offerings. When you say across the frame, remember old lenses are fullframe, not comparable with Sigma APS-C lenses. And about color accuracy I have no idea about what has been improved, all old Zeiss glass I've tried has been pretty accurate.
The G 45 Planar was even more remarkable when it was introduced in 1994 than it is today. Essentially all the comparable lenses of that era have been replaced by more modern, higher performing designs. The exceptions being Canon's aging 50's and the Summicron-M 50, which has just been superseded.
Nikon's replaced both their AF 50's with significantly better AF-S versions (in fact Nikon would technically replace their 50/1.8 three times in this time period, with the first two being packaging/electronics updates), Sony would introduce two excellent 50/1.8's as well as shipping Minolta's upgraded 50/1.4D, Voigtlander would be reborn and ship a bunch of 40-50mm lenses ranging from quite good to superb, Sigma would introduce an excellent 50mm and even Pentax would introduce a new 40mm and 55mm lenses. Leica introduced a Summilux-M 50 that quite frankly defines the bar for performance in this focal range and even Zeiss would introduce 5 different 50mm lenses across multiple SLR mounts as well as M mount.
Note that the G 45 Planar is not exceptional in terms of performance when compared to other RF normals. It's at the upper end but is certainly outperformed by newer lenses. What makes it so unique is that it has quite probably the most pronounced Planar signature of any lens in that range.
I find the points about rendering to be most interesting, especially when people who used range finder zeiss lenses move to new sigma E lenses and are not disappointed. Considering all the discussions about zeiss, zeiss rendering, 3d and the like, it is really something that sigma can offer affordable lenses that win individuals over. I still find something I like about the whites and other colors from contax G lenses as compared with the E 18-200 or Zeiss E 24mm, but do pay attention to comments others make on the merits of these lenses. Thanks all.
corposant wrote:
With some reluctance, I am considering ditching the 5N for the 7. Main reason is that I can barely see the rear screen in direct sunlight. I am dismayed there's no UWA solution for the 7... come on Sigma 8-16 in E mount!
Just in case, I have to admit that I was not aware of the NEX5N's screen setting "Bright sunlight" (or similar) for a long time. It helps.
I also had the EVF and as Douglas said the tilt function is great. I did ditch that one, but I had other expectations for it which it did not match.
inglis wrote:
I find the points about rendering to be most interesting, especially when people who used range finder zeiss lenses move to new sigma E lenses and are not disappointed. Considering all the discussions about zeiss, zeiss rendering, 3d and the like, it is really something that sigma can offer affordable lenses that win individuals over. I still find something I like about the whites and other colors from contax G lenses as compared with the E 18-200 or Zeiss E 24mm, but do pay attention to comments others make on the merits of these lenses. Thanks all.
When a lens is only $200, smaller/lighter than an adapter alone, and also has AF I think people view it slightly differently.
Honestly, I think so much debate/discussion about thing like rendering style etc is really a means to try to better justify some pretty darn pricey lenses. Not saying they aren't good, but with some RF glass costing over $1000, thats a fair bit of money your paying just for the optical quality. When a lens has more than just IQ, but also AF motor, IS etc going for it, maybe it seems like your getting a bit more bang for your buck
What I found most remarkable about it was that I easily scored one for about $275 on Ebay before they started getting popular.
Even today, compared to Zeiss and Leica prices, the Contax G lenses are outright bargains in terms of just how good they are vs how little they cost.
mawz wrote:
The G 45 Planar was even more remarkable when it was introduced in 1994 than it is today. Essentially all the comparable lenses of that era have been replaced by more modern, higher performing designs. The exceptions being Canon's aging 50's and the Summicron-M 50, which has just been superseded.
Nikon's replaced both their AF 50's with significantly better AF-S versions (in fact Nikon would technically replace their 50/1.8 three times in this time period, with the first two being packaging/electronics updates), Sony would introduce two excellent 50/1.8's as well as shipping Minolta's upgraded 50/1.4D, Voigtlander would be reborn and ship a bunch of 40-50mm lenses ranging from quite good to superb, Sigma would introduce an excellent 50mm and even Pentax would introduce a new 40mm and 55mm lenses. Leica introduced a Summilux-M 50 that quite frankly defines the bar for performance in this focal range and even Zeiss would introduce 5 different 50mm lenses across multiple SLR mounts as well as M mount.
Note that the G 45 Planar is not exceptional in terms of performance when compared to other RF normals. It's at the upper end but is certainly outperformed by newer lenses. What makes it so unique is that it has quite probably the most pronounced Planar signature of any lens in that range. ...Show more →
on the Nex 7 there is a button that says AF/MF I have chose 'toggle". When I toggle, how do I know if I have chosen MF or AF, I think I have read the manual and cannot come up with the answer. thank you joanlvh
joanlvh wrote:
on the Nex 7 there is a button that says AF/MF I have chose 'toggle". When I toggle, how do I know if I have chosen MF or AF, I think I have read the manual and cannot come up with the answer. thank you joanlvh
You can make it act as a toggle, OR, you can make it a switch. Whatever mode you select is the default.
In other words, if you have the camera in AF mode, and it set to toggle mode, when you hold the button it will give you MF mode
OR, how I had mine set up, is I set the camera to MF, and then when I press the button on the back, the camera will AF. This was the shutter and focus aren't linked, much like many people set up their DSLR's. Nice too because the camera doesn't do the continuous AF this way either!
You can also set it as a switch where it will simply go back and forth. This is useful as well. I'll usually have it on AF, but as I do pano's and need the focus to not change, I just press the button and the lens is in MF mode, same as having a AF/MF switch on camera or lens.
As for how you know ? When your in MF mode there is no AF box on the screen, when your in AF mode, there is the center or spot focus box
mawz wrote:
Note that the G 45 Planar is not exceptional in terms of performance when compared to other RF normals. It's at the upper end but is certainly outperformed by newer lenses.
Which newer normal lenses are superior to the G45, and in what ways? I suppose the only ones in the discussion would be the 50 Planar, the 50 Lux, and the new 50 cron (I like the 50 C-Sonnar, but I think it's too idiosyncratic of a lens to be considered technically superior to the G45). I'd be curious if any of those lenses outresolved the G45 at any aperture, over an APS-C sensor. I suspect that they might show some advantages over the G on full-frame, but for a NEX user, it seems pretty hard to beat.
If we're talking about subjective measures like bokeh and rendering, then yes, the G45 may not be the right lens for all purposes.
alwang wrote:
Which newer normal lenses are superior to the G45, and in what ways? I suppose the only ones in the discussion would be the 50 Planar, the 50 Lux, and the new 50 cron (I like the 50 C-Sonnar, but I think it's too idiosyncratic of a lens to be considered technically superior to the G45). I'd be curious if any of those lenses outresolved the G45 at any aperture, over an APS-C sensor. I suspect that they might show some advantages over the G on full-frame, but for a NEX user, it seems pretty hard to beat.
If we're talking about subjective measures like bokeh and rendering, then yes, the G45 may not be the right lens for all purposes....Show more →
judging by the mtfs the g 45 beats the 50 planar on aps-c for resolution but is slightly lower contrast. i don't have the 50 lux mtf on hand, but i believe the g 45 beats it on aps-c as well in terms of resolution (except at f/1.4 ). the new 50 cron stomps the g 45 on mtf to the extent that stomping it is theoretically possible (not really that much). on FF the g 45 gets edged out by the 50 planar on the edges, not sure about the lux again. the g 45 is one of the best normal lenses ever made and stomps most normal lenses currently made. imho it's the best deal in lenses today. i paid $200 for mine 1.5 years ago.
). the new 50 cron stomps the g 45 on mtf to the extent that stomping it is theoretically possible (not really that much). on FF the g 45 gets edged out by the 50 planar on the edges, not sure about the lux again. the g 45 is one of the best normal lenses ever made and stomps most normal lenses currently made. imho it's the best deal in lenses today. i paid $200 for mine 1.5 years ago.