I understand what you said in the first place. I too have Nex6 and M9 with two lenses (for M9) cron 28 2.0 asph and sum 50 1.4 asph as well as Sigma 60 2.8 for Nex6.
I'm not using the cron 28 2.0 too often with Nex6 due to corner softness but center performance & rendering is much better than sigma's. That's what I see....
Bijltje wrote:
Read my text. I'm talking about using the lens on the nex system.
I have the 28 cron myself and used it on the M8 and M9P. It is a stellar lens and one of my all time favorites.
I tried a couple of leica lenses on my nex and found out (much to my surprise) the sigma's are really fine lenses and really close/ on pair with the leica ON THE NEX.
Thats why I don't see the reason to buy a 28 cron (or the 18 SEM) for a couple of grand to use on a camera like the nex 5 when there are much cheaper lenses out there like the sigma who are really close, costs only 100 euro for 2 lenses and have the benefit of AF and such.
You can find it BS, it is my finding after using both. Sigma did a great job with those two dn lenses....Show more →
vovkinson wrote:
I understand what you said in the first place. I too have Nex6 and M9 with two lenses (for M9) cron 28 2.0 asph and sum 50 1.4 asph as well as Sigma 60 2.8 for Nex6.
I'm not using the cron 28 2.0 too often with Nex6 due to corner softness but center performance & rendering is much better than sigma's. That's what I see....
At least according to the imatest results over at LensRentals.com, the Sigma 30 is slightly sharper than the 50 Summilux at f2.8 and f4 in the center on the NEX-7. Unless the 28 Summicron is radically sharper than the 50 Summilux, I'm not sure how it is sharper than the Sigma 30 in the center, unless you're talking about at f2.0 link
vovkinson wrote:
I understand what you said in the first place. I too have Nex6 and M9 with two lenses (for M9) cron 28 2.0 asph and sum 50 1.4 asph as well as Sigma 60 2.8 for Nex6.
I'm not using the cron 28 2.0 too often with Nex6 due to corner softness but center performance & rendering is much better than sigma's. That's what I see....
douglasf13 wrote:
At least according to the imatest results over at LensRentals.com, the Sigma 30 is slightly sharper than the 50 Summilux at f2.8 and f4 in the center on the NEX-7. Unless the 28 Summicron is radically sharper than the 50 Summilux, I'm not sure how it is sharper than the Sigma 30 in the center, unless you're talking about at f2.0 link
I have both the 19mm and 30mm sigmas and they are very nice lenses. sharp with good contrast and inoffensive bokeh. I never use the 30mm though because I find the look of the g28 to be much better. I'm sure they both out resolve the sensor in the center from wide open, but the g28 looks sharper due to greater microcontrast or whatever you call it. color seems much cleaner from the zeiss as well. the sigma is sharper in the corners, but not enough for me to care. I made myself shoot with the 30mm for a day and haven't bothered with it since. the 19mm I use from time to time because I like it better than the Sony options (haven't tried any rangefinder wides).
I have both the Voigtlander 12 & 15, but the APS-C system I use them on a GXR instead of a NEX. Though way back when I test-drove a 5N for a few weeks, the 15 seemed to work OK on it.
Of the two on the GXR, the 15 is the technically better lens. Though even on the GXR's M module without AA filter, there is still some color shift into the corners (less troublesome blue rather than magenta).
The 12, in comparison, has image quality that while good, looks a bit 'tense' for lack of a better term, where fine details are resolved, but seem a bit smeared at times. I also wonder a bit about QC with this lens (I have the older LTM version). When I returned to the store to try another copy, the one they loaned me was terribly unsharp into the corners (on an M9) with massive CA not seen in the one I originally bought (and kept).
The ultra wide solutions really are slim pickings for these systems. Though the Voigtlander lenses are quite small, especially if you buy the earlier LTM versions, I'm not sure they offer the best image quality. If I had to pick one, I'd go with the 15, assuming it had minimal color shift on the camera.
While not on NEX, I posted a fair number of CV12 images starting about here in the now-locked GXR image thread.
vovkinson wrote:
I too have Nex6 and M9 with two lenses (for M9) cron 28 2.0 asph and sum 50 1.4 asph as well as Sigma 60 2.8 for Nex6.
I'm not using the cron 28 2.0 too often with Nex6 due to corner softness but center performance & rendering is much better than sigma's. That's what I see....
douglasf13 wrote:
At least according to the imatest results over at LensRentals.com, the Sigma 30 is slightly sharper than the 50 Summilux at f2.8 and f4 in the center on the NEX-7. Unless the 28 Summicron is radically sharper than the 50 Summilux, I'm not sure how it is sharper than the Sigma 30 in the center, unless you're talking about at f2.0 link
Checking Leica's MTF for both the 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH, the 28 has higher central 40 lp/mm values. But the 28 seems to have a somewhat different design philosophy than the 50, which has much wavier MTF curves with greater tangential and sagittal divergence as the lens is stopped down but the curves tend to flatten out over most of the image. The 28's curves instead drop off gradually and smoothly towards the corners. Most of the Leica M lenses have some degree of wavy MTF curves and the dips tend to coincide with the image edges on APS-C. Combined with the other factors affecting RF lens performance on non-optimized sensors, I wouldn't be surprised to find many of these lenses don't outperform those designed specifically for APS-C systems over the full image. Where the Leica (and Zeiss and CV) RF lenses really seem to perform best overall is on FF, unsurprisingly.
Looking at the 50's MTF and you'll see it really does seem to be wide open optimized with very little tangential and sagittal divergence. But optimized doesn't necessarily mean sharpest, rather, where its performance is possibly the most pleasing, which of course is a subjective assessment of a number of factors. I do think it's a great lens, but in terms of central sharpness, especially at nearer distances, there are other 50mm lenses that I think can give a sharper look through higher contrast, such as the ZM50/2.
