That is absolutely amazing news. We can adjust the color shading individually per lens. Of course, remains the problem of the color shading depending on the focusing distance and working aperture, so it can't be one generic setting per lens.
sebboh wrote:
awesome, clearly they were thinking about us in the design of the camera!
And if it works, this may help to improve some of the complaints from some of the reported early tests with some of the RF wide angle lenses. Of course, we still do not know if those users actually did everything properly or not... This may be just what many of us want to use some of the WA RF lenses, but we will have to wait and see.
edwardkaraa wrote:
That is absolutely amazing news. We can adjust the color shading individually per lens. Of course, remains the problem of the color shading depending on the focusing distance and working aperture, so it can't be one generic setting per lens.
But, one for infinity work would be fairly useful, one for mfd (if you do much of that) and one for street/mid distance. I would think the decision @ which distance range (for WA/UWA's in particular) would be fairly distinctive between these three, i.e. no need to have one for a multitude of subjective distances. Most folks probably would get by with primarily using two of the three ... and maybe a corresponding matrix/set for two apertures WO & f8. Not perfect, but better than current and fairly expedient I'd think ... especially if you have a fav prime that you glue to it.
But if you really want to think about a multitude of variability ... ummm, try adding T/S to the mix.
RustyBug wrote:
But, one for infinity work would be fairly useful, one for mfd (if you do much of that) and one for street/mid distance. I would think the decision @ which distance range (for WA/UWA's in particular) would be fairly distinctive between these three, i.e. no need to have one for a multitude of subjective distances. Most folks probably would get by with primarily using two of the three ... and maybe a corresponding matrix/set for two apertures WO & f8. Not perfect, but better than current and fairly expedient I'd think ... especially if you have a fav prime that you glue to it.
But if you really want to think about a multitude of variability ... ummm, try adding T/S to the mix. ...Show more →
Actually Leica does have only one setting per lens, if I understand correctly, at infinity and f/8. Seems to work ok, but not ideal.
From my own experience, I usually find that the color cast is strongest at infinity and decreases as I focus closer. As for the aperture, I find that the color cast is worst at smaller apertures even though the vignetting itself is worse wide open, of course.
What I would probably do is just make one color correction setting per lens, and avoid fixing vignetting at all in camera. Vignetting can be adjusted easily in the raw converter, and you'll avoid over correcting for various lens settings.
I've not diagnosed it quite that astutely yet ... just noting that light toned areas seem most problematic for revealing the color shift. So, I'm wary of them with very much tilt, or placing them at the edges if I have choices @ comp. The vignette isn't quite as much of a concern as people are more accustomed to seeing vignette ... but those purple/green shifts can raise an eyebrow pretty quickly.
For what it's worth, I have both Cornerfix and LR plugin, but never use them. I also do not use lens profiles in the M9. That is zero corrections. If I ever get any Italian flag with the ZM 25, which rarely happens, I just crop it off, switch to b/w, or just ignore the shot and work on another one. Now a lens that consistently produces the Italian flag, I will just get rid of it.
I'm mostly interested in a really good 35 mm lens for the α7 or α7r, but I have a hard time choosing what to aim at, regardless of price. Here's a little list I compiled, where the * indicates that I've tried it myself:
*ZM 35/2.8 – Fantastic lens with great 3D and smooth bokeh, but a tad slow.
ZM 35/2 – Seems great and affordable, but gives occasionally harsh bokeh wide open. Optimized for non-closeup work.
CV 35/2.5 – Small and sharp, but only in the middle and with great bokeh. Slow max speed.
*CV 35/1.4 – Acceptable, old school rendering and sharp enough, but gave brutal curvature of field on M8.
CV 40/1.4 – Probably much like the above, but seems better overall and with less COF.
*CV 35/1.2 – Best bokeh around, but hazy wide open and a bit bulky. Very allround characteristics though.
*Summicron-C 40/2 – Old school rendering with very nice "glow" wide open (totally different from the 35/1.2 WO haze) and very sharp stopped down from f/2.8, but gives almost as bad COF as the CV 35/1.4. Probably one of the smallest RF lenses ever.
*Summarit 35/2.5 – A tad better than the ZM 35/2.8 colorwise and with similarly great bokeh. The only downside is lack of speed and the price.
Summicron 35/2 ASPH – Mixed reviews but is probably awesome, if one can afford it. Sharper WO than the ZM, but lesser so stopped down.
Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH – Expensive as hell but good as hell, although sharpness doesn't seem uniform across the frame even stopped down (wavey MTF). The FLE version is sharper WO but gives harsher bokeh and perhaps even more wavey MTF.
I probably forgot a lens or two. There are Canon RF 35:s that I know nothing about.
The CV35/1.2, at least on the Nex-7, causes a color cast over the entire frame at f/1.4 and f/1.2.
With a fixed white balance, you can see the frame get distinctively pink as you change the aperture from f/2 to f/1.4.
This is probably the same reason as the corner color-cast caused by wider lenses, just because of the exit pupil size being very large at f/1.2. So, we'll see how it does on FF. (I haven't heard anyone mention something similar on the M9 or 240).
Taylor Sherman wrote:
The CV35/1.2, at least on the Nex-7, causes a color cast over the entire frame at f/1.4 and f/1.2.
With a fixed white balance, you can see the frame get distinctively pink as you change the aperture from f/2 to f/1.4.
This is probably the same reason as the corner color-cast caused by wider lenses, just because of the exit pupil size being very large at f/1.2. So, we'll see how it does on FF. (I haven't heard anyone mention something similar on the M9 or 240).
Interesting! I saw no color cast at all on the NEX-5N, which gives hope for larger sensors.
Honestly I dont care too much about color cast/fringing and least of all vignetting. My hobby is both photography and post-processing so things like that can be fixed. As been mentioned a couple of times in this thread already, smearing cant. That is the problem to worry about.
If offset lenses fixes that I am prepared to get all those unnecessary pixels of the A7r. A bit of hope is either that the Australian Sony team got it wrong so that the A7 also have it, or, the lesser pixelated A7 dont mind steep angels too much. Unfortunately - after 11 pages - there's no evidence of 15-18-21-28 RF wides working fine on these new Sonys.
wfrank wrote:
A bit of hope is either that the Australian Sony team got it wrong so that the A7 also have it, or, the lesser pixelated A7 dont mind steep angels too much.
Yeah, very much of the information on these cameras seems to come from that single video, and is nowhere else to be found. Never, ever trust a salesperson!
Edit: I don't care about mild color casts either, but COF and smearing (perhaps the same thing?) means no-go. 35 mm lenses should be OK if the sensor is reasonably well designed for far-back exit pupil lenses. The shortest I'll want to get is ~24 mm, which could be worse.
Makten wrote:
I'm mostly interested in a really good 35 mm lens for the α7 or α7r, but I have a hard time choosing what to aim at, regardless of price. Here's a little list I compiled, where the * indicates that I've tried it myself:
*ZM 35/2.8 – Fantastic lens with great 3D and smooth bokeh, but a tad slow.
ZM 35/2 – Seems great and affordable, but gives occasionally harsh bokeh wide open. Optimized for non-closeup work.
CV 35/2.5 – Small and sharp, but only in the middle and with great bokeh. Slow max speed.
*CV 35/1.4 – Acceptable, old school rendering and sharp enough, but gave brutal curvature of field on M8.
CV 40/1.4 – Probably much like the above, but seems better overall and with less COF.
*CV 35/1.2 – Best bokeh around, but hazy wide open and a bit bulky. Very allround characteristics though.
*Summicron-C 40/2 – Old school rendering with very nice "glow" wide open (totally different from the 35/1.2 WO haze) and very sharp stopped down from f/2.8, but gives almost as bad COF as the CV 35/1.4. Probably one of the smallest RF lenses ever.
*Summarit 35/2.5 – A tad better than the ZM 35/2.8 colorwise and with similarly great bokeh. The only downside is lack of speed and the price.
Summicron 35/2 ASPH – Mixed reviews but is probably awesome, if one can afford it. Sharper WO than the ZM, but lesser so stopped down.
Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH – Expensive as hell but good as hell, although sharpness doesn't seem uniform across the frame even stopped down (wavey MTF). The FLE version is sharper WO but gives harsher bokeh and perhaps even more wavey MTF.
I probably forgot a lens or two. There are Canon RF 35:s that I know nothing about....Show more →
You forgot your favorite: Zeiss ZF 35/1.4 Distagon The 35/2 is probably okay even on an A7/A7r.
Makten wrote:
Summarit 35/2.5 – A tad better than the ZM 35/2.8 colorwise and with similarly great bokeh. The only downside is lack of speed and the price.
The Zeiss ZM 35 2.8 was also tested by Sean Reid as having better resolution across the frame and having less distortion than the Leica Summarit 35/2.5. The Leica has slightly better flare resistance than the Biogon. These are probably close enough that it really comes down to personal preference and pocket book (The Leica is significantly more).
There are Canon RF 35:s that I know nothing about.