kosmoskatten wrote:
sebboh: yeah, that ZM18 nail is still sticking out of the coffin...
it's just an idle curiosity for me. that's one lens i'd have to crop even if it was sharp corner to corner. the performance with the 40 cron and g45 are reason enough for me to buy the camera.
sebboh wrote:
the 28 cron is a pretty known quantity. lots of smearing from wide open to f/5.6. at f/11 the corners are decent but still look a little smeared. no real color shift on the a7, but definitely noticeable on the a7r.
i have yet to see a full sized pic with the zm 18/4 though...
links to A7r 28 cron samples? I've yet to see a corner at any aperture.
uhoh7 wrote:
links to A7r 28 cron samples? I've yet to see a corner at any aperture.
and I've been looking.
i thought somebody linked them on dropbox, maybe it was just more of the elmarit asph. ron's test was pretty conclusive for the a7 though, and so far i haven't seen any lenses where the r actually does noticeably better with respect to smearing compared to the 7.
sebboh wrote:
i thought somebody linked them on dropbox, maybe it was just more of the elmarit asph. ron's test was pretty conclusive for the a7 though, and so far i haven't seen any lenses where the r actually does noticeably better with respect to smearing compared to the 7.
In fact this is the question I was wondering about. Does anyone notice less smearing with the A7R? I have the impression from long distance shots that the A7 might actually perform better in the corners.
Frankly, Edward, "better" is not necessarily a good thing. Good performance is what I am looking for. Else, why should I trade up for less good performance. Clearly, some lenses are not going to make it on my A7R, so I will trade some lenses. But it is far from game over as concerns WA. Multiple reports indicate the Voigtländer 21 f:1.8 is a good candidate.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I think the whole point of having a full frame camera is _not having to crop_ your lenses by default.
I think my conclusion (that I came to on page sub ten) is that neither the A7 or A7r are any good full frame solutions for wide angle RF lens users. Acceptable? To some, sure, not for me. Still, hope lingered on for a few weeks as there was a slight possibility that "some" would do better than others.
On the whole test chart and scene analysis with comments on where the lens was focused (mid zone, corners, taking field curvature into account) I can only say: if you can't produce an acceptable image under controlled shooting conditions of a bookshelf/brick wall - how in the heck are you supposed to fair in real life shooting conditions? If the lens does not work it does not work. While people are debating on how a beautiful but old and perfectly good lens should be focused "critically" in various conditions other people are taking "sharper" photos with consumer grade zooms already.
I think a NEW camera that does not do any good unless you; crop, de-smear and color correct every other image is worthless as a platform for alt lenses. I think it is more than evident that Sony did not put any extra special effort into accommodating RF wides. Anyone who isn't seeing that by now is clearly delusional.
Though I miss a lot of my old RW wide glass (Voigt 15, ZM18, ZM25, Cron28)
for their size and performance I decided some time ago I would not perpetuate the search for the holy camera grail. Instead I will actually see what will surface in the next few years with new stuff and a small-ish outfit that would meet my criteria.
I am keeping tabs on the Sony development and I don't really mind if Sony would have Zeiss churn out just a few really good wide angle lenses. I need just a few really good lenses and a reliable platform. I don't need expensive compromises - those I can have any day of the week already.
I also think people who have bought the A7/r should not feel to bad - some great non alt glass might be just around the corner and the potential of the offering is pretty awesome, to end on a good note. ...Show more →
While I agree in general to your point of view, there's always an alternative view to consider.
For instance: you own already a Lux-21 ( lucky you) and you get the A7r. Corners aren't good and need cropping, lets say to a FOV of a 24mm. You get almost 28Mp from your 'new Lux-24'.
Now, will a 18Mp Leica M9 and a Lux24 will be better, in resolution, than a Lux-21 plus A7r (cropped to 28Mp) ?. Very unlikely.
Right, a cropped FF camera isn't the ideal solution for wide RF glass but, in many cases, it might be better (resolution wise) than a M9 or even a M240.
The flaw in that theory is that many of these lenses have smearing and color shift way further into the frame than 28mp and he'd likely have to crop more aggressively than that - in some cases smaller than APS-C.
sdpeebler wrote:
Hate to be that guy, but...could anyone speculate as to how the Canon FD 50mm 1.2L might perform on the A7/R? With the various 50mm RF samples available, I'd like to believe it will perform OK, but maybe someone with a little more knowledge/experience could correct me if I'm mistaken. I have been hoping to see quite a few FD tests, but no such luck. Really happy with the samples I've seen of the 85L, but the 50 is the one I'm worried about. Thanks in advance.
Seth
as it is described before, good in the center and poor out against corners and sides
p.108 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Surprised there's been no comment on this well done set of Wate images on the A7r already linked to in one of the other threads. Looks pretty good to me even wide open. Not that I own one but did test it extensively against the M Hexanon 21-35mm F3.4-4 Dual on a Nex-7 last year and bought the Konica, Appears it will also play well with the A7r.
p.108 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
eightfold wrote:
More poor than on a 5D Mark II?
My understanding/expectation is that SLR lenses should pretty much have the same performance on Sony as on SLR -- the hit-or-miss is effectively limited to rangefinder lenses.
p.108 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
turnstyle wrote:
My understanding/expectation is that SLR lenses should pretty much have the same performance on Sony as on SLR -- the hit-or-miss is effectively limited to rangefinder lenses.
I was hoping for a smaller / lighter 28mm solution than the C/Y 28/2 I once had on the 1Ds...
The A7 vs M240 comparison I'm most itching to see in more depth is the 50 Lux ASPH -- the side performance, with near and distant subjects.
Nov 21, 2013 at 02:40 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.108 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
Frankly, Edward, "better" is not necessarily a good thing. Good performance is what I am looking for. Else, why should I trade up for less good performance. Clearly, some lenses are not going to make it on my A7R, so I will trade some lenses. But it is far from game over as concerns WA. Multiple reports indicate the Voigtländer 21 f:1.8 is a good candidate.
Hi Phillipe,
The other ultrawide that looks very good to exceptional is the Leica M WATE. For those who can afford it, that will likely be a spectacular lens. There will also be a Sony/Zeiss ultrawide AF zoom out in the next 6 months or so. The Voigtlander is a good candidate, but I would not be surprised in if the native mount zoom were just as good and it is Voigt is 412g and 92mm long (probably close to 500g and 101.8mm long with an adapter), so it is not a small lens and likely bigger than the FE zoom. Personally I am planning to use my ZE 21mm f/2.8 for ultra wide, but I know other will want something smaller. I think that will have to wait until Zeiss comes out with the MF FE lenses this wide.
p.108 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Phillipe,
The other ultrawide that looks very good to exceptional is the Leica M WATE. For those who can afford it, that will likely be a spectacular lens. There will also be a Sony/Zeiss ultrawide AF zoom out in the next 6 months or so. The Voigtlander is a good candidate, but I would not be surprised in if the native mount zoom were just as good and it is Voigt is 412g and 92mm long (probably close to 500g and 101.8mm long with an adapter), so it is not a small lens and likely bigger than the FE zoom. Personally I am planning to use my ZE 21mm f/2.8 for ultra wide, but I know other will want something smaller. I think that will have to wait until Zeiss comes out with the MF FE lenses this wide....Show more →
Streve,
Also, my suspicion is that the lenses in the 21mm focal length for a MF Zeiss lens will not be part of the original offering. I would not be surprised if we have to wait 1 1/2 years or so for a MF Zeiss lens that wide.
Rich
Nov 21, 2013 at 02:47 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.108 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
eightfold wrote:
More poor than on a 5D Mark II?
Well there aren't many shots with it on the 5D MK II. To use it on that camera you need major mirror surgery or a very rare Canon FD to EF mount converter (Canon made a few of these years ago and they are very hard to find. There are some aftermarket ones made later, but they tend to be crap and would wreck the performance of any lens). Other lenses that are similar in design and speed and useable on the 5D MKII like the Minolta Rokkor 58 f/1.2 do seem to have the same performance on the A7(r) as on DSLRs.
