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 →
Many thanks. So besides the WATE which other Leica M lenses have demonstrated promise to be good to exceptional on the A7R? I mean not only WA. Thanks again.
naturephoto1 wrote:
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
You never know. Sigma could come around and fill this gap. They have been impressive lately, some of the DN lenses, their 35 1.4, the zooms. They have shown an ability to make quality glass as well as an ability to move quickly when needed. Sony is leaving the door open on a fast 35 (as the FE is 2.8 and high priced) and a wide angle.
Steve, I agree, the WATE looks like the best (the only?) WA Leica to work well with the A7R. M'y problem, though, is that I tried the WATE on my NEX, and felt that it wasn't as good as the Elmar primes, which rules it out, considering the price point. What it does show is that it can be done, and I am confident that Zeiss will do for A7 what their Touit 12 does for NEX
Depends if the weird colour cast across the sky can be cleaned up or not. Maybe. That vignetting is very heavy though, cleaning that up might well result in noisy corners.
The sharpness looks superficially good, but more detail in the corners is needed to properly evaluate it.
I'd say the 18 SEM is pretty bad. I suppose you could use it, but pretty much the entire vignetted area is smeared, even at f/5.6 and f/8 (I downloaded his full sized jpg's). I think it's one of those lenses that would be OK for normal street/forest shooting (with color corrections), etc, but really won't work for classic landscapes. Bums me out, because it seems my 24 Elmar has similar problems...
Well, the 'Cron 28 definitely looks useable, and the rendering, is, as ever, spectacular. That shoul dmake Andrew (Snowboarder) very happy, and sell Leica a few 28s. I am thinking of putting in my order tomorrow, because 28 on full frame happens to be a favorite FL of mine.
p.109 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
carstenw wrote:
Typical Leica mid-field dip?
no, it looks like smearing and it continues to the corners. also, my recollection is that the 28 cron doesn't have that, it has weak corners till stopping down to f/4-5.6 instead.
p.109 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
Well, the 'Cron 28 definitely looks useable, and the rendering, is, as ever, spectacular. That shoul dmake Andrew (Snowboarder) very happy, and sell Leica a few 28s. I am thinking of putting in my order tomorrow, because 28 on full frame happens to be a favorite FL of mine.
I am still waiting for a better determination for the M 28mm f2 Summicron ASPH and the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 for the purpose of landscapes.
p.109 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Ugh. In the "yellow door" picture, the only part of the picture that's sharp is the very, very center. No part of the awning is sharp, and it seems that for a 28mm at f/5.6, it wouldn't likely be OOF. The shots at F/2 are pretty bad. Sure, the edges likely won't be in focus at f/2, but it just looks bad, the kind of smearing that happens. It doesn't look like OOF, it doesn't even look like "lens isn't sharp wide-open to the edges". It just looks gross. (looking at the "Soft Whip" photo here).
p.109 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Blech, again. That 18 looks bad, particularly on the left. If both the ZM18 and 24/3.8 are like this I need to rethink this camera. Maybe I should just buy another M9. No, that didn't work before...
p.109 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
coffeeshakes wrote:
Blech, again. That 18 looks bad, particularly on the left. If both the ZM18 and 24/3.8 are like this I need to rethink this camera. Maybe I should just buy another M9. No, that didn't work before...
the 24/3.8 is said to perform better, though not perfect.
i agree the left side looks worse, also in some of the 28 cron shots at infinity. perhaps is adapter is slightly off.
p.109 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
shelt wrote:
I'd say the 18 SEM is pretty bad. I suppose you could use it, but pretty much the entire vignetted area is smeared, even at f/5.6 and f/8 (I downloaded his full sized jpg's). I think it's one of those lenses that would be OK for normal street/forest shooting (with color corrections), etc, but really won't work for classic landscapes. Bums me out, because it seems my 24 Elmar has similar problems...
I'd already written those off because they are so tiny--
As to the F/4 Cron shot, yellow door, very silly image to judge from since the corners are oof anyway. no doubt they are smeared. edges however, while soft, are defined.
No doubt the M9 is is better on the edges and the corners, at least a stop ahead, but the A7r will produce superior centers at every aperture.
It's my normal now, and I shoot mostly at 5.6 on the 5n, I have no idea how the edges are at f/2 since it's for low light and centered subjects generally.
Is the 28 cron great, no. Is it totally usable? yes.
Now the 35 Lux appears beyond great, stomping M9 M240 and MM.
