uhoh7 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Is the 28 cron totally useable? I think that will depend on a bunch of factors and will not be a simple yes. For me, who does not already own the lens, hates spending extra time in post processing and will likely never own a Leica rangefinder camera, I can't really see it as totally useable. For someone who already owns the lens, shoots regularly on an M9 or m240 and who only sees the A7r as a back up or supplemental camera, then yeah it would be totally useable.
My own interest is in comparing the M cron 28 with other possible lenses of similar focal lengths. How does it compare to the CV 28 f/2, the Leica R 28 elmarit v2, the Pentax 31 f/1.8 Limited, the CV 28 f/2.8 SLII, the Minolta MD 28 f/2 and maybe a couple of others. I love the signature of the lens on the M9 from all I have seen, but is it really better than the others on the A7r, and is it worth the significantly higher price tag? The sample images in the link you provided make me doubt it will be any better and that it will keep its distinctive signature, but it is still early. I suppose there may still be a ray of hope.
IMO the yellow door image, if you slap an APS-C boundary in the middle, is already starting to weaken (at f/4) at the crop boundary. Does it behave that way on NEX-7?
While it might not be horribly weak at the crop boundary, given the focus point isn't even yet at infinity it seems like an unsatisfying sign of things to come when going farther outwards from the center.
uhoh7 wrote:
Is the 28 cron great, no. Is it totally usable? yes. Are we buying the FF A7R as a quest to attain the mediocrity of "usable"? Why not just put an 18mm or 19mm on APS-C Nex ... that's usable too.
p.110 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
carstenw wrote:
I agree, but I meant that uhoh7 was probably referring to the FLE images which were posted, and which looked sharp and not smeared.
...and which I missed.
Interesting. The MTF-curves from the two versions are pretty much the same IIRC. But, the lenses may of course behave differently with regards to smearing anyway.
But,... the FLE version? Not for me, if the pre-FLE version doesn't work I would go with a CV 35/1.2.
p.110 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Hello everyone! I'm new to this thread.
So, what's the verdict on using WA range finder lenses on the A7R? Is it really all bad?.. At least that's what I heard from one of my friends, but what do you think?
I guess I could scroll through the 110 pages of this thread, but I guess asking is a lill' easier.
p.110 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
People are pixel peeping _very_ high megapixel images to a depressing degree, but it all depends on your standards Rickuz. So far I've seen quite a few wide angle rangefinder lenses pass _my_ personal bar, but other's find them mediocre and unacceptable.
p.110 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Fixing colourshift on arbitrary lenses might not be so easy. For example, the SEL18 shot by Tim Ashley shows some pretty complicated shift, not linear at all.
I have seen some 35mm shots which were affected, I am pretty sure.
p.110 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
So much for "no usable RF wides"
end of story.
beginning of reality.
I don't think anyone ever really said that there would be no such thing as usable RF wides. I think the bulk of the premise is that if your quest is to use RF's, your edges and corners are going to be even more challenged than their SLR counterparts by virtue of the closer distance to the film plane and the correspondingly steeper angles involved @ the steeper you go, the tougher it gets.
From that, there was simply an avocation to be realistic in your expectations of what could be achieved by RF glass in the WA/UWA range in the edges and corners. While there certainly are some usable RF wides ... the reality of their performance as usable is in many cases a far cry from excellent or superior in absolute terms or in relative terms to excellent SLR glass or likely forthcoming native glass. Setting the bar at "usable" and getting really excited about it just seems kinda antithetical to the capabilities of the A7R ... but I guess that's just me.
Sure, it must feel good to know that you can now use your RF glass on A7/A7R (although I think the Rokkor's are strong benefactors here too), and if your quest is RF glass usability then I suppose you've reached your goal. If your goal is excellence, then I think the quest for finding excellent performing RF glass on 24x36 remains very much alive. The A7/A7R provides additional usability for RF glass, but it also sets the bar pretty high to it's capability as well. We all set our own bar where we want it. I just find "usable" to be a rather different bar than I normally aspire for.
The beginning of reality for me is the IQ of the image. If we are looking for the best possible IQ across the entire frame of our 24x36 format ... RF WA/UWA glass may not necessarily be our best friend on the A7/A7R. Finding good RF WA/UWA friends to play nice (and there likely are a few select good ones, depending on your criteria) with the A7/A7R will be an ongoing endeavor that we all will decide who we want to play with based on our wants/needs/goals.
Did you focus into the corners with these shots, or did you focus in the center? If you focused into the corners, the test wouldn't be a good indication of whether or not there is sensor topping induced astigmatism. Thanks!
p.110 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
RustyBug wrote:
Are we buying the FF A7R as a quest to attain the mediocrity of "usable"? Why not just put an 18mm or 19mm on APS-C Nex ... that's usable too.
I know you're being somewhat facetious, but those edges on the 28 cron shots look better to me than the edges on the best 18/19mm on aps-c nex (which is probably the Sigma 19). And of course the rest of the frame is way more pleasing.
p.110 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I echo what RustyBug is saying about how usable wide/ultra wide RF lenses are on the A7 and A7r.
Have just tested the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZF and Zeiss 35mm f2 ZF wide open and the results are identical to what I am getting with my Nikon D800E despite using a £10 ebay nikon/sony fe adaptor.
I just hope that Sony or Zeiss will release a compact sensor optimised 24mm lens soon!
