douglasf13 wrote:
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!
With my G21 on 5N I wasn't able to get the corner sharp even when focusing directly on the corner at larger apertures. It seems either the radial direction is sharp or the tangential. That is what I think Astigmatism. The phenomenon that corner is not sharp at the same time as the center is curvature of field.
Nov 22, 2013 at 09:11 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I don't want to be a naysayer, and I am stating this as solely my opinion, so please don't jump all over me. I don't find that f/5.6 as anything but pretty disappointing. In my view it totally lacks the 28 cron signature that I have seen on the M9, and even at web posting size it has clear blurring in the corners and even at the edges. Not having the 28 cron, I can't see paying between 2 and 7 times more than the other alternatives when it may not be as good. Perhaps it is better than the alternatives, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Hopefully someone will at least compare it to the CV 28 f/2.
nicoimages wrote:
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!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't want to be a naysayer, and I am stating this as solely my opinion, so please don't jump all over me. I don't find that f/5.6 as anything but pretty disappointing. In my view it totally lacks the 28 cron signature that I have seen on the M9, and even at web posting size it has clear blurring in the corners and even at the edges. Not having the 28 cron, I can't see paying between 2 and 7 times more than the other alternatives when it may not be as good. Perhaps it is better than the alternatives, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Hopefully someone will at least compare it to the CV 28 f/2. ...Show more →
The full image is clearly disappointing, but not the edge crop with respect to smearing. My primary takeaway from the edge crop is that the lens itself does a lot of lateral CA.
A corner test with the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron f/1.8 today, I think some people wanted to know about smearing etc. There is definitely heavy vignetting and color shift, but I think the smearing is fairly minimal.
It was hard to find a planar subject at infinity so I just aimed for the corners in two separate series of shots.
Just default +25 sharpening in Lightroom and pulled back the vignetting some.
Here are the results(Click the link for the 100% version):
philber wrote:
Let's see if we can begin to agree on a list in 3 categories:
- unaffected
- maybe
- definitely affected
IMHO, "affected" should refer to smearing, not to colourshift and/or vignetting, which is fixable in post
In my opinion, 35mm and up are unaffected
also definitely unaffected: Leica WATE
Definitely affected: Leica SEM 18
Maybe: CV 21 f:1.4, Leica 'Cron 28
Phillipe,
I like this classification system a lot. IMO, I would put the CV 35 f/1.2 and the Leica M 35 lux FLE in the definitely acceptable, but I am less sure about the other 35mm lenses. All of those for now I would put in the maybe. I would also put almost all those 40 and up in the definitely acceptable category with the exception of the Leica M 50 lux ASPH. I think this lens will be in the unaffected category, but I think it will require an excellent adapter fit to get there and that is why I believe the results have been mixed so far. I could be wrong, however, and I am a bit hesitant to put it in the definitely acceptable yet.
Noodlz79 wrote:
A corner test with the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron f/1.8 today, I think some people wanted to know about smearing etc. There is definitely heavy vignetting and color shift, but I think the smearing is fairly minimal.
It was hard to find a planar subject at infinity so I just aimed for the corners in two separate series of shots.
Just default +25 sharpening in Lightroom and pulled back the vignetting some.
Here are the results(Click the link for the 100% version):
Thanks. I've been very curious about this lens. Not too bad. I can live with these results and correct in PP. Would love to see more with this lens!
rji2goleez wrote:
Thanks. I've been very curious about this lens. Not too bad. I can live with these results and correct in PP. Would love to see more with this lens!
Bob
Bob,
Still that nasty permanently mounted petal lens hood on this lens. May warrant a call or contact to Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest to see if there is a way of removing the hood or if he could send us one without it.
p.111 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
Bob,
Still that nasty permanently mounted petal lens hood on this lens. May warrant a call or contact to Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest to see if there is a way of removing the hood or if he could send us one without it.
Rich
I have sent an e-mail off to Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest regarding the question of the removal of the lens hood or purchasing the lens without the hood attached. Hopefully I will receive a response. If not, I will give him a phone call.
p.111 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Noodlz79 wrote:
A corner test with the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron f/1.8 today, I think some people wanted to know about smearing etc. There is definitely heavy vignetting and color shift, but I think the smearing is fairly minimal.
It was hard to find a planar subject at infinity so I just aimed for the corners in two separate series of shots.
Just default +25 sharpening in Lightroom and pulled back the vignetting some.
Here are the results(Click the link for the 100% version):
Sharpness/smearing wise, I think it looks good. I wonder what it would look like on the A7. It seems the color shifts have been worse on the A7R samples than on the samples from the A7.
ZM35 looking soft on the edges at wide apertures, maybe? There's a little color shift/vignetting, too. I disagree with his opinion on the adapters used: I'm seeing more of a difference caused by scene lighting than by adapter type. Maybe I'm not peeping hard enough.
p.111 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I don't want to be a naysayer, and I am stating this as solely my opinion, so please don't jump all over me. I don't find that f/5.6 as anything but pretty disappointing. In my view it totally lacks the 28 cron signature that I have seen on the M9, and even at web posting size it has clear blurring in the corners and even at the edges. Not having the 28 cron, I can't see paying between 2 and 7 times more than the other alternatives when it may not be as good. Perhaps it is better than the alternatives, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Hopefully someone will at least compare it to the CV 28 f/2. ...Show more →
Not jumping on you, but I don't see weaker corners in that image as much as just generally lower resolution across the frame than what the 28 cron is capable of. I think that city scene may be a victim of some atmospheric haze: if it was shot in China, I know from experience how often that's a problem. That said, I *still* see more edge detail than the options at that focal length on APS-C NEX.
I definitely see the 28 cron signature in that water scene poster earlier.
p.111 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Not jumping on you, but I don't see weaker corners in that image as much as just generally lower resolution across the frame than what the 28 cron is capable of. I think that city scene may be a victim of some atmospheric haze: if it was shot in China, I know from experience how often that's a problem. That said, I *still* see more edge detail than the options at that focal length on APS-C NEX.
agreed, my question is why this image is so much different than the other 28 cron shots at f/5.6 and infinity focus?
p.111 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
agreed, my question is why this image is so much different than the other 28 cron shots at f/5.6 and infinity focus?
Isn't that obvious?
It's always the same with testing lenses on new cameras.
The only samples that matter are the best ones, which often do not appear for quite some time.
No single test is definitive.
This thread has been marked by a crowd falling all over themselves to pass judgement on the camera, really not a pleasant thing for folks who are just curious and want to develop an accurate view.
Worse the thread is unusable as a resource.
Reminds me more than anything of the "Nex Talk" at you know where.
p.111 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Thanks for the link. I'm glad to see the ZM 35 doing ok. At least one of my WA ZM should be usable. Still have to find some tests of the ZM 25.
After scrutinizing so many tests, I draw the following conclusions:
Smearing: the A7 seems to be 1 f/stop behind the Leica M and the A7r 2 stops behind. So if the corners sharpen up on the M at f/4, the A7 does so at f/5.6 and the A7r at f/8.
Vignetting and color shading: the A7 is almost as good as the M without lens profiles, close but not exactly there. The A7r seems to be much worse despite the offset microlenses.
The A7 seems to be the obvious choice for RF wides.
wilsontr wrote:
Finally, somebody tested the ZM35:
ZM35 looking soft on the edges at wide apertures, maybe? There's a little color shift/vignetting, too. I disagree with his opinion on the adapters used: I'm seeing more of a difference caused by scene lighting than by adapter type. Maybe I'm not peeping hard enough.
p.111 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Just a quick info :
Leica Elmar-M 24mm 3.8 Asph is
usable on the A7 (minor smearing / no colour cast) and
not so usable (more smearing and colour cast) on the A7R.
Will do some more pics tommorow with the A7R because it arrived today and let you know...
p.111 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Hmm.. I don't see it exactly that way, Edward. For me the A7 and A7r behave almost likewise for smearing, if we upsize the 24mp. A7 files to 36mp.
Also. those ZM35/2 samples are rather disappointing. By f/4 the whole frame should be very, very good. I had to crop 1.3x to get clean corners from it. I wasn't expecting much good from the A7(r) and the wider Biogons up to 25mm, but I hoped better for the ZM35/2.
BTW The adapter issue is quite easy to detect with a simple micrometer/caliper resolving 0.01mm.
Just check the thickness all around and see if the the tolerance is within 0.01mm ( or even 0.02). That'd be fine. Of course, the combo camera/adapter/lens must be tight with no play or wobble. A tiny bit of rotation isn't as bad as a back and forth sideways play.
May warrant a call or contact to Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest to see if there is a way of removing the hood or if he could send us one without it.