Well, as I'm sure you will admit, that is anecdotal. I'm not saying you are wrong, merely that a throwaway comment is hardly evidence that you are correct in your assertion. naturephoto1 wrote:
No there are variations in performance of lenses even from Leica. They do tend to have more consistent and better aligned and centered than most lenses since they put extra care into this. As an example, I purchased a used Leica R 100mm f2.8 Apo Macro Elmarit and brought it in to Leica USA/North America for a lube and cleaning. As it turns out this was I believe from the first run of these lenses with the older 2 helicoids rather than the newer ones with a single helicoid. When I picked up the lens, the Leica Tech came out with the lens and made it a point of indicating that when he checked the lens performance on Leica's own equipment that I had an especially good performing sample of this lens.
waterden wrote:
Well, as I'm sure you will admit, that is anecdotal. I'm not saying you are wrong, merely that a throwaway comment is hardly evidence that you are correct in your assertion.
I am sure that even Leica will admit that there is variability in samples. As I recall I have heard them say that on more than on occasion, but they normally are within tolerance limits. I know from conversations and I can not recall if they were with my friend Jim Lager, author of 8 Leica books that when Leica had Minolta make lenses for Leica they were to a much higher standard than Minolta's own lenses. For Leica, lenses including the 70mm-210mm f4 Vario Elmar lens had to be accurate to 1/6 of a stop while the like/similar Minolta lens only had to be accurate to 1/3 of a stop. This contributed to the extreme differences in the cost for the lenses and Leica had a very high incidence of rejected Minolta lenses.
Tobers wrote:
I know its not an M mount, but I have just picked up a Leica Elmarit-R 24mm 2.8 on an A7R. Test shot here with lots of corner detail at f/8:
Just a quick note that there is a lot of blue light in that scene especially on the left from blue lights below the walkway. I can't say I've noticed the "magenta shift" on this lens so far, but haven't had chance to use it much yet.
I've bought 3 R lenses simply because I can't afford the M equivalents. The adapter is quite long and makes the package somewhat bigger and heavier, but what beautifully made lenses they are. In my view they are an absolute bargain, and I can see the used prices going up as A7/R users pick them up. The shop I bought mine from could have sold them 3 or 4 times on the day I picked them up.
Agree Tobers. Several of the R lenses have the same optical formula as their M counterparts - conspicuously the Summicron-R 50/2 and I believe at least one of the 90mm lenses. All are finely manufactured.
The 19mm and 24mm R lenses also do not suffer the serious vignette problems of the M and ZM wide angles which barely improve at smaller apertures and never really clean up. The R lenses by f5.6 are in very good territory however and even better by f8. There will likely be a run on R lenses. The 24mm is only 420 grams.
philip_pj wrote:
Agree Tobers. Several of the R lenses have the same optical formula as their M counterparts - conspicuously the Summicron-R 50/2 and I believe at least one of the 90mm lenses. All are finely manufactured.
The 19mm and 24mm R lenses also do not suffer the serious vignette problems of the M and ZM wide angles which barely improve at smaller apertures and never really clean up. The R lenses by f5.6 are in very good territory however and even better by f8. There will likely be a run on R lenses. The 24mm is only 420 grams.
There has also been a price increase on the R lenses in probably the 80mm? and longer focal lengths already due to the release of the Leica M240 and the ability to use these lenses on the M. The prices may even worsen in the future due to the release of the A7 and the A7r.
Thanks. The tree image does look nasty. I wonder though about the scene because it has a fair amount of depth and at f/1.4 there certainly won't be enough depth of field from a 50mm at this distance. There isn't enough subject matter across a single plane to really make a good judgement about how sharpness holds up. That said, I wouldn't normally expect so much smearing.
naturephoto1 wrote:
There has also been a price increase on the R lenses in probably the 80mm? and longer focal lengths already due to the release of the Leica M240 and the ability to use these lenses on the M. The prices may even worsen in the future due to the release of the A7 and the A7r.
Rich
It seems R lens prices have been increasing since well before the M240 as the Leitax options become more popular and more of the video crowd get into adapting 35mm still camera lenses to their video DSLRs, RED cameras, etc. But other than the M240, it would seem these Sonys are the only options without physical incompatibility?
I'm kind of curious how a modern 24/2.8 SLR lens, such as perhaps the Canon 24 IS, since it's one of the newest, would stack up to the Leica R 24/2.8... I'd guess price won't be that far apart. There's also the ZF 25/2.8... TBH, the lounge photo doesn't excite me about that lens..
This thread is about wide angle performance, in which case that photo doesn't show a lot of positives. One could make a beautiful photograph with much lesser gear, but that isn't what this thread is about.
p.119 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
douglasf13 wrote:
This thread is about wide angle performance, in which case that photo doesn't show a lot of positives. One could make a beautiful photograph with much lesser gear, but that isn't what this thread is about.
I disagree on all counts
here's the CV 15 with someone who's been following this thread closely:
p.119 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Yes, the Leica R lenses are beauties and some are exceptional, including the 100mm F2.8 APO Macro, the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt and the 280/4. The final 50/2 R Summicron ROM, which I bought for less than half what I sold my 50 Summicron M for, is excellent and surprisingly small. The Leica R 35-70/4 Vario-Elmar is an absolute gem and still very cheap. The 24/2.8 is a Minolta design manufactured by Leica in Germany but none the worse for it although rather more expensive than its very close cousin the Minolta MD 24/2.8 but is probably rather better built. I have the MD 24/8 (55mm filter thread version) and have been delighted by it on the NEX-7 and have high hopes for its potential on the A7. Leica and Minolta collaborated quite a bit on design in the 1970s - the R35-70/3.5 is another such joint effort but inferior to the 35-70/4 which I think incorporates an aspherical element. Tobers wrote:
Just a quick note that there is a lot of blue light in that scene especially on the left from blue lights below the walkway. I can't say I've noticed the "magenta shift" on this lens so far, but haven't had chance to use it much yet.
I've bought 3 R lenses simply because I can't afford the M equivalents. The adapter is quite long and makes the package somewhat bigger and heavier, but what beautifully made lenses they are. In my view they are an absolute bargain, and I can see the used prices going up as A7/R users pick them up. The shop I bought mine from could have sold them 3 or 4 times on the day I picked them up....Show more →
p.119 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
here's the CV 15 with someone who's been following this thread closely: http://flic.kr/p/hNRTny
And here's what he says about the Voigt in his gear set ...
Sony a7R with Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 Super Wide Heliar LTM
Interesting for sure but only for limited use as it has severe vignetting, smearing and softness in the corners. ... sounds like a realistic assessment / expectation. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jananneo/11011639603/in/photostream/
Exhibits an interesting artistic/retro "RF vibe" in some shots if you like the strong centralized image look and aren't critically concerned with Zone C (or maybe some of B) ... kinda diggin' it for some things, but still gotta be realistic @ at your application / expectation.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.119 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Makten wrote:
Does anyone know if the Voigtländer 35/1.2 Nokton has floating elements? That could explain the mediocre far-distance results that I get from it, since it focuses well past infinity with my Metabones adapter.
Here is a link that shows the lens design from the Cosina site:
It does not seem to have a floating element. From what I have read its reputation even on the M9 and m240 is that it is good at portrait distances but not so hot at far distances. So it may just be the lens and have nothing to do with a thin adapter. Although I agree that thin adapters could definitely be a problem for floating element designs.
p.119 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
There has also been a price increase on the R lenses in probably the 80mm? and longer focal lengths already due to the release of the Leica M240 and the ability to use these lenses on the M. The prices may even worsen in the future due to the release of the A7 and the A7r.
p.119 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
algrove wrote:
Hope so.
Lou,
I hope not for some of them. I am still trying to figure out a 28mm lens for the A7r. I have just watched 3 Leica R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 sell all of a sudden on ebay.
I still can't believe it will be a landscape machine, because it is not on the 5n, but who knows?
I'm biased, but I'll be surprised if the CV40 is any worse than the the CV35/1.4. They're so similar designs, and the 40 is known to be sharper on just about every other platform. The CV35 pictures look good, but there is some pretty extreme field curvature:
p.119 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
alwang wrote:
Sure, this picture has sharp corners, but you can see from the bottom edge of the image that the corners are actually curving into focus.
That would be consistent with my experience, but I'm not sure since the corners may be similar distance as the nose.
But most likely you are correct
I also agree the CV 40 should be as good or better, but have no evidence yet.
