naturephoto1 wrote:
Yes, as marked the photos were with the A7r.
I want to hear people's thoughts on both the V3 and V4 options as well as the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 to try to decide.
Rich
Well I'd guess the R is going to produce great images, but what a pig.
There will be native primes within a year which will outperform our RFs, so personally I would not bother with anything too fancy if I was not already set.
the nFD 28 and 24 2.8s look great and cost nothing. For most users in a holding pattern that might make sense, or even just the FE24-70, which I believe will be excellent--no matter what that one little line is doing.
The whole WA brouhaha is way overblown anyway. It was a real issue with the previous Nex cameras because of the crop sensor. But a 35 on the A7 is the FOV of a 24 on the Nex7. Or close.
If one already owns a sel 21 or 24, it's a drag-----if you are already shooting FF. IF you have those lenses on a Nex-7 you are way ahead with the A7.
uhoh7 wrote:
Well I'd guess the R is going to produce great images, but what a pig.
There will be native primes within a year which will outperform our RFs, so personally I would not bother with anything too fancy if I was not already set.
the nFD 28 and 24 2.8s look great and cost nothing. For most users in a holding pattern that might make sense, or even just the FE24-70, which I believe will be excellent--no matter what that one little line is doing.
I also have the R 21mm f4 Super Agulon and the R 24mm f2.8 Elmarit lenses. I will have to check both of these on the A7r. I suspect that the 21mm will not perform adequately for the edges and the corners (very sharp in the center). The R 24mm f2.8 Elmarit may fare better.
I probably want to go from my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and then to either 28mm or 24mm. Additionally, I do have the R 35mm f2 Summicron (and the 35mm-70mm f4 Vario Elmar).
It's harder to argue for the 24mm R, but the 28mm R v2 is a different kettle of fish. Performance is very good, it's ~200 grams more at 435 grams with hood, same weight as the new 24-70/4 zoom which will work harmoniously with the a7r.
It is all of 48mm long, small but plenty of room for gloved fingers unlike the dainty M lens, and better illumination compared with the M asph lens at f5.6 - 75% versus 45% at corners. Very nice landscape lens, similar MTF as the M asph 28mm. Not a pig with lipstick at all..it's the overall best 28mm DSLR lens.
Nov 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
uhoh7 wrote:
Well I'd guess the R is going to produce great images, but what a pig.
There will be native primes within a year which will outperform our RFs, so personally I would not bother with anything too fancy if I was not already set.
the nFD 28 and 24 2.8s look great and cost nothing. For most users in a holding pattern that might make sense, or even just the FE24-70, which I believe will be excellent--no matter what that one little line is doing.
The whole WA brouhaha is way overblown anyway. It was a real issue with the previous Nex cameras because of the crop sensor. But a 35 on the A7 is the FOV of a 24 on the Nex7. Or close.
If one already owns a sel 21 or 24, it's a drag-----if you are already shooting FF. IF you have those lenses on a Nex-7 you are way ahead with the A7....Show more →
The Leica R Elmarit v2 will be on the big side but I wouldn't call it a pig. With the adapter it will be about the same size as the Voigtlander M mount 35 f/1.2 v2 (a little shorter and a little heavier). It will be quite a bit smaller than the VM 35 f/1.2 v1. Some will find this too big, but others won't be too concerned with the size. You can also convert it to e-mount with a Leitax mount adapter which should provide good stability and a good adapter thickness which is important for this lens because it has a floating element and a too thin adapter will likely impair its performance.
It will be interesting to see if Zeiss or anyone else builds a 28mm native mount lens. I hope they do, but historically 28mm often gets skipped over, (for example it is the only focal length between 21 and 50 for which Leica does not build an f/1.4 M lens, Canon's f/1.8 is pretty terrible and they have never had a 28L and Sony or Zeiss never made an A mount lens for this focal length either), which is too bad because I really like the focal length. Even if Zeiss or someone else does make a good 28, it will take a strong effort to outperform the r 28 elmarit v2.
philip_pj wrote:
It's harder to argue for the 24mm R, but the 28mm R v2 is a different kettle of fish. Performance is very good, it's ~200 grams more at 435 grams with hood, same weight as the new 24-70/4 zoom which will work harmoniously with the a7r.
It is all of 48mm long, small but plenty of room for gloved fingers unlike the dainty M lens, and better illumination compared with the M asph lens at f5.6 - 75% versus 45% at corners. Very nice landscape lens, similar MTF as the M asph 28mm. Not a pig with lipstick at all..it's the overall best 28mm DSLR lens....Show more →
Philip,
Thank you. I will not disagree concerning the performance of the the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2. I may well go that route. I have gotten very good results with my R cameras with the R 24mm f2.8 lens on Fujichrome Velvia 50. These 3 images below have been digitally printed to 30" long from Velvia 50 with the R 24:
Here is a link to a comment from Thomas Chen over at L-Camera-forum regarding the performance of the R28 f2.8 Elmarit V2 versus the M 28mm f2 Summicron on the A7r:
48mm is not even two inches long, so a very little piggy maybe, lol - two joints of your little pinky. The 55/1.8 FE will have to be off the agenda then - it is a full-blown hog at 70mm long, how could anyone dream of using such a lens?
28mm became boring as an FL somewhere along the line it seems...crazy, as it is the 'wide normal' FL. People just needed to push the envelope and so we saw 24mm everywhere and I suppose the Distagon 21mm takes some blame. A lot of folks see ultrawides as a way to shoot an impressive image but it only works for some images. And the zooms end at 24mm or 28mm so wide primes got the guernsey.
If a person 'needs' 35mm and uses a 21-24mm it leaves the 28s out in the cold unless you are an unreconstructed manic lens change merchant.
The M lens's vignette is not so obvious in Thomas's examples Rich but it sure will be on say, your images above. I am not opposed to it per se, but I don't like it being a permanent feature either - about the same at f8 as f2.8 - so it counts against a lens. I don't want corners to be much darker than the rest at f8, and it is much easier to add than subtract.
I keep saying no (D)SLR lens (with a good adapter) will cause undue issues on the new Sonys - prove me wrong..
I do not think that the softer edges of the Ultron are caused by the A7R sensor. It is not that perfect at all (also on M) like the WATE.
I see. Have you also tried the A7? For the CV 21/1.8 do you think A7 or A7R would suits better?
Thanks
I do not think that the softer edges of the Ultron are caused by the A7R sensor. It is not that perfect at all (also on M) like the WATE.
Nice write up and thanks for the reference.
At least related to my early review, I wish to point out that some of the lenses I tested were not pre-digital era lenses. Namely, the 21 Lux, 21 SEM and CV35/1.2 II. Compared to some of the pre-digital lenses, these did perform better.
The nature of the CV21/1.8's field curvature in your wide open sample is a characteristic of the lens, but I suspect the degree and character of field curvature you're seeing might be partially caused by interaction with the sensor toppings. In the Zeiss paper linked earlier, it is mentioned that:
"If the [sensor] filter is significantly thicker, the contrast transfer for the image edge becomes worse for tangential structures. In the graph of the curves, this looks like the old retrofocus lenses but is caused by astigmatism rather than lateral chromatic aberration. The focus is shifted to greater distances for tangential structures by the additional path through the glass. If the best edge definition is to be achieved, then all that can be done is to stop down further."
Looking at the blur quality towards the edges of that image, it does seem in some areas that blur is greater in one direction than the other... It would be interesting to see if there is any difference with that lens on a Leica camera.
p.121 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
Here is a link to a comment from Thomas Chen over at L-Camera-forum regarding the performance of the R28 f2.8 Elmarit V2 versus the M 28mm f2 Summicron on the A7r:
The pictures are boring but just for the purpose of observation.
Rich
Thanks for this link. I'm quite surprised how much of a difference there is in the f/4 images. Not so much at the far edges, but nearer the center the 28 Cron's detail rendering feels unsettled...
p.121 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
+1 @ the f/4 diff.
I keep saying no (D)SLR lens (with a good adapter) will cause undue issues on the new Sonys
If the projected image covering 24x36 is already a winner, why would it change? Compared to RF (generically), the projected image from the SLR glass will have a greater trig advantage re angles of incidence.
I'm looking forward to seeing the 24L and 17L TS-E's mated to the A7R ... and MF glass, APO's, Zeiss 100/2, Voigt 125, etc. I think we've well presented the challenges that RF imparts over the entire 24x36 frame. Put some great glass on this puppy and lets see how it really rocks without the varying challenges imposed by RF glass ... but, that's a different thread.
p.121 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
well tact has never been my strong suit
That R 28 is fantastic, we all know.
Mounted on a SLR adapter and compared to a elmarit-m 28 v3, it's an elephant from the ice age. Chris Christie. 14 yr old gymnast vs 40 year old wallmart shopper. Sorry, no offense, it's a fact.
Just weighed my elmarit-m: 237 grams with hood. Mounted on an M adapter, the difference in size, weight and handling compared with any R lens cannot be overstated. It's Huge.
That's the whole reason I started down the RF path.
With a small lens the camera is more useful for many of us.
And past all this practicality, are the aesthetics. An elmarit-m 28 v3 or m-rokkor 28 will look like they were made for the camera, in a way no SLR lens ever can.
p.121 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
Mounted on a SLR adapter and compared to a elmarit-m 28 v3, it's an elephant from the ice age. Chris Christie. 14 yr old gymnast vs 40 year old wallmart shopper. Sorry, no offense, it's a fact.
Fact? You mean that lens is actually an elephant? Last I checked it was a lens, and not a terribly big one at that. If you think it is a pig, you must have really tiny hands.
The 28/2.8R II has something that the 28/2.8 III M doesn't have: good performance.
p.121 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
carstenw wrote:
Fact? You mean that lens is actually an elephant? Last I checked it was a lens, and not a terribly big one at that. If you think it is a pig, you must have really tiny hands.
The 28/2.8R II has something that the 28/2.8 III M doesn't have: good performance.
Oh Right.
Well you might change your mind about that as you have about owning a Sony A7, which has draw one nasty comment after another from you.
I'm trying to imagine which is less: your experience with the elmarit-m 28 v3 or your sense of humor?
p.121 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I know the Elmarit-M III. When I was still in the Leica M system, I decided between this, the ASPH version, and the Cron, and ended up with the Cron. For portrait lenses I can accept a little softness and spherical aberration. For wide angle lenses, I don't appreciate it.
p.121 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
My A7 just arrived. Initial RF impressions (after experience with NEX-7, NEX-6, 5Dm2 as recent cameras):
Leica 24 Elmar (on Fotodiox): Very slight color shift. Slight vignetting. Smeared corners/edges which clean up by f/8 for the most part. Jury still out, but certainly usable. Edges very weak vs M9.
Leica 35 Lux FLE (on Fotodiox which focuses way past infinity btw): Nice! Vignettes a fair bit at 1.4 and 2.0; small vignette at small apertures. EDIT: There is measurable color shift in the vignette, but may not need much if any correction in real world shots. CA at f/1.4-2.0. Soft perimeter at 1.4-2.0 (which is fine by me). Almost ZM 50 Planar-like at infinity and f/4 (i.e. - extremely sharp except slightly soft corners). Extremely sharp at 5.6 (tiny perception of softness in extreme corners). Pixel sharp to corners at f/8. No need to LCC correct -- vignette adjustment works fine.
Contax g35: Nice! Light vignetting at 2.0-2.8 but no color shift. VERY soft mid-zone at 2.0, and still soft corners at 2.8. Edit: Sharp at f/4 to edges, but corners still soft; Sharp to corners at 5.6, very sharp at 8. Sharper than on APS-C NEX-7 for some reason.
OM 24/2.8: Works fine like on any DSLR. A touch soft in corners; central frame razor sharp. Corners look "1970s sharp" at least at 5.6 and 8. Not quite the g45 or ZM 50/2, but really solid after 2.8.
Zeiss ZM 50 Planar: A beauty! Tiny vignetting (not sure if same in M9). No shift. Mostly sharp extreme corners at f/2. Very very sharp by f/4 (I'm picky). Every pixel looks like center pixel at f/5.6+. Not sure it could look better on any camera. p.s. - something was obviously wrong with those early Shanghai samples...
Well, those are the early returns. I still have the CV 50/1.5, g90, and various SLR lenses to try. Overall, I'm extremely happy. The 24 Elmar was a long shot, and I intend to work a bit more with it, but it's really the only disappointing lens I have.
As an aside, I like the camera layout a great deal; I do wish the shutter was a bit further forward. I didn't know about the improved SD slot -- unlike the NEXs, it's a separate from the battery compartment and nicely laid out. The button customization is great. Only miss (yet again) is the inability to set a minimum Auto ISO shutter speed.
p.121 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
shelt wrote:
Leica 35 Lux FLE (on Fotodiox): Nice! Vignettes a fair bit at 1.4 and 2.0; tiny vignette at small apertures. Possibly very tiny color shift at widest apertures (I don't think so, but not 100% sure). CA at f/1.4-2.0. Soft perimeter at 1.4-2.0 (which is fine by me). Almost ZM 50 Planar-like at infinity and f/4. Extremely sharp at 5.6 (tiny perception of softness in extreme corners). Pixel sharp to corners at f/8. No need to LCC correct -- vignette adjustment works fine.
Contax g35: Nice! Light vignetting at 2.0-2.8 but no color shift. Very soft mid-zone at 2.0, and still soft corners at 2.8. Sharp at f/4 to edges; Very sharp to extreme corners at 5.6, 8. Sharper than on APS-C NEX-7 for some reason. ...Show more →
well tact has never been my strong suit