Hi, some more questions about the Voigtlander 12/5.6 as I want to replace my huge lens on the ultra wide side.
Do anyone know how CV 12/5.6 compares to Nikon 14-24/2.8 and Samyang 14/2.8? It would be great if I can replace the beast with the small CV 12/5.6.
Thanks so much.
kolen wrote:
Hi, some more questions about the Voigtlander 12/5.6 as I want to replace my huge lens on the ultra wide side.
Do anyone know how CV 12/5.6 compares to Nikon 14-24/2.8 and Samyang 14/2.8? It would be great if I can replace the beast with the small CV 12/5.6.
Thanks so much.
Actually this lens is pretty good, no matter what you are about to hear from peepers, but if you want decent edges, it will need to be stopped down quite a bit.
Leo says smearing is no worse on A7r, though I would imagine colorshift may be.
I was looking at the Zeiss ZM 2.8/25 yesterday, and took the following shots to compare it with my current Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/24. Bear in mind the f/8 shots were at ISO 1000 and ISO 2000 respectively as it was getting dark, and there was a gap between the Zeiss and Leica shots whilst I was fannying about so it got darker for the Leica ones.
At f/8 the Zeiss looks the sharper of the two but the colour seems a little weird on the top left window. The Leica is not bad at all, slightly fuzzy edges.Bear in mind it is ISO 2000. No noise reduction, sharpening or cropping on these, which by the way are RAW into Lightroom then exported as full size jpegs at 100% quality.
The reason I was looking at the Zeiss ZMs (I looked at the 2/50 and 4/85 as well) was to work out if they were significantly smaller/lighter than my R lenses and delivered the same quality. I've elected to stay with the R lenses for now. They are that bit bigger, and the adapter is longer which is a bit of a pain, and the focus throw is lonnnnngggg, but they all go into a small bag quite nicely.
Actually this lens is pretty good, no matter what you are about to hear from peepers, but if you want decent edges, it will need to be stopped down quite a bit.
Leo says smearing is no worse on A7r, though I would imagine colorshift may be.
I bet there is native option within one year
Colorshift is much worse on the 7R. But the lens is perfectly usable; even wide open you see the detail is there, but for edge to edge sharpness F16 is the best aperture.
I can't yet speak for the Metabones on the a7 but they say it works fine. I use one on my NEX7 and it is better than the Voigtlander adapter which cost twice as much and which appears to be decentred. Build quality and fit both excellent. The only point I would alert you to is that my copy allows focus to infinity but no further. Now this is fine for me, not that I do many infinity shots, but it leaves no room for error. The Voigtlander adapter does allow focusing beyond infinity, as do the Novoflex adapters I have for other lenses, and I think this is preferable. There will be example variation so may be worth checking this out. eightfold wrote:
Is the Metabones Leica M to Nex adapter fine? I just happened to order one. The Novoflex seemed a tad too expensive.
I would say that there is colour shift and light fall off at the edges with the Zeiss, which is why the edge windows look slightly coloured. The edges are certainly darker than with the Leica R, to my eyes at any rate.
Tobers wrote:
I was looking at the Zeiss ZM 2.8/25 yesterday, and took the following shots to compare it with my current Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/24. Bear in mind the f/8 shots were at ISO 1000 and ISO 2000 respectively as it was getting dark, and there was a gap between the Zeiss and Leica shots whilst I was fannying about so it got darker for the Leica ones.
At f/8 the Zeiss looks the sharper of the two but the colour seems a little weird on the top left window. The Leica is not bad at all, slightly fuzzy edges.Bear in mind it is ISO 2000. No noise reduction, sharpening or cropping on these, which by the way are RAW into Lightroom then exported as full size jpegs at 100% quality.
The reason I was looking at the Zeiss ZMs (I looked at the 2/50 and 4/85 as well) was to work out if they were significantly smaller/lighter than my R lenses and delivered the same quality. I've elected to stay with the R lenses for now. They are that bit bigger, and the adapter is longer which is a bit of a pain, and the focus throw is lonnnnngggg, but they all go into a small bag quite nicely. ...Show more →
Nov 28, 2013 at 06:33 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
elroos wrote:
Colorshift is much worse on the 7R. But the lens is perfectly usable; even wide open you see the detail is there, but for edge to edge sharpness F16 is the best aperture.
Don't you mean edge to edge fuzziness. There will be quite a bit of diffraction at f/16 on a 36 mp camera. This is well below optimal performance, but for some shots it might be fine. Kind of like how high ISO shots are less than optimal, so are very narrow aperture shots but if that is what it takes it is the only option. If you need 12mm, which I never do, and you can put up with a lot of softness I suppose it is an option. I just can't see it being a option that would ever work for me.
p.123 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
12mm @ f16 (12mm/16 =.75mm) is going to be an extremely small physical aperture (diffraction inducing) ... I think a pinhole camera probably uses a larger aperture than that.
p.123 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Well I found edge sharpness/resolution is at its peak @ F16; F22 becomes fuzzy.
I think uhoh mentioned that diffraction is less of a problem with the a7/R.
I have taken some more shots today with the 12/5.6, this time with F13. I'll try and show you the results later.
p.123 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I would expect the A7R (i.e. no AA filter) to not further aggravate the issues of diffraction for a given print size (i.e. 16X20) ... 36MP just makes it more evident on a "per pixel" basis when you look @ 100% since the projected image is subdivided even smaller. Diffraction is an optical projection property, not a pixel size property. Passing through the AA filter is also part of the optical projection prior to reaching the sensor for energy transfer. Further blurring diffraction (passing through an AA filter) is of no help in terms of retaining the contrast/resolution of the projected image coming from the lens. Pixel size accounts for the amount of subdivision of the projected image, not the amount of diffraction induced (wave amplitude @ +/-) by the small apertures.
The effects of diffraction reducing contrast probably occurs a bit earlier than the obvious "fuzzy" does. The effects of diffraction reducing contrast can be more/less noticeable depending on lighting contrast levels as well, so defining diffraction effects @ visibly "fuzzy" might not be the tell all measure of it. Even @ 24mm on the TS-E II, I have seen contrast begin reducing by f13 (appx. 2mm). Certainly not a deal breaker, but why go past where it starts to degrade the projection if you don't need to. If I can start to see it @ 2mm aperture (for a given lighting contrast level), .75mm would seem unlikely (imo) to have no effects from it.
Curious to see 12mm @ f16 edges/corners vs. centers compared to 12mm @ f5.6 or f8.
p.123 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
elroos wrote:
Well I found edge sharpness/resolution is at its peak @ F16; F22 becomes fuzzy.
I think uhoh mentioned that diffraction is less of a problem with the a7/R.
I have taken some more shots today with the 12/5.6, this time with F13. I'll try and show you the results later.
Are you talking out of camera jpegs or raw? Isn't there some new jpeg sharpening algorithm in-camera that somewhat counteracts diffraction?
p.123 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Here's an infinity test of the a7 and Leica 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE (on a crummy adapter that focuses well past infinity). It's my best imitation of Phillip's approach
Remember, the Lux 35 wasn't really meant to be a planar landscape lens, but I really like it for that. Click through to flickr for the pixel level image. No corrections for color or vignetting were made. Keep in mind it's still very hazy here, so the low contrast is due to that. I've found all falloff easily correctible with the flat field plugin. The "Overall Scene" at the bottom is f/8 with minor falloff corrections.
p.123 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
RustyBug wrote:
12mm @ f16 (12mm/16 =.75mm) is going to be an extremely small physical aperture (diffraction inducing) ... I think a pinhole camera probably uses a larger aperture than that.
The 12mm pinhole I have is about F100, which is calculated to be the optimal size for pinhole
p.123 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
Do you think that you have enough DOF?
Rich
Well... That's totally a different result from the same idea of DOF... so can't compare.
But for the 12/5.6 I think one can get the most DOF you can get for a rectilinear lens
p.123 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Ok, I am starting to have a problem with what lenses are decently working on what cam. Does anybody know if the ZM28 is working ok on the A7 ? Because if not, I think I would consider the C/Y Distagon and while waiting for the cam I would try to get my WA lens for it.
p.123 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
slungu wrote:
Ok, I am starting to have a problem with what lenses are decently working on what cam. Does anybody know if the ZM28 is working ok on the A7 ? Because if not, I think I would consider the C/Y Distagon and while waiting for the cam I would try to get my WA lens for it.
Regards, Stefan
Ron Scheffler of these parts tested a whole bunch of lenses over a broad FL range, but not the ZM 28. Its worth a close look.
With the exception of the 35 'lux, one appears restricted to 50mm and longer. Even the CV 50/1,5 had some issues.
