While the infinity shot @ f8 may be "standard" requirement for some, others do value seeing how a lens performs @ mfd or other nearer distances. Not all lenses are optimized to infinity, and just because it is a WA/UWA doesn't mean that it performs the same way. Good performance at 30+ meters doesn't mean it is better at close distance ... I have Oly's and Nikon's (understood @ not RF) in the same FL (28mm & 21/20mm) that deliver differently from one another at different distances, particularly with respect to the edges/corners vs. centers.
Making a gauntlet style blanket statement that infinity testing tells all you need to know is a bit folly, imo. Given the tremendous amount of "it's usable" language that has been promoted in this thread, the same should apply to "its usable" for street even if not ideal for landscape ... i.e. it cuts both ways, not just the way you want it to be.
BTW ... if shooting close is what makes one a troll, then I'm a troll.
We all have different uses for WA lenses with extremes of the up-close-and-personal approach as immortalised by Robert Capa, to landscapes taken at infinity setting. Personally, I agree with carstenw's suggestion that we should judge a lens by how it performs in the way we wish to use it. Which is why I love the ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 which does not claim corner sharpness and is not even WA.
Infinity testing does certainly not reveal close range potential. In many instances I have found wide angles to perform differently close up and at far.
Many years ago I participated in an ad hoc 28mm shoot out with a dozen or so lenses. Time would not allow for all but the "best candidates" to make a near focus comparison but it was evident that the best lens around infinity (the Leica R28 ver 2) was not the very best close up. A Nikkor 28 with CRC (close range correction) did a little better close up and some of the better lenses around infinity were not that great close up.
Blanket statements about lens performance are usually worthless. Real life shots tell enough. The criteria may differ but in real life shooting many "poor" lenses perform quite well. Not always top notch, but lenses that "only" perform well at f8 and a certain given distance are lenses that I rule out. Coupled to a smear inducing sensor they are even more of a waste of time. Harsh? Nah, there are enough great lenses out there not to bother with the poor ones. Defending poor lens/sensor performance is pretty pointless though. Isn't the whole idea of introducing new solutions to push the envelope?
I can totally come to terms with a (near) future where the pushed envelope results in newly calculated lenses that allow for great performance on the newer style sensors in order to achieve high imaging fidelity - hopefully without RAW embedded lens corrections and software solutions to the ninth degree and uninspiring manual focus by wire only.
If so I would happily give up dabbling with older lenses that worked well with past solutions.
Waterden: I agree with both you and Carsten. I don't mind/care which lens anyone is using but if it performs terribly or sub par and people hail the results as superb I cannot help but snipe a little.
Some of the classic lenses that did not come to life on APS-C has gotten a fresh start on the A7/7r and many shots and lenses look superb on the A7/7r. Especially the "tricky" ones like the 35/1.2 and 75/1.4 and other fast or odd lenses already showcased on FM. Like the Sonnar 50/1.5 certainly not a perfect lens but renders beautifully on the new Sony cameras.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Waterden: I agree with both you and Carsten. I don't mind/care which lens anyone is using but if it performs terribly or sub par and people hail the results as superb I cannot help but snipe a little.
Some of the classic lenses that did not come to life on APS-C has gotten a fresh start on the A7/7r and many shots and lenses look superb on the A7/7r. Especially the "tricky" ones like the 35/1.2 and 75/1.4 and other fast or odd lenses already showcased on FM. Like the Sonnar 50/1.5 certainly not a perfect lens but renders beautifully on the new Sony cameras. ...Show more →
I guess it's "art" vs "record"
Re your earlier comment about giving up on older lenses if modern technology permits (please forgive my paraphrasing) I would not be in your camp. I have no problem with in-camera software correction - if it does the job and enables cheaper pricing I'm all for it - but I am not at all keen on light, plasticky modern lenses without aperture rings so will always prefer the old fashioned metal MF lenses if they do the job passably. And particularly if they are cheaper to buy (ie not Leica M).
All the above notwithstanding, it is the shot at infinity which is the most challenging for the A7R because of its short registry. This shows up not as a lens problem or weakness, but as a camera weakness, which must be explored with this new camera.
My results so far as quite poor. ZM 18, Elmar 24, G 28, ZM 35 F:2.0 are not useable. G45 is trouble-free. 'Lux 50 is useable but problematic, Elmarit 60 R, G 90 are trouble-free. Of course FE 35 is fine. Not a happy camper.
But, likely a realist ... and that should lead you to finding what makes your happy in the end.
I had my doubts @ UWA RF of FF digital from early on at the challenges we'd find with incidence angles. Then we somehow entered the discussion of the "usable" era ... which I still find somewhat counter-intuitive to the excellence that we see with the (albeit limited offerings) native glass. Some folks still find "usable" to mean something different from "good" ... and the options for good WA/UWA RF on FF digital does seem to be a bit slim.
Imo, it looks like patience may be the order of the day for many who want smaller WA/UWA solutions with truly good performance on FF digital.
Well, I have options. I can keep my NEX 5N for my ZM 18 and G 28, my NEX 7 for my Elmar 24 and ZM 35 and 'Lux 50, my A7R for my FE 35, G 45 and G 90. Or I could buy an A7 as a second body in the hope that a tandem A7 and A7R gives me what I want.
p.138 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I was never a Zeiss ZM 50mm f/1.5 fan (recall the photos made by denoir back in the Leica/Zeiss ZM threads), but the images I have seen with this lens on the A7 or A7R are fantastic. I am really curious, and keeping my eyes open for more imagery, and cheap deals on the lens.
p.138 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
The Touit 12mm for NEX works a rteat on the A7R, as could be expected. Lovely lens on both cams.
Is that right? I'll be interested to see how it works on my A7 when it arrives tomorrow. I have my Touit 32 and 12 waiting, anticipating time on the A7 for testing.
p.138 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
carstenw wrote:
I was never a Zeiss ZM 50mm f/1.5 fan (recall the photos made by denoir back in the Leica/Zeiss ZM threads), but the images I have seen with this lens on the A7 or A7R are fantastic. I am really curious, and keeping my eyes open for more imagery, and cheap deals on the lens.
as with the original 50/1.5 sonnar, i only seem to like it for portraits. converting to b&w seems to be beneficial for the lens too – turns crazy bokeh into artsy bokeh.
p.138 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
Well, I have options...
I'm thinking I'm gonna keep my M glass till the next Leica M. If it's amazing, I'm gonna buy it.
If it s@cks as usual and the new manual Zeiss glass for Sony is great, I'm gonna sell most of my M lenses.
I'm gonna keep me Leica R stuff and add the new Zeiss lenses.
I would regret selling those great Ms now. I really like 21SEM and 28 Cron. I still have my 5N
NEX-6 and my 10-18 zoom are on ebay.
p.138 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I feel the same, except you and others are getting better results form your 50 'Lux than I, so I feel blue right now. I'd hate to let that lens go before I can get to the bottom of the matter. At the same time, A7R and 35 FE are such a great walkabout combo, so light and easy, that the premium for shooting MF has just skyrocketed. So I might just get myself a FE 55, maybe even a 24-70 and take the lazy way out.
p.138 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
I feel the same, except you and others are getting better results form your 50 'Lux than I, so I feel blue right now. I'd hate to let that lens go before I can get to the bottom of the matter. At the same time, A7R and 35 FE are such a great walkabout combo, so light and easy, that the premium for shooting MF has just skyrocketed. So I might just get myself a FE 55, maybe even a 24-70 and take the lazy way out.
Maybe your 50 Lux needs to go to Leica for alignment?
... and that should lead you to finding what makes your happy in the end.