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.
If you think A7R + 35 FE is good, you MUST get RX1R. It's pure photographic awesomeness.
I know all this is OT and I apologise. However, seeing as I brought up the subject of the ZM 50/1.5 C-Sonnar I thought I should post this link before leaving the topic in case anyone's interest has been aroused. It contains an interesting explanation of focus shift, not that this is a problem when you have an EVF, and backs up Sebboh's views
sebboh wrote:
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.
waterden wrote:
I know all this is OT and I apologise. However, seeing as I brought up the subject of the ZM 50/1.5 C-Sonnar I thought I should post this link before leaving the topic in case anyone's interest has been aroused. It contains an interesting explanation of focus shift, not that this is a problem when you have an EVF, and backs up Sebboh's views
thanks for the link, that answer the question i've always had about why leica uses those annoying star shaped apertures – to minimize focus shift in the lenses that have it.
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.
Sorry if I missed it, but how would you describe the disappointing performance of your Lux? Is it mounted such that it's able to focus past infinity?
philber wrote:
So I might just get myself a FE 55, maybe even a 24-70 and take the lazy way out.
I am trying to figure what to sell for some piece of the native lens set: eventually. I need AF at times for work.
Meanwhile I'm having a great time with the quirky and sometimes very great A7r. Today I was out with a PC nikkor 28 to give myself a benchmark for 28 performance. After that and some looking at M240 full size, I'm happy with both my RF 28s: though I'll have to correct them.
My nFD 20/2.8 is plenty fine, till the real thing comes along.
at 35 I think you have the most practical choice for now, but I can live with the CVs 1.4 and 1.2 My 1.2 v1 copy seems very good. I admit the Rx1 is tempting as a second body. I may go there eventually.
m-rokkor 40/2 is good.
at 50 the cron is outstanding, and all my 50s are fun so far.
the CV 75/2.5 is great as is the TE 90. Canon 100/3.5 is really good.
Bottom line: I love it, warts and all.
One 24mm RF which the A7r murders the M240 with in shots like this:
turnstyle wrote:
Sorry if I missed it, but how would you describe the disappointing performance of your Lux? Is it mounted such that it's able to focus past infinity?
Nope, it doesn't go past infinity. I tried two different adapters so far, a Hawks' and a Novoflex with identical results, and will try a third, also Novoflex.. I will try more tests today, and check for signs that the lens could be the culprit, with possible decentering that I might have missed on my NEX due to the smaller sensor.
The issue is severely smeared corners until f:4.0, but still far from great at f:5.6 at infiinity.
Charlie: it would be nice to get the Flickr link to the image in the guy's photostream too, in order to see what else he has. Thanks!
Regarding that image, I'm curious why anyone is using ISO 50? The camera isn't giving any additional benefit. From my understanding, it's just overexposing at ISO 100 and pulling back 'in post' resulting in a lower dynamic range image. Granted, this being a Sony sensor, the dynamic range is pretty deep. And what's with the seemingly high luminance grain in the sky at ISO 50?! Sure, my M9 shows grain in the sky at base ISO 160... but this seems a bit too much. Is this what you're seeing in your a7 images, Edward?
Interesting. So far it appears the $2300 a7R is great with Leica WA RF lenses costing $5000-7000, whereas the $7000 Leica bodies work great with Leica's 'budget' $2500-3000 WAs, such as the 21/3.4 and 24/3.8... So you're looking at about $10K either way. I'd personally prefer the M with its native glass, all working to their maximum potential, despite giving up a bit of sensor resolution.
Philippe: By corners do you mean the very extreme corners? Looking at some of my 50 Lux ASPH images shot with the M9, at infinity, and at f/4 there is definitely extreme corner softness (extends about 150 pixels @18MP from the corner). Also at f/2.8-4 the mid zone dip will probably be the most pronounced. Any chance you could post the full-fez files someplace?
rscheffler wrote:
Philippe: By corners do you mean the very extreme corners? Looking at some of my 50 Lux ASPH images shot with the M9, at infinity, and at f/4 there is definitely extreme corner softness (extends about 150 pixels @18MP from the corner). Also at f/2.8-4 the mid zone dip will probably be the most pronounced. Any chance you could post the full-fez files someplace?
Ron, here is one picture and a corner crop very close to 100%. I am not yet sure of my methodology, and so your expert opinion would be a big help.
rscheffler wrote:
Regarding that image, I'm curious why anyone is using ISO 50? The camera isn't giving any additional benefit. From my understanding, it's just overexposing at ISO 100 and pulling back 'in post' resulting in a lower dynamic range image. Granted, this being a Sony sensor, the dynamic range is pretty deep. And what's with the seemingly high luminance grain in the sky at ISO 50?! Sure, my M9 shows grain in the sky at base ISO 160... but this seems a bit too much. Is this what you're seeing in your a7 images, Edward?
Exactly Ron. Strangely I can see a clear noise pattern even at iso 100, especially in the sky, and similar mid-tones.
Since I'm using ACR, I hope that this issue will be addressed when the final profile is released, but I have the feeling it is a sensor issue. When I compare to my M9 photos, iso 160 is way cleaner and even high iso has a more pleasant grain structure.
p.139 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
Ron, here is one picture and a corner crop very close to 100%. I am not yet sure of my methodology, and so your expert opinion would be a big help.
I presume you focused somewhere in the middle, which means that, due to the tilted angle of view, the top and bottom may not be in focus. It might be helpful to point the centre of the camera at the wall at eye height, and tilt the camera so that two opposite corners are also at eye height, left and right. Then those two corners should be at the same distance from you, and in the focus plane. Theoretically.
p.139 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Thanks for the info Edward.
Philippe: basically what Carsten suggests. That or a more distant shot in the city, where everything is about the same distance. A skyline would be good, or across a park at the buildings on the other side, etc.. This also looks to be wide open judging from the vignetting?
Is it possible to upload the full rez files? I guess there are options like dropbox or if you have a gmail account, you can upload images to Google Drive and share the gallery link. It would also be great to see an aperture sequence, if possible.
p.139 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
Nope, it doesn't go past infinity. I tried two different adapters so far, a Hawks' and a Novoflex with identical results, and will try a third, also Novoflex.. I will try more tests today, and check for signs that the lens could be the culprit, with possible decentering that I might have missed on my NEX due to the smaller sensor.
The issue is severely smeared corners until f:4.0, but still far from great at f:5.6 at infiinity.
Thank, sorry for your disappointment, I'm very interested to hear what you learn.
Are your smeared corners with both near and far subjects?
p.139 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Oops, just saw Ron & Carsten above -- might be a heretical suggestion for some, but what if you move the Foucs Assist window over to the corner/side and try focusing that way?
p.139 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
turnstyle wrote:
Oops, just saw Ron & Carsten above -- might be a heretical suggestion for some, but what if you move the Foucs Assist window over to the corner/side and try focusing that way?
Good point. I did that with my Summicron-C40/2 and it showed that it's actually quite sharp in the corners wide open. So the poor corners are mostly due to curvature of field. I don't know if that's because of the lens or because of the sensor filter stack.
p.139 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I've done some test images with most of my manual focus glass, and have a few questions for you all. I shot in extra-fine JPEG as I hadn't downloaded the LR release candidate yet, but normally shoot in RAW. Unfortunately I used the RF glass inadvertantly in auto-DRO mode, so it's hard to tell how much vignette there truly is from jpeg. It did bring up a couple of issues and questions.
1. My CV15, ZM25 and ZM35 all have smearing, vignetting, and a degree of color shift at the edges at infinity. This is at least partly related to field curvature caused by the sensor toppings, as I can improve corner performance by focusing there under magnification, but center performance is degraded. At f/11, the ZM25 and maybe the ZM35 are usable with correction, but even at f/8 the smear is there when you mag it up.
2. My CV35/1.2 vII is really good at infinity and for environmental portrait type stuff. I still prefer the overall look of the ZF35/1.4 at large apertures, but it's significantly bigger. By f/5.6 the corners look great, and are usable for me at f/4.0 when needed. The CV SL-II lenses are actually really good as well, to the point I wonder how much I was missing when using them on my Nikon bodies.
3. My CV20/3.5 SL-II lens. Interestingly, there is less lateral CA than I'm used to seeing, and it looks better overall at the edges/corners than I could get with the D600. There is some purple fringe in the branches/sky interfaces, but on the D600 there is red-green CA for sure. Is this the result of some sort of auto-CA correction in camera? Or is it even possible that the nature of the sensor toppings and curvature I'm seeing with rangefinder glass is somehow helping performance of this lens? I think it's probably related to JPEG processing somehow, but I haven't seen a camera fix this for non-adapted lenses before. I'll have to try in RAW.
4. Would it be helpful to post the images with center and edge/corner crops for anyone here? I shot the CV15, CV35/1.2, ZM25/2.8, and ZM35/2.8 as well as the CV20/3.5, CV40/2.0, and CV90/3.5 lenses. It's a lot of images, but not sure where to post them without cluttering things up.
p.139 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Makten wrote:
Good point. I did that with my Summicron-C40/2 and it showed that it's actually quite sharp in the corners wide open. So the poor corners are mostly due to curvature of field. I don't know if that's because of the lens or because of the sensor filter stack.
photodc:
I tried 3 leica to sony adapters and the one that worked the best for both near and close to infinity tests was the Voigtlander (did not test Novoflex). Initially, I had a more generic adapter but I don’t remember the brand / not the ultra cheap $15 variety but no well known name. This generic adapter gave me a lot of CAs and horrible corners. I was ready to return the camera because I really enjoy working with the 50 Lux but I decided to test other adapters first. I was very surprised at the difference, specially in near tests.
I think the reason the adepter is extra important in the Lux 50 ASPH is because it has floating elements. These elements can get close to the sensor and pronounce the light incidence angles (theory). Also with this lens if an adapter takes you just past infinity it can generate horrible corners and smearing. A not well aligned adapter will generate lots of vignetting and smearing in one of the corners. I was able to overcome these issues with my copy of the lens camera but at first I was very skeptical of claims that the lens could work well with the Sony....Show more →
Followed by:
pascaljappy:
Thanks for the information. I’m asking because we’ve had poor results on a Hawks and Novoflex adapters with the Lux 50, as Philippe will soon describe.
I know about that and I'm sure my adapter is fine. It goes well past infinity (so you can't use the scale on the lenses) but the corners are equal on all my lenses. I also measured it to be within ~0.01 mm in thickness, so no problem there.
Many lenses do have field curvature, so I'm not surprised by the 40 C behaving like this. Perhaps it's worse than when used on film, but not much I can do about it.
p.139 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
Exactly Ron. Strangely I can see a clear noise pattern even at iso 100, especially in the sky, and similar mid-tones.
Since I'm using ACR, I hope that this issue will be addressed when the final profile is released, but I have the feeling it is a sensor issue. When I compare to my M9 photos, iso 160 is way cleaner and even high iso has a more pleasant grain structure.
That's odd. The sky in my RX1 photos is usually so distractingly free of noise that I occasionally add noise to them.
p.139 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uscmatt99 wrote:
4. Would it be helpful to post the images with center and edge/corner crops for anyone here? I shot the CV15, CV35/1.2, ZM25/2.8, and ZM35/2.8 as well as the CV20/3.5, CV40/2.0, and CV90/3.5 lenses. It's a lot of images, but not sure where to post them without cluttering things up.
Absolutely, please do post or link them. How about Flickr?
p.139 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
lumis beans wrote:
Absolutely, please do post or link them. How about Flickr?
I still use Smugmug, haven't used Flickr in years. I'll have to see if I can figure out how to link to a gallery while maintaining privacy on others meant for family or friends only. Otherwise, it's easier just to post directly to a thread for me. I just didn't want to bomb the wrong thread with a bunch of images.
I am trying to figure what to sell for some piece of the native lens set: eventually. I need AF at times for work.
