rscheffler wrote:
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!
OK, the jury is in. I went to a high point overlooking Paris, so that I could get some really distant shots where any angle variation would be meaningless, and distance so great (300m+) as to provide vast DOF.
I tried the 'Lux 50 with 3 adapters (2 Novoflex 1 Hawks') with identical results, so the adapter can be ruled out.
Extreme corners are smeared until f:2.8, badly enough that I could see it when focusing, and when chimping. A significant improvement appears by f:4.0, though I would hardly call that great. F:5.6 is better, and f:8.0 better yet, probably as good as on my NEX 7.
It is now highly unlikely that I will keep such an expensive lens on this camera for such a restricted use. I will try an A7 as a secondary body, and see how that works for my 'Lux and Elmar. If that fails, it will be painful decision time.
Either that, or someone can show me 'Lux 50 shots where the extreme corners at f:2.8 or wider are other than mush, and then I have to think again (defective lens?).
Have you used the same lens on an M body with better corner results?
I've been a bit obsessed with the question of adapter width and Lux performance on Sony -- and from what I can tell, almost all adapters are built intentionally short (which *might* have an impact on Lux performance).
Do you happen to have a micrometer? (I just bought one a few days ago, $20, it's on its way now.)
No attempts with an M body, and no micrometer. But the results are bad enough that no borderline change, such as one adapter to the next is going to be enough to turn very bad corners at f:2.8 into good ones (not great) at f:2.0, which I would consider fair game for a lens of that cost.
philber wrote:
OK, the jury is in. I went to a high point overlooking Paris, so that I could get some really distant shots where any angle variation would be meaningless, and distance so great (300m+) as to provide vast DOF.
I tried the 'Lux 50 with 3 adapters (2 Novoflex 1 Hawks') with identical results, so the adapter can be ruled out.
Extreme corners are smeared until f:2.8, badly enough that I could see it when focusing, and when chimping. A significant improvement appears by f:4.0, though I would hardly call that great. F:5.6 is better, and f:8.0 better yet, probably as good as on my NEX 7.
It is now highly unlikely that I will keep such an expensive lens on this camera for such a restricted use. I will try an A7 as a secondary body, and see how that works for my 'Lux and Elmar. If that fails, it will be painful decision time.
Either that, or someone can show me 'Lux 50 shots where the extreme corners at f:2.8 or wider are other than mush, and then I have to think again (defective lens?)....Show more →
Can anyone in Paris check the lens for you to make sure that everything is aligned? Or would the lens have to go back to Germany for a check?
philber wrote:
(...)
It is now highly unlikely that I will keep such an expensive lens on this camera for such a restricted use.
Hi Philippe,
I don't think the Lux ever will perform the same way with a digital camera as it does with film or, perhaps, with the Leica M cameras. I didn't feel very well when selling my copy as I so much wanted it to work and I'm having no problem understand your pain. Just sell the 50 Lux - and you got half an Otus in your pocket...
naturephoto1 wrote:
Can anyone in Paris check the lens for you to make sure that everything is aligned? Or would the lens have to go back to Germany for a check?
Rich
The answer is, Rich, I don't know, but I'll find out.
Jonas, I really love the results that lens produces on my NEX 7. Now that hasn't exactly gone way or been in any way reduced by the fact that I have an A7R. Maybe I should keep the NEX 7 as a second body for my Elmar and 'Lux. Or sell'em both to fund a 'Cron 90AA and an Otus. Otus is obviously great, but hardly a carry-around-all-the-time lens, so I don't think that is about to happen. But who knows how crazy I am, deep down?
p.140 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
The answer is, Rich, I don't know, but I'll find out.
Jonas, I really love the results that lens produces on my NEX 7. Now that hasn't exactly gone way or been in any way reduced by the fact that I have an A7R. Maybe I should keep the NEX 7 as a second body for my Elmar and 'Lux. Or sell'em both to fund a 'Cron 90AA and an Otus. Otus is obviously great, but hardly a carry-around-all-the-time lens, so I don't think that is about to happen. But who knows how crazy I am, deep down?
I was never really happy with the 50 Lux when used with my Nex 5. It was impossible to get an image sharp border to border. Maybe it works better with a Nex 7, I don't know.
Deep down I know I want an Otus. It's great to see some other fellows here just as crazy.
p.140 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
Jonas, what I suggest is we buy it together. Then it is only half the weight and half the cost. Which half do you want, left, right, front, back?
Lol. I'm sorry but I have to say no to your kind offer. Now there is no doubt you are more crazy than me though. I wonder if the whole matter has been reduced to a matter of time? Cheers!
p.140 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
Scott, with a near subject, I have no issue. And at f:8.0, the lens is just fine, which tends to support the idea that this is not a lens problem.
This jibes with my understanding -- Lux 50 ASPH on A7/A7r works fine with nearby subjects -- but not so well with distant subjects (as measured against similar performance on an M body).
I'm still holding some hope that the difference between 9.80mm (the correct adapter width) vs. 9.72 (the typical width) might play a role in this -- I would guess this difference may have more impact with the lens at infinity.
p.140 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Are you talking width, and, if yes, inner or outer diameter, or thickness?
As to there being fewer problems are you shoot closer up, this is normal. Shooting at infinity is when your lens sits closest to the sensor.
p.140 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philber wrote:
OK, the jury is in. I went to a high point overlooking Paris, so that I could get some really distant shots where any angle variation would be meaningless, and distance so great (300m+) as to provide vast DOF.
I tried the 'Lux 50 with 3 adapters (2 Novoflex 1 Hawks') with identical results, so the adapter can be ruled out.
Extreme corners are smeared until f:2.8, badly enough that I could see it when focusing, and when chimping. A significant improvement appears by f:4.0, though I would hardly call that great. F:5.6 is better, and f:8.0 better yet, probably as good as on my NEX 7.
It is now highly unlikely that I will keep such an expensive lens on this camera for such a restricted use. I will try an A7 as a secondary body, and see how that works for my 'Lux and Elmar. If that fails, it will be painful decision time.
Either that, or someone can show me 'Lux 50 shots where the extreme corners at f:2.8 or wider are other than mush, and then I have to think again (defective lens?)....Show more →
I'm not sure what you were expecting but the 50 LUX ASPH was never sharp across the frame on my M9P at f2.8.
Here's an excellent assessment by Tim Ashley (see his blog for full review) with this lens on the M240:
"For the lazy reader here are my notes:
F1.4 Sharp on centre but with a hint of glow. Edges soft and glowing.
F2 Centre sharp, edges soft, first hints of colour aliasing seen.
F2.8 Centre excellent, edges good, a little zone of weakness seen left centre left and right centre right. Colour aliasing seen.
F4 Centre excellent, edges very good, mid field weakness and colour aliasing still seen.
F5.6 Centre and edges excellent, mid field weakness tightening up and colour aliasing at its strongest.
F8 As above but a tiny kick of diffraction softness evident, and this takes the edge of the aliasing. Mid field weakness tightens nicely. Possibly the best compromise for even focus across field combined with control of aliasing.
F11 Diffraction more evident but still very useable if you need the DOF.
F16 quite soft due to diffraction but aliasing still just visible."
p.140 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
That said, I am beginning to think that, were I the only who couldn't get it right, more than one of you learned followers of this (and many other) threads would have shown me wrong by indicating where I could find an example of better corner performance. So far, no cigar!
p.140 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
You are planning to try the 50 Lux ASPH on an A7 before giving up on it, right? I will be *very* interested in those results, as I own the A7, and the 50 Lux ASPH is one of my favorite lenses of all time.
