lambers wrote:
The 50 LUX ASPH has many wonderful attributes but, unfortunately, sharpness at wider apertures across a planar scene is not one of them.
It seems everyone is going to have a different opinion about the 50 Lux ASPH... Probably because we each use the lens somewhat differently and on different cameras. In the a7 test I did, of the RF 50s I tried, the Lux was almost as good as the ZM50/2 across the frame and certainly sharper in the center at f/2... On the M9 it performs considerably better (IMO) and I won't hesitate to shoot distant planar subjects wide open with it - for an f/1.4 lens, it's quite sharp across the frame. Definitely better than anything I had used previously with Canon's system. But you did say wider apertures, and there I will agree that the Lux ASPH has a weakness with mid zone image degradation, as also pointed out by that quote posted earlier from Tim Ashley.
The problem is, IMO, the sensor toppings of the Sony cameras definitely add their own changes to the lens's character and exaggerate the smearing already slightly evident in the mid zone dip at wider apertures. So far the best 50 I've seen on the a7 has been the FE55/1.8. It's definitely the best that I tried for distant across frame sharpness at wider apertures. At nearer distances, in the limited time I had with it, it's background defocus character is surprisingly close to the Lux ASPH, though not quite as gaussian.
Philippe, I think the decision you face is whether you can justify to yourself keeping the 50 Lux ASPH for nearer range work when you know it may not meet the full potential of the a7R's sensor for more demanding distant technical scenes... So far I've seen a fair amount of very nice work with the Lux ASPH on the Sonys at nearer distances when edges were not critical...
rscheffler wrote:
So far the best 50 I've seen on the a7 has been the FE55/1.8. It's definitely the best that I tried for distant across frame sharpness at wider apertures. At nearer distances, in the limited time I had with it, it's background defocus character is surprisingly close to the Lux ASPH, though not quite as gaussian.
That was my take away from your A7 series and, based on that surprisingly close character, I ordered one straight away.
Speaking of lenses behaving differently on different sensor/cameras, I certainly hope the FE55/1.8 behaves as nicely on the A7r as it did on the A7 you tested it on.
In comparative shots showing Lux-on-M vs. Lux-on-A7/r -- two variable components change: the body, and the adapter -- and floating element lenses (like Lux) are expected to be sensitive to correct mounting distance -- and M-to-E adapters are usually short -- and (my guess here) the impact of a short adapter will be most pronounced with the lens at infinity.
I believe than the importance of the exact thickness of the adapter with lenses featuring floating elements is somehow overstated here.
Let's suppose that we have a Hawks helical adapter and a Lux 50. Most probably if we use solely the helical extension to focus, leaving the lens focus ring set at infinity, we would see some image degradation. ( If I remember correctly, somebody did that and posted here some pictures a couple/three weeks ago ?. )
Now, we're talking about several millimeters -three or four- of deviation from the optimal distance of the lens elements to the focus plane. A slightly thinner ordinary adapter it's usually from 0.05 to 0.1 mm. shorter than the 'official' 9.80mm. thickness.
Agreed, 3 or 4 mm. may degrade moderately the image. 1mm. may also show minor effects, but 0.05 or 0.1 mm.?. Really ?
I don't mean to come off as overstating the impact -- because I don't know what the impact is.
I'm just saying: 1) the Lux is presumed sensitive to mount distance, 2) M-to-E adapters are generally manufactured short, and 3) the variation would (I believe) have the most impact when the lens is at infinity.
And I'm sure we agree that seemingly small deviations can be consequential -- the obvious example is if the adapter is too long by the same little fraction.
Anyhow, I'm just saying it would be interesting to see results with a "typically too short" adapter vs. a "technically correct" adapter -- maybe this difference no impact, and it would be nice to check that off as a consideration.
rscheffler wrote:
It seems everyone is going to have a different opinion about the 50 Lux ASPH... Probably because we each use the lens somewhat differently and on different cameras. In the a7 test I did, of the RF 50s I tried, the Lux was almost as good as the ZM50/2 across the frame and certainly sharper in the center at f/2... On the M9 it performs considerably better (IMO) and I won't hesitate to shoot distant planar subjects wide open with it - for an f/1.4 lens, it's quite sharp across the frame. Definitely better than anything I had used previously with Canon's system. But you did say wider apertures, and there I will agree that the Lux ASPH has a weakness with mid zone image degradation, as also pointed out by that quote posted earlier from Tim Ashley.
The problem is, IMO, the sensor toppings of the Sony cameras definitely add their own changes to the lens's character and exaggerate the smearing already slightly evident in the mid zone dip at wider apertures. So far the best 50 I've seen on the a7 has been the FE55/1.8. It's definitely the best that I tried for distant across frame sharpness at wider apertures. At nearer distances, in the limited time I had with it, it's background defocus character is surprisingly close to the Lux ASPH, though not quite as gaussian.
Philippe, I think the decision you face is whether you can justify to yourself keeping the 50 Lux ASPH for nearer range work when you know it may not meet the full potential of the a7R's sensor for more demanding distant technical scenes... So far I've seen a fair amount of very nice work with the Lux ASPH on the Sonys at nearer distances when edges were not critical......Show more →
I totally agree with what Ron is saying here. I think Phillipe's experience is what can be expected of the 50 lux ASPH on the Sony Cameras. If you look at the MTFs from the Leica website, which are measured at infinity, it is clear that although the lens has great performance in most of the frame extending beyond the image circle for APS-C, it does have weaker corners and a bit of zone B dip. So on a NEX-7 it should be sharp across the whole frame from about f/2 on, but on FF it is unlikely to be sharp across the frame until at least f/5.6. I am sure it is a little better on the M9 than the Sony FF cameras, but the big difference is FF vs. APS-C. So, someone like Phillipe who has used it on the Nex 7 is likely to notice a big difference in performance on the A7r. His disappointment is understandable.
But as Ron says, it is still likely to be excellent for nearer range work (e.g., portraits) as the unique feature of the 50 Lux ASPH (at least unique until the Otus) of having good wide open sharpness and excellent bokeh will still be there on the A7(r)s. I would love to see comparisons, but I expect it to be noticeably better for this nearer range work than the Sony/Zeiss 55, because the Sony/Zeiss doesn't have a floating element, but that really needs to be tested. Hopefully someone will do so before long.
So, in comparing the two lenses it looks like (but it is still early and testing needs to be done) the 50 Lux ASPH will be better for nearer work and can work for distant work well if you stop down to f/5.6 or f/8. Whereas the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 might have an edge at distance work and nice bokeh for nearer work, where the 50 Lux ASPH as some nice advantages for this type of work (including obviously being 2/3rds of a stop faster). So if you want just one you have to pick what matters most to you, or you can get both or spend a lot more on an Otus or a 50 summicron AA
wolfloid wrote:
I thought this was supposed to be the RF WIDE thread!
Since my interest are weighted more toward WA/UWA than normal, I kind of share those sentiments at times ... but if we are having problems/diffs @ 50mm I just extrapolate "some" of the information to the addage of "the wider you go, the tougher it gets".
I think that it is pretty clear by now that the the holy grail has not yet been found for RF glass on an alternative platform to Leica RF or for WA/UWA on longer registration platforms, i.e. FF DSLR. and it is going to be a very case by case, steady as she goes individual utilization decision at which poison(s) one accepts or rejects when using the WA/UWA RF's on Sony's short registration FF.
It sems we are in a "wait & see" mode for what Sony/Zeiss will bring to the table for UWA/WA glass down the road.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised at the 50mm diff's in CharlesK's A7R/M240 images. I would have not expected to see that. On a visceral level without dissecting things yet, it kinda takes me over to the other thread @ why buy Leica anymore when you can get more MP for less $$$ ... imo, CharlesK images afford an answer (or at least part of it) to that question.
I wish the stop sign and light poles had been framed the same distance from the edge of the frame. But owning neither the A7R, M240 or any RF glass ... beggars can't be too choosy.
I just tested my Lux again, not at infinity, but at ~300 feet and the extreme corners look very good at f1.4.
Obviously I was focussing on the corners. Will try infintiy when I have the chance. This my 1:1 crop wide open.
p.142 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I did find in my very short distance testing on planar subjects (indoors due to weather!) that field curvature accounts for much of the corner softness I observed in the corners/edges. Infinity is the only area it seems the A7/r may have some weakness with the Lux 50 and then only in the edges/corners at wide apertures. I have two adapters (metabones and fotodiox) and as soon as I get an opportunity, I will try to test at infinity, just to add to the data. I do not, unfortunately, have a Leica body for comparison.
In looking at both the crops from Ron Shefler's test and the most recent from Charles K, I wonder if in each case, the lower right hand corner was at infinity. That is, could the fact that the lower right corner is nearer in distance account for some of the blurring? Not meaning to challenge the tester's knowledge/rigor, but just trying to be sure something is not overlooked.
p.142 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I can't speak for the 50mm Lux, but for my small collection of rangefinder glass, I've come to the conclusion that the only one I'll be using on the A7 is the Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton. Here are some images I posted in another thread from my near infinity testing.
I'm coming around to the idea that at least my biogons and the Voigtlander 15mm heliar have some field curvature directed away as you move from the center, and that this is being exacerbated by the Sony sensor toppings. I could selectively focus those lenses for better (but certainly not optimal based on MTFs) corner performance, but the center of the image would be significantly front focused. I wish the curvature was in the opposite direction, which I find pleasing for overall rendering of some subjects.
These cameras will be an excellent platform for small SLR lenses and native glass, from a handling standpoint, and it seems that once there is proper support for adapters, it will be friendly with larger SLR glass as well. Still waiting on someone other than Leica to make a camera that happens to work well with the wider RF glass though.
p.142 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
carstenw wrote:
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.
You know, the 50 Lux-R E60 is similar...
sebboh wrote:
they're not that similar.
carstenw wrote:
I can't think of another lens with more similar rendering to the 50 Lux-M ASPH. What do you find dissimilar?
sebboh wrote:
i actually think the cv 50/1.5 has a closer rendering. the R lux e60 has no floating element, much more hard lined bokeh, and a steady fall off of sharpness at large apertures rather than the midzone dip.
I'm sorry Carsten but I fully agree with sebboh here. All the above and then add the fact you get a lot more micro contrast from the M 50 Lux ASPH when shooting at large aperture openings. Specular background OOF highlights with the E60 are rendered with real bright outlines indeed. (I have owned both these lenses.)
p.142 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
turnstyle wrote:
Jonas, just curious -- how do you feel about the new CV 50/1.5? (btw, does it have a commonly used name to distinguish it from the older version?)
optics are supposed to be the same, though i believe the front element is slightly larger diameter in one version which should impact vignetting.
p.142 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Jonas B wrote: carstenw wrote: sebboh wrote: carstenw wrote: sebboh wrote:
I'm sorry Carsten but I fully agree with sebboh here. All the above and then add the fact you get a lot more micro contrast from the M 50 Lux ASPH when shooting at large aperture openings. Specular background OOF highlights with the E60 are rendered with real bright outlines indeed. (I have owned both these lenses.)
I agree with the missing ASPH element I also agree with the lesser midfield dip. However, I owned the 50 Lux ASPH for 5 years or so, and it would sometimes give harsh boke. The E60 I have only tested for a few days, but I found it quite similar. I could imagine that it would sometimes give harsher boke, but not as a general rule.
p.142 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Sorry, I'm just being obnoxious, it happens at times. I just keep checking back in for the hopes that a decent rf wide is found. It seems that the answer is no, thus we need to start looking at 50s, and thus the discussion has gone to stratospherically priced standard lenses. I've learned my lesson, and will likely purchase the sony 50. For what it's worth, the summarit-m 50 is an excellent, compact lens on the a7r. Not perfect, but the size and handling are sublime.
Many wides seem to be okay, but after shooting what I have available, then going out with an adapter and shooting ZF.2 wide angles, the only reason to use an rf wide is for handling and compactness.
p.142 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I do think that there are some decent wides, but the price is not always attractive. So far, the Leica WATE and the Voigtländer 35/1.2 stick out in my mind, but there have been others. If you are willing to use the Lightroom Flat Field plugin, then a couple more are good.
Perhaps someone should make a master list somewhere?
Personally, I bought my A7 for the way it focuses, not its size, and I like the way my ZFs handle on it.
p.142 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Fair enough with the WATE, i always ignore it due to price. I try to ignore it that is.
I own the Voigtländer 35/1.2 II and indeed it performs quite well. It also is a wide angle, albeit a mild one. My hopes would include something wider, but I dont know if its possible in the current m-mount stable. The ultron 21/1.8 looks okay from samples online, but next to my distagon 21... well, not really comparable.
