coffeeshakes wrote:
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.
the only rangefinder wides that compare favorably on an m-camera to the distagon 21/2.8 are the 21 SE, 24 elmar, and zm 25/2.8. none of them does well on the a7(r), so you're going to have to accept that if you want a smaller lens you're going to have (a bit) worse performance than the distagon 21/2.8. sorry.
carsten – i agree that any lens can certainly have bad bokeh in the right situation, but wrt the 50 lux e60 most of the shots i've seen with it have somewhat busy bright line bokeh while i find it extremely hard to find shots with that kind of bokeh taken with the m lux asph. some other thoughts on the two: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/895186/161
It is possible that this is the case in general, but in the time that I owned the 50 Lux ASPH (~5 years) and the time that I tested the 50 Lux E60 (several days), I did not see that difference. Erwin Puts (whose Leica lens reviews are generally well respected, while his camera and sensor reviews are more controversial) has only the most positive of comments about this lens, and never mentions harsh boke.
I can live with a bit worse performance than the ZF 21 for a much smaller lens, half a pound lighter, and more reasonably sized filters. What remains to be seen for me is just how much worse the CV 21/1.8 performs, but if it's reasonable then I'm happy enough to use it until something better and still reasonably sized turns up.
Regarding 50s, I don't see any reason to not give the FE 55/1.8 a chance over using RF glass unless you have a really specific need that the latter addresses. It sounds like there are compromises either way, but the FE 55 might give move consistent results on the A7 and you get AF as well.
sebboh wrote:
the only rangefinder wides that compare favorably on an m-camera to the distagon 21/2.8 are the 21 SE, 24 elmar, and zm 25/2.8. none of them does well on the a7(r), so you're going to have to accept that if you want a smaller lens you're going to have (a bit) worse performance than the distagon 21/2.8. sorry.
Well, yes, I am looking for performance on an a7, not a Leica. I own a 24 elmar. The problem is that its not 'a bit' worse performance. Its substantially worse performance. Regardless, it seems there is not much point in trying to drive a conversation about RF wides in this thread.
itai195 wrote:
Regarding 50s, I don't see any reason to not give the FE 55/1.8 a chance over using RF glass unless you have a really specific need that the latter addresses. It sounds like there are compromises either way, but the FE 55 might give move consistent results on the A7 and you get AF as well.
the highlighted part is part that makes me not want the FE 55/1.8 (and yeah, realize i'm in a tiny minority on this).
there are a number of full sized shots throughout the aperture range at various distance with the 21/1.8 on the a7 and a7r available now. compared to the zf 21/2.8 it has lower contrast, better distortion control, worse vignetting (at least on the a7r), much poorer corners at large apertures, and slightly poorer corners at small apertures. not sure about CA, but i imagine the voigtlander is noticeably worse.
coffeeshakes wrote:
Well, yes, I am looking for performance on an a7, not a Leica. I own a 24 elmar. The problem is that its not 'a bit' worse performance. Its substantially worse performance. Regardless, it seems there is not much point in trying to drive a conversation about RF wides in this thread.
my point is there isn't much to discuss on this if you're looking for zf 21/2.8 like performance. the 21/2.8 destroys ALL the rangefinder lenses except the 3 i mentioned even when rangefinder lenses are reaching their max potential. since those three have serious corner smearing on the a7(r), there is nothing that will perform like the zf 21/2.8 on the a7(r) other than the zf 21/2.8. just like there isn't anything like it on dslrs.
OK, I know it is not a RF lens and for SLR 21mm lenses the Zeiss 21mm and the Contax 21mm (particularly MM) Distagons are the king in the focal length. Now for a smaller lens how does the Contax 18mm f4 Distagon MM compare with the Contax 21mm f2.8 Distagon MM for performance?
sebboh wrote:
my point is there isn't much to discuss on this if you're looking for zf 21/2.8 like performance. the 21/2.8 destroys ALL the rangefinder lenses except the 3 i mentioned even when rangefinder lenses are reaching their max potential. since those three have serious corner smearing on the a7(r), there is nothing that will perform like the zf 21/2.8 on the a7(r) other than the zf 21/2.8. just like there isn't anything like it on dslrs.
From what Philip has indicated the Contax 21mm f2.8 Distagon MM may have a better performance at least in certain areas than the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon ZF and it is fairly close in performance regardless with its own attributes and is a fair amount lighter.
p.143 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
OK, I know it is not a RF lens and for SLR 21mm lenses the Zeiss 21mm and the Contax 21mm (particularly MM) Distagons are the king in the focal length. Now for a smaller lens how does the Contax 18mm f4 Distagon MM compare with the Contax 21mm f2.8 Distagon MM for performance?
Rich
pretty terribly according to zeiss's own mtfs. 40 cycle mtf lines drop below 40% by 10mm even at f/8 (the 21mm does much better than this at full aperture).
p.143 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
From what Philip has indicated the Contax 21mm f2.8 Distagon MM may have a better performance at least in certain areas than the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon ZF and it is fairly close in performance regardless with its own attributes and is a fair amount lighter.
Rich
mtfs from the ZF and c/y versions are extremely similar. the ZF has slightly better corners and is a little sharper at full aperture. the c/y is slightly sharper in the center at f/5.6. this is all just from zeiss's own data sheets btw.
p.143 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sebboh wrote:
mtfs from the ZF and c/y versions are extremely similar. the ZF has slightly better corners and is a little sharper at full aperture. the c/y is slightly sharper in the center at f/5.6. this is all just from zeiss's own data sheets btw.
Derek,
I know Philip's opinion to get the Contax 21mm Distagon MM version; he likes the rendering better, we need to stop down the lens probably to at least f5.6? for landscape and he likes the lower weight as well. Would you think this would make a good choice? Even if it is only possibly 2nd best but weight is adding up. If stopped down I am not sure how much difference we will see between the 2 lenses even on the A7r.
p.143 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
do we have a list of rangefinder wides that seem to reach their full potential on the a7(r)? from what i've seen i would say these do (please correct me if i'm wrong):
leica WATE
cv 21/1.8
cv 35/1.2
leica 35/1.4 lux asph fle
leica 35/1.4 lux pre-asph
cv 35/1.4
leica 35/2 cron version IV (what about earlier 35 crons?)
contax g 35/2
cv 40/1.4
leica 40/2 summicron-c
nothing in the 24-28mm range unfortunately. this isn't terribly surprising because that is the focal range where lenses can be designed somewhat symmetrically for leica cameras. wider than that requires a fairly retrofocal design even to work on the m9 or m240.
there are other rangefinder lenses that work kinda ok smearing wise once you stop them down a ways, maybe these:
cv 12/5.6
leica 21/1.4 lux asph
leica 24/1.4 lux asph (maybe this works fine even at large aperture?)
zm 25/2.8
zm 35/2
leica 35/2 asph
more?
p.143 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
Derek,
I know Philip's opinion to get the Contax 21mm Distagon MM version; he likes the rendering better, we need to stop down the lens probably to at least f5.6? for landscape and he likes the lower weight as well. Would you think this would make a good choice? Even if it is only possibly 2nd best but weight is adding up. If stopped down I am not sure how much difference we will see between the 2 lenses even on the A7r.
Rich
i have not seen enough from the lens to say much about it's rendering, but the only lenses that might perform better in some ways are the ZF version and the nikkor 14-24/2.8. the lighter weight is definitely a bonus. i can't imagine anybody would be terribly disappointed with that lens unless they are allergic to a bit of mustache distortion (much more relavent for architectural shooting than landscape). to my knowledge the MM version is still fully supported by zeiss as well if you need replacement parts or calibration/repairs. the major drawback of the lens is that it often sells for more than the newer version, but compared to many of the leica lenses we're talking about it's still cheap.
p.143 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
do we have a list of rangefinder wides that seem to reach their full potential on the a7(r)? from what i've seen i would say these do (please correct me if i'm wrong):
Still no mention of the 35 lux asph on either list. Can it really be that no one has tested this yet?
p.143 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sebboh wrote:
do we have a list of rangefinder wides that seem to reach their full potential on the a7(r)? from what i've seen i would say these do (please correct me if i'm wrong):
leica WATE
cv 21/1.8
cv 35/1.2
leica 35/1.4 lux asph fle
leica 35/1.4 lux pre-asph
cv 35/1.4
leica 35/2 cron version IV (what about earlier 35 crons?)
contax g 35/2
cv 40/1.4
leica 40/2 summicron-c
nothing in the 24-28mm range unfortunately. this isn't terribly surprising because that is the focal range where lenses can be designed somewhat symmetrically for leica cameras. wider than that requires a fairly retrofocal design even to work on the m9 or m240.
there are other rangefinder lenses that work kinda ok smearing wise once you stop them down a ways, maybe these:
cv 12/5.6
leica 21/1.4 lux asph
leica 24/1.4 lux asph (maybe this works fine even at large aperture?)
zm 25/2.8
zm 35/2
leica 35/2 asph
more?
p.143 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
charles.K wrote:
I would add the 21 and 24 Lux Asph as being excellent.
that's great to hear charles! have you had a chance to compare them directly on the a7r versus the m240?
also, do you have any full sized images or corner crops you've shared? i seem to remember something from the 24 but all i remember seeing at full sized from the 21 was ron's test.
p.143 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sebboh wrote:
i've seen a number of pics that could have been with that lens on flickr, but people often don't specify which 35 lux, and most are only at websizes.
EDIT: oops - I see you were looking for the non-FLE. Here's my test of the 35 Lux ASPH FLE on the a7. Click through to Flickr for the 100% view:
I will be using mine...
