partitura wrote:
uhoh7 - Did you test the 28mm asph version on the A7R? You mentioned the fantastic centers - how was the corner/edge performance? Or are you saying that overall the v2 or 3 were better than the asph?
That is my impression. Also the Cron seems to be better than the asph 2.8.
I was about to post that it seems a shame to spend a lot of money on, say, a Leica M 28mm, then not be able to use it at any wider than f8. On the other hand, I was reading a review of the Contax Distagon 28 2.8, which said that to really get it sharp in the corners one has to stop down to f5.6.
It does seem true that the Leica R 28 version 2 is a better choice for quality across the frame of an A7R. But they certainly seem rare and expensive these days.
Not sure the best place to post this (there are more than a few A7r threads, in case no one has noticed. I just did some center/bokeh indoor testing on the Lux 50 and FE 55 (weather is really bad here). In the center, just barely, the lux is still a bit sharper/contrastier at large apertures. Differences fade with stopping down. Also, Lux is slightly better than the FE 55 at OOF highlights/color fringing of the OOF highlights. However, the FE 55 is noticeably better in both regards than the Zeiss ZE 50 MP, which says a lot for how good a lens it is. I also found that at the close distance shot that I was testing on, the FE 55 autofocus was not spot on and I had to use MF to make the test. The downer there is that the manual focusing by wire is much less pleasant than the mechanical MF of the Leica....I can post crops if there an interest. I want to do much more testing, but I am quite confident that the FE 55 will be much better than the Lux the closer to the edges/corners one gets. Thus, I think for my intended uses, I will stick to my plans--to use the Lux in low light/portraiture situations where I am not concerned about edge to edge sharpness but want center sharpness and good bokeh and speed, and use the FE 55 for all manner of landscapes and in good light or where I want autofocus. No question that the better "buy" is the FE 55 and that for all round use, it is likely the preferred lens on the A7r. However, Leica and "value" don't really belong in the same sentence and the Leica is a whale of a lens (despite the sensor topping issue that plagues its edges/corners at larger apertures) and much more pleasant to manually focus.
partitura wrote:
I was about to post that it seems a shame to spend a lot of money on, say, a Leica M 28mm, then not be able to use it at any wider than f8. On the other hand, I was reading a review of the Contax Distagon 28 2.8, which said that to really get it sharp in the corners one has to stop down to f5.6.
It does seem true that the Leica R 28 version 2 is a better choice for quality across the frame of an A7R. But they certainly seem rare and expensive these days.
Really if one does not have a 28 and wants one, best bet would be a nFD 28/2.8 or something like that--at least for the A7r. It is just not happy with many wides, including SLRs. Serious money should wait for the native options, which I'd expect to be great.
Along similar lines, the A7 loves the nFD 20/2.8, it appears. I snapped this @5.6 this morning: DSC01528 by unoh7, on Flickr
the resolution took me aback. This is with shadows raised, so with proper light it will be better yet.
This lens is very light, and only around 225USD at keh for a really good one.
Okay, another quick lens test. It is raining in Atlanta, and I figured why not try out some new lenses? This is just indoors, but is still revealing to me. I tried the CV 35 1.2 against the native FE 35 2.8. It was interesting. The CV 35 1.2 wide open to F2, does not equal the sharpness or contrast of the FE 2.8 at 2.8. However, by F 2.8, the CV is sharper and more contrasty in the center versus the FE 2.8/ However, the FE 2.8 is a bit better at 2.8 in zones B and C (tho not nearly the difference seen with the FE 55 versus the Lux 50, which was not close). By F 5.6, the CV has caught up in zones B and C and both lenses are very good across the frame. The CV also seems better corrected for out of focus highlights at the same apertures (and indeed, not appreciably worse even wide open than the FE 2.8 is at wide open). The CV has the not inconsiderable advantage of having more than two stops more light to play with when needed, tho that may be counterbalanced by the light weight and autofocus of the FE. The CV is nicer to manually focus than the focus by wire, but is not quite as enjoyable as Leica glass is in that department. In sum, if you don't mind the added weight and manual focus only, the CV is a very fine, versatile lens--in my mind a bit nicer than the FE 2.8. However, this is indoors only, and I cannot yet speak to performance at infinity. If I had to guess, for landscapes, the FE 2.8 will find its way into my bag, whereas for all low light, portrait, etc. applications, the CV will be the one.
Sorry, forgot to mention, I am using the A7r and the CV is a brand new 35 1.2 version 2.
Luvwine. Thanks for your comparison of the FE 35 and CV 35/1.2. If you get a chance, I'd also be interested in hearing how you feel the two lenses compare at infinity.
Well, had a snafu with adapters, but got in a Hawks Family version 3 Helicoid adapter in teh mail today for use on my A7r. With only a bit of light left, I went into the back yard and used it to shoot some distant trees. This was hardly a careful test, but told me that, as I suspected from my closer distance testing, the CV 35 1.2 is indeed very competitive with, and so far I would say at least equal to the FE 35 2.8 at comparable apertures in corner to corner sharpnes once stopped down to F5.6 and perhaps even before--and is certainly as sharp at larger apertures towards the center of the frame. It also has the benefit of two extra stops of light but is much heavier and lacks autofocus. This is preliminary on my part, but thought I would present what I found, however lacking in rigor. If I had to choose just one 35mm lens, I would be sorely tempted to choose the CV 35 1.2. Just for fun, I also tried my Lux 50 and adjusted the Helicoid so that the Lux 50's hard stop at infinity was indeed infinity focus. It still took till F5.6 before the extreme corners began tightening up and until F8 before they were respectable. The FE 55 was a bit better than the Lux 50 (at F8) in the corners by F4 (prior to F4, it was decent, but branches on the light sky produced a pretty nasty color fringing on some branches in the corner). The Lux never got as good as the FE 55 in the corners (at F4 on), but was still quite useable. I would say that the FE55 is doubtless the better landscape lens but the Lux is not bad. There were parts of the frame--closer to the center, where the Lux 50 had an advantage over the FE 55. For the price, the FE 55 is a remarkable lens. I would still rather use the Lux 50 in low light and in applications where corner to corner sharpness is not critical. Still, if choosing just one 50, and just for the Sony A7r, the FE 55 is the one.
p.151 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I had my CV 35/1.2 v1 outdoors for the first time today on the A7, and it certainly spanks every other 35 I own in every respect except form factor and weight.
p.151 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Luvwine wrote:
Well, had a snafu with adapters, but got in a Hawks Family version 3 Helicoid adapter in teh mail today for use on my A7r. With only a bit of light left, I went into the back yard and used it to shoot some distant trees. This was hardly a careful test, but told me that, as I suspected from my closer distance testing, the CV 35 1.2 is indeed very competitive with, and so far I would say at least equal to the FE 35 2.8 at comparable apertures in corner to corner sharpnes once stopped down to F5.6 and perhaps even before--and is certainly as sharp at larger apertures towards the center of the frame. It also has the benefit of two extra stops of light but is much heavier and lacks autofocus. This is preliminary on my part, but thought I would present what I found, however lacking in rigor. If I had to choose just one 35mm lens, I would be sorely tempted to choose the CV 35 1.2. Just for fun, I also tried my Lux 50 and adjusted the Helicoid so that the Lux 50's hard stop at infinity was indeed infinity focus. It still took till F5.6 before the extreme corners began tightening up and until F8 before they were respectable. The FE 55 was a bit better than the Lux 50 (at F8) in the corners by F4 (prior to F4, it was decent, but branches on the light sky produced a pretty nasty color fringing on some branches in the corner). The Lux never got as good as the FE 55 in the corners (at F4 on), but was still quite useable. I would say that the FE55 is doubtless the better landscape lens but the Lux is not bad. There were parts of the frame--closer to the center, where the Lux 50 had an advantage over the FE 55. For the price, the FE 55 is a remarkable lens. I would still rather use the Lux 50 in low light and in applications where corner to corner sharpness is not critical. Still, if choosing just one 50, and just for the Sony A7r, the FE 55 is the one....Show more →
I didn't receive the FE 55 yet (probably on Tuesday) but my initial tests and comparisons of the FE 35 against the ZM 35/2 at infinity and close range are very revealing.
IMHO, the ZM 35/2 on a Leica body is superior to the FE 35, but on the A7, I can see the FE 35 uniform sharpness across the frame. Even at f/8 the corners of the ZM do not reach the levels of the FE.
However, at close range, the image center of the ZM has much more life (more micro contrast and 3D) and the photos are more attractive. It also seems to have about 1/2 stop luminance advantage at similar apertures, which means the FE 35 is really a f/3.4 lens.
I hope that future cameras will have improved sensor performance in the corners, but for the time being, the FE 35 would be the way to go for most uniform performance.
p.151 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
so.. do we have a conclusion though? I climbed this thread still bi confused..
If I'm in to a m-mount 28mm lens, so VM 28/2 maybe the best choice in terms of corner IQ?
p.151 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
unravel wrote:
Oh man, i just did so much research and still can't decide
I really need a 28mm lens, have sony a7, whats really fitting the top of my price range is voigtlander 28mm f2.0... do i have better options?
Thanks!
If you want to stick to RF wides then I don't think there is a choice, at least not for myself, but it might for you. The problem is that imho you would have to try it out yourself to see if you can live with the shortcomings. Other than that there are many 28mm lenses out there be it f2 or f2.8 that might fit the bill.
p.151 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Thats true there is resale value, size is super important to me so i dont think i have another choice. Maybe the f2 vs f1.9 versions and which fares better on digital. Its strictly a street photo lens for me so i just need it to be great stopped down.
p.151 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
judsonzhao wrote:
the best choice in terms of corner IQ?
NOT an RF ... go with an SLR that is renowned for great corners. 24x36 is still 24x36 and the trig of the RF lens being TOO FREAKIN' CLOSE is working against you to get good corners AND even illumination on WA/UWA.
The RF being THAT CLOSE can be sweet for Zone A, but NOT SO MUCH for Zone C corners.
. I just did some center/bokeh indoor testing on the Lux 50 and FE 55 (weather is really bad here). In the center, just barely, the lux is still a bit sharper/contrastier at large apertures. Differences fade with stopping down. Also, Lux is slightly better than the FE 55 at OOF highlights/color fringing of the OOF highlights. However, the FE 55 is noticeably better in both regards than the Zeiss ZE 50 MP, which says a lot for how good a lens it is. I also found that at the close distance shot that I was testing on, the FE 55 autofocus was not spot on and I had to use MF to make the test. The downer there is that the manual focusing by wire is much less pleasant than the mechanical MF of the Leica....I can post crops if there an interest. I want to do much more testing, but I am quite confident that the FE 55 will be much better than the Lux the closer to the edges/corners one gets. Thus, I think for my intended uses, I will stick to my plans--to use the Lux in low light/portraiture situations where I am not concerned about edge to edge sharpness but want center sharpness and good bokeh and speed, and use the FE 55 for all manner of landscapes and in good light or where I want autofocus. No question that the better "buy" is the FE 55 and that for all round use, it is likely the preferred lens on the A7r. However, Leica and "value" don't really belong in the same sentence and the Leica is a whale of a lens (despite the sensor topping issue that plagues its edges/corners at larger apertures) and much more pleasant to manually focus.
