 |
Guest
Guest
|
 p.26 #3 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses | |
RustyBug wrote:
But not so they can then contend with smearing, vignetting and color shifts. Canon's 17L & 24L II TS-E's also cost more than the ZM and get used in that range, but the larger image circle and different angles of incidence yield an IQ that isn't nearly as challenged / compromised by the steep angles of rangefinder UWA glass.
If your goal is truly landscape quality IQ, then I don't really see the concept of using high dollar UWA rangefinder glass to get "pretty good" corners really viable so you can correct vignetting, color shift and smearing additionally in post.
$$$ for Zeiss UWA SLR or TS-E glass to get your landscape quality makes more sense for me when it comes to UWA. The wider you go, the tougher it gets ... choose your poison @ size/weight vs. IQ. Why put a compromised/uber-challenged optical projection on the "latest & greatest" FF sensor if your goal is IQ? Yes, it's cool that rangefinder glass is now useable on FF, but I'd relegate that to the normal/longer focal lengths or even moderate WA (i.e. 35mm), but not the UWA's.
FF is the same size @ mirrorless as it is for SLR ... the math for the optical projection still has to project a given FOV onto the same area. The closer you put your rear element to your sensor, the steeper/more challenging the compromises become.
Having a FF mirrorless camera (vs. SLR) changes nothing regarding optical projection challenges of projecting a 100 degree FOV onto a 24mm x 36mm area. Rangefinder glass is going to be more challenged by its closer proximity to the sensor than that of SLR or TS-E lenses.
The shot posted by Wfrank shows pretty well on the NEX. But my experience with UWA on FF is that the real problem areas fall outside of the FOV on crop. I could be totally whack on this, but we'll see how it shakes out for using UWA rangefinder on FF Bayer array....Show more →
RustyBug wrote:
But not so they can then contend with smearing, vignetting and color shifts. Canon's 17L & 24L II TS-E's also cost more than the ZM and get used in that range, but the larger image circle and different angles of incidence yield an IQ that isn't nearly as challenged / compromised by the steep angles of rangefinder UWA glass.
If your goal is truly landscape quality IQ, then I don't really see the concept of using high dollar UWA rangefinder glass to get "pretty good" corners really viable so you can correct vignetting, color shift and smearing additionally in post.
$$$ for Zeiss UWA SLR or TS-E glass to get your landscape quality makes more sense for me when it comes to UWA. The wider you go, the tougher it gets ... choose your poison @ size/weight vs. IQ. Why put a compromised/uber-challenged optical projection on the "latest & greatest" FF sensor if your goal is IQ? Yes, it's cool that rangefinder glass is now useable on FF, but I'd relegate that to the normal/longer focal lengths or even moderate WA (i.e. 35mm), but not the UWA's.
FF is the same size @ mirrorless as it is for SLR ... the math for the optical projection still has to project a given FOV onto the same area. The closer you put your rear element to your sensor, the steeper/more challenging the compromises become.
Having a FF mirrorless camera (vs. SLR) changes nothing regarding optical projection challenges of projecting a 100 degree FOV onto a 24mm x 36mm area. Rangefinder glass is going to be more challenged by its closer proximity to the sensor than that of SLR or TS-E lenses.
The shot posted by Wfrank shows pretty well on the NEX. But my experience with UWA on FF is that the real problem areas fall outside of the FOV on crop. I could be totally whack on this, but we'll see how it shakes out for using UWA rangefinder on FF Bayer array....Show more →
I means in most Z lenses for SLR. But clear that RF UWA lenses can be smaller with same optical quality. Of course, if I'll buy a7/a7r I would be glad to use something good WA with smaller size than me old Z18/Z21 or current really huge Z15  Something from Leica 21 or G21 or Z21, but for this time information here still do not keep that option for me...
Regarding sense of my post, for me in UWA lenses not only one-two parameters. I love much this range, love shot against sun too... So resolution - great, distortion - does not so matter really, but enough contrast in any light condition, how to change the colors regarding light conditions, flares - for me important for example, and sure not for me only. Of course, I understand position and sometimes thinking same - "why pay for 1.4 if we use 8?". But criteria not "resolution and distortion" only always. UWA lenses more than other lenses working in hard light conditions and here I choose the Zeiss by complex criteria. But UWA Zeiss never cheap.
Sorry for my English, Alex
|
| Oct 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM |
| |
|
 |
