coffeeshakes wrote:
Sigh, I'm such a sucker. Just purchased an unproven RF wide angle for my preordered a7r that I probably wont see for months. I think I have a problem. Guess I can mount it on the NEX7 in the meantime
No more than me, I bought the 24 Elmarit Asph a month ago in preparation for the A7(r) though I didn't know if or when an E-mount FF camera would be announced, I then added the 90 Cron AA 2+ weeks ago.
At some point the sensor tech will catch up, possibly with organic sensor toppings, then things will get real interesting.
philip_pj wrote:
Shelt is the guy who did a very nice comparo (thanks!), well worth a good look, as it shows the strength of the 24/1.8 as well which despite howls of complaint from the bleachers about its cost, sells very well.
That 24 SEM lens is technically better than the 21D. It is the best wide angle made, very likely. It is somewhat better than the similar designed and similarly impressive 21mm SEM which weakens more in the outer frame, but degrees of excellence here, as both are top class.
It will handle the demands of the a7r without raising a sweat, and I hope it works too - putting these kinds of lenses on a crop sensor is like pulling two spark plug leads off a V8. It's unusual for Leica in that it is a bit untidy wide open, hence the slower aperture.
The 24mm SEM is the target lens for the Zeiss FE wide angle I would hope....Show more →
Looking at the MTFs, the 21SEM has overall slightly lower levels than the 24/3.8 does. However, it has better consistency between tangential and saggital wide-open.
sebboh wrote:
ha! all the f/1.2 or faster lenses have very "special" bokeh. surely you've seen shots with the f/1 noct before? it's definitely not a smooth bokeh lens. it's a funky wonder. in the right hands it can do amazing light painting, though not the kind of things most bokeh connoisseurs are interested in these days.
I vaguely recall seeing that bokeh previously.
I don't recall seeing "special" bokeh from the Rokkor 58 1.2's I once owned - and I did test the bokeh. Typically, if I'm not mistaken, busy Bokeh like that often shows up with fast lenses that employ aspherical elements - at least that's the case with some "non traditional" bokeh I have previously seen.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't recall seeing "special" bokeh from the Rokkor 58 1.2's I once owned - and I did test the bokeh. Typically, if I'm not mistaken, busy Bokeh like that often shows up with fast lenses that employ aspherical elements - at least that's the case with some "non traditional" bokeh I have previously seen.
not sure what your referring to exactly, onion ring bokeh is the only thing i'm familiar with that is associated particularly with asph lenses, and that certainly isn't onion ring bokeh. each ultra speed lens has it's own unusual bokeh due to the particular aberrations the designers tried to correct or couldn't correct. the rokkor 58/1.2 certainly doesn't have usual looking bokeh at full aperture, though at f/2 and below it has unusually well behaved bokeh.
Interesting. In the top right corner the small light yellow leaves in the background look really sharp while the closer big tree trunk looks out of focus despite being in the same plane as the sign. Is that field curvature from the 'Lux?
_julian_ wrote:
Interesting. In the top right corner the small light yellow leaves in the background look really sharp while the closer big tree trunk looks out of focus despite being in the same plane as the sign. Is that field curvature from the 'Lux?
i don't think it's really field curvature, but check out the mtfs.
_julian_ wrote:
Really shouldn't look that bad for the most expensive 50mm on the market when stopped down.
Unfortunately, I think it's the sensor that's smearing.
nope, sensor smearing would be worse in the corner than the midzone. what makes you think it's stopped down? dof seems to be quite thin for the distance. i don't think the aperture is smaller than f/2.8 and it could be wide open (though i definitely doubt it).
on the m9 the lens shows a substantial midzone drop below f/5.6 that is much worse at medium and close distances than at infinity.
_julian_ wrote:
Interesting. In the top right corner the small light yellow leaves in the background look really sharp while the closer big tree trunk looks out of focus despite being in the same plane as the sign. Is that field curvature from the 'Lux?
That tree with the plastic box hanging on it isn't in the plane of focus. It's in front of it.
sebboh wrote:
nope, sensor smearing would be worse in the corner than the midzone. what makes you think it's stopped down? dof seems to be quite thin for the distance. i don't think the aperture is smaller than f/2.8 and it could be wide open (though i definitely doubt it).
on the m9 the lens shows a substantial midzone drop below f/5.6 that is much worse at medium and close distances than at infinity.
The shutter speed is 1/1250 @ ISO 200. Based on the shadows it looks like direct undiffused sunlight from the afternoon sun. Maybe f/2.8 or thereabouts?
sebboh wrote:
nope, sensor smearing would be worse in the corner than the midzone.
I agree that astigmatism will get progressively worse as one moves toward the edges of the frame. But I'm not sure if the average focal point also changes resulting in a curved field of focus. Whether the corner appears sharp partly depends on whether there's an object at that depth (yellow leaves in the top right-hand corner in the background).
what makes you think it's stopped down? dof seems to be quite thin for the distance. i don't think the aperture is smaller than f/2.8 and it could be wide open (though i definitely doubt it).
In the Camera Store TV video Chris says that they shoot the Summilux at 5.6.
?t=4m5s
on the m9 the lens shows a substantial midzone drop below f/5.6 that is much worse at medium and close distances than at infinity.
freaklikeme wrote:
That tree with the plastic box hanging on it isn't in the plane of focus. It's in front of it.
I agree. But the that tree with the box is also behind the sign which is where the camera was focused. My argument is that the focal plane is not flat but instead showing field curvature. Either lens field curvature, or else due to refraction in the sensor layers lengthening the light path before it hits the photodiodes and changing the focal point at different points in the frame..
_julian_ wrote:
I agree. But the that tree with the box is also behind the sign which is where the camera was focused. My argument is that the focal plane is not flat but instead showing field curvature. Either lens field curvature, or else due to refraction in the sensor layers lengthening the light path before it hits the photodiodes and changing the focal point at different points in the frame..
there is definitely some field curvature, but the predominant weakness in the midzone is something else. if you follow the the line of focus on the ground from the sign to the left edge you can see the midzone get unsharp with nothing behind it sharp either and then things get sharper again when it gets close to the frame edge.
it's been a long time since i looked at a similar m9 shot but i've certainly heard people complain about the lens at this distance. the sharpness of the two upper corners makes me doubt it's smearing though.
incidently, ron's foliage shot with the lux at f/5.6 shows larger dof and less midzone dip, though it's difficult for me to tell exactly how similar the focus distances are.
I asked him for info and gave hime the link to this thread, so maybe we'll hear about settings etc.
@_julian_ I'm really surprised you are jumping to conclusions. Its the same every time a new camera is in pre-release. Huge variation in the few images available.
again, look at the Nocti shot. You think this camera is going to suck with the summilux? I highly doubt it.
Gary Clennan wrote:
I was in The Camera Store at lunch today... Do you need some additional info?
Aperture, camera settings, PP info for that ugly summilux shot.
