serhan, these are small version of processed shots with various visible artifacts here and there, you cant tell much from these. CV15 shots can easily be made look better.
That first one looks similar to the 15 on 5N without correction (Cornerfix), albeit with a steeper shift in the extreme corners, IIRC.
Color shift is mainly a problem at high ISO speeds, since correction means increased noise towards the borders and corners of the frame. At low ISO, I think you can correct pretty extreme shift without noticable problems.
CV12mm photos were not corrected for corner shift or vignetting. It might be close to what came as jpg. If you read Reid's tests on RD1, CV15mm showed more vignetting which might explain to Makten's results.
A lot has been discussed and conjured about WA RF and UWA RF...
But i am very very interested in "normal view" lens from 35mm to 50mm , naming my own Leica Summicron-C 40/2.
This is a tiny lens (Richard has the Minolta 40/2 , same lens) and should be my perfect partner in the 7R.
Are we to expect smearing from a 40mm RF lens like this ? Can we expect different behaviour from a different 40mm lens like say the CV 40 1.4 or the CV35 1.4 ?
Is someone else waiting to see if a lens like this can be used (without compromises) to hit the button BUY ?
My opinion is that the CV15/4.5 was one of the better performing lenses in Ron's A7 tests especially at f5.6 and f8. There may have been some decenetering of the adapter with the rhs appearing better than the lhs. I'm mostly looking at smearing - though and discounting the vignetting/color shift that can be adjusted in post.
It's worth noting that when Zeiss offer their recommendations, they're probably anticipating what is acceptable commercially to the wider public. Magenta shift would be a show-stopper for the majority of reviewers/public in a new lens, but for many of us who are used to shooting RF lenses on NEXs it is not so onerous to apply correction profiles - particularly if the parameters to use were to be baked into the raws.
I really wish a SONY representative could give a camera to Ron in order to shoot an identical series of tests.
safcraft wrote:
A lot has been discussed and conjured about WA RF and UWA RF...
But i am very very interested in "normal view" lens from 35mm to 50mm , naming my own Leica Summicron-C 40/2.
This is a tiny lens (Richard has the Minolta 40/2 , same lens) and should be my perfect partner in the 7R.
Are we to expect smearing from a 40mm RF lens like this ? Can we expect different behaviour from a different 40mm lens like say the CV 40 1.4 or the CV35 1.4 ?
Is someone else waiting to see if a lens like this can be used (without compromises) to hit the button BUY ? ...Show more →
with backorder waits climbing you can pre order. somebody will shoot with the 40/2 before yours ships most likely.
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks, Rich. How did it feel in your hand? Any glaring ergonomic complaints?
I really liked the way that the camera felt and balanced in my hands with the grip, but I only used the Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 Rokkor-M with the Phigment Tech Leica M to NEX adapter and the Leica R24mm f2.8 Elmarit lens with the Novoflex Leica R to NEX adapter. Also, be aware, I do have small hands and find cameras like the Canon 5DIII to stretch my hand. I didn't try to handle the camera with larger lenses and not knowing the camera controls (yet) I didn't try to handle the camera, focus, and make adjustments beyond focus and shoot the shutter. With the Minolta CLE 40mm f2.8 Rokkor on the camera it looked great and handled great and was really light. In fact, I handed the camera back to the Sony Rep to see how it felt with this set-up. The EVF was really really nice with possibly too much information. I am not sure, but I hope that you can shut some of it off if you wish. Also, it is nice that the camera can be used not only with WiFi and wireless but with cable remote. So, hopefully if one wants you will be able to use the camera with the Lightning sensing remote releases.
I think that most of us here on the the Alt Forum will really like the camera as long as they can get past the idea if we or they are unable to find WA RF lenses that they wish to use with the camera.
naturephoto1 wrote:
The EVF was really really nice with possibly too much information. I am not sure, but I hope that you can shut some of it off if you wish.
it sounds like the menu/setup is basically an updated version of what the rx1 has. if that's the case there is a fair amount of evf setup you can do including removing all information, choosing how much you want displayed, and how that is displayed graphically. i have typically set my camera up to show just basic info (shutter speed, aperture, iso, and exposure compensation) but can add histogram or auto level at the touch of a button.
Steve Spencer wrote:
When Zeiss announced it was making MF lenses for these cameras, I inferred that rangefinder WA probably had some serious issues. After all, Zeiss has some nice rangefinder lenses and if they worked well, there would be little need to develop a new line of lenses.
This makes perfect sense to me too.
Up until now, RF glass compatibility with adapted cameras like NEX has been entirely due to "happy accidents" but enough lenses worked well enough to legitimize their use. As the sensor size inevitably grew, so do problems. We all knew this and Zeiss of course would too.
Use of RF lenses on NEX and like platforms must have convinced NEX there is an exploitable market. Sony NEX and A7 family camera sales far outpace the Leica digital M sales. Why not legitimize compact manual focus lens designs for cameras like Sony's and take a bigger slice of the pie *plus* deliver a high quality product that isn't hindered by old designs on new tech cameras?
Sure, it'd be nice if we could continue to use thicker M mount lenses with abandon on future cameras, allowing a certain amount of freedom of movement between makes of narrower, adaptable, cameras. But a solid line up of MF lenses native to a brand, high quality optics and construction - lenses which tend to keep their value well - probably wouldn't deter buyers too much.
Cameras with small back focal lengths are here to stay. The A7 cameras represent a new generation of cameras, not replacing NEX but providing a parallel family to NEX / APS-C. Seeing so many new autofocus Zeiss EF lenses delivered and on the drawing board, for a camera that hasn't even shipped, suggests Zeiss (and Sony) expect lots of growth in the high end slice of mirrorless camera sales and they are rushing to dominate that space.
For some reason there is a ton of moaning over on DPR about the future of E mount but to my eyes everything we are seeing unfold these days underscores how important E mount, and other narrow mount mirrorless bodies, are going forward. This is the future, for many photographers. Maybe one day for most.
Even those who aren't fans of Zeiss optics should be happy with all the bricks being laid in the wall here... looks like a good foundation for the future, benefiting all advanced mirrorless camera users.
Many thanks for your comprehensive and useful report. Great to learn that the M-Rokkor 40/2 handled well on the A7r; here's hoping it performs acceptably too. I can't wait to mount mine on the A7r I have on order.
naturephoto1 wrote:
... the only M mount lens that I had was the Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2.0 Rokkor-M lens and unfortunately no WA Leica or Zeiss RF lenses.
Because this lens has been mentioned a few times, I went back in my archives and found this descriptive of the Summicron by E. Puts.
"2/40 Summicron-C, 1973 This 6 element double-Gauss is better in all respects than the 2.8/40mm. A compact 6-element Gauss lens is not easy to design. A 5-element version is compact, but has disturbing chromatic errors in the field and a 7-element would be too long. For the front lens Leitz used a glass with high refractive index to partly address this problem of the
aberrations. Some of the glass was created in the Leitz glass lab. (The Minolta version used Minolta glass). At full aperture the overall contrast is medium to high and fine detail is rendered with clean edges on axis only (image height till 3mm), with a fairly rapid drop in the field and edges. Vignetting is 2 stops. Stopping down to 1:4 improves on axis performance significantly till
image height of 6mm, after which the contrast drops rapidly to low values and very fine detail is just recordable. At smaller apertures the image quality in the field slowly improves with excellent definition of very fine detail on axis and fairly good in the field. Distortion is detectible, but not disturbingly so.
Overall performance is between the Summicron 35 type 3 and type 4. The 6-element Summicron 35 has a slightly better performance at full aperture, but stopped down is a bit less good in the field. The 7-element Summicron 35 is better in the field, but it suffers more form strong zonal errors.
So it would be horses for courses? Partly yes. The differences in fingerprint or character do also show that is very difficult to describe a Leica lens in a superficial manner as every lens has its own specific characteristics."
The ZM35/2 was decent on the NEX, although I found at distance/infinity the GXR did it more justice. Closer in I preferred it on the NEX-5N. In both cases I felt the 35/2 (and 25/2.8) were wasted on APS-C sensors, sometimes coming off as clinical in nature. On film, the only full frame sensor I had for them, I love em both. I'd always hoped for a camera like the A7r for them.
Even wide open it did not smear on the 5N, soft yes, smear no.
No opinion how the ZM35/2 does on the A7r, wait and see! I no longer have a copy to test.
ZM 35/2.8 is a better bet than either of those Michael suggests, for landscape, assuming you value evenness, good corner performance and good aberration control. Lighter too.
ZM 35 f:2.0 is marginal on the NEX 7. Some shots require CornerFix, some not. So a very basic estimate, using CV12 as a yardstick, says it should be OK on the A7R. However, pics shot with the native E-mount Sony-Zeiss ZA FE 35 f:2.8 look mighty impressive, and having one AF lens being a bonus, I plan to buy it even though I have the ZM.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Never had a chance to use a ZM35/2.8. Wonder how it'll do on the A7r? If it is usable, comparisons between it and the FE35/2.8 will be fun.
ZM 35 f:2.8 was trouble-free on the original NEX 3/5, indicating a very good candidate for the A7. Otherwise, it is also a fine lens. Small and light, lots of detail, nice colors. Be prepared though for rather less contrast than is usual with Zeiss lenses.
If the Leica Summarit-M 35/2.5 checks out okay on the new cameras, that will be a nice small 35 pairing. Of course it comes with the red dot tax, but it is a strong little performer.
So, worst case scenario, the wide-to-ultra-wide RF lens you really want to use looks terrible on both cameras. Do you have a back-up plan or will you lose interest?
