genji wrote:
I really hope so too. If the M-Hex 28 is fine, then the M-Hex 35, 50, and 90 should be OK and I can sell my other M-mount lenses.
I am not so optimistic regarding the M-Hex 35.
At least my sample is quite strange on digital cameras (similar to the CV 35 Ultron).
It has a small exit pupil (actually slightly smaller than the entrance pupil!).
Edit: "small exit pupil" instead of "large exit pupil"
The 28mm G Contax was a terrible lens on Sony Nex and Fuji X Cameras because of the deep intruding und round last lens element.
So no surprise here ??
After a lot of research back when the Nex-5 / 5n came out I decided to get an Elmar Asph 24 f 3,8 and it worked really fine.
So, Iīm curious if the Elmar 24 will be acceptable on FF.
The 12mm Voigtlaender got a LOT of good reviews too working on mirrorless cameras so maybe I will get the 12mm in the future...
A friend and me will test some lenses when the A7 / A7R arrives.
We preorderd both and will test
Elmar-M 24mm f3,8 Asph
Summilux 35mm f1,4 Asph (non FLE)
Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2
Summilux 50mm f1,4 Asph
Macro-Elmar-M 90mm f4 Collaps (without Macro-Adapter)
and the Contax G
28mm f2,8
35mm f2
45mm f2
90mm f2,8
philber wrote:
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.
I guess we are going to need to do some peeping at the native 35 vs 24-70 @35, and the best rf candidate.
It's hard to believe those AF lenses are going to keep up with some RF or other, but if they do I'll just swallow my distaste for AF.
@28 I think my summicron may be OK. Perhaps one 35 cron or other is "the one".
No hurry I guess, since the 24-70 is winter lens for us, and I won't sell any of my own stuff till spring, when prices always come up a tad.
Which are the best landscape samples we have so far from those natives?
sculptormic wrote:
As far as I know Philip always uses his ZM 28 Biogon, so not much hope for my 25 ZM Biogon
That is very much a pity because it is such a great lens. But I have hopes for other wide lenses, in particular my 24-35 Minolta MD, I love it.
Well, Richard Schleuning of Zeiss said that they knew that their WA RF lenses had problems with the A7r. That is certainly part of the reason that Zeiss is going to produce MF lenses for the camera.
Guys, simply forget all the rangefinder wide angle lenses (below 40mm), they are designed for mirrorless cameras using FILM, not for DIGITAL!
I have no idea why Leica and Voigtlander still are designing and releasing such inappropriate lenses while Sony, Zeiss, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Nikon are able to design wide angle lenses which just work perfectly with mirrorless short flange distance cameras.
So until Sony will release further Zeiss wide angle FE mount lenses for the A7(R) (my hope is a rather small 21f4), the best choice of small, good IQ wide angle lenses for the Sony A7 are mirror reflex lenses like the Leica R 28f2.8 and R 19f2.8, Olympus OM 21f3.5 and OM 18f3.5.
grasmuc wrote:
Guys, simply forget all the rangefinder wide angle lenses (below 40mm), they are designed for mirrorless cameras using FILM, not for DIGITAL!
I have no idea why Leica and Voigtlander still are designing and releasing such inappropriate lenses while Sony, Zeiss, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Nikon are able to design wide angle lenses which just work perfectly with mirrorless short flange distance cameras.
So until Sony will release further Zeiss wide angle FE mount lenses for the A7(R) (my hope is a rather small 21f4), the best choice of small, good IQ wide angle lenses for the Sony A7 are mirror reflex lenses like the Leica R 28f2.8 and R 19f2.8, Olympus OM 21f3.5 and OM 18f3.5. ...Show more →
Huh? What is wrong with having a discussion about it though? So no, I will not "simply forget" about it and will ignore your ill opinion/advice. The option of adapting a huge variety of lenses is possible and that is exactly what this thread is about.
Of course it is technically possible but optically it is not working properly. The angle of light of conventional rangefinder wa lenses outside axis/towards the sensor edges is way too steep for the sensor, respectively the physical depth of a single pixel.
Look the Zeiss Sonnar lens designs for the FE 35f2.8 and for the 35f2 in the RX1: Totally different from former symmetrical or retrofocus wa lens designs for short flange cameras.
I had a complete Contax G collection but sold it. Wonderful lenses but the Hologon 16 and the Biogons 21 and 28 are just worthless (color cast, smeared edges) in today's digital world.
You talk like it's an insurmountable problem and should just move on, the cameras aren't even out yet and you're telling us to give up, technology marches forward, new sensors will be made and these issues will become a thing of the past.
If I can find an acceptable solution I'll take it.
So, a 40mm RF is OK. and a 35mm RF is worthless junk on a digital sensor ?. Grasmuc, I'm not a Leica fan, but have you ever seen what those unusable lenses can do in a Leica M9 or M240 ?
That 'good or bad' approach generalizing about a whole series of cameras and lenses with absolutely different optical designs is way too simplistic. It's a case per case affair. The results may range from excellent to very bad, and all the intermediate shades between pure black and pure white
grasmuc wrote:
Of course it is technically possible but optically it is not working properly.
Depends on what you mean with "working properly". Many M lenses are software corrected for color shift on the M cameras, and it works fine in most cases. For me it's no problem to do this in post processing with Cornerfix or something else, if it gives good image quality in the end.
I bet the RX1 does a lot of software magic with the files, as well as the a7(r) does with files shot with native lenses. Perhaps not as much as you'd need to do with other lenses, but who cares? If it works, it works.
Indeed, and that's on the A7! I really need to know which one of the sensors that handles these lenses best before deciding, because I don't want 36 mpix and I want an AA filter if it works.
wfrank wrote:
No, the G28 was excellent on the 5N. Color shift was rare (and always correctable) and good corners.
EXCELLENT
Sorry, I guess we have a different understanding what excellent means...
Yeah, the G28 was a lot better on the 5n than on the 5 but still...
More terrible than excellent, haha.
Did you ever try the Elmar M 24 on the 5n?
This lens comes near excellent but also can't reach it.
Nontheless it is quite useable.
wfrank wrote:
No, the G28 was excellent on the 5N. Color shift was rare (and always correctable) and good corners.
+1
in fact my g28 actually outresolved the OM 24/2.8, rokkor 24/2.8, and rokkor 28/2 in the corners after f/5.6 on the nex-7 (though it did need color correction in LR while the others didn't).
