fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              49              51              152       153       end
  

Archive 2013 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses

  
 
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #1 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


I believe that everything from IR filters, to CFAs, to AA filters (or lack of,) to micro lenses, to pixel design and size, etc. all make a difference. Even the spacing between these filters could make a difference. So, it's really tough to tell by just looking or reading about the various designs, from what I gather.


Oct 30, 2013 at 01:24 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #2 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


That was my impression too, Douglas.


Oct 30, 2013 at 01:39 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #3 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


edwardkaraa wrote:
Ok, so the 7 having less color shift means that it has offset micro lenses, which is not true according to the current info.


No, not necessarily. It could depend on the filter. For example, if the refractive index of the glass is different on each sensor, the angle of the light hitting the pixels behind it will not be the same on the two sensors. Plus, bigger pixels might make a difference. Just compare the NEX-7 and the NEX-5N for example.

I think the offset microlenses does more for vignetting in general, but that's just speculation of course.



Oct 30, 2013 at 01:58 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #4 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


wfrank wrote:
Does anyone know how the Zeiss ZM 21 2.8 compares to a Zeiss G 21 2.8 on a NEX? The G 21 does smear in corners/edge and shows color cast too. But it is excellent in the majority of the frame. This on NEX 5N.

Wondering because of Steve Huffs comments on the ZM 21/2.8 on the A7, he seem to like it.


the designs are very similar, my memory is that the zm version has the exit pupil slightly further from the sensor though.




Oct 30, 2013 at 03:05 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #5 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


sebboh wrote:
the designs are very similar, my memory is that the zm version has the exit pupil slightly further from the sensor though.



12mm for the G, 15mm for the ZM per Zeiss.



Oct 30, 2013 at 03:23 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #6 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Tariq Gibran wrote:
12mm for the G, 15mm for the ZM per Zeiss.


Thanks both. Tariq, from where do you get those figures?




Oct 30, 2013 at 03:34 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #7 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


wfrank wrote:
Thanks both. Tariq, from where do you get those figures?



These numbers are within this Zeiss document on lens names. Lot's of other great info as well, including general compatibility of wide angle lenses with digital sensors.

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf



Oct 30, 2013 at 04:09 PM
hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #8 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


At infinity, Contax G spec sheet:

Exit Pupil Position: 10.7mm in front of the last lens vertex
Back focal distance: 12.1mm

So I would say 22.8mm. I can't find similar info on the ZM spec sheet.



Oct 30, 2013 at 04:12 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #9 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


The info I gave was wrong and was for the back focal distance.

ZM 21 Exit Pupil is listed as 10.3mm and 10.9mm for the ZM 28.

That seems odd then as it looks like the G has a slightly longer exit pupil position according to the info just above.


Edited on Oct 30, 2013 at 04:23 PM · View previous versions



Oct 30, 2013 at 04:16 PM
hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Well, Tariq, the total distance for the G is 22.8mm while for the ZM is ~25.3. Still quite a good amount there.


Oct 30, 2013 at 04:19 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


hiepphotog wrote:
Well, Tariq, the total distance for the G is 22.8mm while for the ZM is ~25.3. Still quite a good amount there.


Gotcha.



Oct 30, 2013 at 04:24 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


douglasf13 wrote:
I believe that everything from IR filters, to CFAs, to AA filters (or lack of,) to micro lenses, to pixel design and size, etc. all make a difference. Even the spacing between these filters could make a difference. So, it's really tough to tell by just looking or reading about the various designs, from what I gather.


+1

I think this reinforces the happy-accident principle of support for rangefinder glass. Or put another way - most RF lenses out there were designed for film. Some have since been designed or updated for the digital reality.

Here's a film-era Biogon, the ZM 35/2.8 (which needs another 9.5mm adapter added to it for E mount use):


(Source: Zeiss)

Sony on the other hand has no legacy to cater to. The Sony FE 35/3.8 shows you can design a lens that is, like the ZM35/2.8, of small size, but preforms solidly on big digital sensors.


(Source: photographylife.com)



Oct 30, 2013 at 05:09 PM
philip_pj
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Zeiss will end using only asph surfaces soon, remeber when they were so gee-whiz they were included in lens titles? Maybe they need it to be the FE 35/2.8 Asphsss.

Once the general teeth gnashing over da 'lack of native lenses' dies down sometime in 2014, Sony will find their native lenses are big winners regardless of how compatibility works out in the meantime. They will have a much clearer target esp for WAs, that will be their happy non-accident.



Oct 30, 2013 at 05:34 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


philip_pj wrote:
Zeiss will end using only asph surfaces soon, remeber when they were so gee-whiz they were included in lens titles? Maybe they need it to be the FE 35/2.8 Asphsss.


Sssh. If they relabel it, prices go up.
  1. $100+ Drop the Sony name (note, already done!)
  2. $100+ Include the Zeiss name
  3. $25+ Include T* (note, already done!)
  4. $75+ Arrange the title nomenclature in Zeiss format
  5. $1,500+ Include Leica-like ASPH in title

So the $800 US: Sonnar T* FE 35mm F2.8 ZA

Becomes a $2,475 US : Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2,8/35 ASPH FE

Sounds about right.



Oct 30, 2013 at 05:58 PM
v_deakin
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


wfrank wrote:
Does anyone know how the Zeiss ZM 21 2.8 compares to a Zeiss G 21 2.8 on a NEX? The G 21 does smear in corners/edge and shows color cast too. But it is excellent in the majority of the frame. This on NEX 5N.

Wondering because of Steve Huffs comments on the ZM 21/2.8 on the A7, he seem to like it.


I do not know how the ZM21 compares to G21 on a NEX, but, in my limited experience, the G21 I have doesn't smear or show color cast on the 5N. Though it's not a regular G21 but one that's been Hawk'd to M-mount and acquired a focusing ring, which also means the rear Contax part, flaps and such are removed. Hawk also placed a protective ring on the rear element which I had to remove because it would not fit into the NEX-5N cavity. So, strictly speaking, it could be a different lens than a regular G21.
It seems also to be smear and color cast free on M9. I've never held a Leica in my hands, but when the lens finally came back (yes, it's not for the faint of heart and those who cannot wait), it reached infinity at 3 meters on the new distance scale. I could not believe that a M-Nex adapter could be that bad, so I took it to Tamarkin's Leica shop downtown Chicago. Mr. Tamarkin grabbed the lens before I finished my first sentence, slammed it on M9, took a ceiling shot and proclaimed it vignette free. I've no idea what lens setup he used, but after that he let me play with it, and, remember, my only concern was the infinity and the calibration of the distance scale. To make it short, the scale was perfect, we even used a measuring tape. I took a few shots on my card which didn't show any edge problems, but when, a couple weeks later, I imposed on Mr. Tamarkin for a second time on account that it was difficult to verify infinity in the confines of a little shop and asked for a few more shots through a window, this time the shots showed a barely noticeable magenta edge though no smearing. It could be that the second time the M9 was not set to the same lens as the first time. The infinity was fine.
As to my Nex-5N, I got a second M-Nex adapter from Fotodiox, A Pro version this time. It was an improvement and showed infinity at 5 meters, I dropped into it a few loose shims I had left over, and, lo and behold, it was on the mark.
I do not know whether it was the infinity or my first ever range finding experience, but I had to to have a very large Bloody Mary.




Oct 30, 2013 at 07:04 PM
uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


now Huff is says the "zm 35/2" is great on both the A7 and A7r. He's got some new samples up "Day 3"

3 friggin days and he cannot throw us a corner? He has at least 6 RF wides with him. Unbelievable.

HIs comments are full of requests for same.

He's taking nice shots, but the technical reporting is abysmal. So far.

"It's not a review" We don't need a review, Steve. 10 decent sample landscapes would do.



Oct 30, 2013 at 07:16 PM
phuang3
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


michaelwatkins wrote:
Sony on the other hand has no legacy to cater to. The Sony FE 35/3.8 shows you can design a lens that is, like the ZM35/2.8, of small size, but preforms solidly on big digital sensors.




7 elements with 3 aspherical ones (roughly equals to 10 non-asph elements) are quite complex for a 35/2.8. Very high performance can be expected.



Oct 30, 2013 at 07:18 PM
JimBuchanan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


v_deakin wrote:
Though it's not a regular G21 but one that's been Hawk'd to M-mount and acquired a focusing ring, which also means the rear Contax part, flaps and such are removed. ... it reached infinity at 3 meters on the new distance scale. ... As to my Nex-5N, I got a second M-Nex adapter from Fotodiox, A Pro version this time. It was an improvement and showed infinity at 5 meters, I dropped into it a few loose shims I had left over, and, lo and behold, it was on the mark.

I do not know whether it was the infinity or
...Show more

I had my patience tested waiting on a Hawk G45 M conversion, last year. When I finally did get it, I had to completely break it down and rebuild. The helical he used was not lubed properly and the helical threads were very wide causing an amount of slack. I have since sold the lens, but I remember the hard stop infinity being different depending on the direction of focus ring turning, downward pressure and other physical factors. This could be related to your experience.

Also, most M to E adapters are about .004" too thin to assure the lens focuses to and past infinity. Another factor.



Oct 30, 2013 at 08:07 PM
v_deakin
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


JimBuchanan wrote:
I had my patience tested waiting on a Hawk G45 M conversion, last year. When I finally did get it, I had to completely break it down and rebuild. The helical he used was not lubed properly and the helical threads were very wide causing an amount of slack. I have since sold the lens, but I remember the hard stop infinity being different depending on the direction of focus ring turning, downward pressure and other physical factors. This could be related to your experience.

Also, most M to E adapters are about .004" too thin to assure the lens focuses
...Show more
I believe it was strictly the lousy adapters factor, and they were consistently lousy, but the lens was flawless on Leica both times I tried, and it is now on the 5N. But you are right - those are trying times waiting for Hawk to say or send something.



Oct 30, 2013 at 08:23 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


v_deakin wrote:
I believe it was strictly the lousy adapters factor, and they were consistently lousy, but the lens was flawless on Leica both times I tried, and it is now on the 5N. But you are right - those are trying times waiting for Hawk to say or send something.


is it properly rangefinder coupled?




Oct 30, 2013 at 08:30 PM
1       2       3              49              51              152       153       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              49              51              152       153       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account