douglasf13 wrote:
Boy, I don't know, the bokeh of the biogon was one of the things I like about it, so it may compete in that regard, too.
I didn't know, that's great to hear.
If I were buying a new 35mm lens for the A7r, I would think hard about that Biogon 2.8 compared to the FE. The FE 55 though is a no brainer and looks like one of the absolute best 50's around.
Sweet! Yes, the 28/2.8 has more corner issues on the Nex-7 than the 28/2 does (I've used both), so I'd think the same thing goes on FF, and hence the 28/2 won't have any issues.
Though, I've definitely seen plenty of people say "this lens has no corner issues on the Nex" and then there's clearly a color cast in their pictures.
freaklikeme wrote:
No, the question was more about which way you're planning to go, since you pasted the 28 on a 7 and not a 7r. I can imagine what the lens looks like on the camera, I want to see the results of the G45 with the 7r. That combination (aside from being a moire machine) has the potential to be eye-popping.
oh, that was just image i found to past it on. i'm not buying till spring and i'll get which ever one performs better with the g28. right now it seems like the R might be the best bet for that, which suites me just fine.
back on topic: this was posted on TOP:
"I put my Zeiss ZM 21mm ƒ/2.8 on the A7r we have here [Luke works at Imaging-Resource —Ed.]. I'm sad to report that color shifts were severe and covered most of the frame. There was also severe darkening of the image away from the center, way too much to simply call vignetting. I chose this lens carefully, based on the experience of other users, to avoid this problem with my early NEX cameras. It worked well, with visible but very minor color shifts and vignetting. It stayed glued on my NEX-3 for years. Well, I just saved myself a couple grand."
that doesn't sound like great news, but the zm 21/2.8 is one of the worse offenders in terms of ray angle so hopefully the zm 25 and 28 will be much better. sadly he doesn't talk about smearing at all.
Can't wait to see this thing with a Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.4 or 40/1.4 mounted and see how compact it gets. This should be a nice, inexpensive, 1.4, MF, FF street rig combo
If anyone gets the chance to do so and has either of those lenses, please do share pics
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I didn't know, that's great to hear.
If I were buying a new 35mm lens for the A7r, I would think hard about that Biogon 2.8 compared to the FE. The FE 55 though is a no brainer and looks like one of the absolute best 50's around.
Yeah, the 35/2.8 was much smoother than it's big brother, the 35/2.
I'd probably still buy the FE 35. It's tough to compare mtfs, because the sensor may handle those light rays differently for each lens. The FE is probably more telecentric, so, while it may not have better mtfs in a vacuum, it might be better on the A7r. Plus, I'd imagine that one would have to deal with color shift when using the Biogon on the A7r. Who knows?
sebboh wrote:
oh, that was just image i found to past it on. i'm not buying till spring and i'll get which ever one performs better with the g28. right now it seems like the R might be the best bet for that, which suites me just fine.
back on topic: this was posted on TOP:
that doesn't sound like great news, but the zm 21/2.8 is one of the worse offenders in terms of ray angle so hopefully the zm 25 and 28 will be much better. sadly he doesn't talk about smearing at all.
I'm a bit surprised because the ZM 21/2.8 works very nicely on the M9. The color shift is very minor and completely removable with in camera profiles. That is definitely not a good sign, and makes me believe Sony will be using software corrections extensively with their own lenses.
Yeah, the 35/2.8 was much smoother than it's big brother, the 35/2.
I'd probably still buy the FE 35. It's tough to compare mtfs, because the sensor may handle those light rays differently for each lens. The FE is probably more telecentric, so, while it may not have better mtfs in a vacuum, it might be better on the A7r. Plus, I'd imagine that one would have to deal with color shift when using the Biogon on the A7r. Who knows?
Agree about the FE. I think it has exceptionally nice bokeh, and I expect it to work perfectly with the 7r sensor. Plus it has AF. As for the biogons, the 35/2 bokeh is quite nervous wide open but stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller, it becomes quite attractive to my eyes. I don't think the difference with the 35/2.8 is that visible.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm a bit surprised because the ZM 21/2.8 works very nicely on the M9. The color shift is very minor and completely removable with in camera profiles. That is definitely not a good sign, and makes me believe Sony will be using software corrections extensively with their own lenses.
Yeah, this isn't a good sign. There's nothing in the lens designs that leads me to believe that the ZM 25 will be problem free on the A7r, if the ZM 21 is that bad.
Brian Smith at dpreview post said that he only tried 18mm F4 ZM, Leica 24mm F2.8 and Voightlander 50mm F1.1. The 18 needs correction for darkening and color shift in the corners. The 24mm could use slight correction if you choose. He also has a M8.
Jordan TSC also posted in serious compacts:
The widest lens I test was a Leica 28mm F2, which was a hair soft in the edges wide open, but fine by F2.8. Similar performance to a Leica M Type 240.
The Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is crazy sharp. It may not be the fastest lens, but it warrants the cost in terms of sharpness. From F4 on, the lens is sharp corner to corner, even on the A7R.
Which doesn't have to be good and reliable AF, at least not on the a7r without phase detection. My experience with the RX1 and RX100 tells me that you can't necessarily trust Sony CD AF. Both cameras have been misfocusing on several occasions where they shouldn't (good light), and the RX100 is constantly front focusing when shooting semi-macro closeups.
Speaking of compact 35 mm lenses; don't forget the Leica 35/2.5 Summarit. It's very much like the 35/2.8 Biogon, but gives nicer colors in my opinion. More "sparkling" and saturated, I think. Bokeh is fantastic on both these lenses and not a concern at all.
I wonder if the Summicron ASPH is gonna be the best 35 mm lens for this camera, if you can afford it. Very small and seemingly great in most respects. The 'Lux:es would be nice, but the wavey field puts me off. And of course the price.
Which doesn't have to be good and reliable AF, at least not on the a7r without phase detection. My experience with the RX1 and RX100 tells me that you can't necessarily trust Sony CD AF. Both cameras have been misfocusing on several occasions where they shouldn't (good light), and the RX100 is constantly front focusing when shooting semi-macro closeups.
It sounds like the CDAF on the A7/A7r has been improved, and my guess is it's going to be excellent at least with respect to portraits, in terms of being able to identify and focus on eyes. For most other subjects, AF could be more of a crapshoot, and I'll probably manual focus.
I wonder if the Summicron ASPH is gonna be the best 35 mm lens for this camera, if you can afford it. Very small and seemingly great in most respects. The 'Lux:es would be nice, but the wavey field puts me off. And of course the price.
In today's standards it's nothing spectacular (stop down to f8 to have uniform corner-to-corner coverage). An outdated design -calculated originally for film- compared to the 35/2 Sonnar. The next best thing seems to be the 35/2.8 Sonnar.
Makten wrote:
Speaking of compact 35 mm lenses; don't forget the Leica 35/2.5 Summarit. It's very much like the 35/2.8 Biogon, but gives nicer colors in my opinion. More "sparkling" and saturated, I think. Bokeh is fantastic on both these lenses and not a concern at all.
I wonder if the Summicron ASPH is gonna be the best 35 mm lens for this camera, if you can afford it. Very small and seemingly great in most respects. The 'Lux:es would be nice, but the wavey field puts me off. And of course the price.
+1
The Lux ASPH I is fantastic, I owned it for a while, but it is a special lens, and very expensive. The Cron ASPH is also fantastic, far better than its predecessor, the Cron IV, but the Summarit has the best boke of them all. Really beautiful.
alwang wrote:
For most other subjects, AF could be more of a crapshoot, and I'll probably manual focus.
The same can be said with some lenses on a Nikon D800. I ran into more problems with PDAF focus, with some lens/camera combos, on the D800 than I recall ever having with any CDAF based camera.
Which doesn't have to be good and reliable AF, at least not on the a7r without phase detection. My experience with the RX1 and RX100 tells me that you can't necessarily trust Sony CD AF. Both cameras have been misfocusing on several occasions where they shouldn't (good light), and the RX100 is constantly front focusing when shooting semi-macro closeups.
Speaking of compact 35 mm lenses; don't forget the Leica 35/2.5 Summarit. It's very much like the 35/2.8 Biogon, but gives nicer colors in my opinion. More "sparkling" and saturated, I think. Bokeh is fantastic on both these lenses and not a concern at all.
I wonder if the Summicron ASPH is gonna be the best 35 mm lens for this camera, if you can afford it. Very small and seemingly great in most respects. The 'Lux:es would be nice, but the wavey field puts me off. And of course the price....Show more →
I really don't have any issues with the CDAF of my RX1. In fact, I'd say, despite nott being super speedy, it's among the most reliable AFs I've used. It may be a technique thing. Are you focusing on the edges of what you want in focus?
As far as the 35/2 ASPH, it was my main lens on the M9, and, while its lack of distortion was fantastic, the RX1's lens is in another league in terms of across the field sharpness. I'd pick the RX1's lens all day.
michaelwatkins wrote:
The same can be said with some lenses on a Nikon D800. I ran into more problems with PDAF focus, with some lens/camera combos, on the D800 than I recall ever having with any CDAF based camera.
Yeah, this camera is *really* demanding of lenses. They improved the accuracy of the AF over the D700, but I am not sure they improved it enough.
douglasf13 wrote:
As far as the 35/2 ASPH, it was my main lens on the M9, and, while its lack of distortion was fantastic, the RX1's lens is in another league in terms of across the field sharpness. I'd pick the RX1's lens all day.
Really? Do you have any sample pics? I found that the 35cron asph is perhaps slightly sharper across the frame then the RX1 lens. At least on the M240... This could be a great lens on the A7 though.
carstenw wrote:
Yeah, this camera is *really* demanding of lenses. They improved the accuracy of the AF over the D700, but I am not sure they improved it enough.
The precision of the D800's AF system is exceptional. The part that trips people up is the accuracy, ie the AF tuning. However once a body is properly tuned it yields very precise results. I've done some torture testing like focusing on a subject 3/4 toward infinity distance on fast primes at f/1.4 and can get a nearly 100% acceptable in-focus results across 20 consecutive shots racking focus randomly in between each.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Really? Do you have any sample pics? I found that the 35cron asph is perhaps slightly sharper across the frame then the RX1 lens. At least on the M240... This could be a great lens on the A7 though.
I don't have direct comparison pics, so take my opinion only as anecdotal. The Leica has the Zone B dip that a lot of Leica lenses have, whereas the RX1 is pretty flat field from wide open. The lens mtfs and camera reviews out there say as much. Both are great, but I'd pick the RX1 for across the frame sharpness and bokeh, and the Leica for distortion (not an issue for me.) I don't miss the 35 Summicron. The RX1 is apparently even flatter field than the 50 Summicron (non AA.)
