naturephoto1 wrote:
But then again the FE 35 f2.8 doesn't offer an aperture ring and there is that whole thing with AF lenses using manual focus by wire.
Hey Xavier, (and Sebbo)
you and Sebbo got me thinking and I compared the Elmar-M 24mm Asph and the Contax G 28 again using my old Nex-5 and a borrowed Nex-5n.
-Guess what ? You two were right !-
The G28 IS usable on the 5n without magenta corners.
The corners are sharp at f 5.6 and usable before that.
The Elmar M 24mm has no magenta corners too and the whole picture (even the extreme borders) are tack sharp.
On the Nex-5 the G28 is okayish and the Elmar-M much better.
I guess my mind was playing tricks on me.
I could have sweared it was different, haha.
Cheers,
Ingo
xbarcelo wrote:
Ingo, good to read you on different parts! I've got to agree with Wilhelm, though, I thought the G28 was excellent. I know you're partial with the Elmar 24, but, honestly, I don't see that much of a difference, and I shot with yours, if you recall, so I suppose that you must see what I don't…
As an example if you are taking multiple images on a tripod with wind and holding or trying to maintain your focus point and for bracketing or also for close-up work.
FWIW, the AF on my RX1 is great. While not blazing fast, it is faster than I am at manually focusing, and it is very accurate. To be honest, I rarely bother with manually focusing anymore. I guess if I used a tripod with the RX1, I'd use it from time to time, but that hasn't come up, yet.
If I were buying the A7/R and shooting landscape type stuff, I'd definitely look into the FE 35.
douglasf13 wrote:
FWIW, the AF on my RX1 is great. While not blazing fast, it is faster than I am at manually focusing, and it is very accurate. To be honest, I rarely bother with manually focusing anymore. I guess if I used a tripod with the RX1, I'd use it from time to time, but that hasn't come up, yet.
If I were buying the A7/R and shooting landscape type stuff, I'd definitely look into the FE 35.
Not current on the thread ... but ran across this tidbit that I found interesting as folks continue to wrangle with the WA on FF with rangefinders. A look back at the M8 / M9 to see how Leica approached things indicates seems to indicate a similar dependence on the software, recognizing the limits of the projection because of the microlenses. Nothing new under the sun ... just a tidbit for perspective as we look to the future.
Because a rangefinder camera doesn't have a mirror box doesn't need to use retrofocus lenses, meaning they sit much closer to the film (or in this case the sensor). The problem with this comes with wide angle lenses (which are pretty much the main staple of the rangefinder camera). Towards the corner of the frame the angle of incidence of light coming from the rear of the lens is so severely off-perpendicular that they would not pass equally through the microlenses above the sensor leading to fairly strong vignetting. Even a modest wide angle lens at this kind of distance could produce a difference of a stop or two between the center of the frame and the edges using a standard CCD sensor.
Leica, obviously keen to solve this problem, took a three pronged approach with the M8:
Don't use a full frame sensor - at this time it would be cost prohibitive and too complex to produce a sensor which can cover the entire 36x24 mm frame and still work with rangefinder lenses. For this reason the M8's sensor measures 27x18 mm (or 1.33x crop).
Use offset microlenses - instead of placing all microlenses directly over the photodiode they are gradually offset as you get closer to the edge of the frame (see below).
Know which lens is being used and apply some software correction - all new M series lenses now carry a six-bit code which allows the M8 to identify which lens is used and (optionally) apply a 'final stage' software based vignetting correction (for RAW images the lens used is simply recorded, no change is made).
Below is a diagram provided by Leica which does some way to explaining how microlenses at the edge of the frame are offset from the photodiode below them, compared to a normal microlens / photodiode combination in the center of the frame....Show more →
M9: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leicam9/ The M8 had a 27 x 18 mm (1.3x crop) sensor and some thought it simply wouldn't be possible to use a full-frame (36 x 24 mm) sensor on a rangefinder, but Leica appear to think otherwise. Their approach is the same as for the M8; use offset microlenses (instead of placing all microlenses directly over the photodiode they are gradually offset as you get closer to the edge of the frame - see below) and to know which lens is being used and apply some software correction.
Below is a diagram provided by Leica which does some way to explaining how microlenses at the edge of the frame are offset from the photodiode below them, compared to a normal microlens / photodiode combination in the center of the frame. ...Show more →
douglasf13 wrote:
Doesn't the 40/2 only focus to .8m? How close can you get with a Hawk's helicoid?
Edit: sorry, I was replying to your comment about mfd, which has been removed.
Douglas,
Sorry about the revision. I removed focusing distance of 1.15' (35 cm) after thinking about it in regards to my Leica R lenses. That is approaching how close some of Leica R lenses focus. The 35mm R Summicron focuses to less than 12", possibly 10" or so.
The minimum marked focus on the 40mm f2 lens is a bit less than 0.8m. Not having the camera I can't say how close I can focus with the Hawk's helicoid. In the Hawk's ebay ad he indicates that he can focus the 35mm f1.4 Summilux with minimum focus distance of 1m he could was able to focus at 0.28m.
So the 40mm f2 lens with the Hawk's Helicoid may focus a little closer than the FE 35mm f2.8 lens.
Spyro P. wrote:
yeah I dont care, I like having oof things in the foreground, I'm not a sharp headshot kind of guy
f* now you're gonna make me start thinking about sony cameras again... did you notice anything else that is off putting? like putting the camera on aperture priority and getting a stupid message that says "aperture priority is commonly used for beautiful effects like background blur"
(I saw it in someone's RX1 today and pissed myself laughing )
that's easy to turn off. i turned it on once to see what it was, giggled a bit and turned it off.
Makten wrote:
Why bother with MF on an AF lens?
cause AF sucks!
didn't you sell your rx1 because you were getting inconsistent results with AF?
douglasf13 wrote:
FWIW, the AF on my RX1 is great. While not blazing fast, it is faster than I am at manually focusing, and it is very accurate. To be honest, I rarely bother with manually focusing anymore. I guess if I used a tripod with the RX1, I'd use it from time to time, but that hasn't come up, yet.
If I were buying the A7/R and shooting landscape type stuff, I'd definitely look into the FE 35.
i am completely the opposite. i find AF on the rx1 to be mostly useless. it can't focus on anything moving at all and it misses on stationary objects like 5% of the time. i pretty much only use it with face detect if i'm trying to get an angle i can't see the lcd from or when i have something else in my other hand.
Sorry about the revision. I removed focusing distance of 1.15' (35 cm) after thinking about it in regards to my Leica R lenses. That approaching how close some of Leica R lenses focus. The 35mm R Summicron focuses to less than 12", possibly 10" or so.
The minimum marked focus on the 40mm f2 lens is a bit less than 0.8. Not having the camera I can't say how close I can focus with the Hawk's helicoid. In the Hawk's ebay ad he indicates that he can focus the 35mm f1.4 Summilux with minimum focus distance of 1m he could was able to focus at 0.28m.
So the 40mm f2 lens with the Hawk's Helicoid may focus a little closer than the FE 35mm f2.8 lens.
If I recall you've used the CV40/2 as well, not sure on what bodies. How would you compare the handling and overall rendering compared to the little Leica/Rokkor 40/2? I'd planned on the C-Biogon 35/2.8 being my small alternative to the CV 35/1.2, but I'm guessing I'll have to deal with color shift on the Biogon. Maybe this 40/2 could be used as a small alternative. With an adapter, the CV40/2 is chunky enough that it's almost worth just using the 35/1.2.
I'd planned on the C-Biogon 35/2.8 being my small alternative to the CV 35/1.2.
In that case you might as well buy the new ZA Zeiss 35/2.8!
Here are some 24mm lenses of mine quietly waiting to get tested on the A7r.
There are more lenses in this world then Leica and Zeiss
I am still hoping to see some real tests of the VC Ultron 21/1.8 on the A7r.
If it works, the first signs point in that direction, then that is a lens I am looking forward to use on the A7r.
I understand that wide angle Biogon designs are prone to colour shift and corner vignetting but assumed that really only applied at 28mm and wider. Would the C-Biogon 35/2.8 or Biogon 35/2 be prone to this? Anyone had experience with either on the NEX-7?
uscmatt99 wrote:
Martin,
If I recall you've used the CV40/2 as well, not sure on what bodies. How would you compare the handling and overall rendering compared to the little Leica/Rokkor 40/2? I'd planned on the C-Biogon 35/2.8 being my small alternative to the CV 35/1.2, but I'm guessing I'll have to deal with color shift on the Biogon. Maybe this 40/2 could be used as a small alternative. With an adapter, the CV40/2 is chunky enough that it's almost worth just using the 35/1.2.
waterden wrote:
I understand that wide angle Biogon designs are prone to colour shift and corner vignetting but assumed that really only applied at 28mm and wider. Would the C-Biogon 35/2.8 or Biogon 35/2 be prone to this? Anyone had experience with either on the NEX-7?
My ZM 35/2.8 is definitely prone to color shifting on the edges of my Nex 7, but corners are still sharp. I'm waiting to see how it will perform on the A7/A7r.
If I didn't already own the C-Biogon, I'd almost certainly just get the new FE. And I agree I can't wait to see tests from FMers on the 21/1.8 on an A7r. For now I'll use my CV20/3.5 as a wide angle solution, though there are better lenses out there for sure.
waterden,
I haven't used my C-biogon on a NEX-7, only the 6. My neighbor has a 7 I can try it out on I suppose. I think that between the two 35mm biogons, the 35/2 should have less issues with color shift, as I thought I read that the exit pupil of the C-biogon was a bit closer to the sensor than the 35/2, but I could be mistaken.
Whatever the case, I know I'll be undergoing a big equipment shake-up once my A7r arrives, mostly dumping redundant SLR MF glass where the RF glass performs as well or better. I've just about given up hope on the CV15, which is fine since I only ever planned on using it with crop bodies, but I really hope my ZM25/2.8 can hold up at infinity with simple a Lightroom profile fix.
sebboh wrote:
i am completely the opposite. i find AF on the rx1 to be mostly useless. it can't focus on anything moving at all and it misses on stationary objects like 5% of the time. i pretty much only use it with face detect if i'm trying to get an angle i can't see the lcd from or when i have something else in my other hand.
I think it's just a matter of our shooting styles. I really only shoot wide open for portrait-type stuff, where movement isn't much of an issue, so shooting scenes in the f5.6-f11 range usually covers any kind of slight AF miss. Heck, I've even begun to experiment successfully with multi-point AF, which I don't think I've ever used before getting this camera. Another trick is to AF on the ground, or something else static, near where the moving object is.
There are certainly times where I prefer MF with the RX1, but not enough to give up AF functionality. In other words, I prefer acceptable manual focus feel with the AF option over fantastic manual focus feel and no AF option...unless maybe if the camera had a rangefinder. I do still wish the camera didn't default to infinity focus when you turn the camera off then on, and the distance scale should be better.
edit: Of course, I also don't like using the EVF, so this is all relating to me using the LCD or "dumb" OVF.
