The Biogon 35/2 had some minor smearing + magenta corners If I recall correctly from my limited time with my Nex-7. (Sold it after a month because too many lenses didnt work, which where great on my Nex-5n back then)
The Nex-7 had (minor) problems with 50s too ;-) (Summilux 50 Asph for example but very minor)
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?
Toothwalker wrote:
Do you mean that the lower corners are not blurred, or how does the meaning of the term smearing differ from blur or unsharpness?
The smearing of the specular highlights on top of the office building shows that the corner blur is due to lens aberrations.
I meant that the blur was not due to the issues that we see with with many wider angle RF lenses and sensors. As you have indicated the relatively small amount of blur in the extreme corners is from the lens aberrations. That in my estimation is a different issue and is not nearly as bad a problem as we have seen with many WA RF lenses along the edges and extreme corners (which is what I consider smearing).
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.
.
The 35 C-Biogon looks a bit underated lens, I think, and was on my wish list for some time.
Now I am going for the new ZA lens. Same numbers but with AF. I don't mind AF once in a while.
I have no principles :-)
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?
I can't answer that question. Zeiss used to specify the position of the exit pupil in their lens sheets, but for reasons beyond comprehension they no longer provide this courtesy. Otherwise one could accept or dismiss a lens simply by looking at the lens sheet, after the critical angle of incidence has been established for a given sensor. It is still possible for the Contax G lenses though.
douglasf13 wrote:
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.
I feel like for landscape, being able to place critical focus *exactly* where I want it in the field, even at f5.6, makes a huge difference between an acceptably-sharp-but-dull shot and a great shot. The NEX really opened my eyes to how easy achieving critical focus can be, and I prefer my NEX to my A850 for landscape because even stopped down, I don't fully trust the A850 to read my mind on where I want the focus.
Although I expect I will like the manual critical focus process a little less on the A7, because there's no touch screen.
The touch screen just makes it easier to pick the area you want magnified for critical manual focus. As opposed to using the directional pad to move the window around. I wish the NEX-6 had it as an option.
uscmatt99 wrote:
The touch screen just makes it easier to pick the area you want magnified for critical manual focus. As opposed to using the directional pad to move the window around. I wish the NEX-6 had it as an option.
one thing to note about the FE 35/2.8 that might be important for you – it has no hard stop for infinity. this means focusing properly for late night landscapes could be substantially more difficult than with a proper manual focus lens.
Do we really know that already? I don't mind AF if it works, but i prefer MF. Though, I'd never choose an AF lens to do MF.
didn't you sell your rx1 because you were getting inconsistent results with AF?
Partly, yes. I think the strange performance of the lens affected AF negatively, but I'm not sure.
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.
The CV Ultron with adapter is very much larger than the Summicron-C, and the rendering is totally different. While the C is "classic" with a lot of spherical aberration and low contrast wide open, and high resolving stopped down, the Ultron is a high contrast lens. It's very sharp wide open at moderate distance, but doesn't really shine stopped down. Bokeh is "better" than with the C, but quite harsh towards the corners. Both are smooth and nice at f/2.8
The Ultron is more or less the same size (wider but shorter) as the Nokton once you put them on adapters, but of course the Ultron is lighter. But I suppose the Ultron will be less iffy for an all purpose lens.
I've only tried the Biogon-C on M8, where it was simply stellar. Can't remember that I ever saw any color shift, but that was long before I was aware of such things. Compared to the FE 35/2.8, I think the Biogon-C has a much nicer rendering from what I've seen.
Toothwalker wrote:
Do you mean that the lower corners are not blurred, or how does the meaning of the term smearing differ from blur or unsharpness?
The "smearing" we are refering to here is introduced by the sensor, and it should be linearily worse towards the corners. But that's not the case with the Summicron-C, as you can see. Instead there is a rapid drop in resolution an contrast in the very corners of the frame. Something very common and that can be seen in MFT charts, such as this from the ZM 50/2 Planar:
sebboh wrote:
one thing to note about the FE 35/2.8 that might be important for you – it has no hard stop for infinity. this means focusing properly for late night landscapes could be substantially more difficult than with a proper manual focus lens.
On the other hand, most adapters let the lenses focus well past infinity, so you can't trust the scale anyway.
Makten wrote: Do we really know that already? I don't mind AF if it works, but i prefer MF. Though, I'd never choose an AF lens to do MF.
i just meant that in general AF sucks, not that the a7(r) AF sucks compared to competitors (i suspect it's slightly better than the NEX-7 and noticeably worse than the e-m1).
