What a great resource you've been publishing! I don't think I've had the chance to use it when in a lens shopping frame of mind, but that's where my head is at today, so a hearty thanks from the west coast of Canada is flung to the other side of the country.
Could you detect any color shift with the Elmar 24? AFAIK, you're the first to try this combo...
philber wrote:
.....
I also tried my Elmar 24. There wasn't a single spot I could really use a a reference for corner performance. All I can say is that, again, the image clarty was striking in the middle of the picture.
...
philber, your response to the aesthetics of the camera might be a case of individual taste or maybe the pre-production units are different enough. I didn't get to handle it nearly enough to come to a firm conclusion and was still basking in the glow caused by holding something the size of a small film SLR with a 36MP sensor in it. The feeling I am sure caused me to overlook much, so I want to have another go soon.
The unit I handled was a production unit; apparently they had one of each on hand but I only saw the one model and I don't know for certain which it was that I handled. I didn't find the shutter to be upsettingly loud but if comparing it to a RX1 or Fujifilm X100, yes, it's darn loud. As I'm comparing it to a D800, I found the sounds made acceptable and less intrusive. The camera has a louder shutter than the GXR - I was able to compare those side by side.
I still hope to get some quality time with the camera out of a crowd setting, soon.
Toothwalker wrote:
Of course, the D21/2.8 is also a winner.
You got me curious, interesting to alt-tab between the G28 and G21. Do you render these yourself through some kind of Matlab-thingy and what goes into the math (exit pupil distance at infinity, sensor size, ...more)?
wfrank wrote:
You got me curious, interesting to alt-tab between the G28 and G21. Do you render these yourself through some kind of Matlab-thingy and what goes into the math (exit pupil distance at infinity, sensor size, ...more)?
I render them with a Matlab thingy, but the computation is very simple. You look up the position of the exit pupil, the distance on the sensor as measured from the image center, and apply an arctangent.
The figures are for the chief ray, which is the ray that passes through the center of the exit pupil. Each image point actually receives its light within a cone. Part of the rays have an angle that is larger than the angle of the chief ray, another part of the rays have a smaller angle. Whether the chief-ray approximation is a good one, depends on the size of the exit pupil, and on how strongly the effect (smearing or color shift) varies with the angle.
theophilus, there are a few, adapters can give you auto aperture I believe...and then there are market considerations, buyers will be more edgy about an older lens. Performance for ZEF also is more 'modern' - better wide open, a little more CA and a little less wonderful at f5.6 or so. Very close in other words. I have the CY and can post some a7r images when I get the camera and LAEA3 in a few weeks.
PS weight is another...530 grams CY against 600 grams (ZF) or a rather heavy 720 grams (ZE).
I don't believe any future MF lenses from Zeiss will have a diameter much smaller than existing FE lenses. If you look at the barrel of the FE35 it exactly covers the OD of the E-mount. Likewise the FE55 covers the mount but adds a small ~2mm step around the diameter. Any future MF lens will also cover the OD of the mount, a narrower lens would therefore require a very odd step down within the barrel.
Philber, I agree with your assessment of the controls, they do feel overly stiff for my preference. I thought the build was rather impressive though, so this will depend on your point of reference.
theophilus, there are a few, adapters can give you auto aperture I believe...and then there are market considerations, buyers will be more edgy about an older lens. Performance for ZEF also is more 'modern' - better wide open, a little more CA and a little less wonderful at f5.6 or so. Very close in other words. I have the CY and can post some a7r images when I get the camera and LAEA3 in a few weeks.
PS weight is another...530 grams CY against 600 grams (ZF) or a rather heavy 720 grams (ZE). ...Show more →
Philip,
The Contax 21mm Distagon is at or toward the top of my list if I have to go with a 21mm SLR lens. I still would prefer if possible a Leica 21mm f3.4 SEM. I will keep my fingers crossed. I already have the Phigment LEM to NEX adapter for my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens that I expect to use with the camera as well as my Novoflex Leica R to NEX adapter for my R lenses. Unfortunately every time I add another manufacturer's lens to the system, I need to add another adapter that not only adds to the cost but it adds the extra weight and size of the adapter to the total package weight and size.
naturephoto1 wrote:
...Unfortunately every time I add another manufacturer's lens to the system, I need to add another adapter that not only adds to the cost but it adds the extra weight and size of the adapter to the total package weight and size.
I have adapted all my C/Y and Leica-R glass to Nikon F-mount, using Leitax bayonets. This way I can use them on Nikon, Canon and any mirrorless system with a minimum number of adapters. Not very economical, I admit, but very practical...
theophilus wrote:
I'm starting to think I'm going to have to buy a C/Y Zeiss 21mm Distagon for my A7. Is there any advantage to the newer ZE or ZF versions?
While I love the IQ of my Distagon 2.8/21 (I have the ZF.2), this combo will not be very ergonomical on the A7/R, IMO. It certainly isn't on my NEX-7, while it is just about perfect on a large DSLR. The lens is rather long and quite heavy, and the majority of the mass is far forward. Not a combo I'd use on a tripod with the QR plate attached to the A7/R body.
The Distagon ZE/ZF.2 18 or Elmarit-R 19 may be better choices from an ergonomics point of view. They both are considerably shorter and a good bit lighter. But I'm still hoping for the ZM 18 to work reasonably well...
theophilus wrote:
I'm starting to think I'm going to have to buy a C/Y Zeiss 21mm Distagon for my A7. Is there any advantage to the newer ZE or ZF versions?
If you combine the ZE with a Metabones MkIII Smart Adapter, you will get electronic aperture control and EXIF. I think that's a very nice solution (no need for stop-down metering and EXIF are both very handy, IMO). But you won't have an aperture ring to use with other mirrorless systems for which smart adapters don't exist. In addition, the ZE series is generally a bit bulkier and heavier than the ZF.2, as already pointed out. Plus they don't look as nice, IMO - but that's subjective. I chose to go with ZF.2 in order to ensure universal use of the lenses on any platform (Nikon, Canon and mirrorless) - at the price of convenience.
Ron Pfister wrote:
While I love the IQ of my Distagon 2.8/21 (I have the ZF.2), this combo will not be very ergonomical on the A7/R, IMO. It certainly isn't on my NEX-7, while it is just about perfect on a large DSLR. The lens is rather long and quite heavy, and the majority of the mass is far forward. Not a combo I'd use on a tripod with the QR plate attached to the A7/R body.
The Metabones adapters come with a removable tripod mount in arca-swiss style. It is very rigid and since it doesn't need a plate, it is actually stiffer than using a plate attached to a large DSLR. The mount point is also closer to the lens, helping the balance considerably. I have no problems using my large DSLR lenses on my NEX-7 this way.
