naturephoto1 wrote:
Hopefully someone will be able to compare the performance of the M 28mm f2 Summicron Asph with the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit on the A7r. I am most definitely waiting for that comparison to help me make my decision.
I own the Elmarit-R 28, and agree that it is a very fine lens (I'm currently using it with my D800E). For the A7R, I would at least consider the Elmarit-M 28 Asph. From what I read, this lens is a very strong performer. Why is it not considered in this discussion?
wfrank wrote:
The fine art photographer will soon find himself that with 16-bit per channel his simple edit with just a few basic layers easily surpasses half a GB and beyond. Same file in 21MP easily grows to a couple of 100 MB which is large enough already. Not to mention time consumption applying semi-complex filters, or behold, using PS tools like "Smudge". TB-disks will transform into workspace, not storage.. ouch.
I don't know much about other people's workflow, but I use an old-fashioned one with raw conversion and basic adjustments in CaptureOne, and then layers and plugins in CS5. The file size for post processing in layers is then totally under my control, not camera dependent.
Nov 14, 2013 at 08:26 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ron Pfister wrote:
I own the Elmarit-R 28, and agree that it is a very fine lens (I'm currently using it with my D800E). For the A7R, I would at least consider the Elmarit-M 28 Asph. From what I read, this lens is a very strong performer. Why is it not considered in this discussion?
It is tiny and a great performer, but with its symmetrical design I don't hold out much hope for it on the A7r. Who knows, however, I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
Ron Pfister wrote:
I own the Elmarit-R 28, and agree that it is a very fine lens (I'm currently using it with my D800E). For the A7R, I would at least consider the Elmarit-M 28 Asph. From what I read, this lens is a very strong performer. Why is it not considered in this discussion?
Ron,
The M 28mm f2.8 Elmarit Asph is the third of the Leica trio that I am considering.
uhoh7 wrote:
The only skin I have in the game is the zm18, cv21---which I never expected to perform without a crop
I think this says a lot regarding the realistic expectations of the optical projection of UWA's. It's way cool that the mount supports the RF glass ... but it doesn't change the inherent optical projection and it's resultant angles of incidence @ edges/corners. The trig @ vector forces will remain weak at the incurred angles of incidence ... the optical projection from the lens will never change, no matter what sensor/film/paper you project it on to.
The tooth of the paper, the density of the film and the microlens/stack of the sensor can vary to yield a different response from the energy delivered by projected image, but the optical projection @ 80 degrees angle of incidence will always deliver a different amount of energy than one with 30 degrees angle of incidence (trig @ vector forces). Combine that with the challenges/limitation of microlens refraction and the trig @ vector forces only becomes a bit more challenged.
The projected image from an enlarger still remains unchanged whether you put a glossy paper or a rag under it to capture the projection. How much detail can a given paper reveal may vary, but a change in paper/film/sensor does nothing to alter the projected image ... it only varies it's ability to capture that projection.
In that regard, the old school @ "glass rules" still applies in today's techo-marvels. What you project, is the best you can hope to capture. Microlens refraction is inherently limited by angles of incidence to retain proper alignment of light. How much gain will the offset provide and how much software correction can rectify the energy losses and/or color shifts can have practical benefits ... but, imo we just need to be aware that those outer areas are compromised by the combination of the projection from the steeper angles of RF UWA/WA glass and the microlens which can warrant the need for such correction (or crop it away).
I'm not saying we won't be able to use RF WA's ... just saying that we have to be realistic in our expectations and acknowledge that they will be with varying degree of compromise / correction ... i.e. imo, they won't be the holy grail of small / digital / IQ that many folks want them to be (at least anticipating greater issues as we go further beyond the 24x24 image area) ... just because the mirror is gone and we can place our glass closer to the film plane, i.e. 24x36 is still 24x36 and the angles to 43 & 36 are a lot tougher than the angles to 24 as you come in closer. We just should remain realistic about our expectations ... uhoh7 seemingly already has ... and be pleased when/if they exceed them.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I was the one who was perhaps, "dreaming here," but I do have pretty high expectations for this lens. The quotes from Puts are useful (and I do enjoy his descriptions), but in this case he is mostly putting the MTF chart into words. For me one of the key issues here is that the 28 cron has peak performance at f/4 and if the corners don't sharpen up across the frame until f/5.6 then you are missing out on some of that peak performance. In my view you are basically losing a stop and for a very expensive lens that is a big deal to me, YMMV. At that point I wonder about how the lens compares to the Leica R 28 elmarit v2. This lens is still expensive but less so than the M cron. It is a bigger, but as a DSLR lens it should be sharp across the frame at f/4 and it has a floating element and therefore probably has better close up performance. So I can see why many if not most people would be happy with the 28 cron if it is sharp across the field at f/5.6 (it will be quite small and a good performer), but for me it just wouldn't be a good value proposition when you would lose out on some of its best performance....Show more →
So let me understand:
We are talking about a camera whose ISO performance murders both the M9 (obviously) and the 240 (tell me if I'm wrong) and whose centers are off the chart at all apertures, but because I may need to drop one stop to get the edges I need on the 28/2, it's another example of how RF wides don't work on the A7r?
Of course the R 28 v2 is superior for landscape---good lord we've known that forever. Look at what the charming snowboarder does with it. It's big, heavy and can't shoot at f/2 EVER.
I'd bet it has edges sooner for sure. Was that in doubt?
However we aren't even sure about the what the 28 does do yet--and I don't think we can expect quite as good from the fantastic little elmarit asph, because of it's very compact design. But that's PURE speculation, like 98% of this thread, which so far is not sharp anywhere in the frame, and is full of noise like an M9 at iso2500.
Nov 14, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
We are talking about a camera whose ISO performance murders both the M9 (obviously) and the 240 (tell me if I'm wrong) and whose centers are off the chart at all apertures, but because I may need to drop one stop to get the edges I need, it's another example of how RF wides don't work on the A7r?
Of course the R 28 v2 is superior for landscape---good lord we've known that forever. Look at what the charming snowboarder does with it. It's big, heavy and can't shoot at f/2 EVER.
I'd bet it has edges sooner for sure. Was that in doubt? ...Show more →
It is still in doubt for me whether the 28 M cron or the 28 R elmarit is the better landscape lens. That matters to me because at 28mm I would like a very good landscape lens. If the 28 cron only gets sharp corners at f/5.6, however, I am putting my money on the 28 R elmarit as outperforming it for landscapes. I totally agree that the 28 M cron is likely to be better in the centre and it even matters to me that it has f/2. But close up shots also matter to me a lot and I am betting that the 28 R elmarit is the winner for that as well. I also don't care much about the size of the 28 R elmarit. To me it isn't that big (I have a ZE 35 f/1.4 after all) and for my taste would fit well on the A7r (it is about the same weight). So, I see three primary uses for a 28 on the A7r, landscapes (probably most important to me) here with limited information the 28 R elmarit seems to win, people shots, here the 28 M cron will likely wipe the floor, and close up shots (i.e., a foot to 3 feet) and here the 28 R elmarit I am betting will be best. So yes the M cron is nice and small, but it costs a lot more and the R elmarit may well be better for two of the types of photography I care about. So that is my thinking, YMMV, and it seems that for good reason it does. Depending on one's priorities and budget, I can see how the M cron might be quite exciting. It seems that it will work well for you, but for me I am still a bit disappointed given my priorities and budget.
-that all speculation about the cutoff-point in exit pupil distance where (actually "if"!) the M-240 gives better object-related corners than the A7R is fairly useless. Wait until you see actual side by side comparisons presented at equal output magnification.
Actually I'd like to press that point home pretty harshly, since both the optimists and the pessimists tend to be EXTREMELY biased by their brand preference (or indeed also the case of "pretense to be brand agnostic").
michael49 wrote:
^ - if the C/Y 28 2.8 isn't good enough for you I don't know what to say.
I suspect many may find the C/Y 28 2.8 not as amazing as they think once used on the A7r. I say that simply because I found the slightly longer (and much larger) Rokinon (Samyang) 35 1.4 completely demolished it when used on the a900 at 24MP's (as it did to every other moderate wide I compared it to). At no aperture did the borders/ corners match what the Rokinon could do at F4. Hopefully, there is a better 28 for the A7r. I highly suspect though that folks may want to give up a little AOV and go with a 35 such as the FE 35.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I suspect many may find the C/Y 28 2.8 not as amazing as they think once used on the A7r. I say that simply because I found the slightly longer (and much larger) Rokinon (Samyang) 35 1.4 completely demolished it when used on the a900 at 24MP's (as it did to every other moderate wide I compared it to). At no aperture did the borders/ corners match what the Rokinon could do at F4. Hopefully, there is a better 28 for the A7r. I highly suspect though that folks may want to give up a little AOV and go with a 35 such as the FE 35. ...Show more →
For me, the gap between 28mm and 35mm for landscape is a substantial one. I'd feel a little humstrung with only the FE 35/2.8, and I'd rather just crop the C/Y a little bit if I need sharper borders. I have no doubt my Sigma 35/1.4 will smoke the C/Y 28/2.8 as well, but I don't know of many good options at 28mm that outperform the little Distagon. It pretty much starts and stops with the e55 Elmarit-R.
alwang wrote:
For me, the gap between 28mm and 35mm for landscape is a substantial one. I'd feel a little humstrung with only the FE 35/2.8, and I'd rather just crop the C/Y a little bit if I need sharper borders. I have no doubt my Sigma 35/1.4 will smoke the C/Y 28/2.8 as well, but I don't know of many good options at 28mm that outperform the little Distagon. It pretty much starts and stops with the e55 Elmarit-R.
Yeah, 35mm seems to be a sort of cutoff point where it becomes much harder to find exceptional performers that are wider (if across the frame performance is the goal).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yeah, 35mm seems to be a sort of cutoff point where it becomes much harder to find exceptional performers that are wider (if across the frame performance is the goal).
That is why some of us have banked on things like the Leica C 40mm f2 Summicron or the Minolta 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and are then looking for wider. For me my Minolta CLE MC 40mm M-Rokkor is so tiny and light that I as are others are considering the much bigger and heavier Leica R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 as our wider mate.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Hahaha, I nearly got chased out of town and that is on page 83
I guess some people had so much high hopes that they just don't want to see the plain naked truth.
Yes, many people are infatuated with these lenses and have a lot invested in them, so naturally they seek higher IQ options to show off the optics.
I think this will be a reality check for a lot of people on why long throw (extended flange distance) lenses are such an asset for center-to-edge image plane coverage. Even if that means resorting to less than perfect retro-focus designs for WA and UWA.
I expect good things will come of the Canon TSE designs, especially the 17 TSE for landscape, along with a few Zeiss UWA lenses.
To paraphrase the old adage: of small, versatile, and high IQ, you can choose two, but not three of the attributes.
theSuede wrote:
I think I can "know" - not "think"...
-that all speculation about the cutoff-point in exit pupil distance where (actually "if"!) the M-240 gives better object-related corners than the A7R is fairly useless. Wait until you see actual side by side comparisons presented at equal output magnification.
Compare, show, or it didn't happen.
Thank You. Everybody wants to be a pundit, and tell us what is going to happen. Then we are naive idiots because we want to see the data--and of course we hope our favorites will be usable.
Pundits are worse than monkeys when it comes to predicting events: none saw how the last big election in the states would go--meaning the margins, except of course Nate Silver, who had some numbers.
The other thing that irks me is the expectation of spectacular extreme corners as a make or break measure of wide angle glass.
Wide angles are just hard lenses to make perform, period.
For those who want SLR glass: that's fine, but not the topic here. OK, some reference is fine to compare--but if you want to have long discussions about SLR WAs, please make a thread.
If someone could please take out an A7, A7r, M9, and M240 and a decent selection of RF lenses covering the map optically and cost-wise, and shoot a variety of scenes encompassing all needs, all at the same time, that'd be great.
What, not done yet?
Sony is to blame for all this. They should just spring shipping cameras on the world without notice. The interminable lead up having been dispensed with, we wouldn't have time to generate angst here. Soon it'll be over.
uhoh7 wrote:
Thank You. Everybody wants to be a pundit, and tell us what is going to happen. Then we are naive idiots because we want to see the data--and of course we hope our favorites will be usable.
Pundits are worse than monkeys when it comes to predicting events: none saw how the last big election in the states would go--meaning the margins, except of course Nate Silver, who had some numbers.
The other thing that irks me is the expectation of spectacular extreme corners as a make or break measure of wide angle glass.
Wide angles are just hard lenses to make perform, period.
For those who want SLR glass: that's fine, but not the topic here. OK, some reference is fine to compare--but if you want to have long discussions about SLR WAs, please make a thread. ...Show more →
What happened to FM civility? Don't you think you're being too rude?
They should just spring shipping cameras on the world without notice. The interminable lead up having been dispensed with, we wouldn't have time to generate angst here. Soon it'll be over.