I think that your premature certainty might be the issue edward. I don't mind, people may or may not feel certain, that is quite alright with me, but it might be interpreted as a bit condecending when you scoff at those that disagree with you.
As in every new camera launch, we get the usual cycle of euphoria, anxiety, disillusion, acceptance. I don't think my posts here are that offensive but I understand that emotions are running high so the wise thing to do is to bow out gracefully until things calm down
ulrikft2 wrote:
I think that your premature certainty might be the issue edward. I don't mind, people may or may not feel certain, that is quite alright with me, but it might be interpreted as a bit condecending when you scoff at those that disagree with you.
I didn't find it condescending at all. In fact, uhoh7 has reacted much the same when others contradict/challenge his *overly optimistic* stance on the performance of the A7. I have purposely tried to keep out of this thread as whatever comment I share will be seen as either bashing a new and exciting product or being a fanboy. Both scenarios would be unsubstantiated as we don't even have enough data at present to form a solid opinion either way. However, I think we can make some educated assumptions based on the design of the camera and lenses. Until we see good samples, it is all pure speculation...
uhoh7 wrote:
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.
This whole ethos of: OMG the corner is smeared, forget it! --- is junior high school.
Yeah, you can't have it both ways. For many here, what happens in the corners with rangefinder wide angle lenses - smearing, color vignetting and so forth - IS a big part of what this specific thread is about. Wides are more difficult which is another reason why folks are interested in the rangefinder wides as there are some superb examples to be had. So, this whole thing about corner smearing and wides specifically in the context of the A7's might not matter to you but it does matter to many in this particular thread. Ok, feel free to take your hall pass back to class now as "High School" insults seem to be your thing.
Something from another group of "pundits" @ covering 24x36 with SLR glass vs. RF glass optical projections. Look at the illuminance falloff 15mm and 20mm ... particularly @ f4 vs. f8 and see how much diff it does/doesn't make between SLR vs. RF. Even the mighty Zeiss can only make so much happen from the steeper angles of RF.
RustyBug wrote:
Something from another group of "pundits" @ covering 24x36 with SLR glass vs. RF glass optical projections. Look at the illuminance falloff 15mm and 20mm ... particularly @ f4 vs. f8 and see how much diff it does/doesn't make between SLR vs. RF. Even the mighty Zeiss can only make so much happen from the steeper angles of RF.
Here's an example of one of the worst performing lenses used on the NEX 5N, the Contax G21. Using that you can learn all about severe smearing and color cast. I'm sure the image is beyond&below a lot of peoples taste. But it fits well into what I am looking (/hope) for with an A7 and why I accept less than clinical perfection of a far corners. I have zero lenses with the same center sharpness as far corners, it's just a game of scales.
uhoh7 wrote:
....I never got the idea the 28 summicron was an OTUS at f/2, though the central image is great and it has a beautiful render.
Tonite I looked up Leica's description of the lens:
"At full aperture this lens exhibits a high contrast with crisp definition of ex- ceedingly fine detail over most of the image field, softening in the field from image height of 9mm. A faint trace of astigmatism and field curvature can be detected. Stopping down to 2.8 im- proves the center area (diameter 12mm) and also brings in a higher microcontrast in the outer zones. Corners however lag a bit and stay soft with a limited definition of coarse detail. Stopped down to 4, contrast becomes very high and the optimum is reached with a very even
performance over the whole image area, excepting the extreme corners. At 5.6 we se a small drop in microcontrast of the fine textures and from 8, the overall contrast drops a bit."...Show more →
That description of the 28 Cron is pretty much exactly what I see from it in day to day use on the M9, which I believe the infinity shots I just posted with the M9 also show.
While it's not edge to edge sharp wide open, the 28 Cron differs somewhat from the majority of Leica M lenses in that its center to edge focus/sharpness falloff is pretty gradual and graceful. The MTF backs this up, showing a gradual drop. And there isn't any of that significant mid zone drop seen in many other Leica lenses. My feeling is this aspect of its performance is a significant reason why it has very pleasant wide open rendering for a wide angle lens. While wide open center sharpness is great when I tried it on the a7, where I would be concerned is that the very strong smearing at the edges will 'pollute' the native wide open rendering. On the a7R..., no idea.
And FWIW, my experience is that between f/4-5.6, there isn't a signifiant central image quality change at 5.6 and the improvement at the edges is worthwhile, if it's important to the image. But that's on the 18MP M9. Differences in micro contrast rendering may be more noticeable at 36MP.
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.
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?
I've seen lots of great images posted from the Elmarit v2 on the Leica R thread. I just downloaded its MTF from Leica's site and am wondering whether its rather significant mid zone dip has much influence on stopped down images? Even at f/8 the dip looks like it would be noticeable in fine detail rendering. Or is the MTF link for the older version (which would surprise me).
All else being equal, on paper the Cron-M looks to be the better choice. But with all the unknowns about a7/a7R performance... all I know right now is that the Cron on the a7 suffers a lot until stopped down a fair amount.
As an aside, my research into currently available 28mm RF options a couple years ago revealed that it's a fairly under represented focal length if one is looking for high edge to edge performance. You can pretty much write off the CV options. The 28/2 Ultron needs stopping down past f/8. Even the ZM28/2.8 is poor at the edges, wide open or stopped down, though central sharpness and contrast is very high. It really only leaves the two Leica 28s, and of the two, the Cron seems to be the smoother performer. Of course, it's also the most expensive.
Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if one of the many vintage SLR 28s can step in the void here, especially for use with the new Sony cameras.
Wow! This is a seriously long thread. It would be interesting to know what percentage of forum member's shots are taken with focal lengths wider than 35mm. I like to have a 21mm sitting at the bottom of my bag, but only pull it out 5% of the time.
A poll on RF Forum showed that for 90% of people the most used focal lengths on 35mm format were from 35mm and up.
Interesting points Ron. Actually, the 28mm FL is the one I am looking to fill at the moment. I don't want to spring for the 28cron and was considering the ZM28 as the best RF option at the moment. I like to keep my kit small and would rather not go with an SLR lens. This would be primarily a landscape lens for me to edge/corner performance would be very important. Any other RF choices? Konica Hexanon?
Nanh wrote:
That's to be expected. RF lenses trades size, low distortion and C/A for worse vignetting which doesn't improve when stopped down.
+1 ... the tradeoffs of the projection are design choices.
+1 @ popularity of 35mm vs. 18mm. Imo, 35mm isn't exactly much of a wide, given that 43 is normal. Move on in to 28, 24, 21, 18, 15 territory and the story gets progressively more challenging. Not exactly rocket science, but it seems that some want to discount the increasing difficulties of such because they see a good result from their favorite RF 35mm FL.
Somebody double check, but it looks like the ZF 18/3.5 (59mm) / ZE 18/3.5 (61mm) are listed shorter than the ZM 18/4 (65mm) ... hmmm @ longer, slower and more vignetting for the RF.
But, to give fair credence to the ZM ... look at how it performs at the 10mm mark for f8. Inside 12mm (i.e. 24 x 24), the ZM takes the MTF, particularly @ the tangential, both in absolute terms and relative to the sagittal for micro-contrast. Optical design ... imo, a synonym for choose your poison.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Interesting points Ron. Actually, the 28mm FL is the one I am looking to fill at the moment. I don't want to spring for the 28cron and was considering the ZM28 as the best RF option at the moment. I like to keep my kit small and would rather not go with an SLR lens. This would be primarily a landscape lens for me to edge/corner performance would be very important. Any other RF choices? Konica Hexanon?
It's a shame Steve Huff would not test the 28 Ultron when he had it and both A7s--I think he did take a shot or two in the hotel room.
That is often an underestimated lens, and it could potentially work fine for landscapes at f/8, though frankly the sensor is so big that the deep deep corners will be hard for 28s and wider.
Trouble is not many own it so it's unlikely to be tested unless we get lucky. There are several versions. Dedicated threads at RFF on the lens. It's not a small RF, seems about the size of the 75/2.5, but tiny compared to SLR and fast at either f/1.9 or f/2 Cost is around 450usd.
Huff had a great comparison years ago between the ultron and summicron which now seems to have gone offline.
I acutally owned the 28/3.5 which you see alongside the two ultrons, it had crazy sharp centers in the 5n but I could not get the edges in consistently and sold the lens. All the tiny CVs are going to be near unusable on the A7r for landscapes, I fear, though the centers are wicked sharp.
RustyBug wrote:
+1 ... the tradeoffs of the projection are design choices.
+1 @ popularity of 35mm vs. 18mm. Imo, 35mm isn't exactly much of a wide, given that 43 is normal. Move on in to 28, 24, 21, 18, 15 territory and the story gets progressively more challenging. Not exactly rocket science, but it seems that some want to discount the increasing difficulties of such because they see a good result from their favorite RF 35mm FL.
Somebody double check, but it looks like the ZF 18/3.5 (59mm) / ZE 18/3.5 (61mm) are listed shorter than the ZM 18/4 (65mm) ... hmmm @ longer, slower and more vignetting for the RF.
But, to give fair credence to the ZM ... look at how it performs at the 10mm mark for f8. Inside 12mm (i.e. 24 x 24), the ZM takes the MTF, particularly @ the tangential, both in absolute terms and relative to the sagittal for micro-contrast. Optical design ... imo, a synonym for choose your poison....Show more →
The ZM 18 isn't a typical RF wide. It's a Distagon after all. Also, the adapters for the ZE/ZF are much longer than the one for the ZM
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ popularity of 35mm vs. 18mm. Imo, 35mm isn't exactly much of a wide, given that 43 is normal.
It's also interesting in how what is considered "wide" has progressively gotten wider over the decades. There was a time when the 35mm focal length was considered the standard wide focal length and anything wider was considered ultra-wide, particularly anything wider than 28mm's. The other point about 43mm being normal for the 35mm format has seldom been observed by manufacturers in practice of course as the standard lens offered is almost always at least a 50mm focal length. So, most folks were likely shooting a slightly long normal to begin with technically which made that 35 noticeably wider.
@ longer, slower and more vignetting for the RF.