edwardkaraa wrote:
Gary, you might want to consider the ZM 25 as well. In reality it is closer to a 28 than a 24, probably around 26-27mm FL. I ordered from Zeiss a (free) 28mm mount so that it brings out the 28mm frames. It took my local technician less than 5 minutes to change the mounts.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Thanks Edward - I have always wanted to try that lens out so it may be an option.
Edward brings up an interesting point... I also noticed this at 21mm when I did the shootout. The ZM21/2.8 was the least wide of the bunch. Same with the C-Biogon 35/2.8 vs. the f/2 and CV35/1.2... Perhaps it's a Zeiss ZM tendency?
Was just flipping through my a7 & RF lens shootout and noticed that the FE35 has an even narrower angle of view than the C-Biogon...
rscheffler wrote:
Edward brings up an interesting point... I also noticed this at 21mm when I did the shootout. The ZM21/2.8 was the least wide of the bunch. Same with the C-Biogon 35/2.8 vs. the f/2 and CV35/1.2... Perhaps it's a Zeiss ZM tendency?
Was just flipping through my a7 & RF lens shootout and noticed that the FE35 has an even narrower angle of view than the C-Biogon...
Ron, if you look at Paul Yi's comparison shots between the ZM 25 and ZF 25 on the Leica image thread (last page or before last), you can see the ZM has a narrower AOV. Knowing that the ZF is really a 26mm this makes the ZM even longer. On the other hand, the ZM 50 planar is actually around 45mm AOV, so it's not always a narrower angle.
Wasn't there a video of hundreds of guys getting their A7's in South Korea? Where are their tests with their wide angles (esp the ZM 25mm!)? I figured the forums would be on fire with those by now. I think it's the least they can do!
RustyBug wrote:
Any chance it said it didn't have the SAME arrangement (possibly referring to the offset or some nominal change) as the D800E ... yet it could still be utilizing a similar approach.
Then again ... recalling some of the detail in the images produced with native glass (i.e. not rangefinder), does it really matter if it is like the D800E or a true non-AA filter if we aren't shooting rangefinder glass as our primary glass? (Yes, I realize the topic is RF glass)
To what degree have we departed from keeping the main thing, the main thing? Is utilization of RF glass the main objective ... or is IQ the main objective? At the end of the day, RF glass may have its benefit/penalties rooted in film and for some, the RF glass represents the "best" available from a historical perspective ... but is it really the best available for digital, or will it ever be (on a single plane, microlens, bayer array)? Are we being unrealistic in our aspirations to cross-apply a square peg into a round hole with RF on digital?
Is it time to accept that mirrorless is the new RF, and the glass designed to work with it is going to be the best method for achieving the max IQ objective ... if IQ is still "the main thing"? If not, then the aspirations toward size/weight/legacy glass investment/etc. warrant acceptance of the inherent compromises (i.e. software corrections, etc) involved with RF on digital (at least for now). We love to think "out of the box" as alt folks ... but sometimes, just because we can figure out how to put that square peg into the round hole ... doesn't mean it is always in our best interest to do so....Show more →
Yeah 100%, I'm really of the opinion that my (when I buy it) A7(r) will probably have the native 55 1.8 attached 99% of the time.. It'll most likely give me the best results, and the most reliable AF performance.
When I got the fuji X-E1, I bought it with the M-adapter, but ended up using the Fuji 35mm 99% of the time.
I will probably get a Canon adapter and a M adapter, but will likely not use the M adapter at all... I have a M240 for that.
But I get that a lot of people have or would like to own ZM/M etc. lenses but currently have no FF camera to use all the lenses with.
(I will however use it once and a while with the MPZE lenses)
rscheffler wrote:
Good points Kent. I suspect there are some divergent priorities among those participating here. Some are definitely interested in taking advantage of the small sized RF lenses. For me it's a matter of already owning a fairly substantial RF lens collection and not wanting to buy yet another set of lenses for a specific platform (I already have a lot of Canon EF in addition to the RF lenses). A couple reasons I added the Leica M system to my Canon kit was for the size reduction without compromising image quality. The lenses on the M9 definitely perform very well. I'm not sure the more recent RF lenses (mostly from Leica and a couple from Voigtlander) are compromised by digital and are most certainly designed for it. I'm perfectly happy with these on the M9. I can't imagine there being any improvement on film. While Leica's M system is definitely a holdover from the analog era (as are DSLRs), Leica have shown it's not enough to compromise image quality while retaining the physical proportions established in that era.
It will be interesting to see what combination of features and performance Zeiss conjures up for their upcoming line of manual focus lenses for this platform... Will they lean more towards their historical tendency of 'lens relaxation' through somewhat larger optical formulas, or will they aim to take advantage of the lack of AF components and truly shrink lens size (length) down to something akin to RF lenses? (I suspect girth will remain constant with the lens mount size.)
If these new lenses do rival RF lenses for size and offer optical performance along the lines of the two FE lenses we've seen thus far, I suspect it will make RF lenses on this platform much less relevant. There seems to be a big opportunity here if Zeiss can find the magical combination of size and performance to satisfy a large enough segment of this fairly niche market. I also expect we'll see something from Voigtlander.
IIRC TheSuede slammed Leica/Kodak for their use of a very cheap quality cover glass/IR filter on the M9's sensor and that apparently the M240's sensor has a much higher quality one. This, combined with the redesigned microlenses, may correlate to the reports from early M240 users of better edge sharpness with various wide angle lenses. Therefore my interpretation is the opposite - Leica changed the M240's sensor topping stack for the better....Show more →
Agree, the M240 performs better with wides.. I think the magic in some lenses is lost due to the increase of dynamic range, and I'm sticking to that assessment since it's the only one that makes sense, after testing, to me and my limited knowledge of the technology..
adamdewilde wrote:
Yeah 100%, I'm really of the opinion that my (when I buy it) A7(r) will probably have the native 55 1.8 attached 99% of the time.. It'll most likely give me the best results, and the most reliable AF performance.
Ironically, 50s are where the A7r will undoubtably shine with RF glass.
While there seems no question now the native 55 is a great lens, and there is alot to be said for keeping life simple, there are many things various RF 50s can do that the native will never do.
For example, shoot at f/1.1, like the cv 50/1.1
Small as it is, the native will never travel like a Leica M 50/2.
It will never shoot a portrait like a canon LTM 50/1.2 or Nikkor 5cm/1.4
adamdewilde wrote:
Agree, the M240 performs better with wides.. I think the magic in some lenses is lost due to the increase of dynamic range, and I'm sticking to that assessment since it's the only one that makes sense, after testing, to me and my limited knowledge of the technology..
I have to somewhat, but not completely disagree here, Adam. The increase in DR can be compared to shooting negatives vs reversal during film days. Some prefer the look of slides while others love the extra latitude and lower contrast of negatives. I find the rendering of the M240, as with most CMOS cameras, reminiscent of negative film, while the higher contrast lower DR CCD sensor of the M9 is reminiscent of slide film. We used the same lenses to shoot both, and in fact the character of some lenses was emphasized by the bolder rendering of slides, while other lenses benefited from the subtlety of negative film.
I think most M lenses really looked good on the M9 because of their inherent low macro contrast and subtle rendering. They seem to look not as good on the M240 because of the reasons I mentioned above. Otoh, ZM lenses are quite bold in their rendering, and sometimes the effect is a bit too strong on the M9, so these might actually be helped by the increased DR of the M240.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have to somewhat, but not completely disagree here, Adam. The increase in DR can be compared to shooting negatives vs reversal during film days. Some prefer the look of slides while others love the extra latitude and lower contrast of negatives. I find the rendering of the M240, as with most CMOS cameras, reminiscent of negative film, while the higher contrast lower DR CCD sensor of the M9 is reminiscent of slide film. We used the same lenses to shoot both, and in fact the character of some lenses was emphasized by the bolder rendering of slides, while other lenses benefited from the subtlety of negative film.
I think most M lenses really looked good on the M9 because of their inherent low macro contrast and subtle rendering. They seem to look not as good on the M240 because of the reasons I mentioned above. Otoh, ZM lenses are quite bold in their rendering, and sometimes the effect is a bit too strong on the M9, so these might actually be helped by the increased DR of the M240. ...Show more →
It would be wonderful and very considerate to try to keep the thread on topic.
There are many other threads for musing on the M sensors---and for considering RF lenses by themselves.
Nicely put Edward. In some respects, you're not really disagreeing with Adam but rather expanding on his point. He just seems to like the 'slide film' look.
Something that impressed me using the old 50/1.5 Leitz Summarit on the M9 was that its lower contrast nature 'pre-compressed' high dynamic range scenes to better fit the M9. When I shot the same scenes with the Lux ASPH or Planar, I'd get clipping at the same exposure settings. But the modern lenses do have an amazing clarity in comparison, that definitely suits wide dynamic range capture, if you're looking to preserve as much information as possible.
Thanks also for the ZM/ZF 25 info - I've been slacking from the M8/M9 thread and missed that comparison. Was going to mention the Planar too, as an exception... it's definitely noticeably wider.
uhoh7 wrote:
It would be wonderful and very considerate to try to keep the thread on topic.
There are many other threads for musing on the M sensors---and for considering RF lenses by themselves.
This one is about RF performance on the A7r.
Thank You.
...and I for one found the reply as worthy a place in this thread as most of the other 1700 posts. Really, not just to complain. It gave me something to think about. Knowing you have a pancake 40/1.8 is also of interest.
uhoh7 wrote:
It would be wonderful and very considerate to try to keep the thread on topic.
There are many other threads for musing on the M sensors---and for considering RF lenses by themselves.
This one is about RF performance on the A7r.
Thank You.
I think the comparative dialogue @ RF glass rendering variance IS potentially pertinent to how different lens drawing styles may play on the A7R, just like how different designs (Biogon vs. Distagon vs. pancake, etc.) may play different based on their inherent optical projections. The more we understand @ what we are discussing vs. a generic classification "RF" the better we can discern / discuss how our expectations align or vary from what we are seeing.
It's not like Edward was talking about using LF format glass duct taped to a P&S.
RustyBug wrote:
I think the comparative dialogue @ RF glass rendering variance IS potentially pertinent to how different lens drawing styles may play on the A7R, just like how different designs (Biogon vs. Distagon vs. pancake, etc.) may play different based on their inherent optical projections. The more we understand @ what we are discussing vs. a generic classification "RF" the better we can discern / discuss how our expectations align or vary from what we are seeing.
It's not like Edward was talking about using LF format glass duct taped to a P&S.
There is nothing wrong with the discussion you are having, it just has nothing to do with the A7r and using this thread as a PM platform for "here's what I know about Ms and RF glass" and whatever else pops in to your mind destroys the thread as resource to see A7/r performance with WA RF glass.
You can't find anything.
Not to mention that many of these people filling this thread have told us repeatedly the camera is not suitable for RF WAs.
Can't you start a thread on your subject---which seems to be something like "RF character and sensors"?
It would so nice to have a place to simply pop in and see the latest info on the A7r and WA RF glass.
At the moment there isn't anything new to talk about anyway, otherwise I'm sure you would have posted links, seeing as how you've been very resourceful at finding this info so far. I'm sure once the Korean guys wake up from their a7/a7r post party hangovers, and have sorted through their test images, we'll finally start to see, and discuss, some pertinent results. So much of this thread is speculative as it is, I personally don't mind the tangents it takes from time to time, but that's just me.
Personally I've made the decision (for now at least) to skip the a7R and go for the a7. Obviously it works fine with the CV 35/1.2 (and therefore should work with the Summicron-C 40/2 that has the same exit pupil position). For anything wider, which I seldom use, I will seek for a smallish SLR wide. Like the OM 21/3.5 or similar.
And, choosing the a7 over the R saves me about the same money as the FE 35 costs, which could be a nice option if I want AF and corner-to-corner sharpness.
rscheffler wrote:
At the moment there isn't anything new to talk about anyway, otherwise I'm sure you would have posted links, seeing as how you've been very resourceful at finding this info so far. I'm sure once the Korean guys wake up from their a7/a7r post party hangovers, and have sorted through their test images, we'll finally start to see, and discuss, some pertinent results. So much of this thread is speculative as it is, I personally don't mind the tangents it takes from time to time, but that's just me.
You are right Ron
We are about to see a bunch of info, and I'd like to put what I find somewhere it can be found and used, and also check in to see who found something else.
That's the "topic" here.
A7/A7r performance with WA RF glass.
It's not that you guys never say anything interesting--you do, and you've come along way since those Nex-7 tests. But I'm begging you people: don't ruin this thread with a bunch of barely related posts.
I didn't see where it precluded discussing RF design / theory or stated the thread should be limited to only the latest picture examples only please (more of course are welcome/desired). If the discussion is "bench performance" @ theory vs. real world performance, it still is a discussion about RF performance to be transferred onto the A7/A7R sensor as an optical projection. Understanding the glass and its inherent optical projection properties qualities is part of understanding how/why the performance on the A7/A7R delivers the results that we have been (and will be) seeing.
uhoh7 wrote:
using this thread as a PM platform for "here's what I know about Ms and RF glass" and whatever else pops in to your mind
Well, for most folks that have been around Edward's posts for a while, they would know that Edward has little need to play such games of "look at me" HS puffery. If he felt compelled to contribute "M's & RF" info to the dialogue ... I'm quite confident it was in good faith to the discussion with intended relevance ... even if not desired information for some. But since Edward hasn't quite reached 1,000 likes yet, I suppose he really could stand to brush up on some better thread etiquette.
It would be nice to please everyone, every time, in every thread ... imo, that's "impossible".
