Makten wrote:
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.
I was leaning in that direction too, until I realized that I'll probably be using E mount lenses for wide (the 12mm Touit) and Tele (55-210) until better FE options exist. This still results in around 15mp images on the A7r and substantially smaller on the A7. So I'm sticking with the 'r'...
Ouch. 28mm is about as wide as the RF primes seem to go before breaking down. Doesn't bode well for the 18mm Zeiss ZM I just bought but it had to be tried. If that doesn't work I'll sell it and take advantage of good pricing on the Zeiss Touit 12mm E mount lens. Still gives me 18mm, just not 36mp of it!
Wow - didn't expect the Heliars to be quite that bad. I wonder what the results would be if the A7R didn't have off-set microlenses in the periphery...
Vern Dewit wrote:
I was leaning in that direction too, until I realized that I'll probably be using E mount lenses for wide (the 12mm Touit) and Tele (55-210) until better FE options exist. This still results in around 15mp images on the A7r and substantially smaller on the A7. So I'm sticking with the 'r'...
Seems like a pretty good idea! I loved the CV 15/4.5 on the NEX-5N and could easily live with it cropped. On the other hand, I'm sure you could find smallish enough lenses that will do as good on the a7 at the equivalent aperture (let's not discuss equivalence, please! ).
Vern Dewit wrote:
Ouch. 28mm is about as wide as the RF primes seem to go before breaking down. Doesn't bode well for the 18mm Zeiss ZM I just bought but it had to be tried.
Please let us know your findings! I'm still hoping it will be usable - the samples on siammirorless.com didn't look too bad, I thought.
I'm suspicious.... Are there any wide open shots with fast lenses in these sets that are in focus anywhere? That's not my experience with lenses like the 50 Lux ASPH, CV35/1.2 II on the A7... I wonder what his point of focus was and how he set it. I hope it wasn't with focus peaking, which is not reliable enough. CV12 on a7R actually doesn't look that bad, once you ignore the color shift and vignetting.
rscheffler wrote:
I'm suspicious.... Are there any wide open shots with fast lenses in these sets that are in focus anywhere? That's not my experience with lenses like the 50 Lux ASPH, CV35/1.2 II on the A7... I wonder what his point of focus was and how he set it. I hope it wasn't with focus peaking, which is not reliable enough. CV12 on a7R actually doesn't look that bad, once you ignore the color shift and vignetting.
Yes there are. Look at the 50 lux wide open for example. Some parts are in focus (like the top of the center buildings). Very strange looking.
Those are old sets... pretty sure we've seen them before, shot in late October with a preproduction camera (not that preproduction means a guarantee shipping units will be different).
Looks like Edward was right. The A7R is not really suited to f/1.4 50s, f/2 35s and anything wider. The A7 is maybe a stop better than that, but still not out of the woods.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Those are old sets... pretty sure we've seen them before, shot in late October with a preproduction camera (not that preproduction means a guarantee shipping units will be different).
Late October isn't that long ago . By that time, the assembly line was likely already rolling. I don't expect the production cameras to behave any differently...
Ron Pfister wrote:
Please let us know your findings! I'm still hoping it will be usable - the samples on siammirorless.com didn't look too bad, I thought.
I will. I preordered the 2nd A7r from TheCameraStore in Calgary so I should receive it in the next couple of weeks. I'll probably buy a 12mm Touit to test against the Zeiss 18 just to see which one I end up keeping.
looks like his adapter has some alignment issues, upper left and lower right corners are always better than lower left and upper right. still lots of conclusions to draw:
on the a7r at infinity:
35 cron asph - bad till f/11 (kinda surprising)
50 lux asph - bad till f/5.6 (kinda surprising)
50 cron non-AA - good (no surprise)
cv 75/2.5 - good (no surprise)
cv 12/5.6 - bad (a little surprising)
cv 15/4.5 - bad (no surprise)
cv 21/4 - bad (no surprise)
cv 28/2 - bad till f/8 (no real surprise)
cv 35/1.2 - looks good (hard to tell if softness at large aperture is lens or smearing but clears up nicely)
cv 50/1.1 - looks good (no surprise)
zm 21/2.8 - bad till f/11 (no surprise)
zm 25/2.8 - bad till f/11 (somewhat surprising, extreme corners never fully there)
zm 50/2 - good (this one has the worst tilt, wonder if he was using a helicoid adapter and bumped it out a bit?)
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Yep, something is generally amiss. Looking at ZM50/2 at f/5.6 -- the left side is blurry but the right side is sharp. Maybe his adapter is bad.
Wouldn't all his results look like this then (if he used the same adapter for all shots)?
Look at the Leica 50/2 @ f5.6... It's look quite good across the frame.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Yep, something is generally amiss. Looking at ZM50/2 at f/5.6 -- the left side is blurry but the right side is sharp. Maybe his adapter is bad.
ZM25 actually looks smeared (to me) in left corner, fine on the right. Same adapter?
. By that time, the assembly line was likely already rolling. I don't expect the production cameras to behave any differently...