philip_pj wrote:
With the Leica M wides, everyone hoped it would all come up smelling of roses.
I think it's worth repeating that this isn't just about the wides.
I've seen it written quite a lot that everything longer than 35 would be fine, but I've been paying close attention to the 50 Lux, and that also appears questionable. Sure, it could turn out to have been faulty adapters, but it's looking dicey to me.
philber wrote:
the Touit 12mm. It works flawlessly on my NEX7, a camera that "hates" very wide angles. That Zeiss could design a high performance UWA that is neither very large nor very heavy means the NEX keeps its low size/weight advantage, and everyone is happy, especially Sony and Zeiss.
+1 @ well done for the Touit 12mm @ APS-C.
Extrapolate the size from APS-C to FF and the size of the image circle and lens and distance to the film plane needed to retain the angles of incidence that work well with the Touit 12mm on APS-C should follow for FF suit just fine. Of course it won't be a pancake or dimunitive RF, maybe not even smaller than the Oly's or some other SLR glass in order to achieve the excellence of the Tuoit's. They can design WA/UWA lenses that will perform well on the sensor ... just a matter of keeping the angles within the confines that the sensor arrangement can work with, which (principally) necessitates longer rather than shorter distances to the film plane for a given aov.
Makten wrote:
How do we know that? Compare the ZM 35/2.8 (with adapter) and the FE 35/2.8. They are roughly the same size when considering that the FE barrel is mostly just filled with air.
24x36 is 24x36. If the ZM is covering 24x36, why would the forthcoming lenses necessarily be large/slower ... except to take advantage of the opportunity to design a better optic (akin to Otus/Touit). Makten's point @ barrel filled with air ... well, that's what is keeping the distance to the film plane longer and the angles of incidence such that they play nice with the sensor.
The mirror gets removed, which allows the projection to be closer to the film plane ... yet we make the barrel longer and filled with air. Can there really be any significant reason other than to control the angles of incidence and it's impact on vignetting, color, smearing, etc.
I'd think that if there exists a plethora of mountable RF glass to the A7/A7R with variant inherent issues ... future lenses will not be a replication of incurred compromises by the allure to diminutive size. Rather, future lenses for the platform will be oriented more toward excellence of optical projection solutions more in line to the Otus and Touit. One way is putting your new offerings in the mix of competition. The other way puts them as a solution superior to their competition (i.e. existing glass).
philber wrote:
On another subject, a couple of members write that it is "normal" for the 'Lux 50 to underperform on A7, since it also underperforms on NEX. I disagree wholeheartedly. Either my standards are just much lower than theirs, or I got a better copy, but my 'Lux fills me me with joy whenever I get a shot right.
Sorry, I'm losing track -- is your 50 Lux, as mounted on your NEX (via a Hawk's helicoid, I believe) hitting infinity focus at the infinity stop?
uhoh7 wrote:
@philber I cringe when I read these comments on "under performing 50 lux", also. I believe that assessment will go down in flames as yet another pre-mature conclusion based on a few flawed samples. Huff, who by now actually has quite a bit of Leica experience, noted the 50 lux "was back" with the A7r, after a muting with the M240, to the M9 standard.
I hope you're right, but the score seems to be 0 for 2 so far (from two different cityscape tests).
Huff is mostly taking centered nearby subjects in which the sides don't matter -- which, of course is fine, and perhaps more "real world" -- but I want the sides on a7/a7r to hold up reasonably close to performance on M.
turnstyle wrote:
Huff is mostly taking centered nearby subjects in which the sides don't matter .
If the sides don't matter and you want a small package ... what is most significantly really being gained by going from APS-C to FF? Why not just keep using your RF glass on APS-C?
RustyBug wrote:
If the sides don't matter and you want a small package ... what is most significantly really being gained by going from APS-C to FF? Why not just keep using your RF glass on APS-C?
?? intended FOV, another stop +, better EVF, more resolution, better controls & software, etc.??
I've received an A7r and have been going through my lenses with mixed results. There are some examples of the M28/[email protected], shot side by side with an M9. I have the CV15/4.5 but not tried it yet. I'm not expecting great things though.
Where does it say this was wide open? OlafG said they were stopped down. But if wide open I suppose not really surprised but the vignetting is not marginal in my book Makten wrote:
You are surprised that the fastest 35 mm lens ever vignettes wide open? Really?
turnstyle wrote:
?? intended FOV, another stop +, better EVF, more resolution, better controls & software, etc.??
If the sides don't matter, you're throwing away much of your FOV advantage anyway. After you toss out your sides, where is the (of any significance) more resolution? Same RF lens projection ... where does another stop + come from? EVF, controls software ... sure @ newer gen camera, but that is really not a function of FF vs. APS-C.
RustyBug wrote:
If the sides don't matter, you're throwing away much of your FOV advantage anyway. After you toss out your sides, where is the more resolution? Same RF lens projection ... where does another stop + come from? EVF, controls software ... sure @ newer gen camera, but that is really not a function of FF vs. APS-C.
I'm not sure what we're discussing -- I don't want to throw away my sides, and I want the same (or closely similar) side performance on A7R (or A7) as compared to M.
The best comparison I have right now (from Ron, with the same lens on two bodies) shows a big difference.
Okay, so you are saying that the IQ of the sides does matter ... I thought you were discounting their significance even when they perform with such compromises.
turnstyle wrote:
I'm not sure what we're discussing -- I don't want to throw away my sides, and I want the same (or closely similar) side performance on A7R (or A7) as compared to M.
The best comparison I have right now (from Ron, with the same lens on two bodies) shows a big difference.
At this point, it is beginning to look like we are going to have to hand pick which lenses are going to meet our goals. Just hang in there a bit longer as things will settle out in the next number of weeks or months as there are enough tests run on such a large number of candidates.
For myself, I am looking for something in the 28mm and the 21mm focal length ranges. If I can find a WA RF lens in the 28mm focal length range I will probably purchase that one first.
naturephoto1 wrote:
we are going to have to hand pick which lenses are going to meet our goals.
+1 @ profound truth to what matters to one, is insignificant to another @ diff strokes/diff folks ... i.e. choose your poison(s) ... size/weight/color shift/vignette/smear/center/corners/etc.
RustyBug wrote:
Okay, so you are saying that the IQ of the sides does matter ... I thought you were discounting their significance even when they perform with such compromises.
Absolutely! It's a $$$ridiculous splurge, everything matters. Or, I should say: what matters to me is "comparable" to performance I would see on M.
Ron's test shows a BIG difference on the sides (imho). I hope it winds up being the adapter, but the latest set on Flickr also looks poor to me. That could also be the adapter -- but then you have to start wondering how hard it will be to get a good adapter.
Makten wrote:
How do we know that? Compare the ZM 35/2.8 (with adapter) and the FE 35/2.8. They are roughly the same size when considering that the FE barrel is mostly just filled with air.
We know that some (many?) rangefinder wides perform better on Leica bodies versus what we are seeing on the A7r right now. We know Zeiss has indicated that the ZM's are not suitable and will require a re-design for the A7's (more retro-focus design which means longer). We know that the only two FE primes announced thus far are extreme retro-focus designs (the FE Sonnar 35 and 55). We know Sony has said there will not be "crazy fast" lenses for the system but "quality and light weight" lenses(we don't know what Sony considers crazy fast but the fact we did not get an F2 35mm FE is a big hint). All of these points taken together strongly point to "larger, slower or both" lenses for the A7's as compared to what's possible with Leica's digital system (kinda self evident from point #1 above). I also believe Rusty's point that that allows for designing really great new lenses at the same time (slower great lenses) but, just like with the NEX system, the lenses will have to either be proportionately large as compared to the camera bodies OR very slow. By their statements, Sony will try to keep things as small as possible with the A7 lenses to avoid NEX like criticism so that means slow wide primes (probably F4 for anything shorter than 35mm is my guess).
+1 @ adapter criticality for WA/UWA gets more significant the wider you go ... but I think in the end, AI of lens design to film plane is always going to be the larger elephant.
