Tariq Gibran wrote:
Duplicating the 35/2 Sonnar on the A7's at anything close to it's size/ performance is impossible.
I never said anything about duplicating that lens, but I really wonder why you are so sure that it would be impossible to make small and fast lenses that work. They might not be as small as M lenses, but the FE 35/2.8 is proof enough that they can be much smaller than SLR lenses.
For me a really good 40/2 would be awesome, and for wides I could live with f/2.8. Right now I'm on the hunt for some OM wides, so I won't cry.
Makten wrote: I never said anything about duplicating that lens, but I really wonder why you are so sure that it would be impossible to make small and fast lenses that work. They might not be as small as M lenses, but the FE 35/2.8 is proof enough that they can be much smaller than SLR lenses.
For me a really good 40/2 would be awesome, and for wides I could live with f/2.8. Right now I'm on the hunt for some OM wides, so I won't cry.
Perhaps I misunderstood this remark you made concerning the RX1 and the FF E-Mount:
"It's small and you could almost get as close to the sensor with the rear element on the E mount."
Anyway, I think I have been clear in why I think it will be impossible for small and fast lenses on the FF E-Mount with the current Sony sensors. I don't think I'm alone in that conclusion either. That said, slower and small FF E-Mount lenses of very high quality do interest me, particularly given the current performance of Sony sensors.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood this remark you made concerning the RX1 and the FF E-Mount:
"It's small and you could almost get as close to the sensor with the rear element on the E mount."
What I meant was that the RX1 lens is a good example of a new design that doesn't belong in the usual "telecentric" lens department. I'm no expert here, but I think TheSuede explained that it does most of the corrections behind the aperture, which makes it possible to get the exit pupil far from the sensor without making the lens large. If you look at the FE 35, it seems to be somewhat similar with the aperture right at the front of the lens, and with plenty of space for more lens elements behind it if it was faster.
My guess is that Zeiss and Sony will develop semi-fast (~f/2) lenses that are small enough to make former RF users happy. And they could very well be better across the frame than current M lenses on M cameras (again, look at the FE 35 and 55).
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ Oly wides ... time to sell the good Oly's and replace with future native glass or retain the Oly's as diminutive FF performers ... hmmmm
Drawing style might be a consideration as well ... i.e. Oly colors vs. the "Zeiss" look.
I have no experience with Olympus glass (except for on film and new MFT ones), so I have no idea of what to expect. But the 21/3.5 is reputedly good and I think I have found one very cheap, locally. Damn small even with adapter too.
Ra7erSharp wrote:
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.
FMer Ra7erSharp posted a link to his A7R vs M9 samples a few pages back and I find them very useful. People couldn't get the link to work, so I'm reposting a different link to his samples.
By the way ... why do so many A7/A7R samples look muted, dull, and low contrast? Sure we'll be able to make the raws pop in PP, but I' starting to think this is the Sylvia Plath of cameras.
RustyBug wrote:
Yup, put the Oly 21/3.5 next to the ZM 21/2.8 or ZM 21/4.5 and the case for size @ SLR vs. RF glass kinda takes on a different perspective.
Oly 21/2.0
44mm
250g
Oly 21/3.5
31mm
185g
ZM 21/2.8
53mm
280g
ZM 21/4.5
53mm
210g
don't forget to add 18mm for the adapter to the oly lenses.
uhoh7 wrote:
And snickering in a vacum of evidence seems also a trait that will never die
For myself, I have seen plenty of evidence in support of my conclusions. The other thread in which you have posted examples by others using rangefinder wides is chock-full of evidence. The only thing that can be concluded is simply that there exists different "tolerances" for what one is willing to accept as "acceptable" performance.
Makten wrote:
What I meant was that the RX1 lens is a good example of a new design that doesn't belong in the usual "telecentric" lens department. I'm no expert here, but I think TheSuede explained that it does most of the corrections behind the aperture, which makes it possible to get the exit pupil far from the sensor without making the lens large. If you look at the FE 35, it seems to be somewhat similar with the aperture right at the front of the lens, and with plenty of space for more lens elements behind it if it was faster.
My guess is that Zeiss and Sony will develop semi-fast (~f/2) lenses that are small enough to make former RF users happy. And they could very well be better across the frame than current M lenses on M cameras (again, look at the FE 35 and 55). ...Show more →
ebrandon wrote:
By the way ... why do so many A7/A7R samples look muted, dull, and low contrast? Sure we'll be able to make the raws pop in PP, but I' starting to think this is the Sylvia Plath of cameras.
More DR needs more PP. It's like comparing negative film to slide film.
uhoh7 wrote:
what do the zeiss sonnars like the classic 50/1.5 have in common with the 45g? Nothing.
I agree, perhaps except for Zeiss lenses generally giving very pleasing colors. I was fooled by the "3D" talk for a while, until I realized that the lens that gave me most pop and the best colors was not a Zeiss. It was the Summicron 28/2 ASPH.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I hope you are right.
Me too. I doesn't have to happen though. But I do think it's possible to deal with the filter stack even with smallish and fast lenses.
ebrandon wrote:
By the way ... why do so many A7/A7R samples look muted, dull, and low contrast? Sure we'll be able to make the raws pop in PP, but I' starting to think this is the Sylvia Plath of cameras.
I was just looking at a few dozen full size A7 + FE35 images and was thinking the same thing. All were processed through Lightroom; in this case perhaps a default preset is being applied to this particular individual's images.
When switching cameras sometimes I forget to switch my import preset myself. If I process GXR images with my D800 preset the results are uniformly awful.
CV 21/4 LTM
29.1mm (+1 mm to Leica M Mount)
109g
10 aperture blades
(If well centered) an excellent lens!
Removing the shim ring between the rear lens group and the aperture removed the curvature of field almost completely and improved the corners a lot (at least on my sample).
This is the guy with the Shanghai skyline series and we were wondering about his wonky results with some of the faster lenses at wider apertures. At least this blog post sheds some light on that. According to the translation, he used magnified focus, which rules out mis-focus due to assuming the infinity hard stop was accurate (a likely problem because most adapters allow lenses to focus past infinity) or focus peaking imprecision...
fwiw, here's what has me most concerned about the 50 Lux on Sony's new FF cameras -- both are crops from near top-left from Ron's test shots. One is the 50 Lux on the Sony, the other is on the M9. Let's see if you can guess...
time to sell the good Oly's and replace with future native glass or retain the Oly's as diminutive FF performers ... hmmmm 
It was the Summicron 28/2 ASPH.