Andrew Gough wrote:
Floating element lenses are particularly vulnerable to poor performance, when the adapter is out. Since most adapters are made deliberately short, this should be no surprise.
This is a very good point. I didn't think about it. My 80-200mm Leica F4 have noticeable focus breathe problem on my 6D, means I can't focus at 200mm, but shooting at 80mm. but A little of research along with PM from forum member show that the lens shouldn't have problem to do that with Leica R body or correct adapter.
So if the lens has been optimized at certain flange distance, the adapter thickness will be a huge concern for a zoom, and Floating element in this case I guess, especially we are talking about lens at this caliber.
On the other hand, it also suggest invest big money on UN-native mount seems prohibited risk for certain lens.
Again, it seems that 55 Zeiss is metal build lens. I also hope it perform as great as preliminary reports show. I'd be happy to go back AF if i have to.
I think the funniest part of all these tests and analysis is the combination of surprise and disappointment that Sony/Zeiss could somehow create lenses that can outperform significantly more expensive "legacy" lenses from Leica et. al. at a much lower price.
corposant wrote:
I think the funniest part of all these tests and analysis is the combination of surprise and disappointment that Sony/Zeiss could somehow create lenses that can outperform significantly more expensive "legacy" lenses from Leica et. al. at a much lower price.
Hey, I depend on my legacy glass to pick up women. AF won't get you to first base
corposant wrote:
I think the funniest part of all these tests and analysis is the combination of surprise and disappointment that Sony/Zeiss could somehow create lenses that can outperform significantly more expensive "legacy" lenses from Leica et. al. at a much lower price.
Well it's not really a fair comparison since RF lenses were designed for a different set of requirements including size/weight not to mention a different mount. It would be interesting to see how they all compare in the center though, where the mount issues wont come into play.
snapsy wrote:
Well it's not really a fair comparison since RF lenses were designed for a different set of requirements including size/weight not to mention a different mount. It would be interesting to see how they all compare in the center though, where the mount issues wont come into play.
in the center nearly any decent lens should have no problem outresolving the 36mp sensor even at fairly large apertures. variation will be more in contrast than resolution. corners are a completely different story of course.
snapsy wrote:
It would be interesting to see how they all compare in the center though, where the mount issues wont come into play.
My point is I am not even sure this is valid (tolerance of flange distance)with certain lens? Though I am not a lens expert.
zhangyue wrote:
My point is I am not even sure this is valid (tolerance of flange distance)with certain lens? Though I am not a lens expert.
if the adapter is not exactly the correct thickness it will make it impossible for a lens with a floating element to have all the elements in exactly the correct place for focus at any distance. for anyone wondering, most m-mount to e-mount adapters are NOT the correct thickness. even most of the expensive ones require shimming to get the correct thickness.
having said that, in my experience using lenses with floating elements on adapters of both correct and incorrect thickness, the differences in image quality between correct and incorrect thickness have been extremely small and only noticeable towards the edges of the frame (often floating elements are used to correct field curvature at different focus distances i believe). all the lenses i've used with floating elements have have relatively old wide angle designs though. i'm not sure if the same would hold true for more modern designs and longer focal lengths.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I used a Lens Hood which works fine on APS-C but is too narrow on FF.
Encouraged by your results (I have a Thorium-concave SSC amongst my FDs) but it doesn't help me in my desperate struggle to resist pre-ordering a new camera for the first time in my life.
p.5 #12 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
Hi all,
I temporarily have a 50mm Lux ASPH, the Voightlander adapter, and an NEX7.
I'd be happy to share some casual photos I took this weekend, and could also try shooting any tests that you might suggest, to see if this combination is working on-par with expectations.
I'm still relatively new to this, and I certainly appreciate the guidance -- also, please forgive if my photos aren't up-to-snuff. My general approach is to go shooting with one lens, and I usually wind up cropping (sometimes significantly), and applying PP (sometimes perhaps heavy-handed) in Lightroom.
If I should post some snaps, just attach them to this thread?
fwiw, it does sort of seem I get better edge sharpness when I'm closer to the subject, but I'm not 100% sure, if that makes any sense?
Alternatively, I could ditch the Lux 50, and put my chips in with the e-mount 55.
That said, one thing I did notice about the Lux -- the blur is often oddly striking. Is that true of the 55 for the A7? I also have the 24mm Zeiss (a Sonnar) built for the NEX. I'm not sure if it's fair to compare that to the 55 for the A7, but both are Sonnars. Anyhow, the Lux does take prettier photos to my eye...
p.5 #13 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
It doesn't.
Yay.
Wasn't this a bone of contention with the RX1? The line from Sony at the time was they had to restrict the focus peaking area to provide acceptable performance.
It would seem the new processor has upped the performance ante again.
p.5 #14 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
michaelwatkins wrote:
Yay.
Wasn't this a bone of contention with the RX1? The line from Sony at the time was they had to restrict the focus peaking area to provide acceptable performance.
It would seem the new processor has upped the performance ante again.
In any case, yay.
yes, it's only available in magnified mode on the rx1, which is stupid. my recollection is that sony's explanation was that peaking isn't accurate enough to provide perfect focus with a 35mm at f/2. this is true, but so what – it's not accurate enough to provide perfect focus with 50/1.8 on the nex-7 either. focus peaking over the whole frame is still useful in many applications, whereas i don't find it to be useful at all in magnified mode on the rx1.
p.5 #15 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
Phillip,
Thank you for taking the time to post these images - you might have saved me a lot of money! I am thinking of cancelling my order for the Sony. Given that the Minolta 100mm F/2.4 shows better corner performance than both Leica 90mm APO lenses, I am going to guess that it is a sensor issue as well. The second 90mm APO, is that the R version?
On modern floating element lenses, adapter accuracy is everything. I have struggled with poor adapters, and through shimming, I have achieved very good performance with FLE lenses. As Zhangyue pointed out, you cannot even guarantee centre performance on a poor adapter. Even if your adapter is perfect in every measurement, the sensor's micro lens architecture might be incompatible with a RF lens. It is becoming obvious, that Sony do not want us using other off brand small lenses. They want to sell you their own branded lenses, as that is where they are probably making most of their money.
Regarding the Leica Lux asph, it is sharp on my 24mp M all the way into the corners, so I highly doubt that it is the lens. My Summilux 50mm Pre-asph is super sharp on the M too.
p.5 #16 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
sebboh & Ken: Colour me relieved; focus peaking works great when in a hurry, even stopped down usually I could sweep the peak into the zone of interest quickly. Were it hobbled with magnified peaking only (it's not, yay) I'm not sure I'd be as interested in the camera.
Phillip: Can you comment on shutter noise? Now that you've taken more exposures than most on the planet who have had a chance to hold the A7r, how would you characterize the noise?
Kirk Tuck, normally a Sony fan, seems to think it's a road block for him:
p.5 #17 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
michaelwatkins wrote:
Phillip: Can you comment on shutter noise? Now that you've taken more exposures than most on the planet who have had a chance to hold the A7r, how would you characterize the noise?
Certainly the cameras biggest weakness.
I is much lounder than on the Nex-6 and sounds rather sluggish. The viewfinder blackout is longer an I think that the shutter lag is longer.
Kirk Tuck seems like a nice enough fellow, but I'm a little suspicious of his "association" with Samsung. He was very high on the Nex 7 and then sold all his Nex stuff when Samsung started sending him gear to use. This is despite the fact that most of the Samsung cameras don't have EVFs after he had been singing the praises of EVFs for several years. My conclusion is he either has some kind of deal with Samsung or is very fickle with his opinions on photo equipment.
p.5 #19 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
Since I am not technical enough for offer more detail about this topic. I can contribute some of my thoughts into discuss:
1. Floating element: I thought that is for optimizing close focus performance and remove focus shift for fast glass.
2. Since there are two group of lens element move away or toward during focus, the chance the lens operating at its optimized setting with different flange distance is zero or close to zero.
3. Assuming the flange distance is shorter in most case, the infinity reached with adapter on will be equivalent to pass infinity on regular usage. If we assume the lens is designed/optimized at infinity, I can’t imagine the performance won’t get hit.
4. We all know most lens are designed optimized either infinity or other with most fast glass perform better at infinity WO, that means focus distance will affect lens performance, the same apply with flange distance change.
5. During regular shooting, this most likely acceptable depend on certain lens, but once pixel PP, this put a huge disadvantage on adapted lens. I seem remember Lensrental.com have a test confirm this.
This is the exact complain I am having with 50lux as I feel the Leica design is not very practical for long term reliability of use this lens, especially for rangefinder usage.(can't see focus beforehand) I haven’t had any problem since the last time I get my lens back, but it is not rare I found people having problem with this lens.
In that sense, it also can explain why the lens behaves differently over different distance on post above with NEX7.
p.5 #20 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
corposant wrote:
I think the funniest part of all these tests and analysis is the combination of surprise and disappointment that Sony/Zeiss could somehow create lenses that can outperform significantly more expensive "legacy" lenses from Leica et. al. at a much lower price.
They don't outperform the "legacy" lenses from Leica and Zeiss at all. These cameras simply under-perform when used with those lenses.
AF won't get you to first base 
