uhoh7 wrote:
Luckily I have you to set me straight when I get too excited TY for your 28 sample from M9 at RFF
Hehe, that is one way to name what others would call a damp cloth on things.
It must have been someone else, I have never owned an M9. I didn't buy one, feeling that it wasn't enough of an improvement over the M8 in IR filtering and rangefinder reliability. When the M came out with its limitations, I sold all my M stuff and bought Nikon.
carstenw wrote:
Hehe, that is one way to name what others would call a damp cloth on things.
It must have been someone else, I have never owned an M9. I didn't buy one, feeling that it wasn't enough of an improvement over the M8 in IR filtering and rangefinder reliability. When the M came out with its limitations, I sold all my M stuff and bought Nikon.
Good shooter over there named Carsten, was sure it was you. Also from Germany I think.
I was asking for a benchmark 28mm shot and he gave me:
"i sold my canon dslr gear and never looked back, meanwhile kind of RF fanboy.... now comes Sony and drives me to look again for a decent wide DSLR lens. No. I keep my Leica Monochrom and lenses, and wait until Sony comes with wide FE lens. My stuff is over 90% black and white, I can wait.
I sold my m9 and will keep the A7r: focusing is way better and high Iso is nice to have. My 35FLE, Nocti 1.0, Apo50, 90AA, and Elmar 135 are great with this Sony. Time will show whether the M240 is followed by a winner, or Sony comes with more excellent lenses."
C_R at RFF
He made a gorgeous 36 shot stitch with m9 and 90 cron apo
uhoh7, great rendering in 1st image! However more interesting is the hotspot on 2nd image; magenta hotspot in middle of image. Is this only image or did you get it to other images as well. This was shot against the light, maybe that is because sun shining to front lens element.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
uhoh7, great rendering in 1st image! However more interesting is the hotspot on 2nd image; magenta hotspot in middle of image. Is this only image or did you get it to other images as well. This was shot against the light, maybe that is because sun shining to front lens element.
carstenw wrote:
That looks pretty reasonable. With a flat field profile, maybe it would be okay? Can you post some corner crops from the plane of focus?
Agreed. Not perfect as a landscaper but it looks better than expected for anything else. As a super WA and eg comparing to the super huge Samyang 14/2.8 (that I have) I will consider this lens. The super sharp Samyang is worse in far corners (...on a 5D2). For street the ZM looks perfect if SWA and size is prio #1.
Carsten, you can check fullsize through the links. (A7, not R)
I would not suggest anyone buy the ZM 18 for the A7. However, if you have one, it may be OK to use, if done carefully. That is all I am trying to point out.
On the A7r the lens is really much worse. For me, unusable.
For either camera, if you need a 20ish, the Canon nFD 20/2.8 is very good, and actually lighter with adapter than the ZM 18, although bigger.
Carsten I don't expect the deep corners, but if I can have the wide edges, more or less, I'm sort of happy.
Both Cameras, it is now clear, are hamstrung by a thick sensor covering. For their native glass, Sony is designing the lenses to work with the processor, so you do get good edges.
In my opinion this is incredibly stupid, since a thin cover would not cost much, and would make ALOT of people happy.
Sony glass will be good, but the range will be weak for years.
Once again, like so many big corporations, microsoft, google, etc, they do not put customer wishes first. Many good things about the camera, but it is at best, flawed, in many circumstances.
This is not because they "could not do it", but because they made some choices.
But the A7 is good enough for me for now, and I'm having a blast shooting it.
Does anyone anything about the Canon 17mm FD? A friend of mine has one he will give me, but if it won't work well or if it doesn't perform as well as the 20mm, I don't feel like shelling to for an adapter. Though I might consider getting a 20mm FD instead.
lostinjapan wrote:
Does anyone anything about the Canon 17mm FD? A friend of mine has one he will give me, but if it won't work well or if it doesn't perform as well as the 20mm, I don't feel like shelling to for an adapter. Though I might consider getting a 20mm FD instead.
Thanks.
Ryan
Mine has been opened, so I don't know if its normal, but mine is not that great on my NEX-7, but I've also herd others say it's an ok lens, it sounds like the 20mm is much better. I haven't used it on my A7r yet.
Thanks for the help! Greatly appreciated. I think I may just keep my eyes open for a good 20mm nFD.
Thanks.
Ryan
LightShow wrote:
Mine has been opened, so I don't know if its normal, but mine is not that great on my NEX-7, but I've also herd others say it's an ok lens, it sounds like the 20mm is much better. I haven't used it on my A7r yet.
lostinjapan wrote:
Does anyone anything about the Canon 17mm FD? A friend of mine has one he will give me, but if it won't work well or if it doesn't perform as well as the 20mm, I don't feel like shelling to for an adapter. Though I might consider getting a 20mm FD instead.
Thanks.
Ryan
Ryan, I have the 17, and really like it. I'm using it on the A7.
www.google.com/+chrislynch (i think the FM forum will pull the "plus" sign out from in front of my name)
The only reason I'm considering parting with the 17 is the 2.8 on the 20mm. It'll be more flexible for me.
I have done more tests with A7R and 'Lux 50. It is actually possible to get acceptable sharpness in the corners at infinity even fairly wide open, if I focus on the corner, which Andrew (snowboarder already showed). The problem rather seems to be that, if whatever is in the corner is not in the same plane of focus as whatever I focused on, then what is in the corner is reduced to an ugly smear instead of just OOF. I am not technically minded, but the fact that this does not happen on the A7 suggests that this could be a negative by-product of angled micro-lenses, giving a crazy result when the performance of the lens used differs from what Sony intended them to correct. What say you, o clever people?
TY for your 28 sample from M9 at RFF 
