I inherited a Canon 7 with a 50mm f/0.95 from my father who passed away almost 15 years ago. I've always wanted a full frame camera to use that crazy 50mm on, but the Leica M's are just too damn expensive. So when the A7 came along I picked up one not soon after it was released. I have shared some images from/with this lens in this thread before.
But in the same old camera bag, my father also had another lens. A lens I'm pretty sure he had never used, considering the shape it was in, also compared to the 50mm.
It was a 135 mm f/3.5, a pretty small lens, not especially fast, but from the few test shots I have done with it it's very good. Pretty sharp wide open, almost no CA and the focusing is smooth. I'll share some images in this thread when I'm done editing, for now here is a shot of the lens on my A7:
People go bananas for that lens copies are going around 2k or so on eBay. I preferred the 50mm 1.4 over the 0.95 and 1.2 when I used them.
That 135 reminds me of my zeiss Jena 135mm 3.5. Excellent iq and small. I ended up breaking mine in accident. I'm looking into buying a new one tho even though it's 3 times what I paid previously
agentbird wrote:
I inherited a Canon 7 with a 50mm f/0.95 from my father who passed away almost 15 years ago. I've always wanted a full frame camera to use that crazy 50mm on, but the Leica M's are just too damn expensive. So when the A7 came along I picked up one not soon after it was released. I have shared some images from/with this lens in this thread before.
But in the same old camera bag, my father also had another lens. A lens I'm pretty sure he had never used, considering the shape it was in, also compared to the 50mm.
It was a 135 mm f/3.5, a pretty small lens, not especially fast, but from the few test shots I have done with it it's very good. Pretty sharp wide open, almost no CA and the focusing is smooth. I'll share some images in this thread when I'm done editing, for now here is a shot of the lens on my A7:
Dpedraza wrote:
Canon 35mm f2 ltm works well on the a7 good copies are around $400 usd. I took a couple of pics with my 35 on an a7.
I love everything about the LTM 35/2 except the colors- flat with low contrast- but it did make some stunning B&W conversions.
FWIW, the FDn 35/2 isn't much larger and is an objectively better performer all-around. Sharper, better SA correction, focuses closer, and better OOC color and contrast. It's not as dreamy wide open as the LTM, though, so if that's the look you're after, the LTM is the better choice.
freaklikeme wrote:
I love everything about the LTM 35/2 except the colors- flat with low contrast- but it did make some stunning B&W conversions.
FWIW, the FDn 35/2 isn't much larger and is an objectively better performer all-around. Sharper, better SA correction, focuses closer, and better OOC color and contrast. It's not as dreamy wide open as the LTM, though, so if that's the look you're after, the LTM is the better choice.
yeah, but the adapter for the nFD 35/2 is bigger than the ltm version.
sebboh wrote:
yeah, but the adapter for the nFD 35/2 is bigger than the ltm version.
Oh, yeah. I didn't mean to make it sound like it's tiny bit larger overall. Adapted, the FD is about as long as the FE 55/1.8. Nor would I try to talk anyone out of an RF lens and into an SLR, but I do think, with that specific lens, while there are certainly reasons to choose it, you can do better for less (FD) or about the same (Rokkor-M 40/2) if you make compromises in size or focal length.
freaklikeme wrote:
Oh, yeah. I didn't mean to make it sound like it's tiny bit larger overall. Adapted, the FD is about as long as the FE 55/1.8. Nor would I try to talk anyone out of an RF lens and into an SLR, but I do think, with that specific lens, while there are certainly reasons to choose it, you can do better for less (FD) or about the same (Rokkor-M 40/2) if you make compromises in size or focal length.
yeah, i just thought your post might be confusing if people don't know the mount differences.
i'd totally choose the m-rokkor too over the canon ltm unless 40mm is just too much longer than 35mm for you.
The 40mm 1.4 nockton is also a great alternative. Small. Very sharp in the center at 2.0 with good bokeh. Dreamy but sharp enough at 1.4 with very interesting color transitions.
My LTM is def bgn looking I'm not sure if the she's ideal for shooting either. I got it for $175 on ebay a few years back. I did convert them to B&W from the A7 I have a card sitting at home with a7 images I haven't even looked at. I travel for work and I shoot some pics and just left everything sitting at home.
Those canon FD lenses are def great bargains for anyone looking for excellent mf performers. I only mentioned the 35mm ltm because that's what I had lying around. I have been looking at the canon fd and oly oms. The Olys are a little more than the FDs though.
Donsantos wrote:
The 40mm 1.4 nockton is also a great alternative. Small. Very sharp in the center at 2.0 with good bokeh. Dreamy but sharp enough at 1.4 with very interesting color transitions.
Its pretty darn nervous/jittery bokeh in my book, which of course some people like. For me, and stuff I like to have in the frame, such as trees/foliage, it was just a bit distracting. Same goes, though slightly less, for its 35mm cousin as well
I love the size/price and overall feel/build of those VC lens though, just can't quite get on board with the optics.
They have a unique look, which some people really have done impressive stuff with, but in my own shooting either on M's or Sony's, it doesn't work for me try as I might to convince myself the size should make it all worth it
millsart wrote:
Its pretty darn nervous/jittery bokeh in my book, which of course some people like. For me, and stuff I like to have in the frame, such as trees/foliage, it was just a bit distracting. Same goes, though slightly less, for its 35mm cousin as well
I love the size/price and overall feel/build of those VC lens though, just can't quite get on board with the optics.
They have a unique look, which some people really have done impressive stuff with, but in my own shooting either on M's or Sony's, it doesn't work for me try as I might to convince myself the size should make it all worth it...Show more →
It's very nervous/jittery wide open. You have to really be careful with foliage. Stopped down to f2 I would say the bokeh is actually pretty decent and even good.
