Jochenb wrote:
Anyone? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Samuli maybe?
Yes, I use a ZF.2 on the A7, no issues whatsoever. Focus shift is no longer an issue with this EVF. Most of the time, I don't even need to zoom in, unless the light drops a bit or I stop it down a bit.
carstenw wrote:
Yes, I use a ZF.2 on the A7, no issues whatsoever. Focus shift is no longer an issue with this EVF. Most of the time, I don't even need to zoom in, unless the light drops a bit or I stop it down a bit.
Ok thank you Carsten! I do miss this lens sometimes, the A7 might be a good option to use it again.
sculptormic wrote:
How do you like the FDn 17 mm on this camera? Any more samples, closer by, may be?
It's surprising me both ways. Sometimes the corners are a lot better than I've seen when using it with film; even when it's at quite wide apertures. Then, on other occasions it seems just relatively mediocre when I'm not expecting it.
I have a suspicion it works better with things that are close-to than it does at infinity, but I probably haven't really shot with it enough to get a proper handle on how it behaves. As a result I've not got a lot online at the moment.
I do appear to be having less trouble with flare with the FDn 17/4 on the A7 than I have with the FDn 20/2.8.
sculptormic wrote:
How do you like the FDn 17 mm on this camera? Any more samples, closer by, may be?
Musicman wrote:
It's surprising me both ways. Sometimes the corners are a lot better than I've seen when using it with film; even when it's at quite wide apertures. Then, on other occasions it seems just relatively mediocre when I'm not expecting it.
I have a suspicion it works better with things that are close-to than it does at infinity, but I probably haven't really shot with it enough to get a proper handle on how it behaves. As a result I've not got a lot online at the moment.
For infinity images do you set the lens to the infinity hard stop or do you use magnified view to find focus? It seems most lens adapters are intentionally made too thin, which causes focus past infinity if the hard stop is used, which in turn degrades image quality. This is my experience with RF lenses on these cameras and it's necessary to use magnified live view to achieve the best results.
It's that the edges seem to suffer more when the lens is set to infinity than they do when it's focused to a closer distance, even if the centre is fine.
I really need to use it more to check out my hunches and make some notes about the apertures I'm using with the 17mm, but I've been having too much fun with my FD 85L
OK, good to know and rules out that variable. I'd probably chalk it up to being a 1980s lens design. While Canon certainly made many excellent FD lenses, they never struck me as being that great with wide angles, even until fairly recently (this based on being a Canon user going on 30 years).
What I found with some of my rangefinder ultra wides on APS-C (the GXR) was that backing focus off a bit from correct infinity focus at the centre seemed to help the edges. But that was because it increased the lens-sensor distance and reduced the amount of edge smearing slightly. Given that you're using SLR lenses, I'm not sure sensor smearing is the cause of the problem. Maybe there is some field curvature that requires a compromise focus setting between the optimum centre and edge focus distances?
rscheffler wrote:
OK, good to know and rules out that variable. I'd probably chalk it up to being a 1980s lens design. While Canon certainly made many excellent FD lenses, they never struck me as being that great with wide angles, even until fairly recently (this based on being a Canon user going on 30 years).
I'd probably agree. TBH I'm not sure it's any worse than my 17-40 f/L is at 17mm with a 5D, and I've put up with soft corners on that for years
Musicman, I find it quiet a surprise how the 17 FD behaves. Never heard much good about it, but this looks promising. Funny how these cameras work so well with lenses you never thought off much. FD lenses in general are fine on my A7r. Thank you for the info and yes I saw those Vespa's pass by but did not notice the lens you used.
Finally had a few moments to shoot some of my C/Y lenses with a black rubber ring in the adapter.
No more reflections on the sensor till now, but this wa without really much sunlight.
Sorry for spamming, unfortunate events made it possible for me to go out shooting two days in a row!
Tried to take similar pictures that i took yesterday with the rokkor 58 (sets previous page , 115)
The rest of the set from today. Sundbybergs båtklubb with FE 55 1.8 - most wide open.
I just did a test set up for a headphone/model shoot that's coming in next week. I used a Rodenstock 105mm APO Rodagon mounted by a Zork MFA adapter to the A7r . The final shot will have a new set of headphones and a live model. This combination is nothing short of phenomenal. The MFA gives me tilt and shift capabilities with the A7r that was one of the main reasons I bought the Sony. For extreme detail of products like watches and jewelry it can't be beat, also controlled focus for food photography is another plus.
Jochenb wrote:
Anyone? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Samuli maybe?
Sorry, missed your question, thread is moving too fast... To answer to your question, I feel little different than Carsten, but that is due to him having aperture ring and me not having it. For me it's much slower and more cumbersome to shoot with A7/A7r than 5DmkII with lenses having focus shift and electronically controlled aperture. This is because A-mode and M-mode are sharing aperture (in 5DmkII both modes remember their aperture). And even if that would work properly there is S-mode in between A-mode and M-mode. Lens itself performs very well.
However due to how controls and firmware is build, I have decided to move from Planar 1.4/50 as my primary lens to other lenses; mainly FE55, supported by G45 and Rokkor 58/1.2. I'm also trying to find Canon FD 50/1.2L.
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZE @ f/11, HDR(1.6s, 6s and 25s), A7 @ ISO 400
