45/2 and 90/2.8 are very good.35/2 is good stopped down to f8.28/2.8 is smeary in corners and not so sharp at both sides,even at f11,but such images are acceptable still.21/2.8 - I rejected it after trying out on the NEX5N,so don't have it anymore.
Other nice thing about the G lenses is you can get the Techart adapter, which provides AF, along with being super small and light. Not the worlds fastest AF, but works pretty well, and it does have a small dial for manual focus should you want to
millsart wrote:
Other nice thing about the G lenses is you can get the Techart adapter, which provides AF, along with being super small and light. Not the worlds fastest AF, but works pretty well, and it does have a small dial for manual focus should you want to
the manual focus on that little dial actually works better than most of the manual focus adapters (they tend to be jerky) because it is powered.
sebboh wrote: millsart wroteOther nice thing about the G lenses is you can get the Techart adapter, which provides AF, along with being super small and light. Not the worlds fastest AF, but works pretty well, and it does have a small dial for manual focus should you want tothe manual focus on that little dial actually works better than most of the manual focus adapters (they tend to be jerky) because it is powered.
I do wish it was slightly larger of dial, but it really beats the Fotodiox/Metabones/Kipon alternatives which tend to bind up, and also just get so darn big. Metabones is pretty smooth just because the ring is so big you have more rotational force with it, but kind of gets in the way of gripping the camera.
The Techart stuff isn't cheap by any means, but really neither is any other quality adapter, and for $150 extra your getting much smaller size and the option of AF.
Only real downside in my mind is that its such a PITA to mount G lenses onto an adapter that you will want an adapter for each lens, and that can get a little pricey
55/17 is pretty decent though I've never been a fan of the 58/1.4, I find it kind of nervous, and nothing like the 58/1.2 (which you can't get sub $200 most likely)
millsart wrote:
Other nice thing about the G lenses is you can get the Techart adapter, which provides AF, along with being super small and light. Not the worlds fastest AF, but works pretty well, and it does have a small dial for manual focus should you want to
I was actually looking at those for a couple months now. I was gonna drop the ball and pick up the G 90mm because it's cheap which is why I asked about it. Images I've seen all have been pretty nice. I also like the 40mmish fl which is why i was interested in the 45mm. I was just wondering what he liked about the lens what he didn't like..
My A7 and cv 15mm should be here within a week or so the seller said. Customs from Canada can hold things up
The A7 I don't like the AF system too much but I'll get over that I'm sure
Dpedraza wrote:
I was considering the G lenses for the A7 do you like them much? I was looking at possibly 35mm but I wanted the 45mm and 90mm
Optically I like G45 and G90 very much, the rendering style is like designed according to my preferences; look on focus plane, focus to boke transitions and boke character are all just like I prefer them to be. With modern 9 blade aperture these would be close to perfect for my work.
I have been evaluating few normal lenses (ZE1.4/50, ZE2/50, C/Y1.4/50, C/Y1.7/50, FE1.8/55, Rokkor 1.2/58, Leica-R 2/50) to use with A7 and A7r on 2014 "shooting season", once it finally starts. And I'm quite convinced that my 2014 normal lens will be G45. Only bigger optical issues are harsh boke wide open and quite slow maximum aperture. As short tele G90 is clearly my choice unless I know that I need close focusing, when there are few lenses, which will focus closer (e.g. Leica-R 2.8/90 and Voigtländer APO 3.5/90).
However I'm sure I wouldn't care much about either of the lens if I would be shooting handheld - or I would need to transfer these lenses to some helicoid lens body. Focusing is quite annoying with the adapter; placement, feel and smoothness of focus ring all suck, and suck badly. However in tripod it's less of a problem.
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/90 G @ f/4, 1/320s, Sony A7 @ ISO 100, B+W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer 46mm
Incredible 3D in the above image, Samuli! And that at f4, too?! WOW...
Have you ever used a Contax Planar 100 f2? I have one coming this weekend, and everything I've read on the lens, is that it is fantastic!
Gregg
Greggf wrote:
Incredible 3D in the above image, Samuli! And that at f4, too?! WOW...
Thanks. Not so much 3D to my eyes, just subject separation from fore/background. Subject is so small and that there isn't enough pixels to form clear shape and volume of the subject, no 3D for me. But we never got in agreement what is 3D (definition), and we started arguing about it already over 10 years ago here...
PS. One practical "trick"; with almost all lenses you get more subject to back/foreground separation when you close down the lens 1-2 stops (unless you shoot Otus 55 or APO 2/135 kind of lenses). Subject separation doesn't only come from blur, it also comes from contrast. When you close down the contrast in focus plane increases, and therefore you will get more "contrast separation" - also your lens may have smoother boke closed down; not the quantity but quality... I prefer lenses having weak overall contrast in boke areas, and almost all Zeiss G, C/Y and ZE/ZF lenses do this (maybe also ZM, don't know them so well) - opposite examples are Zeiss FE35 and FE55, their boke contrast is annoying large.
Greggf wrote:
Have you ever used a Contax Planar 100 f2? I have one coming this weekend, and everything I've read on the lens, is that it is fantastic!
I haven't had privilege to own Contax 2/100. That lens seems to have lots of "magic". I shoot from 2008 to 2013 a lot with ZF and ZE series Makro-Planar 2/100, even it never really worked for me. I'm pretty sure I would have liked more C/Y 2/100. "Mathematically" and in all kind of tests the new version is "better", but rendering style perspective I have seen 100 nice (from rendering style point of view, not necessarily art perspective) photos from C/Y version for every nice photo from ZE/ZF-versions. When APO 2/135 become available it replaced MP 2/100 in my use, and I don't think I have since even shoot single frame with MP 2/100.
