I'm contemplating buying an A7 or A7r to complement/perhaps replace my OM-D outfit for landscape work. I've been impressed by your images with FD lenses, but notice that your more recent images seem to be more with Zeiss glass. I would be interested in any assessment you might have on their relative merits - some of your pics with the FD 100 are stunning, but it also looks like your Distagon is performing very well. I'd been thinking of gradually getting a set of FD 24/2, 50/1.4 and either the 85/1.8 or the 100/2. I already have an FD Apo-lanthar 180 and an FD 300/4L. I also have some Nikon glass 35/2.8 PC and 28/3.5 but would prefer to stick with one adapter (FD?) while I explore. Any guidance from you and the other experienced hands in this forum would be really welcome.
FD lenses work very well on the A7's. The advantage also is that you can work with just a regular (cheap) adapter, no inner light reflection issues especially with longer FL lenses, because the chrome parts are on top of the adapter.
And the 20/2.8 is almost the only wide angle with no issues on the A7r. The 100/2 is an exceptional good lens even though it isn't even an L lens. The same counts for the 24/2 and 135/2.
I red users reviews of the 24/2 whom prefer it above the far more expensive 24/1.4 L lens, and it is a lot smaller and cheaper.
Contax Zeiss lenses are great as well and I am happy I have a lot of them, the 18 Distagon is also a great wide angle with almost no issues on the A7r. I use them a lot more now because I finally found a good all black adapter from Kipon for half the price of the Novoflex. And the 100-300 is a lovely Tele with the only disadvantage that it has no tripod mount for that you need the Novoflex adapter and buy the tripod mount for it but it sets you back more then € 200,
Anyway you can't go wrong with most FD lenses. I don't have any of their zooms but Philip's 80-200 L seems to work fine. I heard the 17mm is not that good so I stayed away from that. Oh yes I do have one zoom the 20-35 L which I like much as well!
I have more brands of lenses but you need all black adapters for the longer FL lenses starting at about 85mm. The cheap ones from my NEX-7 are not sufficient.
Hope this helps. BTW for landscape work I would go for the A7r.
I almost don't do anymore flowers but yesterday I made a stroll in the neighbourhood with this dreamy lens. Some are with the Minolta close up lens no 2 on top. Can't remember which ones.
I have my fingers, and toes, and eyebrows crossed that I get to pick up a Zeiss 100/2 for sale - unfortunately I'll have to sell off my 90-R and Fe35 to pay for it, but I'm definitely rebuying the FE35! (I love the 90-R also, but will just use the 100/2 as my portrait lens too)
Phillip, your last series (butterflies & stones with moving water) are simply stunning...
Compliments everyone, this thread is moving veeeeery fast.
Thanks also to Michiel for the FD lenses considerations... I'm very tempted about FDn 20mm
Hope to show you soon some pictures taken with my new entry (suspence)
navmannz wrote:
........ but would prefer to stick with one adapter (FD?) while I explore.
TBH John I don't get this although I've seen a few people say it. If you are buying a Metabones then I understand not being willing to splash out on more at that price, but many adaptors (and very good ones such as the Fotodiox) are only around $30-40 so you buy an adaptor and leave it on the lens. many of the guys posting superb shots in this thread are even using the $10 Chinese ones. Choose the glass you want, don't let the adaptor choose it for you.
Frogfish wrote:
TBH John I don't get this although I've seen a few people say it. If you are buying a Metabones then I understand not being willing to splash out on more at that price, but many adaptors (and very good ones such as the Fotodiox) are only around $30-40 so you buy an adaptor and leave it on the lens. many of the guys posting superb shots in this thread are even using the $10 Chinese ones. Choose the glass you want, don't let the adaptor choose it for you.
Yeah I'll +1 that I went with a targeted-lens approach so I shoot Pentax, FD, Leica-R, Minolta, and FE. The only adapter that really cost me is the Metabones R to E mount adapter ($99), and it fits so snugly that it would be a pain to swap it out all the time.
For every mount except the Minolta (which I own several Minolta MD lenses), I just leave the adapter on the lens. I do swap the Minolta adapter out, but that's generally because I choose just 1 MD lens to shoot with during a given day - if I shot multiple Minolta lenses at once, I'd probably just get them all cheap adapters.
I can even (snugly) carry my A7 and 4 lenses (one mounted) in a Think Tank Retrospective 5, which isn't a large shoulder bag at all...the adapters really don't pose the problem.
A7 with Nikon 105 f1.8 AIS @ 1.8 (My Mother-in-law) Needed a headshot quickly and couldn't find any real photographers, so she asked me (a novice). While taking a few, I tried some wide open. in retrospect, I should have stopped down a bit.
A7 with FE 55 f/1.8 @ 1.8 Alaskan Lupine
Background: The A7 is the first non-iphone camera I've ever owned. Having tons of fun learning about photography. I know these samples don't compare to those others have posted, but they are mostly sooc, very light PP and cropping. Love these older MF lenses.
These are taken with A7r and the Sigma Super-wide 24mm f/2.8 Macro. While I do not like this lens for landscape (my Minolta MD 24mm f/2.8 is significantly better) it is quite handy for macros. Probably shot around f/8. Dave
FD lenses work very well on the A7's. ....
...
Hope this helps. BTW for landscape work I would go for the A7r.
Kind regards, Michiel
Well that's all very reassuring - appreciate your time very much. Hopefully I'll have some evidence of their performance to contribute here in due course.
I went with a targeted-lens approach so I shoot Pentax, FD, Leica-R, Minolta, and FE. The only adapter that really cost me is the Metabones R to E mount adapter ($99), and it fits so snugly that it would be a pain to swap it out all the time.
