That ZM 18mm Distagon is pretty fine in many respects, has a spectacular centre but quite a drop of performance out wide, looks like astigmatism. This fall-off will show as loss of contrast and increasing blur. So the amazing centre would just raise expectations...
As a long term Contax (Yashica) user I was pleased to come across this amazing resource - a 127 page thread on CY lenses by of all people RED users. They love them for the crazy performance, low contrast and understated rendering.
'Contax lenses became Zeiss’s flagship 35mm stills lenses. They were a massive hit when they launched in ‘75, and were fabricated until 2005 (when they were promptly tweaked and re-badged as ZF/ZE’s in 2006).
Clearly Leica freaked the f*** out when these were released, because the next year Leica released their “R” line in 1976. For the next 20 years, Contax and Leica R would slug it out once again for optical supremacy. If you look at their “lines”, you’ll notice lots of similarities. Both have a 35-70 zoom, etc, etc.'
'In terms of a “look”, we’ve shot with both and there is a clear difference to me. Leica R’s are much prettier. They have more saturated colors, deeper blacks. If that’s your deal, then you will love Leica R’s. They also look more modern and clean.
Contax is more low-con, and more organic, to my eye. I prefer it, cuz there’s an honesty there I appreciate.. Things can still look beautiful, but Zeiss’s philosophy is not to make things pretty, but to be true. So I respond to that more. Also the low-con coating does give you more latitude.
We noticed this specifically on a shoot where we mixed Leica R’s and Contax’s, and the Contax’s def gave us about a stop extra in latitude. The Contax don’t look vintage to me, but they also don’t look modern. I know “organic” is a hackneyed term, but it fits.'
Coming from a 5D Mk1 and Panasonic G2, I'm pretty happy with the A7's performance.
I'd been using these two gigs as a bit of an experiment to see how well I could do without autofocus in conditions like these, with a view to ditching the 5D and the remainder my EF lenses. It's looking pretty positive, IMHO.
I've been following and enjoying this thread since it started, thanks for all the great photos everyone! I picked up my A7R last week in Bangkok and have been able to shoot around 100 photos so far. Here are a few of my favorites from the week, hope you enjoy!
The first two are shot with the Canon FDn 50 1.2 @ 1.2
Thanks Musicman! Would love to see more from the OM 135. I just ordered the f/2.8 version along with the 24mm. I had been looking at an FD 135/2, but didn't want another adapter and the extra 300g.
Here is some more from Shanghai with the A7 and CV Nokton 50/1.1
kroyston wrote:
Thanks Musicman! Would love to see more from the OM 135. I just ordered the f/2.8 version along with the 24mm. I had been looking at an FD 135/2, but didn't want another adapter and the extra 300g.
I have the f/3.5 rather than the 2.8, but I've been very pleasantly surprised by it, even wide open it's sharp with minimal [LO]CA, and it is wonderfully compact and light.
ebookman wrote:
All of these images are along the coast of Northern California and are taken with an A7r and Minolta Zoom MD 35-70 mm Macro f/3.5
Nice! Did you use a polarizer for the last two shots? I'm asking because certain lenses seem to give a rendering that makes them look like that without a filter. Sort of enhancing colors in an odd but pleasing way. I've mostly seen this with Leica lenses, but also with some Zeiss and OM glass.
I think you'll be pleased with the OM 135mm 2.8 -- here's a shot at f4 or f5.6 from last night in very low magenta light taken about 10 minutes after sunset.
There's no shortage of 135's to try on the A7(r) -- it's probably the second most common focal length after 50mm in my lens collection. And they're almost all terrific -- it's an easy focal length to design. I suspect that after I've tried them all my favorites will end up being the EF 135mm f2L for it's overall excellence, the Sony STF 135mm for it's unique look and incredible quality (at the cost of low light transmission), and the CY Zeiss 135mm f2.8 for it's size, detail, contrast and rich colors. But that's all speculation at this point.
But there's no doubt the OM is nice on the A7R -- small, light, well balanced, smooth to operate, nice built in hood etc.
