Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Makten wrote:
But if the G is good I might try one. I think my main small kit will be OM 28/2, FE 55 and something around 90. I have dozens of other lenses just for fun also. 
G has the old Contax shutter; if you shoot images showing highlight shape then you may not like it. It has rounded blades, and aperture is actually very round at f/4 and not horrible f/5.6, but on f/8 and f/11 the boke highlights will definitely look hexaconal.
Also as reported from other teles there are really weird reflections sometimes. Once I get the photos processed, I'll ask if someone knows cure for those in the "Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless"-thread. What I'm seeing is definitely not light leak. Preparing images takes some time as I have only MS Paint and ImageMagics as tools... However I think it's more generic issue, and not G90 issue, sensor is so reflective in A7 that both of my Nikon shift lenses are useless since I cannot add non-reflective material to the surface what causes the issue (it's the surface which slide visible when you shift the lens).
Makten wrote:
I just briefly tried my OM 135/3.5 and found it useless for handheld shooting. It's so light that it's close to impossible to hold still. The IQ was really good though, with very Leica like colors. I think I'd want a zoom for anything longer than ~100 mm because of framing difficulties with long primes.
Interesting, I have OM 135/3.5 as well, I have never shoot with it as it came with "bundle" of OM lenses and I wasn't interested about this one at the time... I don't yet have OM-NEX adapter, but I guess I have to get it to test this one and 24mm.
For me handhelding only possible with 1.4/35ZE and 2.8/21ZE plus maybe 1.4/85ZE (=lenses big enough due to which I can make the whole apparatus hold mainly by left hand, then concentrate pressing the numb buttons with right hand). If I would care about handheld shooting I think I would try the vertical grip if it would make the ergonomics better.
Makten wrote:
By the way, I saw that your conclusion about the FE 55/1.8 was that it had some "problems" with the bokeh at f/1.8, and then you compared to the ZE 50/1.4, but stopped down. Have you tried the FE at medium large apertures? As you know, most problems diminish when stopping down.
Personally I find the bokeh terrific, especially at large distances (~5-10 meters). Haven't seen any other ~50 mm prime do nearly as good, perhaps except for the Planar. But on the other hand, it's not nearly as sharp at f/1.8 or thereabout.
I'm no optical expert, but I have lured out few times the same kind of superugly boke as with FE35. For some reason in FE35 it doesn't improve by closing down the aperture, before DOF reaches the area. The symptom is exactly same with FE55, but
a) doesn't happen as often (the margins are smaller for "correct" conditions)
b) when it happens the fuzziness is less than FE35 on similar situation
Lloyd called FE35 boke issue "cross-eyed bokeh" (and also wrote about it improving less than other optical issues by closing down), I don't know is the FE55 boke issue same or something else. It looks the same and behaves the same.
Example of FE35 and FE55 boke issue, same rock (height about 2.3m/7feet), as resizing hides the issue these look ok:
FE55 full image
FE35 full image
100% crops:
Disclaimer: check your health insurance, you may need eye doctor after seeing the crops if your eyes are bleeding badly...
FE55 crop
FE35 crop
(Apologies for cr#ppy quality, images are direct exports from cr#ppy Sony RAW converter without any adjustments and crops with MS Paint as I did these for one email discussion about this topic, not for forum posting)
Worst about this boke issue is that it's really hard to see from camera display, but it ruins even small prints (this shows really ugly already in A4 size). This never should harm posting for web, unless one starts to go full-HD resolution, when it starts to show.
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE (referred as "Planar" below) is better @ f/2.8 until aperture in which FE55 DOF reaches the ugly boke spot at medium/large distances, when combine many factors (and only then) and boke quality is important for viewer:
- user has been able to compensate Planar focus shift
- conditions are correct for super ugly boke to hit FE55
- focusing distance is big enough for Planar to shine (over 3m for A7, maybe over 5m for A7r)
I also did today more tests between Planar and FE55 regards color, backlight handling, etc. As overall FE55 beats Planar in all my forest scenarios except when the crappy boke hits FE55. From rendering style point of view there are small differences in transfer from focus to boke. Planar rendering style feature I will be missing most is the small contrast on boke, as where FE55 has fairly large contrast in boke. As overall I think it's time for me to retire Planar and start using FE55 as my main "normal lens".
Samuli
|
90 mm is pretty much ideal for my short tele needs and currently I have the Leica 90/4 Elmar-C that is fantastic, but too slow and gives low contrast. Gorgeous colors though. Next step up is my Nikkor 105/2.5 that is very good but a tad too large with adapter on the a7. The same goes for the Nikkor 85/1.8 K. 
