lostinjapan, the difference in contrast is striking, assuming that the workflow and camera settings are identical for both shots. The ZM even appears to have a tendency to crush blacks in such scenes.
Makten (or anyone else who has an opinion) - if you were to do a direct comparison of the 50 MPZE and 55 1.8 FE, what would you discuss?
Anyone have the A99, what is the focus speed/accuracy like of the A7 or A7r vs the A99?
(I've used the A99 cameras for a few weddings now, and I'm convinced they're better for me then Canon or Nikon has ever been, but I do have a few read/write/startup issues with the A99 that I wish Sony would address in a firmware update maybe, as I have three bodies and don't really wanna have to spring for something like the A100 or whatever).
adamdewilde wrote:
Makten (or anyone else who has an opinion) - if you were to do a direct comparison of the 50 MPZE and 55 1.8 FE, what would you discuss?
I never do direct comparisons, so I would just shoot the lenses as usual and see what happens. Not owning the MP I can't speak for its performance, but from what I've seen I'd guess it's better close up and probably gives nastier bokeh when shooting more distant stuff.
The FE is a very nice compromise that does very good most of the time. The worst drawbacks I've seen this far is LoCA and iffy bokeh in the corners sometimes (but that goes for 9 out of 10 lenses in this range). On the other hand, bokeh is extremely smooth over most of the frame, even at ~10 meters distance. I've only seen that from medium format before, and the RX1 Sonnar.
ukkisavosta wrote:
lostinjapan, the difference in contrast is striking, assuming that the workflow and camera settings are identical for both shots. The ZM even appears to have a tendency to crush blacks in such scenes.
Jaakko
Thanks, the processing was essentially the same, but I have noticed the ZM Planar needs to be exposed about 1 stop greater than the Nokton at the same aperture. And, I am pretty sure I forgot to compensate for that difference when I took these. I will try again tomorrow or the day after and try to get some better results.
my a7 has begun turning itself off after 3-20 sec. for 31/2 weeks no problems, it is exhibiting same performance with 3 different "official" sony batteries and 3 different SD cards, anyone had a similar experience? thank s for help
Carsten_R wrote:
A7R with MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 35/3.5, ISO 160 1/160 sec f:8
Looks good for that lens, Carsten. Make sure you check all corners. I had a Perar 35 that I used on my NEX-5N, and it had noticeable decentering even on aps-c.
douglasf13 wrote:
Looks good for that lens, Carsten. Make sure you check all corners. I had a Perar 35 that I used on my NEX-5N, and it had noticeable decentering even on aps-c.
Tank you, Doug.
I had luck with my copy - good to hear your experience (sitting on the fence for a Perar 28...)
There's a tiny bit of camera shake here and DOF is not enough to cover everything. But you can see how extremely well corrected the lens is for aberrations. Really no need for stopping down at all.
Makten wrote:
I never do direct comparisons, so I would just shoot the lenses as usual and see what happens. Not owning the MP I can't speak for its performance, but from what I've seen I'd guess it's better close up and probably gives nastier bokeh when shooting more distant stuff.
The FE is a very nice compromise that does very good most of the time. The worst drawbacks I've seen this far is LoCA and iffy bokeh in the corners sometimes (but that goes for 9 out of 10 lenses in this range). On the other hand, bokeh is extremely smooth over most of the frame, even at ~10 meters distance. I've only seen that from medium format before, and the RX1 Sonnar....Show more →
Hi Makten, thanks for chiming in... Sorry I thought I remembered you had the MPZE. I'm seeing a lot of positive stuff from the 55 1.8, but then I'll happen upon a few bad pictures (not compositionally) but like really soft, or flat, lack of color, kinda dull.. So always good to hear from people who own the lens.
I'm working my way back through the forums now, hopefully I'll see more amazing samples
Adam, I tried the lens, and, while I felt it has many virtues (sharpness, 3D, close-up performance), I also saw washed-out, dull colors, and I did not buy. It could be my sample, and of course, great photographers can make great pics with it, like Martin, but alas, not me.
adamdewilde wrote:
Hi Makten, thanks for chiming in... Sorry I thought I remembered you had the MPZE.
I do have the ZF 50/1.4 Planar, which of course also is interesting to compare with. In that case the difference might be even greater. While the Planar kind of sucks wide open and close to MFD, it's incredibly sharp and detailed from f/2.5 and a few meters away. I think "detail" is the key word here, because the Sonnar is more coarse and brutal than the delicate Planar. Bokeh is worlds apart between them and I like both.
I'm seeing a lot of positive stuff from the 55 1.8, but then I'll happen upon a few bad pictures (not compositionally) but like really soft, or flat, lack of color, kinda dull.. So always good to hear from people who own the lens.
I'd say that comes from people that should try to learn more about PP. You can make the best lenses in the world look like shit if you stick to "straight out of camera" (or even worse; "straight out of raw converter") and downsample in one single step without sharpening at all.
Just to make you see what I mean, this is what one of my images would have looked like with "no PP" or simply raw:
Looks good, no? And the same photo PP:d (and a bit oversharpened by Flickr at the same size)...
Martin, I understand your point, and, obviously I fall under your category of "know nothing about PP". That said, there are lenses that do not present such a PP challenge to the likes of me, including, in my case, the FE35 f:2.8. Unless you tell me that, to you, they are one and the same, color-wise. In which cse, I need to get back to the drawing board.
