All hand held w/ IS, no shutter vibr. First shot was w/o TC, the rest were w/ TC (I should have taken out, kept it for closer shots). Shutter speeds are:
70mm @ 1/100sec ISO 100
1.4 x 160mm @ 1/200sec & 1/160sec & iso 4000, 5000, 6400
1.4 x 70mm @ 1/80sec & iso 3200
I tried it before w/ nex 6 but I never used it. 70-300IS (non-L) balances nicely w/ A7R. At home I even manage 1/15sec @ 300mm at close distances, but not always.
AGeoJO wrote:
And no shutter vibration? What was the shutter speed, please?
Here are a couple of mine, all with A7r and Samyang 14mm 2.8 (nikon version mounted on a nikon F metabones adapter).
I think all pictures were shot at f/16, all were on tripod with camera triggered by remote shutter release.
The lens is very sharp with excellent colors, minimal CA and almost no flare. The ugly distortion is easy to fix with the proper camera raw profile.
My only problem with the setup is the adapter (I think...), I don't think it's perfectly straight, the top corners of the image have a slight mush to them, not sure by how much but the plane of focus is surely not completely parallel to the sensor plane...
Pictures taken at f/2.8, with focus on infinity, almost have a tilt shift effect!
Anyway, I decided that going through various adapters is far too frustrating and costly, I'll hang with this setup until something from Sony comes out...
Astragony wrote:
My only problem with the setup is the adapter (I think...), I don't think it's perfectly straight, the top corners of the image have a slight mush to them, not sure by how much but the plane of focus is surely not completely parallel to the sensor plane...
Did you attach the tripod plate to the camera or to the adapter? I've noticed that the bayonet springs are not sufficient to hold heavy lenses perfectly straight. No issue when handholding, but I guess it wouldn't work when using a tripod, unless it's attached to the adapter rather than to the camera.
Makten wrote:
Did you attach the tripod plate to the camera or to the adapter? I've noticed that the bayonet springs are not sufficient to hold heavy lenses perfectly straight. No issue when handholding, but I guess it wouldn't work when using a tripod, unless it's attached to the adapter rather than to the camera.
I use the adapter foot since it's arca swiss compatible, it just works well with my tripod head.
The tilt effect is really weird, if I focus at 3m, for example, the bottom corners are the mushy ones (bottom corners are usually something in the close foreground in my pictures)...
When I focus to infinity the bottom corners get tack sharp and the top ones get mushy... there is clearly something wrong with the adapter, the lens resolving power is undeniably there.
I have done a small resolution comparison using available light at apertures from 1.4 to 11 for the Minolta MC Rokkor PG F1.4 mounted to the a7 with a Novoflex adapter. This is thought to be the best variant of this lens. I am pretty impressed by the results , particularly from F2.8 to F8. Clearly, this is a short range test and infinity results may be different but it is a good indication of its resolution. The images were taken in raw and adjusted in LR5.3 for exposure and sharpness. I have made no corrections for distortion and barrel distortion is evident at the tops of the images.
Astragony wrote:
I use the adapter foot since it's arca swiss compatible, it just works well with my tripod head.
The tilt effect is really weird, if I focus at 3m, for example, the bottom corners are the mushy ones (bottom corners are usually something in the close foreground in my pictures)...
When I focus to infinity the bottom corners get tack sharp and the top ones get mushy... there is clearly something wrong with the adapter, the lens resolving power is undeniably there.
Astragony and Makten,
I am right in the middle of this as we speak. I noticed side-to-side focus differences with my Metabones EF-to-E-mount adapter, and it followed multiple EF lenses. All my tests were done with attempts to get constant focus left to right on a distant horizon. With focus peaking enabled, I could adjust focus and see the peak roll across the frame. Not good. When I removed the adapter and tested with FE 35mm, there was no issue. I just recently received another adapter for Canon FD. I plan to test all three options this weekend. I have already reached out to Metabones for help on this. It's 'good' to hear that I may not be the only one having this kind of issue.
I am right in the middle of this as we speak. I noticed side-to-side focus differences with my Metabones EF-to-E-mount adapter, and it followed multiple EF lenses. All my tests were done with attempts to get constant focus left to right on a distant horizon. With focus peaking enabled, I could adjust focus and see the peak roll across the frame. Not good. When I removed the adapter and tested with FE 35mm, there was no issue. I just recently received another adapter for Canon FD. I plan to test all three options this weekend. I have already reached out to Metabones for help on this. It's 'good' to hear that I may not be the only one having this kind of issue.
Thanks for the reply, annoyingly though, even having the metabones adapter replaced is quite costly for people like me living in europe (you end up paying a lot for shipping and customs).
On a side note: I am using some old nikon pre AI glass on the adapter as well (28mm 3.5, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 200mm 4) and these lenses don't seem to suffer as much as the samyang. The 85mm and the 200mm in particular are tack sharp across the frame when stopped down.
I really like the 14mm, wish I could use it at it's full potential.
One thing I noticed, the wider the focal length the more pronounced the effect of the adapter issue. In general, 50mm lenses or longer will not or barely show this issue. I have been trying out a few adapters of the same mount and when I get a good one with sharpness across the board, then it is a keeper. So far, I have found 2 good ones out of 6 adapters..... I am expecting another one today . We will see how that performs.
As expected, the genuine Otus and "mini Otus" (Sony 55mm f/1.8 FE ) outperformed the others. Out of curiosity, what are the shutter speed used to take those shots at wide open and at f/1.4 aperture using the Leica Noctilux and at f/1.4 using the Summilux? I am referring to model images, BTW. Thanks!
Toothwalker wrote:
Is the mechanical vignetting in the second image due to the baffle?
I do think it causes a heavier vignette. Fred is sending me a bit of the light blocking material he recommended, and I will try making a baffle with a slightly larger opening. I also think I have my baffle just slight off center, see 2nd image here - test shot, stopped down to f/8. One corner is dark. Both images A7 + OM50/1.2
. I am expecting another one today 
. We will see how that performs.
) outperformed the others. Out of curiosity, what are the shutter speed used to take those shots at wide open and at f/1.4 aperture using the Leica Noctilux and at f/1.4 using the Summilux? I am referring to model images, BTW. Thanks!
