Your'e killing me! A big reason why I went the A7r route is to save $$$ over the Leica option. Yet the only UWA lens so far that keeps wowing me is the 16-18-21 WATE. Argh!!
BTW your pic is great!
Dave
Toothwalker wrote:
A blur disk diameter of 60 to 70 microns is not that much bigger than expected. At f/11, the most probable cause is measurement errors (subject distance, f-number, ...). If you are performing a new test, you may also want to focus the Planars at full aperture, and closed down by a few stops, to investigate the effect of focus shift.
Thanks again for your comments. I'm trying to unfreeze my fingers (we finally got winter) after shooting all the aperture series after that I'll start to import today's test photos. I did focus ZE-Planar focus shift compensated as I have always done (focused at shooting aperture until f/2.8, then used the f/2.8 focus until f/16). And G-Planar f/2 with f/2, and checked focus f/2.8 but most cased didn't notice focus shift, if I wasn't sure I re-focused with f/2.8 and then shot rest of the aperture series with f/2 or f/2.8 focus. I don't think there is focus shift in G45.
Yes, 60-70 microns (considering measurement errors) is not much. However I still can't figure out why the perceived DOF is so small compared to what I expected at f/11. Hopefully today's test photos will give resolution to my dilemma. I shoot so rarely at f/11, so it's possible that I remember the back bokeh blurriness level wrong.
dbehrens wrote:
Your'e killing me! A big reason why I went the A7r route is to save $$$ over the Leica option. Yet the only UWA lens so far that keeps wowing me is the 16-18-21 WATE. Argh!!
BTW your pic is great!
Dave
-- I suspect any competent 21mm could take that pic. After all, it if F8. Certainly, a Zeiss ZE or ZF 21 would do as well or better. The Leica is more compact and is also one of the best performing zooms. It is a bit tricky to focus (in low light) but for me, the small form factor with very fine quality in a small size and over a useful range make it the best current option. If you want absolute best/fastest at a given aperture or if you want tilt and shift, there are sonewhat better options, but not smaller ones. Will be interesting to see what native mount options come.
Here are some pics taken at 80mm and 200mm from the Shard in London on the a7 with a Canon FDn L 80-200/4 at f5.6 or 8. Despite the fact that the subject was filtered by a UV filter and also the glass window of the Shard you can see that the resolution is quite remarkable.
dbehrens wrote:
Your'e killing me! A big reason why I went the A7r route is to save $$$ over the Leica option. Yet the only UWA lens so far that keeps wowing me is the 16-18-21 WATE. Argh!!
BTW your pic is great!
Dave
I was wowed by it too, until I started comparing 100% views against 100% views from my 21 and 24mm Olympus OM lenses on the A7r. I think the WATE may be one of the best options at 16mm and perhaps 18mm but once you get into more 'normal' UWA, there are other options that aren't only smaller but are also two stops faster, such as the OM 21 1:2.
But I have to admit the WATE is pretty impressive - just not $6,500 impressive (for me).
Pixel peeping boke from various Planars and Sonnars half of the evening; starts to get boring. Have to continue on that next week...
Today there was first time for months blue sky visible tens of minutes (maybe close to few hours), shutter speeds were insane fast, sure the snow also helped. Hopefully next weekend has also great weather!
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2/45 G @ f/11, 1/10s, A7 @ ISO 100 (no polarizer)
So far, i am very pleased with the A7r. Looking at some of the images in this thread is inspiring. Thanks to all those up north who give trees and moss their due.
house that lost it's porch in hurricane Irene. A7r with 25mm Zf.1
Luvwine wrote: -- I suspect any competent 21mm could take that pic. After all, it if F8. Certainly, a Zeiss ZE or ZF 21 would do as well or better. The Leica is more compact and is also one of the best performing zooms. It is a bit tricky to focus (in low light) but for me, the small form factor with very fine quality in a small size and over a useful range make it the best current option. If you want absolute best/fastest at a given aperture or if you want tilt and shift, there are sonewhat better options, but not smaller ones. Will be interesting to see what native mount options come. ...Show more →
Hmmm - not sure if its or .
Its the combination of wow-factor and weight that keeps going through my head. If I were to buy a Metabones III adapter (150g?) to adapt my 21ZE (720g) I expect the IQ on the A7r would be at least as good - if not better than a 21mm WATE. I've already tried my 21ZE on the A7r with just a plain non-EF adapter and what it shot (I'm guessing at f/2.8) was great. My Oly 21mm f/3.5 at 180g does not shoot bad at all - but it doesn't have the wow of a 21mm distagon.
Anyway - for me its a wait and see what UWA native mounts will be offered - unless I see a killer deal on the 16-18-21.
Actually the business case is not all that bad for the WATE. My 21mm ZE was 1840 USD and 720g, its 18mm little brother is 1400 USD and 472g, Zeiss does not have a 16 but its 15mm is 2950 and 820g. Therefore for UWAs with a genuine wow-factor you could have a Leica 16, 18 and 21mm for about 5450 USD and 330g (plus adapter) - or you could adapt the Zeiss 21, 18 and 15 mm for about 7000 USD, which weighs 2012g (plus a 400 USD adapter at 150 or so grams).
Hopefully Sony/Zeiss will provide a killer UWA zoom at half the price of a Leica WATE!
Dave
PS: The great news is that the examples being shown on this thread are getting better and better!
Visiting The Netherlands this week for business and took a couple of extra days for sightseeing. Here are some from the Grand Places in Brussels. All but the second are the A7R with the Olympus OM 21/3.5
-- I suspect any competent 21mm could take that pic. After all, it if F8. Certainly, a Zeiss ZE or ZF 21 would do as well or better. The Leica is more compact and is also one of the best performing zooms. It is a bit tricky to focus (in low light) but for me, the small form factor with very fine quality in a small size and over a useful range make it the best current option. If you want absolute best/fastest at a given aperture or if you want tilt and shift, there are sonewhat better options, but not smaller ones. Will be interesting to see what native mount options come. 
. 
