p.3 #3 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
kroyston wrote:
There seams to be much more interest in the 21/3.5 than the 24/2.8. Is this mainly due to the focal length or is there a marginal difference in performance to be aware of?
For me it's FOV. I would probably like the 18 quite well, too (I have Samyang 14 instead).
p.3 #4 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
My 21/3.5 is the multi-coated version. I had a 24/2.8 single coated version and there is a noticeable difference in flare resistance. Both of them get some weird reflections and ghosting with light sources in the frame sometimes.
The 24mm is better for across the frame sharpness, and slightly better in the corners. But for landscape work I didn't like the single coated version.
p.3 #10 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
kroyston wrote:
There seams to be much more interest in the 21/3.5 than the 24/2.8. Is this mainly due to the focal length or is there a marginal difference in performance to be aware of?
AhamB wrote:
I think the 24/2.8 actually performs a bit better than the 21/3.5, but perhaps more people just like the extra wideness of the 21mm.
Steve Spencer wrote:
+1
sebboh wrote:
+2
edit: i hate the fact that quotes now only include the most recent quote.
+3 ... a little "un-nesting" can fix that quote thing when it's worth the effort.
Michelle ... no worries at tangential. +1 @ the vibe of the metal hood. I've got one for my 24/2.8 and it just feels "more right" to shoot with, than a rubber hood that I've also got.
imo, there are many more 24mm/25mm lenses out there than there are 21mm lenses, so even thought the Oly 24 is meritable, you don't hear quite as much about it. The press about the Oly 21/3.5 is that many hold it to be the next alternative to the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 in an almost David & Goliath kind of thing. Not saying that the Oly slays the Zeiss, but they come at things from a different size approach and both can hold their own for their given size/weight/cost ... with different drawing styles.
Personally, I'm not a fan of Zeiss mustache distortion (or the massiveness of the Distagon), so I've got the Oly 21/3.5 in my bag (and a Nikon 20/2.8 AIS for when I want a different drawing style).
Some interesting reading on 24mm's ... kinda old by now, but it does a nice job of showing the Oly 24/2.8 approach to things so you kinda understand Oly's vs others across the frame.
p.3 #11 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
I gave my OM-->Nex adapter away together with the Nex setup two years ago. I now use an OM-->µ4/3-->Nex adapter combo. Obviously I need a new OM-->Nex adapter.
What's a good adapter today? Do you know of an adapter where infinity is very close to infinity and which is tight but not too tight?
It's great once again having access to the 50/2.0 Macro together with a good FF sensor. There is something with the rendering from the Zuiko lens that's pleasing to my eyes. It's not the best performer in one single way - it's "just" very good.
p.3 #12 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
Jonas B wrote
It's not the best performer in one single way - it's "just" very good.
I think that is indicative of Oly's approach to things and why so many people overlook Oly's at times.
This is somewhat illustrated in world cup 24mm shootout, both in the preliminary rounds and the final.
So far, I'm diggin' what the A7/A7R seems to be extracting out of the Oly's from the few images I've seen. Thanks to all those posting already.
BTW, I use Fotodiox Pro adapters ... I've got 5 different versions (for EF mount), @ Oly, Nikon, C/Y, Leica, Mamiya M645 and none have ever let me down. Not sure about the "new world" of adapters relative to the A7/A7R though.
p.3 #13 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
Jonas B wrote:
What's a good adapter today? Do you know of an adapter where infinity is very close to infinity and which is tight but not too tight?
I got myself a new Novoflex for a reasonable price (~1k SEK) from a german Ebay seller, and it's very nice. I thought it was too short when I used the longer lenses, but the 21/3.5 actually is nearly spot on at infinity, so I guess it was a wise thing to do it a bit shorter than optimal for most lenses.
For my Nikon lenses I bought a Metabones adapter and was charged with customs duty and tax (moms) after I recieved it. So it's not always best to buy from Asia, even if the prices are generally lower.
I measured both adapters with high precision calipers. The Metabones is ~0.05 mm thicker on one side (which fortunately doesn't seem to matter for IQ), while the Novoflex is within 0.01 mm. I've also got a Metabones M adapter which is also within 0.01 mm, so I don't know if Novoflex is generally better, but is seems to be a bit better built and also looks and feels nicer.
----------------------
Edit: P.O.S. shot with the 21/3.5 single coated @ f/3.5 just to show the minimal distortion and the blooming around highlights.
p.3 #14 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
Wohoo Martin... and thank you.
I don't need precision for SEK 1.000 in this case. Maybe it's my feeling against Novoflex speaking. When they released their M-mount to µ4/3 adapter (early 2009) they got it wrong not less than twice; first they made the adapter too thick so focusing at infinity wasn't possible. They exchanged the adapters for free (well, it took them three weeks to fulfill their commitment) and so I got a too thin adapter instead. I could live with that but I still have the box speaking about "super precision".
I like the Metabones M-->Nex adapter. I don't have any electronic caliper but it served me well and the mounting plates are chromed at both sides.
What do you think about the M Rokkor 40/2 now. Is it still a favourite? I ask as the focal length is right for me and I like the size of the lens of course. The Zuiko 50/2 Macro is a bit big with the adapter. I'm going off topic here, sorry for that, but hope it is OK to ask you if you got any R0kkor 40/2 images on-line?
For now I think I'll just buy a couple of cheapo OM-->Nex adapters and hope one of them is OK for the 24mm and the Macro.
p.3 #15 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
The 21/3.5, while a fine lens and amazingly small, is definitely not at the level of the distagon. A fairer comparison would be the 21/2 OM which really is world class and holds its own vs. Distagon 21.
p.3 #16 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
RustyBug wrote:
(...)
BTW, I use Fotodiox Pro adapters ... I've got 5 different versions (for EF mount), @ Oly, Nikon, C/Y, Leica, Mamiya M645 and none have ever let me down. Not sure about the "new world" of adapters relative to the A7/A7R though.
Thank you. I don't mind trying a Fotodiox. I'll buy a couple of different OM-->Nex adapters and check them out.
p.3 #17 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
Ed Sawyer wrote:
The 21/3.5, while a fine lens and amazingly small, is definitely not at the level of the distagon. A fairer comparison would be the 21/2 OM which really is world class and holds its own vs. Distagon 21.
Definitely NOT my version of the 21/2 which I reported on at length here and finally sold on! Most seem to rate the 21/3.5 higher unless you REALLY need the wider aperture.
It's an FL I rarely use, but do need occasionally, so I'm on the search again for a 21/3.5 this time. Also the A7 has my interest so this thread is helpful, thanks Rusty!
NB. The Novoflex is one of the few adapters that takes a rotatable tripod mount which is a big plus IMO, but they don't do one from EOS-EF to Alpha-E yet. (I'm hoping.)
In trawls through the web on the subject of E-mount adapters, there seem to be many more reported problems with Metabones than Novoflex.
p.3 #18 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
Jonas B wrote:
Wohoo Martin... and thank you.
I don't need precision for SEK 1.000 in this case. Maybe it's my feeling against Novoflex speaking. When they released their M-mount to µ4/3 adapter (early 2009) they got it wrong not less than twice; first they made the adapter too thick so focusing at infinity wasn't possible. They exchanged the adapters for free (well, it took them three weeks to fulfill their commitment) and so I got a too thin adapter instead. I could live with that but I still have the box speaking about "super precision".
Well, I think we could be fooled by the filter stack of the sensor, again. Even if the adapter maker does everything right according to the specs and tolerances given, chances are that it will be "off" because the register distance was originally intended to work with film. So what happens when we use different focal length lenses together with a digital sensor that acts in all sorts of ways depending on the distance from the exit pupil to the hot mirror of the sensor? I really think the only desirable property is uniform thickness around the mount, and that it must be able to focus a tiny bit past infinity to work with every single lens.
I like the Metabones M-->Nex adapter. I don't have any electronic caliper but it served me well and the mounting plates are chromed at both sides.
I don't know if chromed brass is any more durable than anodized aluminium (oxidized aluminium is extremely hard, but of course a very thin layer on the softer metal). Many of my oldish lenses with chromed brass mounts have worn through the chrome plating anyway.
What do you think about the M Rokkor 40/2 now. Is it still a favourite? I ask as the focal length is right for me and I like the size of the lens of course.
Haven't used it very much, but it's definitely not a low light lens. Wide open the outer parts of the image are terribly unsharp and spherical aberration makes any high contrast scene a mush. It clears up nicely already at f/2.8, but then one could get the FE 35 instead.
I've actually borrowed a Voigtländer 40/1.4 from a friend today, and it's better at f/1.4 than the C is at f/2. But, it has a terrible "mid field weakness" that ruins every shot of flat objects. This doesn't seem to get away with stopping down either, before you hit f/5.6 or so.
----------
I'm really excited about the OM lenses. But there is a big hole in the lineup at 35 mm, which is where I want to shoot mostly. I think I'll try the OM 35/2 despite it not being too well regarded. After all, I tend to have a different taste than most other photographers (at least here). The OM 35/2.8 gives colors to die for, but it's too slow.
p.3 #19 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
You might also try the very cheap Nikkor 35/2.8, which is much better than I expected, or the Nikkor 35/2, which is meant to be better, in case that OM doesn't work out.
p.3 #20 · Who's Got Olympus on Sony A7/A7R Images ???
On film, with Nikon F2's and 3, I always REALLY liked my Nikkor 35/2, (long since sold), though it isn't as highly thought of for Digital. (Sorry, off subject!)
I'll post when I get a chance to use them.
I think I'll try the OM 35/2 despite it not being too well regarded. After all, I tend to have a different taste than most other photographers (at least here). The OM 35/2.8 gives colors to die for, but it's too slow.