Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 … 15 16 end

Archive 2013 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Summilux-R 35 perhaps? I have no idea how that lens performs at the borders and corners though. I think Carsten compared it to the ZF 35/1.4 and IIRC the Zeiss was a bit stronger in the corners but had a bit more CA than the Leica.

Dec 07, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

AhamB wrote:
Summilux-R 35 perhaps? I have no idea how that lens performs at the borders and corners though. I think Carsten compared it to the ZF 35/1.4 and IIRC the Zeiss was a bit stronger in the corners but had a bit more CA than the Leica.

I haven't used one, but from the Leica MTFs it has the largest zone B dip that I have seen (at f/2.8 the 40 lp/mm line actually bottoms out at zero), and the zone B dip is still quite pronounced at f/5.6.

Dec 07, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

AhamB wrote:
Summilux-R 35 perhaps? I have no idea how that lens performs at the borders and corners though. I think Carsten compared it to the ZF 35/1.4 and IIRC the Zeiss was a bit stronger in the corners but had a bit more CA than the Leica.

Here is the MTF for the Leica R 35 1.4 showing classic Leica mid field dip:

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/mtfsum.jpg

Dec 07, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Vern Dewit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

MaxBerlin wrote:
Jonas,

Lloyd is having mainly good things to say about the native 35 2.8 lens for the A7's

It's decent but it's not in the same league as the 35mm f/2 on the RX1(R). I have slight color shifts even at f/8 on mine. The CA can also get pretty bad. It's not bad enough to get rid of the lens but it does make me wish I paid about $400 less for it...

This is on the A7R btw.

Dec 07, 2013 at 12:26 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

AhamB wrote:
Summilux-R 35 perhaps? I have no idea how that lens performs at the borders and corners though. I think Carsten compared it to the ZF 35/1.4 and IIRC the Zeiss was a bit stronger in the corners but had a bit more CA than the Leica.

I don't think either the Lux or the Distagon will be as good as desired by f/2:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1190503/1#11355190

These are both character lenses with beautiful boke, but not really technically perfect and pleasing lenses from wide open, or even f/2. The RX1 lens was really special when it came out, more perfect than the usual Zeiss lenses from wide open, at the "cost" of a small amount of character.

Dec 07, 2013 at 01:57 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Steve Spencer wrote:
Looking at the Lux 35 ASPH (non-FLE), MTFs it looks like the zone B dip clears up substantially by f/5.6. Here is a link to the data sheet from Leica: (link)
Was that your experience or does it never really clear up? It seem like it might be a really good option, other than the zone B dip it seems to meet all your criteria and it is quite small and the price is even more reasonable these days.
(...)

Hi Steven and thank you for ideas. The lens never gets critically sharp from border to border. That's how it is. When it works (and you take care and fix the focus shift) the images are beautiful, really. But it is a tricky lens to use and some things aren't possible with it.

Dec 07, 2013 at 02:41 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Makten wrote:
It (the CV35/1.2) seems clearly optimized for close range photography, which I seldom do. At a few meters, it's just awful wide open (except for the middle). While oldish f/1.4 glass usually has some "glow" from spherical aberration, resolution is still there. Not so with the Nokton that gives high contrast but some sort of out-of-focus effect. It looks like you missed focus, even if you didn't.

It might be good stopped down, but then what's the point? It's a very heavy lens that feels unbalanced even compared to OM lenses sitting a lot further away from the camera.

What about Leica...Show more →

OK, thank you.
The Leica R 35mm lenses don't seem to good. I'm sure they are nice but they don't pass my list of wishes. I have never tried the Voigtländer 40/2. I'll try learn more about it. When _you_ say funky bokeh it scares me a bit though.

Dec 07, 2013 at 02:46 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Maybe the best bet is the RX1 combined with an A7 with a 75mm or 85mm lens, and wide angle in your pocket?

Dec 07, 2013 at 02:48 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

MaxBerlin wrote:
Jonas,

Lloyd is having mainly good things to say about the native 35 2.8 lens for the A7's

Thank you MaxBerlin. That lens is too expensive for the results I have seen and also too slow. I'm a sucker for fast primes and f/2.8 is dark and gloomy.

Dec 07, 2013 at 02:48 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Jonas B wrote:
When _you_ say funky bokeh it scares me a bit though.

Well, the Nokton 35/1.2 is clearly funkier unless shot fairly close. Just look at Ulriks images here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248/22#11985333

Dec 07, 2013 at 02:51 PM

MaxBerlin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

I shoot the Distagon 35mm on my NEX7 and haven't been too critical of the results. At 4.0-5.6 it does about everything right. Mine is the older C/Y German version and has the bladesaw bokeh at 2.0 and 2.8 - that's the most annoying aspect of the lens and the size and weight - but the APO 135 makes the 35mm seem small and light (as will the Otus). When walking around I'll use the Sigma 2.8 30mm more often and if the shot is important I tend to put a 21mm Distagon on and am always happy with those results.

Dec 07, 2013 at 02:58 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Here is the Ultron 40/2 @ f/2.8 on Nikon D700 (no cropping). Most of the funkyness goes away when you stop down just a tad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/DSC_3851_full_zps8136a89d.jpg

Not the RX1 Sonnar total bluuuuur, but better than any RF lens in this range that I've seen.

Edit: And if we should get into rational thoughts, I think it's a good idea to get a smallish, non-perfect lens, that could complement a larger one that is "perfect". I'll probably keep my Distagon 35/1.4 ZF for occasions when I don't care about weight and size. But the Ultron is really good for most purposes. As I've earlier stated; a better allrounder than the Voigtländer 35/1.2 (which is far from perfect) and the Voigtländer 40/1.4 (which I presume is much like the Voigtländer 35/1.4).

You just can't get it all. Unless you choose the RX1, which on the other hand is a less versatile camera.

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:01 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Makten wrote:

Well, the Nokton 35/1.2 is clearly funkier unless shot fairly close. Just look at Ulriks images here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248/22#11985333

Heh. Well, that's the 35/1.2 wide open, indeed. The top image is disturbing. But sometimes we can't get everything without some (selective) post processing.

My experience is that very fast lenses more often than not are funky, or come with limitations. Luckily we don't often need perfect images corner to corner at those speeds. The point with the CV35/1.2 may very well be that it can produce sharp images and decent bokeh stopped down, and be good in the center region at say f/1.8 and f/2.

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:10 PM

wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

I am curious about the Contax G 35/2. I like the character of the rest of the G lenses and while this is supposedly the least impressive of them I bet it's worth a try. Small, fast:ish, light and all that, focusing via the adapter.

Not that easy to find images on the net, and many analog from the old rich man cams Contax G1 and G2 which of course lacks the resolution we now crave to have @100% crop.

Middle lens here, image borrowed from photo.net

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:15 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Makten wrote:
Here is the Ultron 40/2 @ f/2.8 on Nikon D700 (no cropping). Most of the funkyness goes away when you stop down just a tad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/DSC_3851_full_zps8136a89d.jpg

Well, that is what call funky bokeh. There are those bright outer lines around the highlights causing a nervous look. A case for local blurring.

Not the RX1 Sonnar total bluuuuur, but better than any RF lens in this range that I've seen.

Edit: And if we should get into rational thoughts, I think it's a good idea to get a smallish, non-perfect lens, that could complement a larger one that is "perfect". I'll probably keep my Distagon 35/1.4 ZF for occasions when I don't care about weight and size. But the Ultron is really good for most purposes. As I've earlier stated; a better allrounder than the Voigtländer 35/1.2 (which is far from perfect) and the Voigtländer 40/1.4 (which I presume is much like the Voigtländer...Show more →

I have tried and dismissed the CV35/1.4, CV35/1.7 and 40/1.4. I like the CV35/1.2 better. If your Ultron 40/2 does the image above stopped down to f/2.8 I again have to wonder what the M Rokkor 40/2 would do at f/2.8. I'm still a bit interested in that lens which, following this line, may be an even better companion to the Distagon 35/1.4, no?

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:17 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

wfrank wrote:
I am curious about the Contax G 35/2. I like the character of the rest of the G lenses (...)

Thank you for the idea.
I think they are a mixed bunch. I don't like the 45mm. Sharp as hell but the bokeh often make me feel sick. The 90 is very good as I recall it. The 35 I don't know as I haven't tried it but I found some images and this one at flickr, by hothmonkey made me stop looking for more. Such results and the focusing system made me loose interest.

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:24 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

carstenw wrote:
Maybe the best bet is the RX1 combined with an A7 with a 75mm or 85mm lens, and wide angle in your pocket?

It may be like that. But two cameras... I'll have to get used to that thought. Maybe I'll have to bite and look up a Contax Distagon 35/1.4. Heavy stuff... but a lens always delivering.

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:26 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Jonas B wrote:
Heh. Well, that's the 35/1.2 wide open, indeed. The top image is disturbing. But sometimes we can't get everything without some (selective) post processing.

My experience is that very fast lenses more often than not are funky, or come with limitations. Luckily we don't often need perfect images corner to corner at those speeds. The point with the CV35/1.2 may very well be that it can produce sharp images and decent bokeh stopped down, and be good in the center region at say f/1.8 and f/2.

I agree. I'm not really a pixel peeper, but things like the ”midzone dip” annoys me, even if it doesn't matter very much. Anyhow, that's why I look for character rather than resolution. With that in mind I think you could be pleased with the Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH. It's got a huge dip in the MFT charts, but I've never seen it in images (haven't owned it though).

One must understand that every lens is best at a certain focus distance. I love the 50/1.4 Planar while others hate it, because I like to shoot it wide open at ~3-5 meters distance. For the same reason I think the 35/1.2 Nokton is awful, despite it being stellar for portraits and other stuff at ~1-1.5 meters. Or of course stopped down, but then again; why such a fast and heavy lens?

wfrank wrote:
I am curious about the Contax G 35/2.

Me too!

From what I've seen, it gives a very nice "Sonnarish" bokeh (like the ZM 50/1.5) in the middle, but harshens up towards the corners.

How do you like the Nokton? The images you posted initially were very nice.

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:28 PM

wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Jonas B wrote:
Thank you for the idea.
I think they are a mixed bunch. I don't like the 45mm. Sharp as hell but the bokeh often make me feel sick. The 90 is very good as I recall it. The 35 I don't know as I haven't tried it but I found some images and this one at flickr, by hothmonkey made me stop looking for more. Such results and the focusing system made me loose interest.

Obviously he cant focus properly but I love the bokeh. That is promising. :-)

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:29 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Jonas B wrote:
[Well, that is what call funky bokeh. There are those bright outer lines around the highlights causing a nervous look. A case for local blurring.

If you call that funky, I think you have no choice but keeping the RX1. To me, the bokeh in that shot is very smooth.

If your Ultron 40/2 does the image above stopped down to f/2.8 I again have to wonder what the M Rokkor 40/2 would do at f/2.8. I'm still a bit interested in that lens which, following this line, may be an even better companion to the Distagon 35/1.4, no?

The Rokkor/Summicron-C is totally overhyped. It's a very nice lens, but mostly because of its smallness. Bokeh isn't better than the average 35/2. I lent my Nikkor 55/1.2 with adapter to a friend in exchange for the Voigtländer 40/1.4, so I can't post examples now. But I can try to make some sort of comparison next week between the C and Ultron.

What I can say though, from experience with both lenses, is that the Ultron kills the C wide open. It's better in every way.

Dec 07, 2013 at 03:30 PM

1 2 3 … 15 16 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 15 16 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.