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

1 2 3 … 13

15 16 end

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

justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #1 · p.14 #1 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

sebboh wrote:
well, how much size reduction would they get from just scaling it down to f/2? my guess is they could make it much thinner but not a lot shorter. a redesign would hopefully be better.

i want a loxia 35/2 designed from the ground up personally.

looks like somebody put too much faith in their rx1's AF.

In truth, I'm OK with a much thinner, much lighter, not much shorter f/1.4 -> f/2.0 down-scaling in order to keep the imaging characteristics and get the damn thing out sooner.

Sure, I'd love a total redesign that captures the RX1 Sonnar look, but gets us a small/light/shorter size. But 35mm f/2 is the lens I most want. And I want it badly!

Apr 26, 2017 at 02:08 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

justruss wrote:
In truth, I'm OK with a much thinner, much lighter, not much shorter f/1.4 -> f/2.0 down-scaling in order to keep the imaging characteristics and get the damn thing out sooner.

Sure, I'd love a total redesign that captures the RX1 Sonnar look, but gets us a small/light/shorter size. But 35mm f/2 is the lens I most want. And I want it badly!

it's really obnoxiously long, like most slr 100mm lenses are shorter including the adapter.

Apr 26, 2017 at 02:11 AM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #3 · p.14 #3 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Apr 26, 2017 at 02:36 AM

nehemiahphoto
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #4 · p.14 #4 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

I've been on a quest for the RX1 replacement for an a7. I have a Minolta 35 F2 AF coming. It only weighs 230g and looks promising. I have shot the zm, za, cy, cv, rx1 35s, and the 31 limited and some other not as notable 35s. Some of the late Minolta lenses were pretty sharp (100 f2, 200 2.8) with spectacular color and good bokeh with plesesnt focus transitions, so I am hopeful. It won't beat out the ZM or rx1 for sharpness or microcontrast, but I think it will show good sharpness WO with rich color and smooth tonality. No aspherical elements for onion rings, but foreground and background transitions are a wild card.

Apr 26, 2017 at 02:36 AM

genji
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #5 · p.14 #5 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

nehemiahphoto wrote:
I've been on a quest for the RX1 replacement for an a7. I have a Minolta 35 F2 AF coming. It only weighs 230g and looks promising. I have shot the zm, za, cy, cv, rx1 35s, and the 31 limited and some other not as notable 35s. Some of the late Minolta lenses were pretty sharp (100 f2, 200 2.8) with spectacular color and good bokeh with plesesnt focus transitions, so I am hopeful. It won't beat out the ZM or rx1 for sharpness or microcontrast, but I think it will show good sharpness WO with rich color and...Show more →

I thought long and hard about the Minolta AF 35/2, looking at lots of sample images, before I finally opted for the RX1R II. I suspect you'll be pleased with the Minolta 35 for all the reasons you've stated and look forward to seeing some pictures.

Apr 26, 2017 at 08:15 AM

farfisa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #6 · p.14 #6 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

nehemiahphoto wrote:
I've been on a quest for the RX1 replacement for an a7. I have a Minolta 35 F2 AF coming. It only weighs 230g and looks promising. I have shot the zm, za, cy, cv, rx1 35s, and the 31 limited and some other not as notable 35s. Some of the late Minolta lenses were pretty sharp (100 f2, 200 2.8) with spectacular color and good bokeh with plesesnt focus transitions, so I am hopeful. It won't beat out the ZM or rx1 for sharpness or microcontrast, but I think it will show good sharpness WO with rich color and...Show more →

The 35 f/2 was highly sought-after a few years ago, commanding quite a premium when there were fewer 35's for Sony.

It's very sharp with lots of contrast, and the colours match the other f/2's (100/2 and 28/2--the 1.4 lenses all matched each other too). I liked the rendering as well, but of course that's where it gets personal.

Hope you like it!

Apr 26, 2017 at 08:47 AM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #7 · p.14 #7 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

I wasn't too excited about the Minolta 35/2 AF on the A7RII.
From my test, sharpness was good at f/2.8 in center but corners really needed at least f/8 (Best at f/11).
Colors were pleasant but LoCA wide open was on the high side. I didn't find OOF rendering very smooth wide open but one stop down, it got better.
My biggest issue with this lens was flare performance. Watch out for that!
If you compare the Minolta to the RX1's Sonnar, you may get disappointed.

Apr 26, 2017 at 09:58 AM

stripedrex
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #8 · p.14 #8 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Here's a gallery of it when I had the Minolta 35mm F2 paired with LAEA4 and A7R. I wasn't a big fan of it's focus speed either with the adapter. If an LAEA5 ever came out that can focus motor driven lenses and maintain native AF I would probably buy this lens again. It's small, light even with adapter. I'm a people shooter so corner sharpness isn't as important to me.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ageslani/albums/72157644168212103/with/13922176406/

Apr 26, 2017 at 11:44 AM

nehemiahphoto
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #9 · p.14 #9 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Fred Miranda wrote:
I wasn't too excited about the Minolta 35/2 AF on the A7RII.
From my test, sharpness was good at f/2.8 in center but corners really needed at least f/8 (Best at f/11).
Colors were pleasant but LoCA wide open was on the high side. I didn't find OOF rendering very smooth wide open but one stop down, it got better.
My biggest issue with this lens was flare performance. Watch out for that!
If you compare the Minolta to the RX1's Sonnar, you may get disappointed.

Do you have crops handy Fred?

Thanks for the input guys, I have a soft spot for Minolta lenses, so I'll see.

I do like the rendering on the Easter photos.

Apr 26, 2017 at 01:36 PM

nehemiahphoto
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #10 · p.14 #10 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

AF is super quick on a native body:

Especially with the a99 focus limiter. The laea4 makes every lens incompetent for AF.

Apr 26, 2017 at 02:57 PM

tzhang4284
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #11 · p.14 #11 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

sebboh wrote:
it's lesser than the zm on an m240, which is what the zm is made for.

meh, the rx1 has better corners than the loxia at small apertures too, which turn out to matter more to me than sunstars (which always look kinda weird to me) for landscape.

I think you're being overly harsh on the Loxia 35 vs. the ZM and the RX1R II that's not really backed up by the data.

On the RX1R II: Imaging resources did a whole sequence of test shots of the RX1R II's optical quality at f2, f5.6 and f8. You'll see that the corners can get quite soft and blurry even at f8. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1r-ii/sony-rx1r-iiA4.HTM

Maybe it's slightly better than the Loxia but we're not talking about a massive difference here. As a A7R II owner, I'd rather spend $1300 for a Loxia 35 over $3200 for a RX1R II, if we're only talking about performance. There is a size advantage between the body + camera comparisons, but not by much.

ZM + M240: With respect to your comment about the ZM and M240 vs the Loxia 35 + Sony A7R II, if you read the reviews of the ZM, many of the comments referred to soft corners for that lens as well. I think this is inherent in the biogon design - i don't think Zeiss made it worse - it's just a design limitation. This is also an apple vs oranges comparison without factoring in the substantially higher resolution of the Sony sensor vs. the Leica M240 sensor. I'm sure if Leica were to ever create a 42mp sensor Leica M, many rangefinder lenses will fall apart under that level of scrutiny, including the ZM.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2429860,00.asp

I'm not sure why the L35 attracts this level of dislike but when you look at the options it's very competitive with all the other rangefinder-esque 35mm solutions out there. Your alternatives really are:

1. Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Has AF, slower max aperture. Arguably the best alternative but I always found the images to be less attractive than the Loxia ones with comparably weak corners that stopping down doesn't improve and more vignetting.

2. Sony RX1R II - $3200 new for a fixed lens camera with marginally better corners - it's not worlds better. In size, it's much closer to a A7 series camera vs. a RX100. As an owner of those two cameras, it doesn't really open up any new use cases for me that a A7R II + Loxia 35 and a RX100 won't cover. It means one more camera to carry vs. one more small lens if you want the benefit of interchangeable lenses. I also worry about dust risk and the inability to clean it out.

3. Zeiss 35mm f1.4 with corrective glass: This could be promising but it seems to affect infinity focus and adds a lot more lens flare since the corrective glass pieces don't have any coatings on it. I also just don't enjoy taking apart $2k camera lenses...

4. DSLR-sized options: 35mm f1.4, Tamron 35mm, Sigma 35 - all of these might have better IQ but are much bigger so we're back to square ones.

Out of the 4 options above + the Loxia 35, the Loxia is the most attractive to me, followed by the 35mm f2.8 and the RX1R II. Even if Zeiss made a future Batis 35 f2, it would still be larger than the Loxia 35 and you're really looking at a small DSLR-sized setup. What I really want is a Leica M10-esque Sony body to go with the Loxia lenses - specifically with EVF minus the hump and no handgrip protruding outward - an A7000.

Apr 27, 2017 at 02:48 PM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #12 · p.14 #12 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

tzhang4284 wrote:
I think you're being overly harsh on the Loxia 35 vs. the ZM and the RX1R II that's not really backed up by the data.

On the RX1R II: Imaging resources did a whole sequence of test shots of the RX1R II's optical quality at f2, f5.6 and f8. You'll see that the corners can get quite soft and blurry even at f8. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1r-ii/sony-rx1r-iiA4.HTM

Maybe it's slightly better than the Loxia but we're not talking about a massive difference here. As a A7R II owner, I'd rather spend $1300 for a Loxia 35 over $3200 for a RX1R II, if we're only talking about performance. There is a size advantage between the body + camera comparisons, but not by much.

ZM + M240: With respect to your comment about the ZM and M240 vs the Loxia 35 + Sony A7R II, if you read the reviews of the ZM, many of the comments referred to soft corners for that lens as well. I think this is inherent in the biogon design - i don't think Zeiss made it worse - it's just a design limitation. This is also an apple vs oranges comparison without factoring in the substantially higher resolution of the Sony sensor vs. the Leica M240 sensor. I'm sure if Leica were to ever create a 42mp sensor Leica M, many rangefinder lenses will fall apart under that level of scrutiny, including the ZM.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2429860,00.asp

I'm not sure why the L35 attracts this level of dislike but when you look at the options it's very competitive with all the other rangefinder-esque 35mm solutions out there. Your alternatives really are:

1. Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Has AF, slower max aperture. Arguably the best alternative but I always found the images to be less attractive than the Loxia ones with comparably weak corners that stopping down doesn't improve and more vignetting.

2. Sony RX1R II - $3200 new for a fixed lens camera with marginally better corners - it's not worlds better. In size, it's much closer to a A7 series camera vs. a RX100. As an owner of those two cameras, it doesn't really open up any new use cases for me that a A7R II + Loxia 35 and a RX100 won't cover. It means one more camera to carry vs. one more small lens if you want the benefit of interchangeable lenses. I also worry about dust risk and the inability to clean it out.

3. Zeiss 35mm f1.4 with corrective glass: This could be promising but it seems to affect infinity focus and adds a lot more lens flare since the corrective glass pieces don't have any coatings on it. I also just don't enjoy taking apart $2k camera lenses...

4. DSLR-sized options: 35mm f1.4, Tamron 35mm, Sigma 35 - all of these might have better IQ but are much bigger so we're back to square ones.

Out of the 4 options above + the Loxia 35, the Loxia is the most attractive to me, followed by the 35mm f2.8 and the RX1R II. Even if Zeiss made a future Batis 35 f2, it would still be larger than the Loxia 35 and you're really looking at a small DSLR-sized setup. What I really want is a Leica M10-esque Sony body to go with the Loxia lenses - specifically with EVF minus the hump and no handgrip protruding outward - an A7000....Show more →

If you mainly care about center and mid-frame, the Loxia 35/2 is superb. Its Achilles heel is the high astigmatism towards the edges of the frame.
It only gets to very good levels at f/11 but it's still not excellent. I've tested many copies of this lens.

The RX1RII is substantially better towards the corners at all apertures but especially from f/2.8 until f/8. From my own tests, the resolution difference is not small as you described. (Also tested several copies and posted many samples on the board)

Regarding the ZM 35/1.4 with PCX 5m lens: You are not correct about increase of flare. I tested for this and there is no indication of deterioration of flare performance if you use a multi-coated lens. The OptoSigma PCX is multi-coated btw.

The DSLR options do not have better IQ than RX1RII or ZM 35/1.4. I've tested Canon, Sigma and Zeiss options.

The Sony's FE 35/2.8 is very good wide open (f/2.8) and even better at f/5.6. However, the corners do not improve much from wide open, so at f/5.6 and smaller, the RX1RII and ZM 35/1.4 perform noticeably better. The FE 35/2.8 is way better than the Loxia 35/2 towards the edges at wider apertures.

If I didn't have the ZM 35/1.4 +PCX, the Loxia 35/2 would be my second option for the A7RII. It has incredible pop at f/2.8 and it works well for landscapes stopped down. It all depends on what you want from a lens and your primarily application. If distortion control is important to you, the Loxia 35/2 is unmatched.

Apr 27, 2017 at 04:11 PM

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

p.14 #13 · p.14 #13 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

I wonder how the ZM 35/2.8 would do with a thin filter modified a7 camera. I've only used it on the Leica M8, but from what I saw there, it had much nicer bokeh than the Loxia and ZM 35/2. Distortion is also close to zero.

The Loxia is very nice from ~f/3.2 and on. I actually think it's pretty sharp wide open too, but the bokeh can be very distracting. I also find it more "Zeissy" (pop, 3D) than the RX1 Sonnar.

Apr 27, 2017 at 04:26 PM

fsiagian
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Can anybody share experience with voigtlander 35mm 1.2? Thanks.

Apr 28, 2017 at 01:35 AM

BastianK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #15 · p.14 #15 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Fred Miranda wrote:
Regarding the ZM 35/1.4 with PCX 5m lens: You are not correct about increase of flare. I tested for this and there is no indication of deterioration of flare performance if you use a multi-coated lens. The OptoSigma PCX is multi-coated btw.

I couldn't get the OptoSigma 5m lens to flare, neither on ZM 35mm 1.4 nor VM 35mm 1.7 and I tried hard.

Apr 28, 2017 at 02:05 AM

uscmatt99
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #16 · p.14 #16 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Makten wrote:
I wonder how the ZM 35/2.8 would do with a thin filter modified a7 camera. I've only used it on the Leica M8, but from what I saw there, it had much nicer bokeh than the Loxia and ZM 35/2. Distortion is also close to zero.

The Loxia is very nice from ~f/3.2 and on. I actually think it's pretty sharp wide open too, but the bokeh can be very distracting. I also find it more "Zeissy" (pop, 3D) than the RX1 Sonnar.

I use the C-Biogon on an a7 classic with the Kolari vII thin filter. Prior to the mod, I considered it pretty much unusable. After the mod, it's excellent for sharpness except for the extreme corners at f/8, and f/11 takes care of the corners completely, albeit with some diffraction softening. The lens is best in the center at f/5.6, and I often use f/5.6 if I intend to crop to 5x4 later on. Wide open, I really like the rendering, so long as the subject is not near the edge of the frame. It also holds up pretty well at MFD with a helicoid adapter.

One of my favorite small kits for the modded a7 is the ZM25/2.8, ZM35/2.8, and ZM50/1.5. The ZM25 is one stop better than the ZM35/2.8 for across the frame sharpness, and is excellent at f/8, though diffraction kicks in even at f/5.6 compared to f/4. However it's busy wide open and I don't use it that way. The ZM50 has its own charm and is pretty much an f/1.7 lens for me.

Apr 28, 2017 at 06:52 AM

Luvwine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #17 · p.14 #17 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

fsiagian wrote:
Can anybody share experience with voigtlander 35mm 1.2? Thanks.

Does really well on A7RII. It is heavy, has excellent bokeh and works well for wide open portraits and for other nearby subjects. However, it is worthless at infinity wide open. Having said this, stopped down to F5.6 or, best for corners, F8, it is very sharp indeed for landscapes. It is lower contrast wide open than the ZM 35/1.4, but about as sharp stopped down. It is kind of two lenses in one with a dreamy, painterly bokeh wide open for portraits and much more contrast stopped down. Wide open, it is not very sharp and to get maximum sharpness even in the center, stopping down to F2.8 is probably needed. It has been a while since I owned it, but I would say it is among the best options for adapted 35mm, but you have to learn its quirks a bit to get the most out of it.

Apr 28, 2017 at 08:13 AM

fsiagian
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #18 · p.14 #18 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Luvwine wrote:
Does really well on A7RII. It is heavy, has excellent bokeh and works well for wide open portraits and for other nearby subjects. However, it is worthless at infinity wide open. Having said this, stopped down to F5.6 or, best for corners, F8, it is very sharp indeed for landscapes. It is lower contrast wide open than the ZM 35/1.4, but about as sharp stopped down. It is kind of two lenses in one with a dreamy, painterly bokeh wide open for portraits and much more contrast stopped down. Wide open, it is not very sharp and to get maximum...Show more →
Thank you. I am thinking about getting one. How do you compare it with the 1.4 or 1.7 ultron do you know?

Apr 28, 2017 at 08:17 AM

Luvwine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #19 · p.14 #19 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

fsiagian wrote:
Thank you. I am thinking about getting one. How do you compare it with the 1.4 or 1.7 ultron do you know?

I have never owned those lenses. My understanding is that the 35/1.4 is less good but that the 35/1.7 is a newer design and quite good tho they both appear to have their fans. The 1.7 does appear to have a lot of field curvature and that seems to be its greatest flaw. I suspect if you can deal with the field curvature, it is likely sharper at large apertures than the 35/1.2, but I suspect not, or at least not appreciably, once stopped down. However, these are guesses. The 35/1.7 is lighter too. They will both have compromises, like all lenses, and which one you prefer will likely come down to which ones bother you less. Hopefully someone who has compared them will chime in.

Apr 28, 2017 at 09:07 AM

uscmatt99
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #20 · p.14 #20 · Sony A7; is there an RX1 equivalent 35mm lens?

Luvwine wrote:
Does really well on A7RII. It is heavy, has excellent bokeh and works well for wide open portraits and for other nearby subjects. However, it is worthless at infinity wide open. Having said this, stopped down to F5.6 or, best for corners, F8, it is very sharp indeed for landscapes. It is lower contrast wide open than the ZM 35/1.4, but about as sharp stopped down. It is kind of two lenses in one with a dreamy, painterly bokeh wide open for portraits and much more contrast stopped down. Wide open, it is not very sharp and to get maximum...Show more →

This mirrors my experience completely. The color balance is a bit different than Zeiss, which I prefer, but it's a very good lens, and pretty fast for it's size on the Sony cameras. If I'm only carrying one lens on the camera without a bag, I almost always default the the CV 35/1.2.

Apr 28, 2017 at 10:29 AM

1 2 3 … 13 14 15 16 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 13 14 15 16 end

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