Ulff wrote:
... and much better than the Zeiss C/Y 28mm, any Olympus lens or even the Leica M variants (regarding the corners) on a full frame camera. You would loose of course the resolution (maybe a no go for you) and the DOF because of the crop factor (not necessarily a big factor for wide angle lenses).
Ulff, you got me curious. In what ways do you think the Ricoh are much better than the Zeiss CY(-s)? Assuming you mean other things than the size.
mark1958 wrote:
I have a VOigtlander for my Leica M and both Novoflex and metabones for my Nikon Lenses. For my Leica M screw mount, I have a 10 dollar china adapter that works great
Thank you for your message : ) !!!
Do you mean the same adapter from the link I provided?
Would you please be so kind to link me to some of your pictures?
wfrank wrote:
Right, unfortunately that Hollywood version is not easy to get hold on :-)
But I'd add that the CY28/2.8 got a fair amount of magic as well. A portrait + a stopped down shot with A7 from the other week.
I've found no smaller alternative that match. I have no knowledge of the Leicas but having the CV35/1.2II I was for a while looking at the CV28/2. It seem nice but not at the level of Zeiss, and not that much smaller either. I expect the ZM28/2.8 to be at the level of the Contax G 28/2.8 which - unfortunatly - is very bad regarding smearing on the A7. Perhaps a tad better but not more than that.
slungu wrote:
As far as I know, you will not find a great performing 28mm for the A7s in Leica M mount. Some say the Konica will be great, but I have not seen infinity shots with that one, only street shots. The Nikon AIS might be your best bet, the 28/2.8 with CRC is said to be good, but I have not seen it on A7(r), also the bigger 28/2 with CRC. The standard recommendation for stellar is Leica 28/2.8 II, but it is hard to find and expensive ( the Nikon might also be hard to find, but not that hard ). Or you can settle to the Distagon 28/2.8, or the ZF 28....Show more →
I know Mark has decided on the Nikon - but I just want to comment on the Konica Hexanon-M 28. I have one and I do not find it acceptable on the A7r. I hope to have an Elmarit-R delivered tomorrow, I have been very impressed by the shots I have seen with that combo here on FM...
ZoranC wrote:
Could you please share some wide open samples of it on A7/A7R? I am interested in it's corner performance.
I'd imagine you won't see any issues with the 28mm Elmarit-R II in regards to corner performance since as it is a sharp lens with a DSLR design.
There are two "issues" with the lens, and it has nothing to do with performance. Rather, as stated earlier, it's 1) costly (upwards of $2k plus) and 2) larger/heavier than its M mount counterpart. If point #2 doesn't bother you, then the only issue is the cost of admission compared to the previously mentioned alternatives.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
I'd imagine you won't see any issues with the 28mm Elmarit-R II in regards to corner performance since as it is a sharp lens with a DSLR design.
That could be costly assumption I am not willing to make because I have seen "DSLR design lenses" that are sharp in corners on their native mount but are not on my A7R.
ZoranC wrote:
That could be costly assumption I am not willing to make because I have seen "DSLR design lenses" that are sharp in corners on their native mount but are not on my A7R.
Funny, I just finished shooting & looking at all my 28mm lenses on the A7R; then fired up FM and saw this thread.
The lenses I tested are:
Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS
Canon FDn 28mm f2.8
Canon FDn 28mm f2
Contax G 28mm f2.8
Konica m-mount 28mm f2.8
Minolta CLE 28mm f2.8
Nikon AiS 28mm f2.8
Nikon AiS 28mm f2
Olympus OM 28mm f2.8
I shot a landscape at infinity from wide open to f8 at each intermediate f-stop with each lens.
My findings:
The best three, all pretty similar in performance, and all pretty good, were the Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS, Contax Yashica Zeiss 28mm f2.8, and Olympus OM 28mm f2.8. On the Canon it performed better with the IS OFF at 1/125 sec.
I think highly of the FD lenses, but they performed so poorly in my test I plan to retest them with different adapters. I have to believe the adapter I was using let the lenses down.
The Nikon lenses were acceptable on the A7R, but not as good as the three above.
None of the rangefinder lenses performed acceptably in the edges & corners. Not even close.
Some overall thoughts.
I think it's very confusing trying to figure out what works and what doesn't because the A7 and the A7R probably give people quite different results with the same lens, and adapter variation also give people conflicting results.
Also, the A7R is ruthless at exposing any lenses weakness -- when you peer into the edges & corners of these 36 megapixel files at 100% very few lenses make you jump with joy. When do you find one that works really well, it's pretty amazing.
One last note -- I have and love the Ricoh GR and its lens is definitely as good as it gets in 28mm equivalents. But the sensor is not in the same league as the A7R, especially above ISO 1600.
Thanks for sharing. I have the Canon 28 f/2.8 IS and I sometimes suffer from the grass is greener syndrome. Glad to hear that it's probably pretty high on the list until maybe when a native FE lens is released.
tsdevine wrote:
Thanks for sharing. I have the Canon 28 f/2.8 IS and I sometimes suffer from the grass is greener syndrome. Glad to hear that it's probably pretty high on the list until maybe when a native FE lens is released.
-Tim
Just like people who only look at new equipment fail to appreciate the amazing quality of "vintage" gear like CY Zeiss and Canon FD; I think some "alt" people may not appreciate how amazing the latest consumer lenses like the Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS, Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake, Nikon 18-35mm G zoom, Nikon 50mm f1.8G, and Nikon 85mm f1.8G are.
The A7(R) is truly versatile in that I can use almost any lens in my collection on it whether 50 years old or a brand new Canon or Nikon!
Yeah, I was really surprised with the 40mm STM. It's no slouch on the a7R.
ebrandon wrote:
Just like people who only look at new equipment fail to appreciate the amazing quality of "vintage" gear like CY Zeiss and Canon FD; I think some "alt" people may not appreciate how amazing the latest consumer lenses like the Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS, Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake, Nikon 18-35mm G zoom, Nikon 50mm f1.8G, and Nikon 85mm f1.8G are.
The A7(R) is truly versatile in that I can use almost any lens in my collection on it whether 50 years old or a brand new Canon or Nikon!
ZoranC wrote:
Thank you but I see only one post and not a single example (file posted on dropbox is not available anymore). That is not enough for me.
I'm sure a little searching of keywords in the alt forum will turn up more. I'm at work and posting from my iphone with limited time and patience (iphone 3, yuck) for mobile load times and links. If I were at home on my own comptuer, I'd have more examples.
Check out the Leica R lenses thread. There are quite a few 28mm Elmarit-R II photos in there. They also discuss the exact same issue you're interested in.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
I'm sure a little searching of keywords in the alt forum will turn up more. I'm at work and posting from my iphone with limited time and patience (iphone 3, yuck) for mobile load times and links. If I were at home on my own comptuer, I'd have more examples.
Check out the Leica R lenses thread. There are quite a few 28mm Elmarit-R II photos in there. They also discuss the exact same issue you're interested in.
Thanks for pointers, I will definitely do more research.
I am surprised the Nikon 28 AIS did not do well. I can understand why the Leica R 28 II might be good but i am not going to add another format-- adapter to the mix. I have to say the one wide lens that amazes me is the Leica M 16-18-21. It is just so outstanding!!!! I really wanted a lens between the 21 and 35mm. I have the Leica 28-35-50 and it is not bad but I just cannot justify the cost. I really agonized over this one.
I also have the Nikon 28 1.8 G but i have not tested it. I just don't like using the the AF lens on this camera. I really wanted something small…
mark1958 wrote:
I am surprised the Nikon 28 AIS did not do well. I can understand why the Leica R 28 II might be good but i am not going to add another format-- adapter to the mix. I have to say the one wide lens that amazes me is the Leica M 16-18-21. It is just so outstanding!!!! I really wanted a lens between the 21 and 35mm. I have the Leica 28-35-50 and it is not bad but I just cannot justify the cost. I really agonized over this one.
I also have the Nikon 28 1.8 G but i have not tested it. I just don't like using the the AF lens on this camera. I really wanted something small… ...Show more →
Like mentioned before, you will be hard pressed to find what you're looking for in a small (M-like) package. I think the Nikon glass will be what you're looking for since you're limiting the format and the unfortunate cost of the WATE.
I did read however, that the WATE when at the 16mm FL has the rear element protrude out closer to the sensor. This will lead to a slight color shift/smear. It's small enough to PP out, but it's still present. If you're shooting on the long end of the WATE though, then there won't be any issues because of the tele nature of the lens on that end.
There is the CV 21/1.8 Ultron (M mount) which works well with the a7(r). I read a piece on it and the WATE with center and corner examples. I'm on my phone and links aren't easy to post, but google up "sony a7 wate cv ultron" and the page is the first link. It's from 3d-kraft.com.
mark1958 wrote:
I am surprised the Nikon 28 AIS did not do well. I can understand why the Leica R 28 II might be good but i am not going to add another format-- adapter to the mix. I have to say the one wide lens that amazes me is the Leica M 16-18-21. It is just so outstanding!!!! I really wanted a lens between the 21 and 35mm. I have the Leica 28-35-50 and it is not bad but I just cannot justify the cost. I really agonized over this one.
I also have the Nikon 28 1.8 G but i have not tested it. I just don't like using the the AF lens on this camera. I really wanted something small… ...Show more →
the nikon 28/2.8 AIS is extremely good at near to mid distances (competitive with the R 28 vII), but pretty disappointing at infinity due to field curvature (and probably other issues). the 28/2 AIS just isn't as high performing a lens stopped down.
sebboh wrote:
the nikon 28/2.8 AIS is extremely good at near to mid distances (competitive with the R 28 vII), but pretty disappointing at infinity due to field curvature (and probably other issues). the 28/2 AIS just isn't as high performing a lens stopped down.
As usual, Sebboh, you're a encyclopedia of lens wisdom. I'll be sure to try the Nikon 28mm f2.8 again in the nearfield tests.
