This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
p.1 #1Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
It would be great if people could list the m lenses they are successfully using on the Sony A 7/r cameras (specifying which one) that work without any edge smearing wide open. I am less interested in colour-cast as I will be working only in B&W. Thanks!
Feb 09, 2014 at 02:40 PM
p.1 #2Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I am looking for a uwa wide for hiking with my a7r: Something less than 20mm.
I have tried voigtlander 12, 15 - both unacceptable with purple discoloration in vignetting.
I have tried leica Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 Asph. Lens - it worked well on A7r. Now just need to decide whether I want to spend $6000 to hike with a lens that protrudes quite a bit.
[canon mount zeiss 15/2.8, canon mount zeiss 25/2, and canon mount zeiss 35/1.4, and my ts17/ts24 work really well too with adapters, but thats not your question]
I have tried voigtlander 12, 15 - both unacceptable with purple discoloration in vignetting.
I have tried leica Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 Asph. Lens - it worked well on A7r. Now just need to decide whether I want to spend $6000 to hike with a lens that protrudes quite a bit.
[canon mount zeiss 15/2.8, canon mount zeiss 25/2, and canon mount zeiss 35/1.4, and my ts17/ts24 work really well too with adapters, but thats not your question]
Feb 09, 2014 at 06:38 PM
p.1 #3Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
For M-Mount I'm very happy with the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 Nokton and the Voigtlander 90mm (LTM) APO Lanthar.
Like Scott I'm still waiting for the 24mm and below solution. The 16-18-21 WATE is tempting at 330 g but for now I am buying time using a Rokkor MD 24mm f/2.8 and OM 21mm f/3.5. I expect Zeiss will have some suitable candidates later this year.
Like Scott I'm still waiting for the 24mm and below solution. The 16-18-21 WATE is tempting at 330 g but for now I am buying time using a Rokkor MD 24mm f/2.8 and OM 21mm f/3.5. I expect Zeiss will have some suitable candidates later this year.
Feb 09, 2014 at 07:25 PM
p.1 #4Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
It would be nice to have a lens database for which lenses work with A7 and A7R. It is also important to separate corner smearing (not fixable) with magenta corners (fixable) effects.
My overall sense is that the A7R magnifies field curvature, perhaps due to the added microlenses or the thickness of the cover glass. I say microlenses because the A7R is worse than the A7 in this regard, though they share the same cover glass thickness.
I have tried the ZM Biogon 25 and the 21 4.5. They are both exceptional lenses, but they smear on the A7R at infinity. Focusing for the corners rather than the center alleviates it, but then you are trading off corner versus center sharpness. That said, a great lens that smears in the corners may be better than an average lens.
Perhaps we can put together a google spreadsheet with different reports, along with links to images?? A lot of people are doing very extensive testing, but the information is dispersed and easily lost.
My overall sense is that the A7R magnifies field curvature, perhaps due to the added microlenses or the thickness of the cover glass. I say microlenses because the A7R is worse than the A7 in this regard, though they share the same cover glass thickness.
I have tried the ZM Biogon 25 and the 21 4.5. They are both exceptional lenses, but they smear on the A7R at infinity. Focusing for the corners rather than the center alleviates it, but then you are trading off corner versus center sharpness. That said, a great lens that smears in the corners may be better than an average lens.
Perhaps we can put together a google spreadsheet with different reports, along with links to images?? A lot of people are doing very extensive testing, but the information is dispersed and easily lost.
Feb 09, 2014 at 08:09 PM
p.1 #5Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I have tried the following: WATE, CV 35/1.2, Lux 50, Cron 90/2 APO, and Apo Telyt 135/3.4. All work without significant issues except the Lux 50. The Lux works very well indeed at near distances and is as good as any in the center from wide open, but at infinity it is sub par with problems away from the center of the frame needing stopping down to F8 in order to get acceptable (tho not great still) results in zones B and C.
Feb 09, 2014 at 09:58 PM
p.1 #6Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I found a decently priced Leica 28-35-50 and I couldn't resist.
It works ok, without smearing or shifts, but it struggles a lot at 35 and 50 with the sun in the frame.
I still have to figure out if it's an adapter, a lens or a camera problem.
It works ok, without smearing or shifts, but it struggles a lot at 35 and 50 with the sun in the frame.
I still have to figure out if it's an adapter, a lens or a camera problem.
 |
||
| http://www.marcospinelli.com/gallerie/torino/image22.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.marcospinelli.com/gallerie/torino/image21.jpg | ||
|
Feb 10, 2014 at 03:26 AM
p.1 #7Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I am amazed at how few responses to this request there are, especially given how many people were so excited when the cameras came out and were talking about all the m lenses they were going to be trying on them.
Did people try their m lenses? Are the results just so disappointing that people just want to forget about the experience? Is it totally hopeless below 35mm and only so, so at that focal length? Do we have to just accept that this will be an SLR lens or new Zeiss lens only camera for wides? How disappointing.
Did people try their m lenses? Are the results just so disappointing that people just want to forget about the experience? Is it totally hopeless below 35mm and only so, so at that focal length? Do we have to just accept that this will be an SLR lens or new Zeiss lens only camera for wides? How disappointing.
Feb 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM
p.1 #8Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I didn't even notice this thread until now 
I've had no issues with my 90 cron APO. I also used a CV 21/1.8 for a while and that seemed to work properly.
I've had no issues with my 90 cron APO. I also used a CV 21/1.8 for a while and that seemed to work properly.
Feb 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM
p.1 #9Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
dpap1978 wrote:
It would be nice to have a lens database for which lenses work with A7 and A7R. It is also important to separate corner smearing (not fixable) with magenta corners (fixable) effects.
The difficult issue with this, which I found when testing and discussing a lot of M lenses on NEX cameras, is that everyone has a different range of what is acceptable in terms of color shift and smearing (and there are adapter variances, too,) so it's hard to draw many conclusions without just testing it yourself.
It would be nice to have a lens database for which lenses work with A7 and A7R. It is also important to separate corner smearing (not fixable) with magenta corners (fixable) effects.
The difficult issue with this, which I found when testing and discussing a lot of M lenses on NEX cameras, is that everyone has a different range of what is acceptable in terms of color shift and smearing (and there are adapter variances, too,) so it's hard to draw many conclusions without just testing it yourself.
Feb 10, 2014 at 11:59 AM
p.1 #10Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
wolfloid wrote:
I am amazed at how few responses to this request there are, especially given how many people were so excited when the cameras came out and were talking about all the m lenses they were going to be trying on them.
Did people try their m lenses? Are the results just so disappointing that people just want to forget about the experience? Is it totally hopeless below 35mm and only so, so at that focal length? Do we have to just accept that this will be an SLR lens or new Zeiss lens only camera for wides? How disappointing.
The best Leica M below 35mm that I have used and currently used personally is the 24mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. Period. The performance at f/2.8 is simply awesome, corner to corner. The major drawback is of course the price
. As you know, in general, wide angle rangefinder lenses could pose edge or corner issues on the A7r but I understood less so on the A7. In addition, the quality (alignment) of the adapter also plays a role. Here are a few images taken with the lux 24mm on my A7r at aperture ranging from f/2.0 to f/4.0 (based on memory here). Sorry, I posted these images here before.
I bought a used Olympus OM Zuiko 24mm f/2.0. Including the adapter, it is a little bigger than the Leica M lens mentioned above but the performance is not bad and it gives the significantly more expensive lens a run for its money starting at f/4.0 and that for a fraction of the price
. I haven't tried it myself but I understood that Canon FD 24mm f/2.0 performs well, too. The non-rangefinder lenses are less prone to edge and corner problems. The reason I mentioned these MF lenses is because they are fairly small and light-weight.
I am amazed at how few responses to this request there are, especially given how many people were so excited when the cameras came out and were talking about all the m lenses they were going to be trying on them.
Did people try their m lenses? Are the results just so disappointing that people just want to forget about the experience? Is it totally hopeless below 35mm and only so, so at that focal length? Do we have to just accept that this will be an SLR lens or new Zeiss lens only camera for wides? How disappointing.
The best Leica M below 35mm that I have used and currently used personally is the 24mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. Period. The performance at f/2.8 is simply awesome, corner to corner. The major drawback is of course the price
. As you know, in general, wide angle rangefinder lenses could pose edge or corner issues on the A7r but I understood less so on the A7. In addition, the quality (alignment) of the adapter also plays a role. Here are a few images taken with the lux 24mm on my A7r at aperture ranging from f/2.0 to f/4.0 (based on memory here). Sorry, I posted these images here before.I bought a used Olympus OM Zuiko 24mm f/2.0. Including the adapter, it is a little bigger than the Leica M lens mentioned above but the performance is not bad and it gives the significantly more expensive lens a run for its money starting at f/4.0 and that for a fraction of the price
. I haven't tried it myself but I understood that Canon FD 24mm f/2.0 performs well, too. The non-rangefinder lenses are less prone to edge and corner problems. The reason I mentioned these MF lenses is because they are fairly small and light-weight. |
||
 © AGeoJO 2014 |
||
 |
|
||
 © AGeoJO 2014 |
||
|
|
||
 © AGeoJO 2014 |
||
|
|
||
 © AGeoJO 2014 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM
p.1 #11Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
The only ZM lens I'm happy with on the A7 is the 85/2. The 50/2 is ok, but looses some corner sharpness. The 35/2 and 25/2.8 have too much smearing to be useable for landscapes, though the very high central sharpness can be useful at closer distances.
Feb 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM
p.1 #12Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I've tested my lenses at infinity on the A7. CV 35/1.2 is fantastic, but the others (CV15/4.5, ZM 25/2.8, ZM 35/2.8) have too much smearing and shift for my taste, with the ZM25 being the most useable of the three. As in I'd rather use the kit lens or native 35/2.8 than those three on this camera. A shame as I liked them all on my GXR and NEX-6. I've posted my images with crops in the other massive thread.
I'm going to keep them in the hopes of some revolution in sensor manufacturing, as they only get more expensive to reaquire, and people seem to be dumping them on the used market right now. They have so much potential....
I'm going to keep them in the hopes of some revolution in sensor manufacturing, as they only get more expensive to reaquire, and people seem to be dumping them on the used market right now. They have so much potential....
Feb 10, 2014 at 01:18 PM
p.1 #13Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I can see that subjectivity will obviously play a role here, but thanks to those who have answered.
AGeoJo: I think I've already decided to get the Novoflex adapter for my Zuiko lenses (I have the 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.8 and the 85/2).
Edward: thanks for that feedback on the Zeiss 50/2. I don't shoot much landscape, mostly environmental portraits/reportage, do you think it would be good for that? I ask because I have two other 50's that are probably of similar design, the Summicron and the Nokton 1.5. Any feedback on the quality of the sharp part of the image?
I'm hesitating at the moment because I'm not totally convinced that I should step in now or wait for the next firmware or even the next model. I'm in no hurry.
AGeoJo: I think I've already decided to get the Novoflex adapter for my Zuiko lenses (I have the 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.8 and the 85/2).
Edward: thanks for that feedback on the Zeiss 50/2. I don't shoot much landscape, mostly environmental portraits/reportage, do you think it would be good for that? I ask because I have two other 50's that are probably of similar design, the Summicron and the Nokton 1.5. Any feedback on the quality of the sharp part of the image?
I'm hesitating at the moment because I'm not totally convinced that I should step in now or wait for the next firmware or even the next model. I'm in no hurry.
Feb 10, 2014 at 01:29 PM
p.1 #15Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
Dont expect any improvement on the subject from a firmware update.
And with rgds to your original question nobody knows YOUR threshold for acceptable corners. And the A7r's 36MP represents the largest magnification glass to date for corner deficiencies.
I'd think you have to check yourself from the comparisons that are on the net as of now. And decide if A7 or A7r is your road, the A7 behaves slightly better regarding WA RF's.
From my point of view, the CV15 fails while I agree the CV35/1.2II is excellent. I have no ZMs but do have a range of Contax G (similar designs, but generally considered refined). Out of those the G21 and G28 are bad. The G45 and G90 are excellent.
And with rgds to your original question nobody knows YOUR threshold for acceptable corners. And the A7r's 36MP represents the largest magnification glass to date for corner deficiencies.
I'd think you have to check yourself from the comparisons that are on the net as of now. And decide if A7 or A7r is your road, the A7 behaves slightly better regarding WA RF's.
From my point of view, the CV15 fails while I agree the CV35/1.2II is excellent. I have no ZMs but do have a range of Contax G (similar designs, but generally considered refined). Out of those the G21 and G28 are bad. The G45 and G90 are excellent.
Feb 10, 2014 at 03:22 PM
p.1 #16Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
So far, my experience is that Summilux 50 only sharpens up in the corners at infinity at F:5.6, and is sharp at f:8.0. Summicron 75 AA is simply outstanding. Contax G: same as Wfrank. DSLR lenses: no issues. That lead me to Olympus, where I can recommend the 28 f:2.0. Small, inexpensive, fine from f:2.8, ridiculously good VFM.
Feb 10, 2014 at 03:49 PM
p.1 #17Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
really outstanding is only my apo90asph.
the nocti 1.0 is fun to use, focus is spot-on every time and the shots look great
the nocti 1.0 is fun to use, focus is spot-on every time and the shots look great
Feb 10, 2014 at 04:03 PM
p.1 #18Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
I did an infinity comparison between the a7R and M9 with over 20 rangefinder lenses and posted it on my site: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=251
Lenses included:
CV12, CV15, ZM18, 21 Lux, ZM21/2.8, 21 SEM, ZM25, 28 Cron, CV35/1.2 II, Canon 35/2 LTM, ZM35/2, ZM35/2.8, FE35/2.8, CV40/1.4, 50 Lux ASPH, Canon 50/1.4 LTM, CV50/1.5 LTM, ZM50/1.5, ZM50/2, FE55/1.8, CV75/1.8, ZM85/4, 90 Summarit.
There are links to high-rez files for each lens on each camera from wide open through f/11. Because I was primarily interested in how the degree of edge performance differed on the Sony from the M9, I resized the a7R files to M9 dimensions.
Generally, performance into the edges was better on the M9 than the a7R with virtually every rangefinder lens (though the FE55 was pretty impressive and probably the best of the bunch - though obviously not a rangefinder lens). Those that I thought were not bad on the a7R include the CV12 and 15 (both have fairly strong color shift), 21 Lux, CV35/1.2 II, ZM50/2 and the teles.
My conclusion for now is that to get the best out of higher end rangefinder lenses, they're best used on a Leica digital body. And that the Sony system will probably work best with native lenses as they become available, or adapted SLR lenses.
Lenses included:
CV12, CV15, ZM18, 21 Lux, ZM21/2.8, 21 SEM, ZM25, 28 Cron, CV35/1.2 II, Canon 35/2 LTM, ZM35/2, ZM35/2.8, FE35/2.8, CV40/1.4, 50 Lux ASPH, Canon 50/1.4 LTM, CV50/1.5 LTM, ZM50/1.5, ZM50/2, FE55/1.8, CV75/1.8, ZM85/4, 90 Summarit.
There are links to high-rez files for each lens on each camera from wide open through f/11. Because I was primarily interested in how the degree of edge performance differed on the Sony from the M9, I resized the a7R files to M9 dimensions.
Generally, performance into the edges was better on the M9 than the a7R with virtually every rangefinder lens (though the FE55 was pretty impressive and probably the best of the bunch - though obviously not a rangefinder lens). Those that I thought were not bad on the a7R include the CV12 and 15 (both have fairly strong color shift), 21 Lux, CV35/1.2 II, ZM50/2 and the teles.
My conclusion for now is that to get the best out of higher end rangefinder lenses, they're best used on a Leica digital body. And that the Sony system will probably work best with native lenses as they become available, or adapted SLR lenses.
Feb 10, 2014 at 06:12 PM
p.1 #19Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
Ron,
Thanks for your effort. Be honest, I am disappointed at A7/A7R. So far, they can only take retrofocus-like WA lenses (symmetrical design like Biogon is almost out). I wish there will be solution from other manufacturers.
Thanks for your effort. Be honest, I am disappointed at A7/A7R. So far, they can only take retrofocus-like WA lenses (symmetrical design like Biogon is almost out). I wish there will be solution from other manufacturers.
Feb 10, 2014 at 06:33 PM
p.1 #20Latest feedback on M lenses for Sony A7/A7r
wolfloid wrote:
Edward: thanks for that feedback on the Zeiss 50/2. I don't shoot much landscape, mostly environmental portraits/reportage, do you think it would be good for that? I ask because I have two other 50's that are probably of similar design, the Summicron and the Nokton 1.5. Any feedback on the quality of the sharp part of the image?
Definitely the 50/2 is a keeper. I said it was ok, without enthusiasm, because this is a lens with uniform sharpness across the frame on the M9, and it needs some stopping down on the A7 to reach the same performance. At medium and close range, it is wonderful, with an attractive rendering and very nice bokeh (better than the FE 55 in this respect). It doesn't seem to be affected by FC at these distances, probably because the exit pupil is further away from the sensor.
Feb 10, 2014 at 09:17 PM