douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, it seems optimistic. Am I correct in saying that the A7 and A7r seem to perform differently in this regard, as well?
not sure, all of the rangefinder lenses i've used on both seem pretty much the same for smearing but with worse color shift on the a7r. i've heard lots of people claim differences in smearing with different lenses though.
sebboh wrote:
for those curious about the performance/draw of the zm 35/2, luka (denoir) did lovely job of compiling all images he's posted with it on the m9 here.
The Bokeh is interesting. I can see where it's probably a love/hate type of rendering. The super sharp Canon 35/2 LTM I just received shows a similar, "textured" bokeh effect at closer focus distances. Probably going to be too busy/ nervous for all tastes.
Though these two lenses aren't close to being pancakes, they at least look decently sized on the A7(s,r). Perhaps another 24 hours and we'll know a lot more about their performance (and price) . . .
The bokeh of the new Loxia 50/2 seems to be quite similar to that of the 50/2 ZM. I don't really like it. I hope that the 35/2 will be smoother than the ZM version, but I doubt it.
I've have already placed my order for the Planar 50. Basically, while they (Planars) aren't perfect, they are just my type of imperfection As soon as I have a date, I'll let you know. And then pics, of course.
As regards the Biogon 35, I see a lot of moans and groans. AFAIK, the ZM 35 f:2.0 is very well regarded, so, if Zeiss are able to get that sort of performance out of their Loxia without camera-related trouble, it should be interesting on the A7R...
As far as I'm concerned, I love my ZM lenses on Leica M bodies. If I could get the same rendering on a Sony A7R with a much closer MFD (35 and 45 cm instead of 70 cm) that would be an absolutely irresistible possibility.
Sep 01, 2014 at 04:29 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think what is reasonable to expect is that these lenses will perform as well as the ZM lenses on a digital Leica. For me that won't be enough for these two, because I am not a fan of the bokeh of either, but I suspect many people like Phillipe and Edward will be happy.
No one has posted the Zeiss Loxia leaflet yet? They leaked it this morning for a bit, but then took it down. Someone set up a mirror, though : http://tempsend.com/CF2E1B5F1A
The designs are VERY close to the ZM designs, but looking at the 35 Biogon block diagram, they've redesigned (slightly) at least two of the elements from the ZM version, which may be to address the sensor stack problems.
Oh, and MFD of 0.30 and 0.45m for the 35/50 respectively.
Jman13 wrote:
No one has posted the Zeiss Loxia leaflet yet?
It was posted yesterday
Jman13 wrote:
The designs are VERY close to the ZM designs, but looking at the 35 Biogon block diagram, they've redesigned (slightly) at least two of the elements from the ZM version, which may be to address the sensor stack problems.
Oh, and MFD of 0.30 and 0.45m for the 35/50 respectively.
There's a slight variation, but it seems that wouldn't be enough to shift the exit pupil or introduce just the right degree of astigmatism to counteract smearing from the filter stack (which presumably is different for different apertures and focus distances).
The 50/2 in the photos doesn't look like the ZM at all. The front element in the picture looks well convex like a wide angle while the ZM front element is very slightly convex and quite larger in diameter. Whatever that entails in performance terms I have no idea
Matt Grum wrote:
There's a slight variation, but it seems that wouldn't be enough to shift the exit pupil or introduce just the right degree of astigmatism to counteract smearing from the filter stack (which presumably is different for different apertures and focus distances).
nearly every 50/1.4 looks just as similar in optical diagrams yet there is huge variation in performance. also optical diagrams don't say anything about refractive index.
Here is another comparison of the Biogon Loxia 35/2 and the ZM 35/2. The ZM diagram was taken from the Zeiss Ikon leaflet PDF.
Just playing complete armchair quarterback but perhaps the compression of the front optical group (the entire thing is compressed it appears) in the Loxia results in greater coverage (expansion of image circle) of the Biogon? Might that push the central sharp area outwards enough but possibly at the expense of a little sharpness?
It would be interesting to hear an experts (theSuede) opinion on the possible effect. Perhaps it's impossible to know with all the other variables ( glass types, etc)?
If the first sample image is anything to go on.. I'd be pretty pleased with the 50/2 and I'd consider it my "character lens". And would use it when I felt like that kinda bokeh.
sebboh wrote:
nearly every 50/1.4 looks just as similar in optical diagrams yet there is huge variation in performance. also optical diagrams don't say anything about refractive index.
There is huge variation in performance, but all symmetric 50s share certain characteristics, which is why the Outs and 50 Art use different (or at least substantially skewed) designs.
The only evidence I've seen that you can "reverse" the astigmatism that results from oblique rays hitting the filter stack is patent from Brian Caldwell on behalf of Panavision for a system of corrective lenses inserted between the original lens and sensor.
If it were easy to counteract this smearing by tweaking the shape of the elements slightly or changing glass types then surely Olympus/Panasonic would have done this instead of designing lenses toward telecentricity.
All this talk about bad sensor stack is cracking me up...this will be a native lens designed for the whole sensor not some add on left over from the film era.
mogul wrote:
All this talk about bad sensor stack is cracking me up...this will be a native lens designed for the whole sensor not some add on left over from the film era.
That's exactly what this is: a left over lens design from the film era. That's why there is concern. The question is whether some kind of minor modification to that design is enough to make it play well with the A7, and, by that I mean whether it performs as well as the ZM 35/2 on the M9.
Does anyone have any idea about the measurements of the mount sizes between the two mounts? Looking at the E mount, it seems to clip the 4 corners, like it is the bare minimum for FF. The incidence of rays coming in what I expect Zeiss to address with the Lokia line.
Looking at the size of the lens, it seems that the Loxia diametre may well be larger thant he ZM's. This would be a simple way for Zeiss to mitigate corner and edge issues. They do that on the Otus, for reference.
As soon as I have a date, I'll let you know. And then pics, of course.
(which presumably is different for different apertures and focus distances).