ecarlino wrote:
with all this talk about short flange distance being a potential obstacle to high IQ (especially in the corners of wide angle lenses) -
I'm starting to hope there is a high-end A-mount announced soon that gives us the best of the A7 without the problems. Prior to testing out the A7r, my real hope was for Nikon to release a D800E without a mirror.
My primary interest in mirrorless is hybrid AF (on sensor PDAF to quickly zero in on the subject and contrast detect to finish it perfectly). This also gets around focus shift issues. And an EVF will help me finally get a MF lens.
Frankly, all this talk about the Loxia 35 biogon and potential trade offs, etc - has me wishing for my Sigma 35/1.4 again. I know some think it is a bit harsh and lacks the soul that Zeiss has, but I thought it was perfectly clean and easy to use.
It strikes me as more than a bit odd that neither Sony nor Zeiss seem forthcoming about anything wider than a 35mm lens and I'm starting to get concerned that there could be issues in developing a reasonably priced high IQ WA for the FE-mount. Of course, these concerns could be put to rest at any moment - but given the interest and concern, I'd think Sony would want to calm those concerns sooner than later....Show more →
The short flange isn't an issue on its own. You can still make lenses longer to deal with the issue, sized like DSLR lenses with an adapter attached.
rscheffler wrote:
Regarding the NEX cameras: that pertained mostly to color shift, which many didn't initially differentiate from edge smearing.
freaklikeme wrote:
That's not accurate. The 5n and 6 had far less severe smearing than the 7.
It's based on my own observations with the NEX-5N and 7 (though not compared directly) compared to the GXR and some detailed testing of specific ZM lenses on the 5N vs. the GXR by another FMer. Maybe the 5N was somewhat better, but there was still edge smearing. It really depended though on how critical one was and what was photographed. The 7 was definitely worse for color shift.
Some of the difference could also be a factor of sensor resolution, with the 7 showing the problem in more detail. Resizing down to 16MP and especially 12MP, when I compared it against the GXR, reduced how noticeable the problem was by a considerable degree.
adamdewilde wrote:
I'm going to say it again.. I'm fairly certain that Zeiss is not designing a lens based on a sensor that'll be updated 6-12 months from now.
1) They will not design a lens for one camera, to have it not jive well with the next generation of sensor.
2) Sony has probably already given Zeiss a completely different sensor to work with, something we're not privy to, if in fact Zeiss even needs said sensor to design the lens.
3) Zeiss is probably optimising their lenses for a set value, that may result in better images on one camera then another, but won't be optimised for a specific camera that's currently on the market.
If this were another RX1, I could see them making a lens based on camera (like the rumoured curved sensor fixed lens camera). This isn't that, this is a lens that's being released for A7 mount, but would/could come out for Fuji or Nikon, or anyone else wanting to jump into the FF mirror less game. It's not a Sony brand Zeiss lens.. It's a Zeiss lens that happens to have a Sony mount. ...Show more →
I think these are good points, especially with " *Dimensions and weight may vary according to the camera mount" in the Loxia PDF.
ecarlino wrote:
with all this talk about short flange distance being a potential obstacle to high IQ (especially in the corners of wide angle lenses) -
I'm starting to hope there is a high-end A-mount announced soon that gives us the best of the A7 without the problems. Prior to testing out the A7r, my real hope was for Nikon to release a D800E without a mirror.
My primary interest in mirrorless is hybrid AF (on sensor PDAF to quickly zero in on the subject and contrast detect to finish it perfectly). This also gets around focus shift issues. And an EVF will help me finally get a MF lens.
Frankly, all this talk about the Loxia 35 biogon and potential trade offs, etc - has me wishing for my Sigma 35/1.4 again. I know some think it is a bit harsh and lacks the soul that Zeiss has, but I thought it was perfectly clean and easy to use.
It strikes me as more than a bit odd that neither Sony nor Zeiss seem forthcoming about anything wider than a 35mm lens and I'm starting to get concerned that there could be issues in developing a reasonably priced high IQ WA for the FE-mount. Of course, these concerns could be put to rest at any moment - but given the interest and concern, I'd think Sony would want to calm those concerns sooner than later. ...Show more → douglasf13 wrote:
The short flange isn't an issue on its own. You can still make lenses longer to deal with the issue, sized like DSLR lenses with an adapter attached.
To extrapolate Doug's point, a critical factor is the exit pupil distance, which can be considerably different (longer) from the physical flange distance, but such consideration in a lens design likely results in other tradeoffs.
Looking again at the exit pupil distance chart at Lensrentals, compare the ancient Nikon 35/2 and brand new Nikon 35/1.8. The first has an exit pupil distance of 57mm, the latter, 136mm, which will be much more compatible with digital cameras. Look at the Sigma 18-35 ART. At 18mm its exit pupil distance is a whopping 149.35mm. There's certainly a benefit to this, when it comes to interaction with the sensor stack, though probably tradeoffs in other areas of the lens's design.
Yep, and the ZM 35/2 exit pupil is only 34mm from the sensor. I'm having a hard time imagining that a subtle change to the lens design would affect that much. I'm not really expecting that to change at all in the Loxia 35.
A change in resolution doesn't eliminate sensor reflections. Since both the A7 and A7s have an AA filter there must have changed something else about the stack.
The ZM15 is ofcourse an extreme example. That's why I added that I haven't tried rangefinder lenses. Btw, doesn't the smearing with that lens come from light that hits the sensor at an angle that's too steep? If It's field curvature... the corners should get completely sharp if you focus on them.
Yes, the corners did get surprisingly sharp (it's a forward FC).
douglasf13 wrote:
Yep, and the ZM 35/2 exit pupil is only 34mm from the sensor. I'm having a hard time imagining that a subtle change to the lens design would affect that much. I'm not really expecting that to change at all in the Loxia 35.
thanks for the info -
one Q (my primary one at this point) - putting aside whether or not they will - is it possible for Sony, Zeiss, or anyone else, given the parameters of the e-mount, stack size, flange distance, etc: is it feasible (within reasonable cost constraints) to build a wide angle lens (e.g. 20mm) that could equal the best IQ from other mounts?
one Q (my primary one at this point) - putting aside whether or not they will - is it possible for Sony, Zeiss, or anyone else, given the parameters of the e-mount, stack size, flange distance, etc: is it feasible (within reasonable cost constraints) to build a wide angle lens (e.g. 20mm) that could equal the best IQ from other mounts?
thanks again, eric
Sure, they should be able to built a 20mm that is as good or better than any 20mm for other mounts. The question is size. TheSuede mentioned a long time ago that the size of the FE mount + the distance of the mount from the sensor will limit how small the lenses can potentially be, especially as the focal lengths get wider and the apertures get larger. It'll be interesting to see what Zeiss and Sony come up with on the wide end. You might just want to throw on something like a ZF 21/2.8, in the meantime, if size isn't an issue.
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.
This was the shot by Luka which convinced me never to consider this lens:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
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.
I don't think we can judge on bokeh with such an excessive sharpening that guy used on his photos.
Believe me, this lens has problems with close focus and medium backgrounds, regardless of what you think of this particular image. No amount of sharpening could produce the above if it wasn't already there to a great extent. Even in normal shots, you can see that the background boke is often very jittery. Just not a lens after my taste.
ecarlino wrote:
It strikes me as more than a bit odd that neither Sony nor Zeiss seem forthcoming about anything wider than a 35mm lens and I'm starting to get concerned that there could be issues in developing a reasonably priced high IQ WA for the FE-mount. Of course, these concerns could be put to rest at any moment - but given the interest and concern, I'd think Sony would want to calm those concerns sooner than later.
To the best of my knowledge, Zeiss will release 5 Loxia lenses. They just pre-released 2 because it keeps the interest up to parse the information in dribs and drabs. As they seem close to the ZM line, I confidently expect a 18mm f4.0. There could also be a 25mm f:2.8, and some 85mm...
Just a guess, though. We will know later this week.
From the silhouettes, it's pretty obvious which are the two Loxia lenses, then there is an Otus at the bottom left... The mystery lens, so far, is the one at top right.
Regarding Luka's image: he never really disclosed much about his processing. My assumption was always that he was very liberal with the clarity and contrast sliders. That said, the ZM35/2 definitely has a busy bokeh character. Reminds me of the Canon 35/2 LTM.
Well, it would be an exciting development. My assumption was Zeiss canned it when the a7 series was announced to concentrate on Loxia... but who knows, maybe they were fairly far ahead in the process and just delayed it. Wasn't the rumor a 35/1.4? It would be hilarious if it's a 28/1.4 and coincides with the 28 Lux.
rscheffler wrote:
That said, the ZM35/2 definitely has a busy bokeh character. Reminds me of the Canon 35/2 LTM.
The Canon is probably even worse (or better if one prefers the look) as it can not only be jittery and nervous but also has that magical amusement ride ability to make one dizzy with it's swirling bokeh effect.
rscheffler wrote:
Well, it would be an exciting development. My assumption was Zeiss canned it when the a7 series was announced to concentrate on Loxia... but who knows, maybe they were fairly far ahead in the process and just delayed it. Wasn't the rumor a 35/1.4? It would be hilarious if it's a 28/1.4 and coincides with the 28 Lux.
That would definitely be an "oh snap!" moment. But actually it looks too big. It'd be huge compared to most other ZMs. I can't imagine what new ZE/ZF.2 it would be though.
Edit: OK I think that's a ZM. You can just barely see what I think is a tab on the aperture ring on the upper left. 35/1.4!
From the silhouettes, it's pretty obvious which are the two Loxia lenses, then there is an Otus at the bottom left... The mystery lens, so far, is the one at top right.
Regarding Luka's image: he never really disclosed much about his processing. My assumption was always that he was very liberal with the clarity and contrast sliders. That said, the ZM35/2 definitely has a busy bokeh character. Reminds me of the Canon 35/2 LTM.
He did disclose a bunch of his processing, I think he even started a thread about it! AFAIR he used Clarity liberally early on, and then realised how destructive it was to IQ (at the time; LR is not quite so hamfisted now). I am not aware of any problems with Contrast?
That's why I added that I haven't tried rangefinder lenses. Btw, doesn't the smearing with that lens come from light that hits the sensor at an angle that's too steep? If It's field curvature... the corners should get completely sharp if you focus on them. 