This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlande...
p.2 #1Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Anyone test the SuperElmar 18mm on a Sony A7 series camera?
Dec 10, 2014 at 05:13 PM
p.2 #2Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Thanks Artur!
Gerry, while I'm a 21mm lens addict, those two haven't yet tempted me, so unfortunately I can't offer opinions about them.
retrofocus wrote:
Now we just need a database for rangefinder lens performance on A7, A7II, A7R, and A7S
. Great work! The only lens I have personally experience with of those tested ones is my CV 35/1.2 Nokton II lens. I can fully agree with your test outcome here.
I also found your link to the 21 mm rangefinder tests (didn't see it earlier) - I also agree in regard to the CV 21/1.8 lens.
Yes a database would be good. Roger at Lensrentals started one for sensor thickness and exit pupil distance, but it doesn't have a lot of rangefinder lenses listed. Not sure how actively he's working on this topic.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
I suspect just knowing exit pupil distance would be enough to make an educated guess about performance, assuming nothing special has been done to the sensors coming from the usual suspects.
I no longer have the CV 21/1.8, but agree it's a great lens, especially for the price. It would have been a good one to test on these Sony cameras because many seem to believe it's one of the few good options (though I'm somewhat skeptical, but Tariq's reference to Sean Reid's test is encouraging).
Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander can send me their full lens sets, present and past, and I'll happily test all of them.
But in the meantime, the only planned near term lens acquisition will be the ZM 35/1.4. I'm really looking forward to it because it's shaping up to be a potentially amazing no-nonsense 35mm. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I'm thinking it could rival the Sonnar in the RX1.
Gerry, while I'm a 21mm lens addict, those two haven't yet tempted me, so unfortunately I can't offer opinions about them.
retrofocus wrote:
Now we just need a database for rangefinder lens performance on A7, A7II, A7R, and A7S
. Great work! The only lens I have personally experience with of those tested ones is my CV 35/1.2 Nokton II lens. I can fully agree with your test outcome here. I also found your link to the 21 mm rangefinder tests (didn't see it earlier) - I also agree in regard to the CV 21/1.8 lens.
Yes a database would be good. Roger at Lensrentals started one for sensor thickness and exit pupil distance, but it doesn't have a lot of rangefinder lenses listed. Not sure how actively he's working on this topic.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
I suspect just knowing exit pupil distance would be enough to make an educated guess about performance, assuming nothing special has been done to the sensors coming from the usual suspects.
I no longer have the CV 21/1.8, but agree it's a great lens, especially for the price. It would have been a good one to test on these Sony cameras because many seem to believe it's one of the few good options (though I'm somewhat skeptical, but Tariq's reference to Sean Reid's test is encouraging).
Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander can send me their full lens sets, present and past, and I'll happily test all of them.
But in the meantime, the only planned near term lens acquisition will be the ZM 35/1.4. I'm really looking forward to it because it's shaping up to be a potentially amazing no-nonsense 35mm. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I'm thinking it could rival the Sonnar in the RX1.Dec 10, 2014 at 06:54 PM
p.2 #3Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Desmolicious wrote:
Interesting that Steve Huff claims the A7s is great with Leica glass, but without showing any real tests like you have done.
You mean...like everything else he says?
Interesting that Steve Huff claims the A7s is great with Leica glass, but without showing any real tests like you have done.
You mean...like everything else he says?
Dec 12, 2014 at 02:52 PM
p.2 #4Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Ron,
Thanks for running these tests. I am going to have to look at these with a greater degree of care.
Rich
Thanks for running these tests. I am going to have to look at these with a greater degree of care.
Rich
Dec 12, 2014 at 04:26 PM
p.2 #5Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Thanks so much for all the effort Ron! I'm sure many FM'ers will find this information valuable.
Dec 12, 2014 at 04:46 PM
p.2 #6Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Desmolicious wrote:
Anyone test the SuperElmar 18mm on a Sony A7 series camera?
I don't have SE18, but it shares same design principle with SEM21 and SE24. I guess it will have edge problem as the SEM21.
Anyone test the SuperElmar 18mm on a Sony A7 series camera?
I don't have SE18, but it shares same design principle with SEM21 and SE24. I guess it will have edge problem as the SEM21.
Dec 12, 2014 at 06:38 PM
p.2 #7Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
gyoung143 wrote:
Yes thanks, your tests have made interesting reading for a while.
The only 'problem' for me is that neither of my 21s, the 2.8 Elmarit asph. and the Voigtlander 21/4 are not amongst those tested :-(
I keep looking at the A7 and hoping for miracles. If anyone has any experience of these I would be delighted to hear of it.
Gerry
If you search archives I did a test of Leica 2.8 Elmarit ASPH vs my now sold Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon. For me the results were quite acceptable, when stopped down a bit. Wide open the Zeiss was by far sharper in the corners and there was no color shift, but the Elmarit was way sharper in the center. I generally shoot landscapes at f/8, at that point the results still showed the Leica sharper in the centre by a fair margin and the corners were close with a slight edge to the zeiss but not enough to warrant keeping it. Though, while acceptable to me I do suggest you do your own testing.
Hope it helps.
Ryan
Yes thanks, your tests have made interesting reading for a while.
The only 'problem' for me is that neither of my 21s, the 2.8 Elmarit asph. and the Voigtlander 21/4 are not amongst those tested :-(
I keep looking at the A7 and hoping for miracles. If anyone has any experience of these I would be delighted to hear of it.
Gerry
If you search archives I did a test of Leica 2.8 Elmarit ASPH vs my now sold Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon. For me the results were quite acceptable, when stopped down a bit. Wide open the Zeiss was by far sharper in the corners and there was no color shift, but the Elmarit was way sharper in the center. I generally shoot landscapes at f/8, at that point the results still showed the Leica sharper in the centre by a fair margin and the corners were close with a slight edge to the zeiss but not enough to warrant keeping it. Though, while acceptable to me I do suggest you do your own testing.
Hope it helps.
Ryan
Dec 12, 2014 at 07:26 PM
p.2 #8Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Yes thanks, that does help, and I found your original post. I have been using the 21 Elmarit asph happily on a nex 6 but it would be nice to have the full fov.
Unfortunately from what I read there is little hope for my favourite 35, the Summicron asph :-( although it makes a nice 'standard' on the nex 6
Gerry
Unfortunately from what I read there is little hope for my favourite 35, the Summicron asph :-( although it makes a nice 'standard' on the nex 6
Gerry
Dec 13, 2014 at 03:26 AM
p.2 #9Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
I love 35mm Summicron on my M240, but it does not work well on the A7. However the Voightlander 35/1.2 Nokton II is great.
Ryan
Ryan
Dec 13, 2014 at 04:41 AM
p.2 #10Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Thank you very much Ron ! Really appreciate your time and effort !
Dec 13, 2014 at 05:24 AM
p.2 #11Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
it would be interesting to compare which wide lenses do well on this camera Vs their physical attributes. I reckon in most cases you can tell just by looking at them, the ones that do well will be the ones that stick out the most, like that voigtlander 35/1.2 vs the 35 summi mentioned above.
Dec 13, 2014 at 05:29 AM
p.2 #12Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
lostinjapan wrote:
I love 35mm Summicron on my M240, but it does not work well on the A7. However the Voightlander 35/1.2 Nokton II is great.
Ryan
Yes, so it appears, but its also big, heavy and much faster than I ever need, I have one f/1.4 lens and could happily live with f/2. Maybe the new voigtlander 1.7 will be good, I used the old one for a while on film and it was very good but I preferred the colour rendering etc of the Summicron on film.
Gerry
I love 35mm Summicron on my M240, but it does not work well on the A7. However the Voightlander 35/1.2 Nokton II is great.
Ryan
Yes, so it appears, but its also big, heavy and much faster than I ever need, I have one f/1.4 lens and could happily live with f/2. Maybe the new voigtlander 1.7 will be good, I used the old one for a while on film and it was very good but I preferred the colour rendering etc of the Summicron on film.
Gerry
Dec 13, 2014 at 06:04 AM
p.2 #13Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
The comparison I'm most curious about now is the CV 35/1.2 II vs Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 on the A7r (I suppose any of the A7's would be a decent surrogate). Given that the Zeiss is about twice the price and around the same size/ weight (3oz heavier with the CV but the Zeiss is a tiny bit longer), this comparison would be very interesting to see.
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
Dec 13, 2014 at 07:12 AM
p.2 #14Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The comparison I'm most curious about now is the CV 35/1.2 II vs Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 on the A7r (I suppose any of the A7's would be a decent surrogate). Given that the Zeiss is about twice the price and around the same size/ weight (3oz heavier with the CV but the Zeiss is a tiny bit longer), this comparison would be very interesting to see.
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
Exactly this! I am really debating whether to save up for a 35mm Summilux or get the new Zeiss once it is released. At this point, I am going to wait and see how they all compare before buying anything.
Ryan
The comparison I'm most curious about now is the CV 35/1.2 II vs Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 on the A7r (I suppose any of the A7's would be a decent surrogate). Given that the Zeiss is about twice the price and around the same size/ weight (3oz heavier with the CV but the Zeiss is a tiny bit longer), this comparison would be very interesting to see.
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
Exactly this! I am really debating whether to save up for a 35mm Summilux or get the new Zeiss once it is released. At this point, I am going to wait and see how they all compare before buying anything.
Ryan
Dec 13, 2014 at 07:52 AM
p.2 #15Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
lostinjapan wrote:
I love 35mm Summicron on my M240, but it does not work well on the A7. However the Voightlander 35/1.2 Nokton II is great.
Ryan
+1. Couldn't agree more! The 35/2 ASPH version does not work well at all on the A7 series. However, I know the version 4 of the 35/2 (non ASPH) works well - but I only saw it rarely offered and then for a steep price tag. For some reason I see many 35/2 ASPH lenses currently offered in the used market - I suspect many Leica users added a Sony A7 series camera and also realized that this lens only works well on Leica M cameras. The CV 35/1.2 II is the much better deal IMO even this lens is more bulky.
I love 35mm Summicron on my M240, but it does not work well on the A7. However the Voightlander 35/1.2 Nokton II is great.
Ryan
+1. Couldn't agree more! The 35/2 ASPH version does not work well at all on the A7 series. However, I know the version 4 of the 35/2 (non ASPH) works well - but I only saw it rarely offered and then for a steep price tag. For some reason I see many 35/2 ASPH lenses currently offered in the used market - I suspect many Leica users added a Sony A7 series camera and also realized that this lens only works well on Leica M cameras. The CV 35/1.2 II is the much better deal IMO even this lens is more bulky.
Dec 13, 2014 at 08:26 AM
p.2 #16Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The comparison I'm most curious about now is the CV 35/1.2 II vs Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 on the A7r (I suppose any of the A7's would be a decent surrogate). Given that the Zeiss is about twice the price and around the same size/ weight (3oz heavier with the CV but the Zeiss is a tiny bit longer), this comparison would be very interesting to see.
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
vs. Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH /pre-fle and fle
I bought the pre-fle a while back to pair with my A7R because the zeiss wasnt offered. I would like to know if i'm really gaining that size advantage for losing something... I know my setup isnt perfect but for what I'm doing now its perfect.
The comparison I'm most curious about now is the CV 35/1.2 II vs Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 on the A7r (I suppose any of the A7's would be a decent surrogate). Given that the Zeiss is about twice the price and around the same size/ weight (3oz heavier with the CV but the Zeiss is a tiny bit longer), this comparison would be very interesting to see.
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
vs. Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH /pre-fle and fle
I bought the pre-fle a while back to pair with my A7R because the zeiss wasnt offered. I would like to know if i'm really gaining that size advantage for losing something... I know my setup isnt perfect but for what I'm doing now its perfect.
Dec 13, 2014 at 09:04 AM
p.2 #17Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
Thanks everyone!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The comparison I'm most curious about now is the CV 35/1.2 II vs Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 on the A7r (I suppose any of the A7's would be a decent surrogate). Given that the Zeiss is about twice the price and around the same size/ weight (3oz heavier with the CV but the Zeiss is a tiny bit longer), this comparison would be very interesting to see.
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
lostinjapan wrote:
Exactly this! I am really debating whether to save up for a 35mm Summilux or get the new Zeiss once it is released. At this point, I am going to wait and see how they all compare before buying anything.
Ryan
Well, based on the few tests shots I did with the ZM 35/1.4 on the M240 at PPE, it looks like it will be a great lens, in terms of across-frame sharpness and ease of use (i.e. flat plane of focus). It will probably better the 35 Lux FLE in this respect, but the question will be rendering characteristics. My impression of the ZM is that it's quite neutral, with a slight touch of SA wide open in areas of fine detail. Kind of surprised no one visiting Zeiss at PPE had an a7 series along to test it on... seeing as how it would be a much more compact alternative to the ZE/ZF version and a possible candidate for the Loxia line. I don't own an a7x, otherwise would definitely have done so.
I posted some quick and dirty sample photos here on my site but also in a couple places here on FM (Leica thread, Zeiss images thread, and the ZM 35/1.4 thread)
I've only briefly used the CV35/1.7 and kind of felt a bit 'meh' about it. Perhaps it was the relatively mild rendering/contrast. Do we know that the new version is an optical reformulation, rather than just a reissue with updated coatings, like the 50/1.5? I'm sure this was answered somewhere, but I've lost track.
Spyro P. wrote:
it would be interesting to compare which wide lenses do well on this camera Vs their physical attributes. I reckon in most cases you can tell just by looking at them, the ones that do well will be the ones that stick out the most, like that voigtlander 35/1.2 vs the 35 summi mentioned above.
I'm not sure we can go by this. Knowing the exit pupil distance would probably be the best way to estimate, but unfortunately this value is rarely published by manufacturers nowadays. Hopefully Roger at Lensrentals will work on it and update his blog post.
Perhaps one way of visually 'eyeballing' compatibility might be the shape of the rear element. For example, the 28 Cron, and all of the ZM wides have convex rear element shapes, whereas the ZM35/1.4 is concave. The 21 SEM is pretty much flat, the 21 Lux is slightly concave... however the WATE is slightly concave. Not sure this would work...
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The comparison I'm most curious about now is the CV 35/1.2 II vs Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 on the A7r (I suppose any of the A7's would be a decent surrogate). Given that the Zeiss is about twice the price and around the same size/ weight (3oz heavier with the CV but the Zeiss is a tiny bit longer), this comparison would be very interesting to see.
edit. Size wise, that new upcoming Voigtlander 35/1.7 will likely prove a great compromise (size, weight, cost).
lostinjapan wrote:
Exactly this! I am really debating whether to save up for a 35mm Summilux or get the new Zeiss once it is released. At this point, I am going to wait and see how they all compare before buying anything.
Ryan
Well, based on the few tests shots I did with the ZM 35/1.4 on the M240 at PPE, it looks like it will be a great lens, in terms of across-frame sharpness and ease of use (i.e. flat plane of focus). It will probably better the 35 Lux FLE in this respect, but the question will be rendering characteristics. My impression of the ZM is that it's quite neutral, with a slight touch of SA wide open in areas of fine detail. Kind of surprised no one visiting Zeiss at PPE had an a7 series along to test it on... seeing as how it would be a much more compact alternative to the ZE/ZF version and a possible candidate for the Loxia line. I don't own an a7x, otherwise would definitely have done so.
I posted some quick and dirty sample photos here on my site but also in a couple places here on FM (Leica thread, Zeiss images thread, and the ZM 35/1.4 thread)
I've only briefly used the CV35/1.7 and kind of felt a bit 'meh' about it. Perhaps it was the relatively mild rendering/contrast. Do we know that the new version is an optical reformulation, rather than just a reissue with updated coatings, like the 50/1.5? I'm sure this was answered somewhere, but I've lost track.
Spyro P. wrote:
it would be interesting to compare which wide lenses do well on this camera Vs their physical attributes. I reckon in most cases you can tell just by looking at them, the ones that do well will be the ones that stick out the most, like that voigtlander 35/1.2 vs the 35 summi mentioned above.
I'm not sure we can go by this. Knowing the exit pupil distance would probably be the best way to estimate, but unfortunately this value is rarely published by manufacturers nowadays. Hopefully Roger at Lensrentals will work on it and update his blog post.
Perhaps one way of visually 'eyeballing' compatibility might be the shape of the rear element. For example, the 28 Cron, and all of the ZM wides have convex rear element shapes, whereas the ZM35/1.4 is concave. The 21 SEM is pretty much flat, the 21 Lux is slightly concave... however the WATE is slightly concave. Not sure this would work...
Dec 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM
p.2 #18Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
The 28/1.9 Ultron is a long thing, and it works well on my nex 6, although thats not so much of a challenge as an A7.
Gerry
Gerry
Dec 13, 2014 at 11:31 AM
p.2 #19Sony a7S infinity test w/21 rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Canon)
rscheffler wrote:
I've only briefly used the CV35/1.7 and kind of felt a bit 'meh' about it. Perhaps it was the relatively mild rendering/contrast. Do we know that the new version is an optical reformulation, rather than just a reissue with updated coatings, like the 50/1.5? I'm sure this was answered somewhere, but I've lost track.
It's a completely new optical design consisting of 9 elements in 7 groups. The original was 8 elements in 6 groups.
I've only briefly used the CV35/1.7 and kind of felt a bit 'meh' about it. Perhaps it was the relatively mild rendering/contrast. Do we know that the new version is an optical reformulation, rather than just a reissue with updated coatings, like the 50/1.5? I'm sure this was answered somewhere, but I've lost track.
It's a completely new optical design consisting of 9 elements in 7 groups. The original was 8 elements in 6 groups.
Dec 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM