p.27 #1 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Awesome shots Nico, particular the last B&W shots. You definitely have an eye for this.
To everyone, I currently have a chance to trade my Contax 55 and 85 for the Lux 50 ASPH and the Cron 28. I shoot mainly landscape (more emphasis) and portrait. The 55 has a very mild drop in mid-frame stopping down (5.6 or 8); I have to compare it to the ZA 50 to see that drop clearly. I'm trading mainly because of the size. I don't want to have any duplicate in any of my focal length so the lens I get has to be sharp enough WO and very sharp stop-down with minimal field curvature. For the wide, I also want minimal coma@WO for wide-field astro shots.
My question to you guys is whether the 50 Lux and 28 Cron would be able to fulfill such role. From what I see here (and the MTF charts), the Cron is good enough in term of resolution. It's the Lux that I'm not so sure. For coma, how are they? I can't find such info anywhere. Any input would be much appreciated.
p.27 #2 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
rscheffler wrote:
the new Sony FE28 is looking pretty good, at only $450. But it won't really buy you and size savings, and perhaps only a bit of weight. Rendering may also be a bit mellower than the R28.
This will be a very interesting lens: did they really "do" it or is this another 24/1.8 where the lens does some things very nicely but long landscapes...not so much.
hiepphotog wrote:
Awesome shots Nico, particular the last B&W shots. You definitely have an eye for this.
To everyone, I currently have a chance to trade my Contax 55 and 85 for the Lux 50 ASPH and the Cron 28. I shoot mainly landscape (more emphasis) and portrait. The 55 has a very mild drop in mid-frame stopping down (5.6 or 8); I have to compare it to the ZA 50 to see that drop clearly. I'm trading mainly because of the size. I don't want to have any duplicate in any of my focal length so the lens I get has to be sharp enough WO and very sharp stop-down with minimal field curvature. For the wide, I also want minimal coma@WO for wide-field astro shots.
My question to you guys is whether the 50 Lux and 28 Cron would be able to fulfill such role. From what I see here (and the MTF charts), the Cron is good enough in term of resolution. It's the Lux that I'm not so sure. For coma, how are they? I can't find such info anywhere. Any input would be much appreciated....Show more →
Which body are we talking? Obviously on the M9 these are unbeatable....well except maybe for APO and 28 Lux
p.27 #3 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
hiepphotog wrote:
Awesome shots Nico, particular the last B&W shots. You definitely have an eye for this.
To everyone, I currently have a chance to trade my Contax 55 and 85 for the Lux 50 ASPH and the Cron 28. I shoot mainly landscape (more emphasis) and portrait. The 55 has a very mild drop in mid-frame stopping down (5.6 or 8); I have to compare it to the ZA 50 to see that drop clearly. I'm trading mainly because of the size. I don't want to have any duplicate in any of my focal length so the lens I get has to be sharp enough WO and very sharp stop-down with minimal field curvature. For the wide, I also want minimal coma@WO for wide-field astro shots.
My question to you guys is whether the 50 Lux and 28 Cron would be able to fulfill such role. From what I see here (and the MTF charts), the Cron is good enough in term of resolution. It's the Lux that I'm not so sure. For coma, how are they? I can't find such info anywhere. Any input would be much appreciated....Show more →
I think as Charlie mentioned as which body you would most use. Of the A7rM will be very good with the 50 Lux Asph and 28 Cron Asph. Only question will it suit?
IMO I love the FE 55 as it is an amazing lens in own league. For rendering I prefer the 50 Nocti f/1.0. With the new FE 28, I would wait and test this lens first, as it may be the ideal 28mm lens with the A7's.
Charlie/Ron.
I know I will definitely buy the FE 28/2 at $450. From other sample shots I have seen, the lens looks like it will be a gem. There is no downside here
p.27 #4 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Thank you Charlie and Charles. I will be shooting on my A7s.Mod. Expanding on that, I'm going to get the next hi-res Sony body and possibly mod that too if possible. This is going to be my kit so I'm not going to deal with any AF lenses, especially with the focus-by-wire deal. I'll get my wife the FE 28/2 (or maybe the 35/1.4 since I'm currently in love with its rendering ) for her use, but I don't see myself using it at all.
Charles, since you have the Lux 50, would you be able to take a "flat" infinity shot at f/8? I would love to evaluate that against my Contax 55. Thanks.
Regarding coma control, are these two lenses good enough? Mainly I want to see how the Cron 28 would do at WO.
On the side note: I'm still waiting for Ilija update regarding the arrival of the brand new filter stack. The wait is excruciating .
p.27 #5 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
I should have time this weekend to test the flat infinity test at f/8 with 50 Lux Asph. It has been a learning curve for me, as I have begin to appreciate how critical it can be to focus on the right objects close to or at infinity. If this is not correct, there will be areas that are not critically sharp, even though it should be with respect to the DOF.
p.27 #6 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
I would think the a7 series mod brings performance pretty close to that of the M digital cameras. With that in mind and FWIW, my experience using the M9 and M240 is that the 50 Lux ASPH does have some mid zone dip that can sometimes be seen in images, if you really look for it. It is fine at f/8 and slightly visible at f/5.6. It's probable most visible at f/2.8 and f/4. While I haven't tested it extensively, it seems to be more problematic at non-infinity distances and may get worse as the subject distance decreases, going by a few years of experience with the lens on digital M bodies. I would expect it to behave very similarly on a modified a7/R/S. While the following isn't exactly what you're looking for, I did a near infinity cityscape side by side of the a7S and M240, with the M240 files reduced to a7S dimensions. It includes both the 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. If you evaluate the M240 files, I think you should see very close to what you'll get with the modded a7S. I also did a similar side by side with the a7R and M9, if you want to see the two lenses at the M9's 18MP instead. The links:a7S vs. M240 test and a7R vs. M9 test
The Sony cameras were obviously unmodified, but just want to point that out so no one assumes otherwise. The scene also wasn't tilted for corner to corner horizon coverage. Rather, my interest was to see left and right side edge performance. Focus was by live view on the church spire in front of the brown high-rise just left of center.
Coma is a good question... I haven't tested for that.
The 28 Cron does have some sharpness falloff towards the edges, though wide open it can look OK for infinity scenes. IMO a fair amount better than the 28 vIII posted by Charlie, but stopping down to at least f/4 helps a lot.
There was also some debate about how critical it was to match correct infinity focus with the actual infinity hard stop on the lens when adapting to the FE mount because many adapters allow focus past infinity. This could potentially be a factor with lenses like the 50 Lux ASPH that rely on a floating element system, that then would be out of tune with the actual subject distance, potentially degrading performance. I think some adapters allow adjustment for this. Reading a recent blog post by Jim Kasson, he seemed to have some luck with Kipon adapters hitting perfect infinity focus.
Charlie: the infinity f/8 scene looks a bit softer along the left side than the right side. Maybe there is a slight decentering of the lens, or a minor adapter problem?
p.27 #7 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
charles.K wrote:
I think as Charlie mentioned as which body you would most use. Of the A7rM will be very good with the 50 Lux Asph and 28 Cron Asph. Only question will it suit?
IMO I love the FE 55 as it is an amazing lens in own league. For rendering I prefer the 50 Nocti f/1.0. With the new FE 28, I would wait and test this lens first, as it may be the ideal 28mm lens with the A7's.
Charlie/Ron.
I know I will definitely buy the FE 28/2 at $450. From other sample shots I have seen, the lens looks like it will be a gem. There is no downside here ...Show more →
Charles,
Thank you for the recommendation. I will wait for more info before I just put myself on a pre-order, though maybe I will reconsider that. There is the one downside of the announced FE 28mm f2 lens and that is it does not have any aperture ring and no true manual focus (focus by wire) like all of Sony's offerings.
p.27 #8 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
rscheffler wrote:
Charlie: the infinity f/8 scene looks a bit softer along the left side than the right side. Maybe there is a slight decentering of the lens, or a minor adapter problem?
Derek has suspected the lens is decentered, and the left is also weaker on the M9, so it may be so, though the adapter is not out of the question. You'd expect to see it on more lenses though.
Frankly, it's better than I expected after the M9 shots's I shared with you.
Another fact is the dips. It's funny because I see some funkiness low in the frame on some long shots but when I look higher things seem to straighten out.
On the house front shot, the edges are quite strong, so I'm pretty confused
here another where I can't complain: DSC03185 by unoh7, on Flickr
can you see a sharper side in that one?
and here the left seems stronger than the right: DSC03182 by unoh7, on Flickr
This lens must be haunted by some unsung technician
one more with nice details on the weak left: DSC03175 by unoh7, on Flickr
But the bottom line, the A7.mod looks not to shabby here
p.27 #9 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Shots this afternoon.
First shot A7rM and 50 Lux Asph at f/8 focused as accurately as possible for infinity.
The other four shots are with the M28 Elmarit v3. The third shot is at f/4 focused on the grass in the foreground.
The last two shots are directly into the sun.
p.27 #10 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Charles,
Thank you for running the tests. Could you run some tests on the WATE and compare performance on the lens at 16mm, 18mm, and 21mm. I believe that you suggested that you thought that the performed best on an M body at 16mm. My understanding is that on the Stock A7r that the lens performs best at 21mm. So, it will be interesting to see the improvement at all 3 focal lengths on the A7rm.
I may well purchase the new FE 28mm f2 lens particularly as we get more info and tests performed. It would save me 8 oz over my R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 plus the 3 oz weight of my Novoflex R to NEX adapter in my pack/bag. Not overjoyed about the MF by wire and the lack of an aperture ring. Also, added to my wish list at B&H not only the lens but the Sony protector filter in 49mm since I saw that my normally used B+W UV filters transparently interfere with the installation of the Sony lens hoods on the FE lenses.
With the savings on the cost of the FE 28mm lens, if it is that good, that would save me a substantial amount of money providing me with more funds to do the mod on my A7r sooner. But, the big question that I would have is if the mod will have any affect on the performance of the new FE 28mm lens. I believe someone in the thread did not find any affect on at least one of the FE lenses.
p.27 #11 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Hi Rich,
From I have seen with the WATE, there does seem to some improvements, but it is very hard to compare. I will try and test some more
The FE 28/2 does look good and for the price you cannot go wrong. I love my FE 55, even with the AF/no f stops and focus by wire. With A7s and FE 55, it is great combo! I do hope the FE 28/2 is close in performance.
Mar 05, 2015 at 07:42 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.27 #12 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
naturephoto1 wrote:
Charles,
Thank you for running the tests. Could you run some tests on the WATE and compare performance on the lens at 16mm, 18mm, and 21mm. I believe that you suggested that you thought that the performed best on an M body at 16mm. My understanding is that on the Stock A7r that the lens performs best at 21mm. So, it will be interesting to see the improvement at all 3 focal lengths on the A7rm.
I may well purchase the new FE 28mm f2 lens particularly as we get more info and tests performed. It would save me 8 oz over my R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 plus the 3 oz weight of my Novoflex R to NEX adapter in my pack/bag. Not overjoyed about the MF by wire and the lack of an aperture ring. Also, added to my wish list at B&H not only the lens but the Sony protector filter in 49mm since I saw that my normally used B+W UV filters transparently interfere with the installation of the Sony lens hoods on the FE lenses.
With the savings on the cost of the FE 28mm lens, if it is that good, that would save me a substantial amount of money providing me with more funds to do the mod on my A7r sooner. But, the big question that I would have is if the mod will have any affect on the performance of the new FE 28mm lens. I believe someone in the thread did not find any affect on at least one of the FE lenses.
I wouldn't bet on the FE 28 f/2 and a modified camera without it being tested. The 28 is a short focal length with a fairly wide aperture and you want to use it at infinity. That is exactly the recipe for when a lens could be affected by the cover glass. I will be getting the lens for my wife to use on an unmodified camera and I may well get a modified camera, but I expect the performance of the FE 28 to suffer a bit on the modified camera. I hope I am wrong, but if I were in your shoes I would wait.
p.27 #13 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
rscheffler wrote:
Charlie: the infinity f/8 scene looks a bit softer along the left side than the right side. Maybe there is a slight decentering of the lens, or a minor adapter problem?
uhoh7 wrote:
Derek has suspected the lens is decentered, and the left is also weaker on the M9, so it may be so, though the adapter is not out of the question. You'd expect to see it on more lenses though.
Frankly, it's better than I expected after the M9 shots's I shared with you.
Another fact is the dips. It's funny because I see some funkiness low in the frame on some long shots but when I look higher things seem to straighten out.
On the house front shot, the edges are quite strong, so I'm pretty confused
can you see a sharper side in that one?
But the bottom line, the A7.mod looks not to shabby here
Charlie - the first of the three looks good. I'm curious where your focus point was in the second image? If you look at the retaining wall along the left and right sides, the right side is sharper at similar distances. In the third image, distant edge details are sharp on the right, blurred on the left. It kind of feels like the plane of focus is slightly tilted closer on the left side. But maybe not read too much into this and just use and enjoy the lens. WB feels slightly cold/greenish in the second and third, but maybe that's just how it is?
Good news about your M9. When did you send it in? Seems like somewhat faster than usual turnaround..
p.27 #14 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Ron: thank you for your inputs. I looked at your test before but was mainly interested in how the A7 series behaved back in the day. Just looking at these two behavior on the native platform, I don't have much reservation then. I wouldn't worry too much about the infinity stop since I plan to get for each of these their own hawk's adapter for infinity adjustment.
Is it possible if you can take a quick WO shot tonight of the sky to evaluate the coma performance? I know it's full moon and all so might not be all that conclusive. Thank you.
Charles: Thank you for taking time doing that shot. Would you mind sending me the full-res version of it so I can scrutinize its performance on the modded A7R?
p.27 #15 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
rscheffler wrote:
Good news about your M9. When did you send it in? Seems like somewhat faster than usual turnaround..
I agree mystery most likely revolves around my focus which could favor one side of a decentered lens.
I lost a day or four on my M9 due to mis communication about the estimate, they mailed me an estimate, and I don't go to the PO every day . I should have been on their case by phone, in which case total turn around would have been under two weeks!
p.27 #16 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
mdemeyer wrote:
Both questions dealt with earlier in the thread. In short, there are always trade-offs but they may or may not matter to you. For example, the dust shaker is disabled and thinner glass makes dust on the sensor cover more visible. As to SLR lenses, the theory (as described by Roger and Brian's analysis on the Lens Rentals blog) seems to hold on practice - all lenses designed for film will improve, but the degree of improvement varies.
Too much to restate the details. Respectfully suggest you run through the thread for detailed info.
Michael
I looked in detail through the first ten pages or so but didn't find a precise answer to my question - then this thread got cluttered with all kind of lens tests with modified A7 series cameras - useful, but not answering the question and experience of potential disadvantages with the modification if there are any. Could somebody please summarize this briefly?
Mar 05, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.27 #17 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
retrofocus wrote:
I looked in detail through the first ten pages or so but didn't find a precise answer to my question - then this thread got cluttered with all kind of lens tests with modified A7 series cameras - useful, but not answering the question and experience of potential disadvantages with the modification if there are any. Could somebody please summarize this briefly?
The disadvantages of the modification includes four things IMO:
First, more dust problems. It disables the dust shaker and the thinner cover glass will show the dust more easily. This means that the sensor will have to be cleaned more often as dust bunnies will be more common and more problematic.
Second, more potential IR contamination of images. The thinner cover glass will have more difficult block IR light and one can expect at times to see a bit of IR contamination.
Third, the cover glass may be more prone to damage. The glass the Kolari is using is known to degrade somewhat in high humidity environments. Kolari has been great about promising to fix sensors if they degrade, but it is a concern. The thinner glass might be more prone to cracking too and that together with the extra cleaning that will be required worries some people. Personally, I am not too worried about this issue but I am sure concerns will vary.
Fourth, lenses designed for the thick cover glass might not perform as well. I am betting (literally, Charlie and I have a six pack of beer on it) that certain lenses like the Loxia 35 f/2 will not perform as well on the modified cameras as they do on the unmodified cameras. As with lenses designed for film on the thick sensor, wide angles with short exit pupils and wide apertures should fare the worst. So a lens like the FE 55 f/1.8 is likely to be pretty good as it seems to have a long exit pupil, but a lens like the Loxia 35 f/2 that is a wider angle and has a shorter exit pupil may not do as well. If wider angle short exit pupil lenses are made, then these are likely to show the biggest problem.
p.27 #18 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
retrofocus wrote:
I looked in detail through the first ten pages or so but didn't find a precise answer to my question - then this thread got cluttered with all kind of lens tests with modified A7 series cameras - useful, but not answering the question and experience of potential disadvantages with the modification if there are any. Could somebody please summarize this briefly?
Short summary:
Positives
- Closer to as-designed performance for lenses designed for film or Leica digital sensor stack. That's the big win for most of the interested parties. This is true for ALL film lenses (rangefinder and SLR) although the amount of improvement varies with lens design. Again, see the technical work on the Lens Rentals blog for the science. Everything we have seen so far seems to match theory. I have not seen anyone post something that showed a degradation with a film lens vs. the unmodified Sony A7-series cameras, and many of the results are very, very positive.
- It appears (and I think the jury is still out on this) that the mod has a minimal negative impact on the native lenses. Theory predicts there should be some negative impact, but so far I have not seen anyone present clear evidence.
Negatives
- Thinner glass makes dust more visible because it's closer to the sensor. Same issue as Leica.
- Dust shaker disabled (it's attached to one of the thick glass elements on the stock Sony and that glass is removed).
- Camera warranty is void by modification.
- Current filter is Schott BG39. It seems that (virtually?) all BG filter glass can be damaged by long-term exposure to humidity, worse when combined with high temperature. BG39 is middle of the pack in resistance to this (better than the S8612 used by Leica in the M9, but worse than some other possible, but difficult to source, glass types). KolariVision is providing a replacement warranty against glass corrosion, but some people in tropical locations have decided against the mod on this issue.
- Thinner glass is easier to break while cleaning the sensor. Similar to Leica in this regard.
There are other topics under discussion but still not clear in my mind.
- Sensor reflections. This was an issue with the original A7, and reported to be better with the A7r and A7s. It's not clear how the modified cameras are in this regard. I can cause reflections if I really try and we have seen one in a photo from uhoh off a sun glint, but overall I'm not hearing people complain. Others might want to comment on this point if they have had issues.
p.27 #19 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Steve Spencer wrote:
Second, more potential IR contamination of images. The thinner cover glass will have more difficult block IR light and one can expect at times to see a bit of IR contamination.
While I agree with Steve that a thinner filter lets more of everything through, including IR, it's important to understand (as explained in an earlier post) that the type of glass selected makes much more difference in IR rejection than the thickness. Half as thick lets in twice as much. Different curves let in orders or magnitude more or less near IR.
So far, I don't think I have seen any evidence that the mod is worse (or better, which is also possible) than the stock Sony in this regard. If I missed it, please let me know! KolariVision's primary business is doing IR modifications and, from what I understand having been involved in the project, one of the goals was to keep IR rejection as similar to stock as possible while still achieving the other goals of the program.
p.27 #20 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
mdemeyer wrote:
While I agree with Steve that a thinner filter lets more of everything through, including IR, it's important to understand (as explained in an earlier post) that the type of glass selected makes much more difference in IR rejection than the thickness. Half as thick lets in twice as much. Different curves let in orders or magnitude more or less near IR.
So far, I don't think I have seen any evidence that the mod is worse (or better, which is also possible) than the stock Sony in this regard. If I missed it, please let me know! KolariVision's primary business is doing IR modifications and, from what I understand having been involved in the project, one of the goals was to keep IR rejection as similar to stock as possible while still achieving the other goals of the program.
) for her use, but I don't see myself using it at all.
.
