This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
p.3 #1Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
Well, I don't want to drag this on too long, but no one guessed lens A. I am now really torn as to what to do. It is a little weak in the corners at infinity until stopped down to F8 or so (better at 11 in extreme corner, but I think overall image is probably better at F8) but the corners don't really bother me as they are good enough and in print no one will ever notice--even a large print. It is very sharp in the center even at infinity from wide open. Lens B has some large advantages--autofocus, faster, sharp to the corners at F4 and pretty good at F2.8. Lens A is smaller, manual focus, but dense with all metal construction and need for adapter. Lens B is cheaper and I don't know how rugged over time with the new LED display and such. Anyway, lens B is the Batis 25 and lens A is the Leica R 28 E55 (version 2) made in 1997. There is a reason some think it is the best 28 ever made. I put the Leica up for sale as I tend to use my Leica WATE at wide and then go to 35mm from there, but in using both of these lenses, I can see their merits and I have probably been remiss in not using the Leica like I should. Still, the Batis is fast and has autofocus. I can return the Batis (or sell at my cost to a forum member who wants it). Decisions, decisions. Nice to have such first world problems, but as Tim said above, it is nice to see that Sony (and Zeiss for Sony) are coming out with really good lenses for the E mount. The purist in me wonders how good the glass is really, and how much wizardry is being accomplished in cooking the algorithms. The Sony 28/2, for example, seems to work well in the system, but would anyone adapt that lens for use on a future body/system? Do such things even matter anymore? I actually wanted to test 28 to 28, but the store only had the 25 and having read Guy Mancuso (and others) raving about it, I figured why not try it.
Anyway, any thoughts welcome. It seems to me the Leica has somewhat nicer colors, is really easy to manually focus, smaller (tho heavier with the adapter!), and may be a smidgen better in the center (and good enough in zones B and C), but the Zeiss is better corrected for purple fringing and such, is faster by a stop, has autofocus, and is sharper at larger apertures in zones B and C. Pick your poison.
Anyway, any thoughts welcome. It seems to me the Leica has somewhat nicer colors, is really easy to manually focus, smaller (tho heavier with the adapter!), and may be a smidgen better in the center (and good enough in zones B and C), but the Zeiss is better corrected for purple fringing and such, is faster by a stop, has autofocus, and is sharper at larger apertures in zones B and C. Pick your poison.
Sep 05, 2015 at 06:45 PM
p.3 #2Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
My SMC Pentax 28mm f/3.5 K is awesome across the frame except at the extreme corners at distance (f/11)...but I love the way it renders. It's actually very good at wider apertures too. It's such a cheap lens though that it's a no brainer to keep it. It comes down to a lot more $$$ with the Leica.
It took me a few guesses to say that B was the Batis and A was a non-native 28mm lens. But that was as close as I could get.
Fun game I have to say!
Sep 05, 2015 at 07:02 PM
p.3 #3Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
I have not looked at the images. I would not be surprised if the new Zeiss Batis is sharper in the corners as others have reported that the older Zeiss 25mm is sharper than the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2.
There may well be some variation in performance of the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 lenses. I tend to get the impression though that my R 28mm V2 is sharper than my WATE though I have not made a direct comparison. I have found my lens to be sharp into the corners at f8; maybe it could be sharper. I have posted the images below before for someone debating selling his R 28 V2. These were taken with my tripod mounted A7r and my R 28mm V2. I believe these may have been shot at around f16 for DOF and should suffer from diffraction. so if so, I find this rather impressive but the 4 enlarged images are from the extreme corners as right out of the camera and converted to JPEG files at 100% as they were adjusted by default through LR6. The first image is the image from which the 4 corners were taken.
Rich
Left Top Corner
Right Top Corner
Left Bottom Corner
Right Bottom Corner
There may well be some variation in performance of the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 lenses. I tend to get the impression though that my R 28mm V2 is sharper than my WATE though I have not made a direct comparison. I have found my lens to be sharp into the corners at f8; maybe it could be sharper. I have posted the images below before for someone debating selling his R 28 V2. These were taken with my tripod mounted A7r and my R 28mm V2. I believe these may have been shot at around f16 for DOF and should suffer from diffraction. so if so, I find this rather impressive but the 4 enlarged images are from the extreme corners as right out of the camera and converted to JPEG files at 100% as they were adjusted by default through LR6. The first image is the image from which the 4 corners were taken.
Rich
Left Top Corner
Right Top Corner
Left Bottom Corner
Right Bottom Corner
Sep 05, 2015 at 07:09 PM
p.3 #4Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
Sometime I'd like to pit my Pentax against Rich's Leica...not expecting miracles, but just curious too see the delta. (At least for landscape shooting.)
Here's a full size, a7R shot with the Pentax @ f/11. Neutral color style, contrast -1, in Adobe RGB colorspace.
Full Size
Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread. Just the similarity of picking up the Batis while having a 28mm that I'm already happy with. BTW, checkout the dragonfly on the extreme left side of the frame.
-Tim
Here's a full size, a7R shot with the Pentax @ f/11. Neutral color style, contrast -1, in Adobe RGB colorspace.
 |
||
| http://www.devine.photography/img/s1/v48/p1450095387-6.jpg | ||
|
Full Size
Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread. Just the similarity of picking up the Batis while having a 28mm that I'm already happy with. BTW, checkout the dragonfly on the extreme left side of the frame.
-Tim
Sep 05, 2015 at 07:17 PM
p.3 #5Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
Very interesting comparison. Both very nice lenses and the results actually match the MTFs pretty closely. I was thinking they were both FE lenses, but I never would have gotten the Leica R as the other lenses. It did seem that B was the Batis 25. Personally I would rather have the Leica R for the better MF experience, but the cost difference isn't trivial and this comparison shows exactly what you'd give up by going with the Leica. Thanks for posting this thread. It was fun.
Sep 05, 2015 at 07:27 PM
p.3 #6Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
I and many others are guilty of pixel peeping at 100% in the corners. There is some softness, but it is really inconsequential. At larger apertures, mostly I would be shooting portraits or some other subject where I don't care if the corners are sharp. At F8, the corners are fine with only some softening at the extreme corner. It is remarkable that the Zeiss can do completely sharp corners at F4, but not sure that matters much. Much more important is the drawing style, colors, and contrast of the lens. I may be talking myself into keeping the Leica. I really like the Zeiss for how sweetly it marries to the sensor, for its clarity across the frame, and for swift, accurate autofocus, but I am not sure I like the overall package.
I did shoot the WATE today and have not looked much, but did not find it better than the Leica at first glance. Rich, your thoughts may be correct that the Leica 28 is as good or better than the WATE, but I will need to spend more time to know. I had been carrying the WATE, 35 2.8 (due to lightness), and 55 1.8 FE on hikes with occasionally the Leica 90/2 or FE 70-200/4, but perhaps I should take the 28 and not the 35. The 28 weighs more, but still a lot lighter than my old Canon setup where I carried Canon 17 T/S, Zeiss 21/2.8, Zeiss 35/2, Zeiss 50/2, MP, and Zeiss 100/2 MP. (Or 70-200). That was heavy with 5DM2.
Thx for your thoughts. I rarely read about the Leica R 28, and with the deluge of support for the Zeiss Batis, I figured it had to be better. In some ways, it is, but in others, perhaps more important ones for me, it is not.
I did shoot the WATE today and have not looked much, but did not find it better than the Leica at first glance. Rich, your thoughts may be correct that the Leica 28 is as good or better than the WATE, but I will need to spend more time to know. I had been carrying the WATE, 35 2.8 (due to lightness), and 55 1.8 FE on hikes with occasionally the Leica 90/2 or FE 70-200/4, but perhaps I should take the 28 and not the 35. The 28 weighs more, but still a lot lighter than my old Canon setup where I carried Canon 17 T/S, Zeiss 21/2.8, Zeiss 35/2, Zeiss 50/2, MP, and Zeiss 100/2 MP. (Or 70-200). That was heavy with 5DM2.
Thx for your thoughts. I rarely read about the Leica R 28, and with the deluge of support for the Zeiss Batis, I figured it had to be better. In some ways, it is, but in others, perhaps more important ones for me, it is not.
Sep 05, 2015 at 07:34 PM
p.3 #7Comparing two moderate wides on A7r2
OT, of course, but I wonder how the Leica Q, with its 28 1.7 Summilux would fare in this contest.
Sep 06, 2015 at 01:56 AM