p.8 #1 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
A 5 or 10 percent drop or curve probably isn't going to matter much (and probably individual lenses vary this much anyways). A 20 or especially a 40 percent drop or curve will definitely matter, however, but you are absolutely right we need to know more about how the tests are done to draw the most useful conclusions.
The problem, particularly with comparing say that ZM 35/1.4 (at least wide open, where differences would be the greatest), is that off-axis we see a whole lot more than just a small variation based on the cover glass thickness. It is in the 20 - 40% range over more than half of the frame. That delta almost certainly shrinks as we stop down but I bet it's still very high between the mid-zone and borders even there with this lens.
Back to the Leica M 28 cron vs lux. The off-axis performance difference of the Lux on the SL vs Leica M240 was not so subtle. It was noticeably better on the SL in Sean Reid's test. Conversely, some of the more traditional M wides were noticeably worse on the SL off-axis. This does raise a question (relevant for you I suppose as I think you are considering the ZM 35/1.4 for use on the SL?) as to just how will the ZM 35/1.4 do on the SL - a lens which has been optimized for the M240. Until other evidence, I highly suspect that indeed the SL has thicker cover glass than the M240 (the differences in performance with the SL vs M240 is not about micro-lens differences for instance).
p.8 #2 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
According to a group interview of Peter Karbe published as a video by LL, most Leica published MTFs are theoretical. See approx. 8:45. But unfortunately the point wasn't elaborated much. This was in approx. January 2009... Things may have changed since then.
p.8 #3 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Leica's MTF charts are all computed, not measured. However, I see it as a more flexible way to account for any variation in sensor stack thickness.
Besides, those calculated Canon and Nikon's MTF charts are quite close to what Lensrental is getting. Stopping down is a different matter since diffraction tends to be removed from the equation. But we don't see any current third-party's measurement to corroborate the info.
So far I do find field curvature, the amount of astigmatism and lateral CA on a Zeiss/Leica MTF chart track well with real world experience.
p.8 #4 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
hiepphotog wrote:
I would not be surprised if the Cron 28's corners are sharper on film than on the M9/240.
I agree though I don't think we really know. There is also copy variation in the 28 cron. hiepphotog wrote:
Rich, vignetting and color cast should be similar. I believe there is a slight Cyan cast on the A7R with the WATE.
Here I would think the color cast will be less. I just base this on my own A7.mod, where colorcast is less, to my impression. It's too bad Ron did not have a ZM 35/1.4 to test pre-mod.
And interesting side note to this: the ZM35/2 shifts color on the M240, which in body lens correction will not remove (this from Edward's shots and some other examples). It's subtle, but it's there (my belief), yet on the M9 the same lens needs no correction at all, and does not cast color.
In the same vein, it took me some time to figure out that the ZM18/4 can be freed of colorcast in body on the M9 if set as 21/2.8 pre-asph. That's the only one that really kills it
Another interesting thing is the MTFs from Lloyd (TY tariq ) which are so striking in comparison. The question of measurement comes up as the thick cover says: 2.5mm. Presumably this is meant to represent the Sony A7 coverglass, yet Kolari measures this as 1.9mm. So, either 1) it's not the Sony per say, but arbitrary, or 2) it's the "optical thickness" of the 1.9mm stack, or 3) it's a physical measurement which adds a lower cover: one which is not replaced in the mod.
p.8 #5 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
uhoh7 wrote:
I agree though I don't think we really know. There is also copy variation in the 28 cron.
Here I would think the color cast will be less. I just base this on my own A7.mod, where colorcast is less, to my impression. It's too bad Ron did not have a ZM 35/1.4 to test pre-mod.
And interesting side note to this: the ZM35/2 shifts color on the M240, which in body lens correction will not remove (this from Edward's shots and some other examples). It's subtle, but it's there (my belief), yet on the M9 the same lens needs no correction at all, and does not cast color.
In the same vein, it took me some time to figure out that the ZM18/4 can be freed of colorcast in body on the M9 if set as 21/2.8 pre-asph. That's the only one that really kills it
Another interesting thing is the MTFs from Lloyd (TY tariq ) which are so striking in comparison. The question of measurement comes up as the thick cover says: 2.5mm. Presumably this is meant to represent the Sony A7 coverglass, yet Kolari measures this as 1.9mm. So, either 1) it's not the Sony per say, but arbitrary, or 2) it's the "optical thickness" of the 1.9mm stack, or 3) it's a physical measurement which adds a lower cover: one which is not replaced in the mod. ...Show more →
Having done many side-by-side pre- and post-mod, I don't see any significant change in color cast.
p.8 #6 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
hiepphotog wrote:
both the A7s and A7RII are better at handling vignetting and color cast (the first reason for that 6-bit coding) than any M digital. I guess it's time for Leica to adopt BSI 42MP .
Well we know this is "collateral improvement", since the BSI was adopted soley for video reasons and so was the 42mp.
For general still photography ISO performance is more valuable, so I would love to see a 24ishmp BSI with great ISO than just another bone to the pixel counters
p.8 #7 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
uhoh7 wrote:
Well we know this is "collateral improvement", since the BSI was adopted soley for video reasons and so was the 42mp.
For general still photography ISO performance is more valuable, so I would love to see a 24ishmp BSI with great ISO than just another bone to the pixel counters
Unfortunately, BSI benefits are only visible with small pixel size. It's well documented on that. This is the very reason why the A7SII doesn't have BSI. And collateral or not, it helps with stills tremendously on high MP.
p.8 #8 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
hiepphotog wrote:
Unfortunately, BSI benefits are only visible with small pixel size. It's well documented on that. This is the very reason why the A7SII doesn't have BSI. And collateral or not, it helps with stills tremendously on high MP.
In terms of noise, yes. But isn't the improvement in colorshift another matter?
p.8 #9 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
uhoh7 wrote:
In terms of noise, yes. But isn't the improvement in colorshift another matter?
Yes, I think there would be less shift. But now you mention that I guess Leica can just go with a 24MP BSI for that sole purpose .
Nov 17, 2015 at 03:16 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #10 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The problem, particularly with comparing say that ZM 35/1.4 (at least wide open, where differences would be the greatest), is that off-axis we see a whole lot more than just a small variation based on the cover glass thickness. It is in the 20 - 40% range over more than half of the frame. That delta almost certainly shrinks as we stop down but I bet it's still very high between the mid-zone and borders even there with this lens.
Back to the Leica M 28 cron vs lux. The off-axis performance difference of the Lux on the SL vs Leica M240 was not so subtle. It was noticeably better on the SL in Sean Reid's test. Conversely, some of the more traditional M wides were noticeably worse on the SL off-axis. This does raise a question (relevant for you I suppose as I think you are considering the ZM 35/1.4 for use on the SL?) as to just how will the ZM 35/1.4 do on the SL - a lens which has been optimized for the M240. Until other evidence, I highly suspect that indeed the SL has thicker cover glass than the M240 (the differences in performance with the SL vs M240 is not about micro-lens differences for instance)....Show more →
Hi Tariq,
You are absolutely right that the MTF charts suggest that the ZM 35 f/1.4 would be quite a bit better in the outer zone on the M240 than the Sony A7 series cameras and we can see that in real world examples. They are 20 to 40 percent, but the 28 cron and the 28 lux have pretty similar MTFs and they don't vary more than 5 or 10 percent almost anywhere (maybe in the extreme corners), so I would expect those lenses to be quite similar at similar apertures. If you are right, however, that the 28 lux is designed for the SL and the 28 cron for film or the M8, then the cron should be noticeably sharper than the lux on the M240 and the lux should be noticeably sharper than the cron on the SL. The following link does test the cron on the M240 vs. the SL.
The cron does suffer on the SL wide open in the corners, but according to this tester is very good by f/5.6 and the SL equals the M240 by that aperture. I haven't seen Sean Reid's tests (I haven't paid for his site yet), but the reverse seems to be true for the lux according to your and other's report. So, it would be great even if the Leica MTFs are theoretical if they let us know if they are adjusted for sensor cover glass thickness. Presumably the cron one's aren't, but the lux one's are.
At the link you will also see that he tested the ZM 35 f/1.4 on the SL and the M240. The ZM 35 f/1.4 seems to do a bit better on the M240 than on the SL, but the difference doesn't seem that big and seems much smaller than the difference with the cron. It certainly would seem to be better on the SL than a stock A7r II, but we don't really know about field curvature. On a stock A7 series camera it has some pretty strong field curvature. How is the field curvature on an SL? Also whether it is better on the SL or a modded A7r II is still an open question, but I expect the difference will be even less than between the SL and the M240. It could well be better on the modded camera, but I think we need tests to see whether that is the case. I would love to see more tests between the M240 and SL, but I agree with the testers assessment that the 28 cron and the 35 cron look problematic, but I would be happy with the rest of the lenses on the SL and it seems that stopping down to f/5.6 all of the lenses perform as well on the SL as the M240.
p.8 #11 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
At the link you will also see that he tested the ZM 35 f/1.4 on the SL and the M240. The ZM 35 f/1.4 seems to do a bit better on the M240 than on the SL, but the difference doesn't seem that big and seems much smaller than the difference with the cron. It certainly would seem to be better on the SL than a stock A7r II, but we don't really know about field curvature. On a stock A7 series camera it has some pretty strong field curvature. How is the field curvature on an SL? Also whether it is better on the SL or a modded A7r II is still an open question, but I expect the difference will be even less than between the SL and the M240. It could well be better on the modded camera, but I think we need tests to see whether that is the case. I would love to see more tests between the M240 and SL, but I agree with the testers assessment that the 28 cron and the 35 cron look problematic, but I would be happy with the rest of the lenses on the SL and it seems that stopping down to f/5.6 all of the lenses perform as well on the SL as the M240....Show more →
Thanks for the really nice link to theses tests. The only caveat is that we know the performance will suffer to a greater degree with problematic lens/ body combinations at infinity versus what we see in the 2-10m mid distance tests. Thus, it may be the grade (and I like that he shows image examples of each grade) drops one more down at infinity. That's the test that shows the most dramatic difference anyway. I would certainly love to see more tests - maybe toss in a Sony A7 modded body as well.
Nov 17, 2015 at 09:40 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #12 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks for the really nice link to theses tests. The only caveat is that we know the performance will suffer to a greater degree with problematic lens/ body combinations at infinity versus what we see in the 2-10m mid distance tests. Thus, it may be the grade (and I like that he shows image examples of each grade) drops one more down at infinity. That's the test that shows the most dramatic difference anyway. I would certainly love to see more tests - maybe toss in a Sony A7 modded body as well.
You might well be right. Someone (actually K-H from here at FM) asked the tester about infinity shots and he said, "I have nowhere suitable to accurately test true infinity ...... at the distances I did these most of the w/a lenses were close to the infinity stop anyway." He felt they wouldn't be much different, but I would like to see somebody do those tests.
p.8 #13 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Hopefully my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM lens will be delivered tomorrow. It is in NY City right now having gone through Customs and is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow by the end of the day from Austria by DHL. The Hood for the lens coming from Japan is sitting at the Post Office I believe ready for delivery tomorrow.
As an update, I was mistaken, the lens has still not gotten through customs though it had been there since 09:55 AM. At this point it is not looking too good for it to arrive tomorrow.
p.8 #14 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hopefully my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM lens will be delivered tomorrow. It is in NY City right now having gone through Customs and is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow by the end of the day from Austria by DHL. The Hood for the lens coming from Japan is sitting at the Post Office I believe ready for delivery tomorrow.
Rich
Hey, even I'm excited to see the results, so you must be over the moon
p.8 #15 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Some water ran down the river in the meantime. Looking for a replacement of my Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 for my A7RII. A great small lens but I look for more pop, the wow effect is missing somehow with this lens that I see with the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 or Sony GM 85mm f1.4 right away.
The 1.4 Zeiss Distagon is way to large for me. I am limited with the GM 85 already...
The Loxia 35mm f2.0 gets really mixed reviews - although I would love the EXIF advantage and the loupe starting right away without pressing any buttons. I just think the surcharge is not worth vs. the Sony Zeiss.
A Batis 35mm would be tempting of course but who knows if it shows up ever...
p.8 #16 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
I don't think there is an easy answer because there isn't a 'perfect' 35mm lens out there. All have strengths and weaknesses, particularly if originally designed for use on rangefinder cameras.
p.8 #19 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Charlie N wrote:
not surprisingly, the much maligned FE 35 takes the cake.
Not exactly how I read the comparison as she likes the Zeiss best overall. I also wonder if there would be any difference with A7r2 versus A7r. I have a Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 coming and I own the FE 35/2.8 and a CV 35/1.2 and will compare them soon. Others on the board like Fred Miranda have demonstrated the the Zeiss smokes the Loxia 35/2 at infinity so I am guessing that on an A7r2 the Zeiss will win, but we will see.
p.8 #20 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Luvwine wrote:
Not exactly how I read the comparison as she likes the Zeiss best overall. I also wonder if there would be any difference with A7r2 versus A7r. I have a Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 coming and I own the FE 35/2.8 and a CV 35/1.2 and will compare them soon. Others on the board like Fred Miranda have demonstrated the the Zeiss smokes the Loxia 35/2 at infinity so I am guessing that on an A7r2 the Zeiss will win, but we will see.
If by "smokes" you mean noticeably less astigmatism in the extreme corners viewed at 1:1, and marginally greater contrast overall. Of course what counts as "smokes" is subjective - but people do tend to assume that the smoked thing can't produce results of a superb calibre - and I don't think that's true of the Loxia.
.
