This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015A7x.mod with SLR lenses
p.1 #1A7x.mod with SLR lenses
I think many get a A7 hoping to shoot their legacy glass, much of it SLR lenses. Most realize by now, that many RF lenses have a hard time on the A7, and the reason is pretty clear: the thick sensor cover. A7x = 1.9mm 5d3=1.2mm D810=1.1mm thicknesses. Source is Kolari.
Not only does this obviously effect RF wides, but the native sony lenses, need 2mm of optical glass in the path to hit their marks in Lensrental bench tests, which implies SLR lens performance might be degraded by the same factor. This is true even of the 55/1.8 and 90/2.8 Sony lenses.
So you want to get the best from your SLR legacy glass, is the Kolari mod, where the stack is reduced from 1.9mm to around .08mm, going to help?
I think legacy SLR performance is noticeably enhanced, (the AA filter goes as well), based on my own shooting before and after. But when I got the mod I was most concerned with RF wides, so those were the real before and after tests I made.
Others here (few who actually have the mod) think I am really overstating the case, and say the mod is not worth it for SLR lenses. I guess I could buy a used A7 and compare that way, but that's not a serious option for me.
Also, as far as I can tell the D800/810 seems very friendly to SLR lenses. More so than A7x.
What I can do is put my favorite RF lenses on the shelf for some outings and do some shooting on the Mod with SLR lenses. I hope others with the mod will do the same. Then legacy lovers can decide for themselves if the Kolari mod is worth a try for them
So, please share your SLR + A7x.mod images and impressions
Not only does this obviously effect RF wides, but the native sony lenses, need 2mm of optical glass in the path to hit their marks in Lensrental bench tests, which implies SLR lens performance might be degraded by the same factor. This is true even of the 55/1.8 and 90/2.8 Sony lenses.
So you want to get the best from your SLR legacy glass, is the Kolari mod, where the stack is reduced from 1.9mm to around .08mm, going to help?
I think legacy SLR performance is noticeably enhanced, (the AA filter goes as well), based on my own shooting before and after. But when I got the mod I was most concerned with RF wides, so those were the real before and after tests I made.
Others here (few who actually have the mod) think I am really overstating the case, and say the mod is not worth it for SLR lenses. I guess I could buy a used A7 and compare that way, but that's not a serious option for me.
Also, as far as I can tell the D800/810 seems very friendly to SLR lenses. More so than A7x.
What I can do is put my favorite RF lenses on the shelf for some outings and do some shooting on the Mod with SLR lenses. I hope others with the mod will do the same. Then legacy lovers can decide for themselves if the Kolari mod is worth a try for them
So, please share your SLR + A7x.mod images and impressions
Nov 20, 2015 at 12:07 PM
p.1 #2A7x.mod with SLR lenses
I will start here with two snaps this morning with my radioactive FD 35/2 SSC (concave front element), which I researched for some time before getting to use on the Nex-5. This was popular with journalists back in the day.
Just like most lenses, character changes dramatically stopped down and wide open
DSC07512 by unoh7, WO A7.mod
DSC07515 by unoh7, Around f/8
DSC07521 by unoh7, on Flickr
These are right out of the camera, with adobe profile. Call me a revisionist, but had I seen such an image as the last one come out of my stock A7 at 35mm, I doubt I would have bought a M9. Yes, the deep corners fade. But overall clarity and edges seem excellent to my eye. I do have images with this lens on the A7, but the subjects are so different, the comparison is not great, and not really fair. But I hope to shoot some in the same locations eventually.
This lens cost 110USD
Just like most lenses, character changes dramatically stopped down and wide open
DSC07512 by unoh7, WO A7.mod
DSC07515 by unoh7, Around f/8
DSC07521 by unoh7, on Flickr
These are right out of the camera, with adobe profile. Call me a revisionist, but had I seen such an image as the last one come out of my stock A7 at 35mm, I doubt I would have bought a M9. Yes, the deep corners fade. But overall clarity and edges seem excellent to my eye. I do have images with this lens on the A7, but the subjects are so different, the comparison is not great, and not really fair. But I hope to shoot some in the same locations eventually.
This lens cost 110USD
Nov 20, 2015 at 12:57 PM
p.1 #3A7x.mod with SLR lenses
Charilie,
I have no doubt that SLR lenses will do will on a modified A7 series camera, but I think only a few lenses will be noticeably better than on a stock A7 series camera.
Yes, Lens Rentals uses a 2mm piece of glass when testing E mount lenses, but AFAIK they did not test all lenses with this approach and show they all did better. They did some initial tests which unmentioned lenses and then adopted this approach. I find that hardly definite that lenses like the 55 f/1.8 or 90 f/2.8 macro will do worse with an unmodified camera than with a modified camera. In fact, Hiep, and K-H's test show very similar performance with these lenses on a modified and unmodified camera. To me this clearly suggests that longer SLR lenses probably are not going to benefit from the modified camera, but the real answer will be found with actual testing.
I have seen evidence that the Zeiss 55 f/1.2 anniversary lenses does better with the modified than the unmodified camera, but I haven't seen such evidence with other lenses. It is that sort of testing that will make things more clear.
With regard to the AA filter, not having it has plusses but also minuses. Yes, the AA filter reduces a bit of sharpness, but it also reduces moire. It is not an unmitigated virtue to not have an AA filter. I understand why some people would prefer not to have one, but I also understand why some people would prefer to have one.
With regard to the D810 being more friendly to SLR lenses than the A7, again this is way oversimplified. A lot of lenses simply can't be used on the D810, and even the one's that can when using the viewfinder will not be able to magnify the image and I find the focus indicator light on the Nikon to be almost completely useless. It is also not easy to replace the focus screen on the D810 and the live view of the D800 I also find to be way less than optimal. So for me, for alt SLR lenses, the D810 is not an option I would even consider even though it is a great camera. It has way too many drawbacks for me. I find my A7 II to be much more useful for the lenses I have.
I have no doubt that SLR lenses will do will on a modified A7 series camera, but I think only a few lenses will be noticeably better than on a stock A7 series camera.
Yes, Lens Rentals uses a 2mm piece of glass when testing E mount lenses, but AFAIK they did not test all lenses with this approach and show they all did better. They did some initial tests which unmentioned lenses and then adopted this approach. I find that hardly definite that lenses like the 55 f/1.8 or 90 f/2.8 macro will do worse with an unmodified camera than with a modified camera. In fact, Hiep, and K-H's test show very similar performance with these lenses on a modified and unmodified camera. To me this clearly suggests that longer SLR lenses probably are not going to benefit from the modified camera, but the real answer will be found with actual testing.
I have seen evidence that the Zeiss 55 f/1.2 anniversary lenses does better with the modified than the unmodified camera, but I haven't seen such evidence with other lenses. It is that sort of testing that will make things more clear.
With regard to the AA filter, not having it has plusses but also minuses. Yes, the AA filter reduces a bit of sharpness, but it also reduces moire. It is not an unmitigated virtue to not have an AA filter. I understand why some people would prefer not to have one, but I also understand why some people would prefer to have one.
With regard to the D810 being more friendly to SLR lenses than the A7, again this is way oversimplified. A lot of lenses simply can't be used on the D810, and even the one's that can when using the viewfinder will not be able to magnify the image and I find the focus indicator light on the Nikon to be almost completely useless. It is also not easy to replace the focus screen on the D810 and the live view of the D800 I also find to be way less than optimal. So for me, for alt SLR lenses, the D810 is not an option I would even consider even though it is a great camera. It has way too many drawbacks for me. I find my A7 II to be much more useful for the lenses I have.
Nov 20, 2015 at 01:34 PM
p.1 #4A7x.mod with SLR lenses
Let's have a little fun fact here. As this stack thickness becomes a public interest, Roger Cicala has been testing with 0mm, 1mm, 2mm and 3mm optical flat for his two latest optical tests (the 2015 Nikon 24-70 VR and the Milvus line-up). As it turns out, the Nikon zoom and the latest Milvus 85 perform best with a 2mm optical flat, which is the same as the Sony system. Other Milvus lenses seem to be insensitive to glass thickness.
Nov 20, 2015 at 01:58 PM
p.1 #5A7x.mod with SLR lenses
uhoh7 wrote: Also, as far as I can tell the D800/810 seems very friendly to SLR lenses. More so than A7x.
Steve Spencer wrote: With regard to the D810 being more friendly to SLR lenses than the A7, again this is way oversimplified. A lot of lenses simply can't be used on the D810, and even the one's that can when using the viewfinder will not be able to magnify the image and I find the focus indicator light on the Nikon to be almost completely useless. It is also not easy to replace the focus screen on the D810...Show more →
Charlie, my involvement with alt lenses (mostly Leica-R and Zeiss) on Nikon D800E mirrors exactly Steve's experience. I would like to add that true lack of AA filter on A7R along with precise magnification in various light conditions worked as a big advantage for Sony camera. It took only 1-2 days of side by side testing before my D800E found a new owner.
It's worth to note that by the end of 2013 only handful of E mount adapters were adequate on FF A7x bodies. Adapters to for larger SLR lenses were particularly imprecise, which could affect initial comparisons.
Steve Spencer wrote: With regard to the D810 being more friendly to SLR lenses than the A7, again this is way oversimplified. A lot of lenses simply can't be used on the D810, and even the one's that can when using the viewfinder will not be able to magnify the image and I find the focus indicator light on the Nikon to be almost completely useless. It is also not easy to replace the focus screen on the D810...Show more →
Charlie, my involvement with alt lenses (mostly Leica-R and Zeiss) on Nikon D800E mirrors exactly Steve's experience. I would like to add that true lack of AA filter on A7R along with precise magnification in various light conditions worked as a big advantage for Sony camera. It took only 1-2 days of side by side testing before my D800E found a new owner.
It's worth to note that by the end of 2013 only handful of E mount adapters were adequate on FF A7x bodies. Adapters to for larger SLR lenses were particularly imprecise, which could affect initial comparisons.
Nov 20, 2015 at 04:44 PM
p.1 #6A7x.mod with SLR lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
Not only does this obviously effect RF wides, but the native sony lenses, need 2mm of optical glass in the path to hit their marks in Lensrental bench tests, which implies SLR lens performance might be degraded by the same factor. This is true even of the 55/1.8 and 90/2.8 Sony lenses.
yes, there will undoubtedly be an effect as there is in the opposite direction with the longer native lenses. i predict the difference between slr lens will generally be slightly less than the difference between longer native lenses just due to the constraints on lens design inherent in slr lenses.
for the record here is the real world difference between some of the native lenses:
FE 35/2.8
FE 55/1.8
FE 90/2.8 macro
this is not a difference i'd be willing to pay $400 for but ymmv.
i predict that the removal of the AA filter will have more effect on most SLR lenses than the thinner stack.
i hope i'm wrong and you're right, because i'm getting the mod eventually for my rangefinder lenses and it'd be nice to see real improvement in my slr lenses. so far i haven't seen anything to get my hopes up yet though.
Not only does this obviously effect RF wides, but the native sony lenses, need 2mm of optical glass in the path to hit their marks in Lensrental bench tests, which implies SLR lens performance might be degraded by the same factor. This is true even of the 55/1.8 and 90/2.8 Sony lenses.
yes, there will undoubtedly be an effect as there is in the opposite direction with the longer native lenses. i predict the difference between slr lens will generally be slightly less than the difference between longer native lenses just due to the constraints on lens design inherent in slr lenses.
for the record here is the real world difference between some of the native lenses:
FE 35/2.8
FE 55/1.8
FE 90/2.8 macro
this is not a difference i'd be willing to pay $400 for but ymmv.
i predict that the removal of the AA filter will have more effect on most SLR lenses than the thinner stack.
i hope i'm wrong and you're right, because i'm getting the mod eventually for my rangefinder lenses and it'd be nice to see real improvement in my slr lenses.
so far i haven't seen anything to get my hopes up yet though.Nov 20, 2015 at 09:37 PM
p.1 #7A7x.mod with SLR lenses
Hi guys, appreciate the comments
DSC07539 by unoh7, on Flickr
My daughter caught me today with the 65USD Kiron 28/2 wide open. Yes, I do look that goofy
I have quite a bit going on, but I did shoot a series of "serious" test shots with the Kiron (labeled tokina) and the FD 35/2 SSC Concave, from WO to F11, where I think you can really see them on the A7.mod, for better or worse.
Click here to see the album with test shots
I'll post just one here the FD 35/2 at f/4
canon_35_2_f4 by unoh7, on Flickr
I don't have time this sec to comment on the various points, and I don't pretend to know it all. But I will try to reply within not too long.
What I know is this: I wanted more than anyone on this forum to love the A7r. I returned it: the first camera I ever returned in my life because I did not like the results with either RF or SLR glass. I tried about 30 lenses on it in many circumstances. I replaced it with the A7, which I liked much better. I do not know as much about optics as derek but I shoot alot of landscapes and after peeping hundreds of shots some reality sets in. I'm not the greatest photographer, but I don't post too many fuzzy shots. I love clarity, though I don't think only sharp shots are great.
As you guys know, I was also unhappy with the A7, especially when I compared it to landscapes with the M9, which people sent me. I bought the M9 and I love that camera today. I never loved the A7.
But I love the A7.mod It's a pain in some ways of course, but it really delivers for me, and it is, in my opinion a totally different camera. Of course, I may be high. But I believe it, and I shoot very many photos. I think others would also love it. I don't have stock in Kolari and my original defense and then rejection of the A7r is pretty much proof I am no fanboy about anything. I shoot Leica for the results, not for the "name", though I enjoy the history a lot.
Again I hope those who did make the jump and get a mod camera will post images here with SLR glass, regardless of whether you agree with me or not. Those who have had to put up with me for some time know also I am not afraid to admit I am wrong, once it's obvious
Some who have claimed there was really no real difference between the Canikon stacks and the Sony, and attacked my contentions to the opposite as misleading, might take a lesson there, as the Kolari measurements have proved this is not the case, at least in physical sense.
DSC07539 by unoh7, on Flickr
My daughter caught me today with the 65USD Kiron 28/2 wide open. Yes, I do look that goofy
I have quite a bit going on, but I did shoot a series of "serious" test shots with the Kiron (labeled tokina) and the FD 35/2 SSC Concave, from WO to F11, where I think you can really see them on the A7.mod, for better or worse.
Click here to see the album with test shots
I'll post just one here the FD 35/2 at f/4
canon_35_2_f4 by unoh7, on Flickr
I don't have time this sec to comment on the various points, and I don't pretend to know it all. But I will try to reply within not too long.
What I know is this: I wanted more than anyone on this forum to love the A7r. I returned it: the first camera I ever returned in my life because I did not like the results with either RF or SLR glass. I tried about 30 lenses on it in many circumstances. I replaced it with the A7, which I liked much better. I do not know as much about optics as derek but I shoot alot of landscapes and after peeping hundreds of shots some reality sets in. I'm not the greatest photographer, but I don't post too many fuzzy shots. I love clarity, though I don't think only sharp shots are great.
As you guys know, I was also unhappy with the A7, especially when I compared it to landscapes with the M9, which people sent me. I bought the M9 and I love that camera today. I never loved the A7.
But I love the A7.mod
It's a pain in some ways of course, but it really delivers for me, and it is, in my opinion a totally different camera. Of course, I may be high. But I believe it, and I shoot very many photos. I think others would also love it. I don't have stock in Kolari and my original defense and then rejection of the A7r is pretty much proof I am no fanboy about anything. I shoot Leica for the results, not for the "name", though I enjoy the history a lot. Again I hope those who did make the jump and get a mod camera will post images here with SLR glass, regardless of whether you agree with me or not.
Those who have had to put up with me for some time know also I am not afraid to admit I am wrong, once it's obvious Some who have claimed there was really no real difference between the Canikon stacks and the Sony, and attacked my contentions to the opposite as misleading, might take a lesson there, as the Kolari measurements have proved this is not the case, at least in physical sense.
Nov 20, 2015 at 10:06 PM
p.1 #8A7x.mod with SLR lenses
FWIW Nico reports an improvement with the c/y 28/2.8 here but no before/after pics:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474/29
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474/29
Nov 20, 2015 at 10:51 PM
p.1 #9A7x.mod with SLR lenses
brendans wrote:
FWIW Nico reports an improvement with the c/y 28/2.8 here but no before/after pics:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474/29
TY so much for that. References to the contrary also welcome
The FD 35/2 SSC Lanthium is really no slouch:
FJ by unoh7, f/2
The centers have always be the least area of complaint for me on the stock cameras, for obvious reasons, but I get the feeling in a shot like this...well as if some extraneous layers have been stripped away. Would I have that detail on the yellow lines as they hit the bottom edge, lower right, with the stock camera at f/2? Maybe yes, but only with center focus on the windshield wipers
FWIW Nico reports an improvement with the c/y 28/2.8 here but no before/after pics:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474/29
TY so much for that. References to the contrary also welcome
The FD 35/2 SSC Lanthium is really no slouch:
FJ by unoh7, f/2
The centers have always be the least area of complaint for me on the stock cameras, for obvious reasons, but I get the feeling in a shot like this...well as if some extraneous layers have been stripped away. Would I have that detail on the yellow lines as they hit the bottom edge, lower right, with the stock camera at f/2? Maybe yes, but only with center focus on the windshield wipers
Nov 21, 2015 at 01:51 AM
p.1 #10A7x.mod with SLR lenses
Charlie, I really appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm on this question. I'm still on the fence regarding Sony A7x cameras. Like you, I bought a A7r and sold it after some months although not because of poor performance with wide RF lenses At present, I'm unsure about my next move. Get a used A7II and send it to Kolari or get a new A7rII and forget about mods ? Something in between ?. That is, when my finances improve a bit. Right now I have to wait and see - which is also an advantage, letting other people do the beta testing. 
Regarding stack thickness you say that, according to Kolari, Sonys A7x are 1.9mm. Do they include in these 1.9mm also the sheet of glass bonded to the sensor, which is almost impossible to remove ? One of the regular posters here ( I forgot who, sorry ) pointed out that this glass cover is around 0.5mm. and that extra thickness accounts for the Leicas M9/M240 still having the lead over a modded A7x with the most troublesome RF glass.
Time ago I read that Sony uses a 2.5mm. thick stack, so this would match with the 1.9mm. removable stack cover plus the 0.5mm. glass glued to the sensor.
Regarding stack thickness you say that, according to Kolari, Sonys A7x are 1.9mm. Do they include in these 1.9mm also the sheet of glass bonded to the sensor, which is almost impossible to remove ? One of the regular posters here ( I forgot who, sorry ) pointed out that this glass cover is around 0.5mm. and that extra thickness accounts for the Leicas M9/M240 still having the lead over a modded A7x with the most troublesome RF glass.
Time ago I read that Sony uses a 2.5mm. thick stack, so this would match with the 1.9mm. removable stack cover plus the 0.5mm. glass glued to the sensor.
Nov 21, 2015 at 03:29 AM
p.1 #11A7x.mod with SLR lenses
sebboh wrote:
i predict that the removal of the AA filter will have more effect on most SLR lenses than the thinner stack.
+1
Considering that the AA filter accounts for 15-20% (some will say as much as 30%) reduction. The changes to the angle of incidence will result in a vector quantity change. The amount of that change isn't something I can see being on the order of magnitude equal to an AA filter removal. As was discussed in another thread, folks were heavily discounting the difference a 2mm diff would make regarding the angle of incidence ... less than one millimeter change isn't likely to be in the 15-20% (or greater) range either.
Taking a steep angle into your corners is tough enough. Taking a steep angle and intentionally blurring it through the AA filter ... yeah, like that helps.
I've been shooting UWA on a true no AA filter for a long time (SLR/C) and while we know that AA has the benefit of moire' reduction ... it is really a bit tougher to have moire with UWA's given the angles and the lower mtf's that they are inherently capable of producing compared to their longer, more collimated counterparts on the long end.
For those aspiring for "clarity" ... kicking the AA filter to the curb (vs. AA vs. offset AA filters) can be an improvement to that. Imo, if UWA is your thing ... AA filter shouldn't be.
How many times have we seen UWA Leica (no AA) images with M glass have moire? I have never seen such an image (admittedly, haven't been watching much Leica rangefinder stuff for a few years now), and I have never produced such an image with UWA SLR glass either. Is it possible ... maybe ... I've just never experienced it.
i predict that the removal of the AA filter will have more effect on most SLR lenses than the thinner stack.
+1
Considering that the AA filter accounts for 15-20% (some will say as much as 30%) reduction. The changes to the angle of incidence will result in a vector quantity change. The amount of that change isn't something I can see being on the order of magnitude equal to an AA filter removal. As was discussed in another thread, folks were heavily discounting the difference a 2mm diff would make regarding the angle of incidence ... less than one millimeter change isn't likely to be in the 15-20% (or greater) range either.
Taking a steep angle into your corners is tough enough. Taking a steep angle and intentionally blurring it through the AA filter ... yeah, like that helps.
I've been shooting UWA on a true no AA filter for a long time (SLR/C) and while we know that AA has the benefit of moire' reduction ... it is really a bit tougher to have moire with UWA's given the angles and the lower mtf's that they are inherently capable of producing compared to their longer, more collimated counterparts on the long end.
For those aspiring for "clarity" ... kicking the AA filter to the curb (vs. AA vs. offset AA filters) can be an improvement to that. Imo, if UWA is your thing ... AA filter shouldn't be.
How many times have we seen UWA Leica (no AA) images with M glass have moire? I have never seen such an image (admittedly, haven't been watching much Leica rangefinder stuff for a few years now), and I have never produced such an image with UWA SLR glass either. Is it possible ... maybe ... I've just never experienced it.Nov 21, 2015 at 07:41 AM
p.1 #12A7x.mod with SLR lenses
Is there a point to only consider the physical thickness of the stack, which is composed of various types of glasses?
To another point, Charlie, did you know that previous models of Canikon DSLR have as thick of a stack as the current Sony? I got this from Kolari as well. The recent ones have a thinner stack, but then it's hard to overlook the results Roger is getting.
I don't collect lenses, so I don't have any fast SLR WA anymore. But the last time I compared the stock A7RII against the modded A7RII, I didn't see much difference in WA SLR zoom lenses.
To another point, Charlie, did you know that previous models of Canikon DSLR have as thick of a stack as the current Sony? I got this from Kolari as well. The recent ones have a thinner stack, but then it's hard to overlook the results Roger is getting.
I don't collect lenses, so I don't have any fast SLR WA anymore. But the last time I compared the stock A7RII against the modded A7RII, I didn't see much difference in WA SLR zoom lenses.
Nov 21, 2015 at 09:29 AM
p.1 #13A7x.mod with SLR lenses
RustyBug wrote:
Imo, if UWA is your thing ... AA filter shouldn't be. How many times have we seen UWA Leica (no AA) images with M glass have moire? I have never seen such an image (admittedly, haven't been watching much Leica rangefinder stuff for a few years now), and I have never produced such an image with UWA SLR glass either. Is it possible ... maybe ... I've just never experienced it.
rusty go look at charlie's (uhoh's) flickr page and look at his m9 shots (a7mod too). pretty much every ultrawide shot has aliasing artifacts all over it (the zm 18/4 and 21 SEM have no trouble outresolving the 18mp sensor everywhere). since he's shooting natural scenery for the most part they are randomly distributed enough not to be detrimental, but if you put a screen or grating in the appropriate place (or the right fabric) shooting those on the m9 you'll see really dramatic and big moire pattern.
Imo, if UWA is your thing ... AA filter shouldn't be.
How many times have we seen UWA Leica (no AA) images with M glass have moire? I have never seen such an image (admittedly, haven't been watching much Leica rangefinder stuff for a few years now), and I have never produced such an image with UWA SLR glass either. Is it possible ... maybe ... I've just never experienced it.rusty go look at charlie's (uhoh's) flickr page and look at his m9 shots (a7mod too). pretty much every ultrawide shot has aliasing artifacts all over it (the zm 18/4 and 21 SEM have no trouble outresolving the 18mp sensor everywhere). since he's shooting natural scenery for the most part they are randomly distributed enough not to be detrimental, but if you put a screen or grating in the appropriate place (or the right fabric) shooting those on the m9 you'll see really dramatic and big moire pattern.
Nov 21, 2015 at 12:56 PM
p.1 #14A7x.mod with SLR lenses
Uhoh - is there a typo in the '0.08mm' measurement given for the KolariVision stack? Seems awfully thin - 10x thinner than leica
Edited on Nov 23, 2015 at 03:23 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Nov 23, 2015 at 03:23 AM · View previous versions
Nov 21, 2015 at 08:32 PM
p.1 #15A7x.mod with SLR lenses
hschougaard wrote:
Uhuh - is there a typo in the '0.08mm' measurement given for the KolariVision stack? Seems awfully thin - 10x thinner than leica
opps TY
Digging into my closet, I pulled out a PC nikkor 35/2.8 from the 60s: pre AI. This was a bgn KEH lens I think, around 100USD. I will get it out to the test range, but the preliminary caught my eye:
DSC07945 by unoh7, 35/2.8 @f/8
And here at f/2.8:
DSC07948 by unoh7, on Flickr
My other PC Nikkor is a much newer 28/3.5 AIS, but for some reason it does not seem to do infinity well on any body. Close range it's sharp:
Shilo Profile by unoh7, on Flickr
Uhuh - is there a typo in the '0.08mm' measurement given for the KolariVision stack? Seems awfully thin - 10x thinner than leica
opps
TYDigging into my closet, I pulled out a PC nikkor 35/2.8 from the 60s: pre AI. This was a bgn KEH lens I think, around 100USD. I will get it out to the test range, but the preliminary caught my eye:
DSC07945 by unoh7, 35/2.8 @f/8
And here at f/2.8:
DSC07948 by unoh7, on Flickr
My other PC Nikkor is a much newer 28/3.5 AIS, but for some reason it does not seem to do infinity well on any body. Close range it's sharp:
Shilo Profile by unoh7, on Flickr
Nov 23, 2015 at 12:30 AM
p.1 #16A7x.mod with SLR lenses
When I got my A7 I did quick tests with all the 35s I coild lay my hands on, one of these is a 35/2.8 pc Nikkor which I have used quite a lot on film.
On the standard A7 it proved ok at the normal sort of distances I would use for architectural stuff but at infinity it showed the same sort of 'problems' as the asph Summicron although not so drastic, ie edges out of focus presumably because of curvature of field.
I didn't persevere as it is really too bulky to use as an everyday landscape lens when other possibilities are available.
Gerry
On the standard A7 it proved ok at the normal sort of distances I would use for architectural stuff but at infinity it showed the same sort of 'problems' as the asph Summicron although not so drastic, ie edges out of focus presumably because of curvature of field.
I didn't persevere as it is really too bulky to use as an everyday landscape lens when other possibilities are available.
Gerry
Nov 23, 2015 at 03:15 AM
p.1 #17A7x.mod with SLR lenses
gyoung143 wrote:
When I got my A7 I did quick tests with all the 35s I coild lay my hands on, one of these is a 35/2.8 pc Nikkor which I have used quite a lot on film.
On the standard A7 it proved ok at the normal sort of distances I would use for architectural stuff but at infinity it showed the same sort of 'problems' as the asph Summicron although not so drastic, ie edges out of focus presumably because of curvature of field.
I didn't persevere as it is really too bulky to use as an everyday landscape lens when...Show more →
Here is that lens today (well this is pre-AI version)
DSC07961 by Hailey Life, F/8
Frankly this shocked me. Seems great on the edges, and infinity, but I will do a proper test at some point. Now I also tried the nFD 20/2.8 and.....ouch. It is just smoked by the SEM 21 on the mod.
Campion00022 by Hailey Life, NFD 20/2.8
Campion00020 by Hailey Life, nFD 20/2.8
Centers are OK but edges are pretty bad, and I never realized how was the distortion on this lens. But getting the focus correct on the EVF is really hard at 20, so I still need to get this one up on my hill and give it a fair chance with careful focus.
When I got my A7 I did quick tests with all the 35s I coild lay my hands on, one of these is a 35/2.8 pc Nikkor which I have used quite a lot on film.
On the standard A7 it proved ok at the normal sort of distances I would use for architectural stuff but at infinity it showed the same sort of 'problems' as the asph Summicron although not so drastic, ie edges out of focus presumably because of curvature of field.
I didn't persevere as it is really too bulky to use as an everyday landscape lens when...Show more →
Here is that lens today (well this is pre-AI version)
DSC07961 by Hailey Life, F/8
Frankly this shocked me. Seems great on the edges, and infinity, but I will do a proper test at some point. Now I also tried the nFD 20/2.8 and.....ouch. It is just smoked by the SEM 21 on the mod.
Campion00022 by Hailey Life, NFD 20/2.8
Campion00020 by Hailey Life, nFD 20/2.8
Centers are OK but edges are pretty bad, and I never realized how was the distortion on this lens. But getting the focus correct on the EVF is really hard at 20, so I still need to get this one up on my hill and give it a fair chance with careful focus.
Nov 23, 2015 at 09:31 PM
p.1 #18A7x.mod with SLR lenses
My 35 PC looks ok at those distances but its at infinity its not so good at the edges.
Strangely enough my 21/2.8 Elmarit asph is also difficult to focus at 2.8, perhaps lower resolution and contrast don't help, its much easier at f/4!
Gerry
Strangely enough my 21/2.8 Elmarit asph is also difficult to focus at 2.8, perhaps lower resolution and contrast don't help, its much easier at f/4!
Gerry
Nov 24, 2015 at 11:06 AM