Jochenb wrote:
For those who haven't seen this review of the ZM yet: there are interesting comparisons that clearly show the effect of the thick sensor cover glass of the A7 series. You clearly see how the sensor introduces the nervous, cross-eyed effect at the edges. The Leica versions show this a lot less. It's still possible, as Ron's examples show... but not as extreme as on a Sony.
Also have a look at the night shots with the Sony. That's what massive coma looks like, similar to what naturephoto showed on the previous page.
I'll leave it at that. Horses for courses. It's still capable of some beautiful results, when you always keep it's negatives in mind while shooting. ...Show more →
We learned a lot from these discussions. I think it's important to know the strengths and weaknesses of our lenses. With this knowledge and a some practice, we can get the most out of them.
Ive been sitting on this lens for a while now. If youve got any raws you dont mind sharing off a stock A7r2 Id be eternally grateful. If you could, something wide open on target and something landscape stopped down at infinity? Thanks in advance if you can :-)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Below is a tripod mounted night image including point light source stars taken with my aligned sensor A7rM V3 and my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon lens which was set to f11. The images are straight out of camera with The first image being full size; some reflection from the Sensor?? can be seen at the upper left corner. The second image is a 100% crop.
Rich
Rich,
On the first image, it looks like there is some sensor refection going on...(light source on the left corner)
I will try some similar images today and see what I find.
GMPhotography wrote:
Right corner than left corner than center crops
Guy, there is definitely some movement towards the right side of the sky but as far as coma, it looks like a good performer. I'm a bit surprised by this and though it would be very bad. I will try some night-shooting tonight.
Which aperture did you use?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Rich,
On the first image, it looks like there is some sensor refection going on...(light on the left)
I will try some similar images today and see what I find.
Hi Fred,
That was my assessment as well as what Mike Broomfield thought when I was making comparisons with his V2 and my V3 A7rM cameras. We saw the same affect with both cameras. Also, if you look at the 100% crop image around some of the stars at least with the Kolari modded A7r cameras we were seeing a little purple to one side of the star. We were not sure if this was sensor reflection, but you may wish to check that for the stock A7rII cameras as well. Not having an A7rII I am not really familiar with sensor reflections on the new camera.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Guy, there is definitely some movement towards the right side of the sky but as far as coma, it looks like a good performer. I'm a bit surprised by this and though it would be very bad. I will try some night-shooting tonight.
Which aperture did you use?
Fred I think f4 but the most f5.6. I shot at ISO 1600
Not sure this matters but I think I was facing east maybe more northeast. Why still on one side not the other.
That was my assessment as well as what Mike Broomfield thought when I was making comparisons with his V2 and my V3 A7rM cameras. We saw the same affect with both cameras. Also, if you look at the 100% crop image around some of the stars at least with the Kolari modded A7r cameras we were seeing a little purple to one side of the star. We were not sure if this was sensor reflection, but you may wish to check that for the stock A7rII cameras as well. Not having an A7rII I am not really familiar with sensor reflections on the new camera.
Sounds like the mod to me. I have not seen anything on a stock A7r II . I wonder now this is a guess when they took out the thicker sensor glass they left a gap with regards to a seal from the housing of the sensor and it's coming from there. But heck that's just a wild guess
GMPhotography wrote:
Sounds like the mod to me. I have not seen anything on a stock A7r II . I wonder now this is a guess when they took out the thicker sensor glass they left a gap with regards to a seal from the housing of the sensor and it's coming from there. But heck that's just a wild guess
Hi Guy,
It may still be worth trying with a stock A7rII to place a large light source near the corner of the frame.
Now that I also have a stock A7r, I should try a similar test with another lens that is not subject to the problems with the WA RF lens issues with the camera. Possibly it may make sense to try my Leica R 50mm lf2 Summicron lens. The exposure time on the night shot was 25 seconds. Once I have some test results I will check in.
Jochenb wrote:
For those who haven't seen this review of the ZM yet: there are interesting comparisons that clearly show the effect of the thick sensor cover glass of the A7 series. You clearly see how the sensor introduces the nervous, cross-eyed effect at the edges. The Leica versions show this a lot less. It's still possible, as Ron's examples show... but not as extreme as on a Sony.
Also have a look at the night shots with the Sony. That's what massive coma looks like, similar to what naturephoto showed on the previous page.
I'll leave it at that. Horses for courses. It's still capable of some beautiful results, when you always keep it's negatives in mind while shooting. ...Show more →
I am not at all sure that this lens shows exactly the same weaknesses on the A7, A7r, A7II, and A7rII. The tests you link with the first series of cameras show small weakness at even f/8, but the tests that Guy and Fred did both independently found the corners to be better at least a stop sooner--they show better performance at f/5.6 to my eye than the test you linked did at f/8.
Now I think there are three plausible explanations for this discrepancy. First, it may be that the A7rII even though it has the same cover glass as the other cameras does just a bit better because of the BSI sensor. Second, it seems likely that this lens with a floating element may be sensitive to getting an adapter with the right thickness. Too thin of an adapter could especially be a problem. Perhaps the test you linked had a slightly thinner adapter. Third, the discrepancy might be the copy of the lenses that were used. The lens in the link you posted might not be quite as good as Guy and Fred's copies. So, we can't know anything for certain, but I see significantly better results posted by Guy and Fred than those on the test you linked, and I think the lens can do better than it does in that test.
Been following all this discussion and it's been very valuable. Information good or bad can be taken and used going forward. Someone said it earlier but there is no perfect lens. Center sharpness, soft corners, coma, loca, bokeh, are all strengths and weaknesses of any lens. Many knocked the CV35/1.7, I love that lens. Many knock the Loxia 35/2 but I love the look it gives. I have rarely seen a lens with 'perfect' bokeh under all shooting conditions (what is perfect anyway?).
Someone said it earlier in this thread (Fred) . . . . What is perfect for me may not be perfect for you and vice versa. That being said, I love this lens for it's color, rendering, micro contrast and even it's wide open performance. I bought it to replace the CV35/1.7 but I may keep both. Their characters are different and both are excellent despite their perceived 'flaws'.
I'll be returning home soon and will be able to share some images from my recent mini vacation. They look great on my iPad but need a bit more finishing. More to come.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not at all sure that this lens shows exactly the same weaknesses on the A7, A7r, A7II, and A7rII. The tests you link with the first series of cameras show small weakness at even f/8, but the tests that Guy and Fred did both independently found the corners to be better at least a stop sooner--they show better performance at f/5.6 to my eye than the test you linked did at f/8.
Now I think there are three plausible explanations for this discrepancy. First, it may be that the A7rII even though it has the same cover glass as the other cameras does just a bit better because of the BSI sensor. Second, it seems likely that this lens with a floating element may be sensitive to getting an adapter with the right thickness. Too thin of an adapter could especially be a problem. Perhaps the test you linked had a slightly thinner adapter. Third, the discrepancy might be the copy of the lenses that were used. The lens in the link you posted might not be quite as good as Guy and Fred's copies. So, we can't know anything for certain, but I see significantly better results posted by Guy and Fred than those on the test you linked, and I think the lens can do better than it does in that test....Show more →
I suspect the discrepancy in Fred's results versus the linked to earlier tests likely has most to do with point of focus. This was a question I asked about earlier and I believe Fred mentioned that best overall infinity focus is achieved by picking a mid distance focus point (as opposed to focusing at infinity). The linked test almost certainly was focused at infinity.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not at all sure that this lens shows exactly the same weaknesses on the A7, A7r, A7II, and A7rII. The tests you link with the first series of cameras show small weakness at even f/8, but the tests that Guy and Fred did both independently found the corners to be better at least a stop sooner--they show better performance at f/5.6 to my eye than the test you linked did at f/8.
Now I think there are three plausible explanations for this discrepancy. First, it may be that the A7rII even though it has the same cover glass as the other cameras does just a bit better because of the BSI sensor. Second, it seems likely that this lens with a floating element may be sensitive to getting an adapter with the right thickness. Too thin of an adapter could especially be a problem. Perhaps the test you linked had a slightly thinner adapter. Third, the discrepancy might be the copy of the lenses that were used. The lens in the link you posted might not be quite as good as Guy and Fred's copies. So, we can't know anything for certain, but I see significantly better results posted by Guy and Fred than those on the test you linked, and I think the lens can do better than it does in that test....Show more →
My rental, using the same adapter, was a bit worse in the edges on the a7II versus the a7rII until about f/8 when I could no longer see a difference while pixel peeping (except for the obvious resolution advantage). All of my RF lenses (old Mandler designs, 28-135) picked up a bit of performance between the two cameras, most significantly the vIII Elmarit 28 and pre-ASPH Summilux 35. My guess is it's the BSI.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I suspect the discrepancy in Fred's results versus the linked to earlier tests likely has most to do with point of focus. This was a question I asked about earlier and I believe Fred mentioned that best overall infinity focus is achieved by picking a mid distance focus point (as opposed to focusing at infinity). The linked test almost certainly was focused at infinity.
I detected mild field curvature at infinity distances with my A7RII. As described earlier, the FC is inwards and needs f/5.6 to be completely masked. The examples (crops) I posted at infinity were indeed focused at mid-field and it showed best performance for center 'and' extreme corners. (Similar to what I do with Loxia 21/2.8 and Loxia 35/2)
However, I have samples where I focused on the edges and the results are even better! I get very good resolution even at f/4 but then the center suffers a bit. So, after testing this for a while, I marked the best focusing position to focus it manually at infinity and with my copy is a tad before the infinity hard stop. The infinity hard stop gives the best center.
I don't doubt there could be lens variation out there but also, we should pay attention to the adapter and A7* body used.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are some more samples comparing the ZM 35/1.4 with RX1RII at close and mid-distances. These are stress tests with some straight lines, bright highlights and foliage in the OOF area.
I really like the RX1RII rendering but frankly prefer the ZM most of the time even when being fair and comparing them at f/2. I see some hints of double line with straight structures but it does not really bother me as it's very rare. The edges also look very smooth to me at f/1.4. I absolutely love the look my images have on the A7RII.
RX1RII (Left), ZM (Right)
Same daylight WB for both.
The RX1RII was corrected for vignetting "in-camera"....Show more →
there is no question that the zm 35/1.4 produces greater blur, even at f/2. the advantage of rx1 is in busy backgrounds that are close to the subject (and thus only a bit oof) where the zm tends to produce more jittery backgrounds especially towards the corners.
sebboh wrote:
there is no question that the zm 35/1.4 produces greater blur, even at f/2. the advantage of rx1 is in busy backgrounds that are close to the subject (and thus only a bit oof) where the zm tends to produce more jittery backgrounds especially towards the corners.
From my testing of the RX1 vs. a few 35mm RF lenses, the '35mm' Sonnar was somewhat wider angle than all the other 35s... so that too will affect the amount background blur.
But totally agree, it's those situations where there isn't much separation from the background that the 35 Sonnar is very impressive.
I have been shooting ZM35D on Kolari modded A7R for about year and half and for a year on stock A7RM2. For landscaping/infinity work Kolari modded camera has clear advantage over stock Sony sensor. For close/mid distance work at at wider apertures the difference is not as great and often I prefer A7RM2 for its lack of shading in the corners and stabilization. Actually, in 90% I use this lens either at f/1.4 or at f/8
Below are few previously posted samples on both bodies.
I for one have gotten a ton out of this thread. As a relatively early adopter to the A7 system, I traveled quite a bit with an A7 and the FE 35 2.8. Many things great, but definitely wanted a faster lens with a bit more character. And I've always stayed on the fence about the Loxia 35 because while faster and with more character (to me) than the FE 35 2.8, auto focus was really something I didn't want to give up. Fast forward, and I'm running a techart and wondering if the ZM 35 1.4 could be the go to 35, especially for travel/street photography.
All of the information shared here has been super helpful in getting a better perspective. Thank you all.
Jack Thompson wrote:
I for one have gotten a ton out of this thread. As a relatively early adopter to the A7 system, I traveled quite a bit with an A7 and the FE 35 2.8. Many things great, but definitely wanted a faster lens with a bit more character. And I've always stayed on the fence about the Loxia 35 because while faster and with more character (to me) than the FE 35 2.8, auto focus was really something I didn't want to give up. Fast forward, and I'm running a techart and wondering if the ZM 35 1.4 could be the go to 35, especially for travel/street photography.
All of the information shared here has been super helpful in getting a better perspective. Thank you all. ...Show more →
Agreed. Thanks everyone.
I'm in the same boat as you. My only concern is the so-so performance in the corners below f/5.6 because there will be times that I will not have a tripod and I will not be shooting in bright conditions. This limits its function as a travel lens for me.
