Bespoked wrote:
Did you end up getting the ZM David?
If so, what's your thoughts, are you in agreement with most posting here?
I'm very interested in this lens.
Hi Bespoked!
No I haven't got it; still shooting with L35 for stopped down landscape and FE 1.4/35ZA for wide aperture stuff.
I think Bastian's review over at the Philip Reeve Blog which compares the 1.4ZM and the CV and the Loxia (and Leica FLE) with and without front filters is a great resource.
If you want one lens for landscape and for wide aperture stuff, and you like a touch more contrast than the cv, and aren't worried about MF or TAP for f1.4 portraits, I think the ZM is likely the thing to have. But personally I'm happy where I am at 35; unless a Loxia version of the 1.4 comes out...
Fred Miranda wrote:
As you wrote, the ZM wins especially towards the corners and that's not surprising to me as I think it's currently the best 35mm lens for the A7 series....but the FE 35 is better from f/2.8 to about f/4 at mid-field. (infinity). The ZM 35/1.4 has a noticeable mid-field dip at wider apertures (with or without the PCX lens) which is only completely masked at f/5.6. Mid-field is very important for landscapes and therefore I advise shooting at f/5.6 or smaller with the ZM. With the FE 35, f/5.6 looks very impressive and there is only a very slight improvement at f/6.3 and f/7.1 away from the center....Show more →
The irony here is that for shooting landscapes with the ZM 35 @ f5.6 or higher, you hardly need the PCX filter to get good corners. Nevertheless, the front filter is permanently affixed to my lens, as the overall performance is markedly improved. For some reason, I did not especially like the results of the PCX on my CV 35/1.7, which is at variance from what Bastian found.
Yes but it's nice to able to work even at F4 now with good corners starting to come alive without pushing your ISO to stop any movement in the scene. I like that flexibility of having that option
robgo2 wrote:
The irony here is that for shooting landscapes with the ZM 35 @ f5.6 or higher, you hardly need the PCX filter to get good corners. Nevertheless, the front filter is permanently affixed to my lens, as the overall performance is markedly improved. For some reason, I did not especially like the results of the PCX on my CV 35/1.7, which is at variance from what Bastian found.
Rob
That's only true if you carefully focus at mid-field. Without the PCX filter there is still field curvature even after f/5.6.
For example: Without the PCX filter, if you focus on the center, the extreme edges will be noticeably out of focus even at f/6.3. That does not happen when using the PCX filter which makes the image flat field even at wide apertures so careful focusing is no longer crucial.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's only true if you carefully focus at mid-field. Without the PCX filter there is still field curvature even after f/5.6.
For example: Without the PCX filter, if you focus on the center, the extreme edges will be noticeably out of focus even at f/6.3. That does not happen when using the PCX filter which makes the image flat field even at wide apertures so careful focusing is no longer crucial.
Right, but my point is that you can get sharp corners without the PCX at higher apertures. As I mentioned, the PCX does not leave my ZM. It is what might be called a game changer.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's only true if you carefully focus at mid-field. Without the PCX filter there is still field curvature even after f/5.6.
For example: Without the PCX filter, if you focus on the center, the extreme edges will be noticeably out of focus even at f/6.3. That does not happen when using the PCX filter which makes the image flat field even at wide apertures so careful focusing is no longer crucial.
With the residual midfield dip even with the PCX, are you still not better off focusing at midfield, albeit less critical than before?
mdemeyer wrote:
Can someone comment on the geometric distortion with the PCX installed. I'm trying to understand the tradeoff for the things I do.
Also, do I understand this to be strictly correcting for the thicker filter stack in the Sony vs. the "as-designed" optical path - i.e. Leica M?
Thanks,
Michael
Not sure what the "strictly" is doing there, but if you mean is it trying only to correct for the filter stack (rather than trying something else as well), then yes is the answer.
And of course it doesn't do that perfectly. If you look at the simulated MTFs assuming a perfect lens, the curves you get without correction are way worse than the "perfect" theoretical straight line, and the curves you get with correction are huge improvement, but still show deviation from the original lens.
How the best of the improved curves correlate with perceptible difference I don't know, for all I know they may be visually very similar indeed to the performance on the intended filter stack.
It's certainly a great idea to try out if you want to use RF lenses on Sony.
Thanks David. As a Kolari modified A7 user (I'm the Michael who originated that project with Kolari) I am well aware of the pluses and minuses of modifying the sensor as a solution. Since I don't own any native Sony lenses, I'm good with them.
However, I shoot a lot of architecture so geometric distortion matters to me and I'm trying to get some more info on the PCX mods in that regard. Has anyone done measurements or at least test shots on this? I seem to remember it mentioned in this thread earlier, but can't say I have followed it well enough to know I didn't miss it...
Thanks,
Michael
DavidBM wrote:
Not sure what the "strictly" is doing there, but if you mean is it trying only to correct for the filter stack (rather than trying something else as well), then yes is the answer.
And of course it doesn't do that perfectly. If you look at the simulated MTFs assuming a perfect lens, the curves you get without correction are way worse than the "perfect" theoretical straight line, and the curves you get with correction are huge improvement, but still show deviation from the original lens.
How the best of the improved curves correlate with perceptible difference I don't know, for all I know they may be visually very similar indeed to the performance on the intended filter stack.
It's certainly a great idea to try out if you want to use RF lenses on Sony....Show more →
cross post with the thin filter thread. i did a quick head to head comparison of the zm, cv, and FLE on the UT mod (also on the m9). big thanks the JonPB for letting me use the FLE. the sharpness difference seems pretty negligible (at least to me). i wouldn't choose the FLE, ultron, or distagon over the other for sharpness. in a surprise to nobody they all beat the 50 year old pre-asph lux for sharpness at infinity. it still wins the "nicest lens to carry" prize though along with the "most likely to take a picture of a family member that they like" prize though...
sebboh wrote:
cross post with the thin filter thread. i did a quick head to head comparison of the zm, cv, and FLE on the UT mod (also on the m9). big thanks the JonPB for letting me use the FLE. the sharpness difference seems pretty negligible (at least to me). i wouldn't choose the FLE, ultron, or distagon over the other for sharpness. in a surprise to nobody they all beat the 50 year old pre-asph lux for sharpness at infinity. it still wins the "nicest lens to carry" prize though along with the "most likely to take a picture of a family member that they like" prize though...
Thanks for the test! Strong showing for the ZM, although I would agree they all performed great.
It's interesting there is no evidence of any mid-field resolution dip on a Kolari mod. We are all seeing a drop in resolution towards the mid-zone with the PCX 5m front-lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the test! Strong showing for the ZM, although I would agree they all performed great.
It's interesting there is no evidence of any mid-field resolution dip on a Kolari mod. We are all seeing a drop in resolution towards the mid-zone with the PCX 5m front-lens.
at f/1.4 (or f/1.7) the zm shows a midzone dip on the right side with a better corner while the cv shows a midzone dip on the left side with a better corner. depending on which side i showed you could come to the conclusion that one was better in the corner and the other better in the midzone (as people did from my last comparison). the differences are small enough that i'm sure zeiss or cv would consider these lenses well within spec.
sebboh wrote:
at f/1.4 (or f/1.7) the zm shows a midzone dip on the right side with a better corner while the cv shows a midzone dip on the left side with a better corner. depending on which side i showed you could come to the conclusion that one was better in the corner and the other better in the midzone (as people did from my last comparison). the differences are small enough that i'm sure zeiss or cv would consider these lenses well within spec.
We are trying to find out if the mid-zone dip is caused by the Sony's thicker sensor stack and the 5m front-lens is not able to correct it as much as the corners...However, it seems like this is a characteristic of the lens if you say it shows up on the Kolari mod as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
We are trying to find out if the mid-zone dip is caused by the Sony's thicker sensor stack and the 5m front-lens is not able to correct it as much as the corners...However, it seems like this is a characteristic of the lens if you say it shows up on the Kolari mod as well.
well, it's kinda there in the mtfs. i only notice it on one side in my tests though, and it's very small. perhaps it would be more visible on the higher res a7rii.
I'm going to interject a thank our lucky stars comment. Without the PCX we pretty much agreed F6.3 was our across the frame as perfect. We moved that up to F4 across the frame with the PCX. That's 1.5 stops or even better. For a lens with this much field curvature that is flat out crazy good. I could not ask for more. Just sayin
sebboh wrote:
at f/1.4 (or f/1.7) the zm shows a midzone dip on the right side with a better corner while the cv shows a midzone dip on the left side with a better corner. depending on which side i showed you could come to the conclusion that one was better in the corner and the other better in the midzone (as people did from my last comparison). the differences are small enough that i'm sure zeiss or cv would consider these lenses well within spec.
Excellent comparison. The ZM's performance at wide apertures is very impressive. With the PCX 5m filter, I can get fairly decent corners @f2.8 focusing at infinity. FWIW, my ZM 35 also has midzone softness on the right side. I wonder if others have noticed this to be a right sided phenomenon.
quick bokeh comparison between the zm, cv, and FLE at f/1.4 or f/1.7 and then f/2. i find it more useful to open them in separate tabs and flip between to see the differences. focus was identical for all, but the lux FLE is a tad wider. this scene is a decent torture test for bokeh with extremely bright backlighting and lots of specular highlights. white balance is the same across all shots, otherwise it's just adobe defaults for processing.
if anybody is interested i can also post full sized files and the same shots on an m9.
they all have stuff i like and don't like. the zm has the most blur and smoothest blur for things farther aways, but really annoying corner issues. if you have a distant or very plain background i think the zm will give the nicest look, otherwise the cv is more likely to give a smoother look. the cv has the least distracting bokeh overall imo while think the FLE has the smoothest transition out of focus (which i usually think works best for pleasing rendition of faces at large aperture), but pretty terrible bright outlines at this distance.
sebboh wrote:
quick bokeh comparison between the zm, cv, and FLE at f/1.4 or f/1.7 and then f/2. i find it more useful to open them in separate tabs and flip between to see the differences. focus was identical for all, but the lux FLE is a tad wider. this scene is a decent torture test for bokeh with extremely bright backlighting and lots of specular highlights. white balance is the same across all shots, otherwise it's just adobe defaults for processing.
they all have stuff i like and don't like. the zm has the most blur and smoothest blur for things farther aways, but really annoying corner issues. if you have a distant or very plain background i think the zm will give the nicest look, otherwise the cv is more likely to give a smoother look. the cv has the least distracting bokeh overall imo while think the FLE has the smoothest transition out of focus (which i usually think works best for pleasing rendition of faces at large aperture), but pretty terrible bright outlines at this distance. ...Show more →
great test scene, although it takes many different test scenes to develop a feel if one lens is "better" than another (to discern which of the comments you made would sway your preference) - they're all very very good - it'd almost have been useful to shoot something like the Sony FE 35/2.8 who's OOF bokeh would have looked awful on that scene just to show that these 3 lenses, while each having pros/cons, are in the upper-class. It would have also been nice to have seen the Sony FE 35/1.4 to see whether or not it would be in that class (I know it's not down with the 2.8, but the 2.8 is not expected to have great bokeh either, so it's not a knock on that nice little lens)
ecarlino wrote:
great test scene, although it takes many different test scenes to develop a feel if one lens is "better" than another (to discern which of the comments you made would sway your preference) - they're all very very good - it'd almost have been useful to shoot something like the Sony FE 35/2.8 who's OOF bokeh would have looked awful on that scene just to show that these 3 lenses, while each having pros/cons, are in the upper-class. It would have also been nice to have seen the Sony FE 35/1.4 to see whether or not it would be in that class (I know it's not down with the 2.8, but the 2.8 is not expected to have great bokeh either, so it's not a knock on that nice little lens)...Show more →
I think you would be surprised that the FE 35/2.8 bokeh is actually pretty smooth. This lens got a bad rep for no reason.
Some call it clinical but I think it's due to the amazing resolution across the field wide open. (So not much fall-off from center)
Of course there will be less blur at f/2.8, but when comparing with the ZM at same aperture, bokeh is actually similar if not a little harsher at mid-distance for the ZM.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think you would be surprised that the FE 35/2.8 bokeh is actually pretty smooth. This lens got a bad rep for no reason.
Some call it clinical but I think it's due to the amazing resolution across the field wide open. (So not much fall-off from center)
Of course there will be less blur at f/2.8, but when comparing with the ZM at same aperture, bokeh is actually similar if not a little harsher at mid-distance for the ZM.
Yep before my 2.8/35 FE mysteriously acquired significant tilt, it outperformed my Loxia up until f7.2 and the Lox was only better in resolution terms f8-9. What made me keep the Lox was its performance against the light - the FE has dull sunstars, and also although it doesn't flare much, and doesn't have the dramatic loss of contrast some lenses have against the light, there was an overall slight dulling with the sun in the frame that the lox (and the ZM by all accounts) doesn't have. But gosh it is impressive wide open, with really fine bokeh.
And it's by far the lightest FE! I wouldn't have sold it (disclosed with discount to a friend of course) had it not been for the tilt. But I am tempted to buy it back before my next big hiking trip (Pyrenees in June).
