GMPhotography wrote:
This is interesting . I shot this with flash at 5.6 look at the Exif data. Is the flash recording the aperture here. Im using a TechArt adapter
Looks like to me maybe the flash is quite underexposed versus ambient exp. as the back of the grooms black coat (is it black?) is bluish (from ambient daylight) yet the justice/ preacher jacket is black. Sync issue maybe?
Grooms jacket is blue, the preacher is black. Its not underexposed its actually balanced at 1/60 for the ambient. This is a 40 year renewal so he wore blue tux which he wore back in the day when blue was in fashion.
I'm not getting aperture normally in the Exif with the tech art adapter just F2 so I'm assuming the flash is putting in the aperture value. Only explanation I can come up with. I'll keep checking as I process.
I meant to ask about this. Does the ZM 35/1.4 have outward field curvature like most of the other ZM lenses, or is this mainly an effect or exacerbation of the filter stack? One of the reasons I love my ZF.2 35/1.4 is the inward field curvature that enhances isolation of a central subject. Otherwise the ZM looks like a damn fine lens.
JimBuchanan wrote:
I really wanted to like the ZM35/1.4 on a Sony a7 type camera, even trying the Kolari mod which really made this lens perform, but at the end of the day I decided to go mainstream with a stock a7RII. I still don't have a fast 35mm solution, but I couldn't see having a second modded camera just for the ZM Distagon.
The thing that really spoils it for me is illustrated in the first shot of the horse sculpture where center focus is about 12-14 feet out, and the telephone pole and cactii on the far left are fairly well resolved compared to the center background of the car and building.
So, it could very well be EFCS. I was getting some weird vignetting (asymmetric) when using high shutter speeds.
I thought it was not the lens as it showed up in a couple copies I tried. That's good to know. Thanks for testing!
uscmatt99 wrote:
I meant to ask about this. Does the ZM 35/1.4 have outward field curvature like most of the other ZM lenses, or is this mainly an effect or exacerbation of the filter stack? One of the reasons I love my ZF.2 35/1.4 is the inward field curvature that enhances isolation of a central subject. Otherwise the ZM looks like a damn fine lens.
JimBuchanan wrote:
I really wanted to like the ZM35/1.4 on a Sony a7 type camera, even trying the Kolari mod which really made this lens perform, but at the end of the day I decided to go mainstream with a stock a7RII. I still don't have a fast 35mm solution, but I couldn't see having a second modded camera just for the ZM Distagon.
The thing that really spoils it for me is illustrated in the first shot of the horse sculpture where center focus is about 12-14 feet out, and the telephone pole and cactii on the far left are fairly well resolved compared to the center background of the car and building.
I have one of my 2 A7r cameras modded as an A7rM V3 that I use with my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon and my Leica R 24mm f3.8 Asph lenses. I need to use CornerFix with these lenses due to the earlier model and issues with color into the corners and edges (much more so for the Leica 24mm Asph). CornerFix is not necessary for the A7rII. I will say though that with the Kolari Mod that the lens sharpness into the corners is quite good, but I would need to check it more for wider than f5.6 since I often use the lens at f11 for landscape DOF.
That's the thing. With the mod you get better corners more wide open. Question is with a 35mm lens do you really need great corners at 2.8. Most people won't but at 5.6 and f8 the sweet spot for landscapes so you don't need the mod here. I honestly have a lens that's great more wide open and that's great as its my workhorse . For me this is a character lens so those wide open corners won't mean much to me. My GM 24-70 really is the best general lens around so I'm specializing on some other primes. I think we have to not fall into the mod trap if that's not what your after to begin with. I'm not to be honest
GMPhotography wrote:
That's the thing. With the mod you get better corners more wide open. Question is with a 35mm lens do you really need great corners at 2.8. Most people won't but at 5.6 and f8 the sweet spot for landscapes so you don't need the mod here. I honestly have a lens that's great more wide open and that's great as its my workhorse . For me this is a character lens so those wide open corners won't mean much to me. My GM 24-70 really is the best general lens around so I'm specializing on some other primes. I think we have to not fall into the mod trap if that's not what your after to begin with. I'm not to be honest...Show more →
Hi Guy,
In my case, I had the A7rM V3 performed first for the usage of my Leica M 24mm f3.8 Asph, second for my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon, third for my Minolta 40mm f2 M-Rokkor, and fourth for my Leica WATE. To use the camera with the 24mm f3.8 Asph lens the mod was a definite requirement. The performance of this lens for the M mount is very close to the Loxia 21mm f2.8 in the E mount. But there is a definite improvement for the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM and there should be an improvement in the Minolta 40mm particularly at f8 out to the corners and also a slight improvement in the case of the WATE. As mentioned the mod was necessary to use the Leica M 24mm Asph but to me it was worth the modification for that lens alone and the improvement for the other lenses was icing on the cake. So those lenses are and will usually be used on the modded camera and all of my other M mount, Leica R, and Canon new FD 500mm f4.5L lenses will be used on either the stock or the modded A7r.
I would expect outwards field curvature due to the too-thick sensor stack. This should be expected based on the info stated in the Zeiss document CLB 41: From the series of articles on lens names: Distagon, Biogon and Hologon by H. H. Nasse:
"If the filter is significantly thicker, the contrast transfer for the image edge becomes worse for tangential structures. In the graph of the curves, this looks like the old retrofocus lenses but is caused by astigmatism rather than lateral chromatic aberration. The focus is shifted to greater distances for tangential structures by the additional path through the glass. If the best edge definition is to be achieved, then all that can be done is to stop down further."
IIRC, this is also the behavior of the CV35/1.7M on Sony, a lens which otherwise has a fairly flat plane of focus on Leica.
rscheffler wrote:
I would expect outwards field curvature due to the too-thick sensor stack. This should be expected based on the info stated in the Zeiss document CLB 41: From the series of articles on lens names: Distagon, Biogon and Hologon by H. H. Nasse:
"If the filter is significantly thicker, the contrast transfer for the image edge becomes worse for tangential structures. In the graph of the curves, this looks like the old retrofocus lenses but is caused by astigmatism rather than lateral chromatic aberration. The focus is shifted to greater distances for tangential structures by the additional path through the glass. If the best edge definition is to be achieved, then all that can be done is to stop down further."
IIRC, this is also the behavior of the CV35/1.7M on Sony, a lens which otherwise has a fairly flat plane of focus on Leica....Show more →
Great info Ron! It's just something to keep in mind when composition the scene using this lens.
In my case, I had the A7rM V3 performed first for the usage of my Leica M 24mm f3.8 Asph, second for my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon, third for my Minolta 40mm f2 M-Rokkor, and fourth for my Leica WATE. To use the camera with the 24mm f3.8 Asph lens the mod was a definite requirement. The performance of this lens for the M mount is very close to the Loxia 21mm f2.8 in the E mount. But there is a definite improvement for the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM and there should be an improvement in the Minolta 40mm particularly at f8 out to the corners and also a slight improvement in the case of the WATE. As mentioned the mod was necessary to use the Leica M 24mm Asph but to me it was worth the modification for that lens alone and the improvement for the other lenses was icing on the cake. So those lenses are and will usually be used on the modded camera and all of my other M mount, Leica R, and Canon new FD 500mm f4.5L lenses will be used on either the stock or the modded A7r.
Rich, didn't Kolari send your a7r back the first time with a misaligned sensor?
I had my a7 modified v2 and I don't feel it's worth it, particularly not for an owner of an a7rII using this lens. If you really want corner-to-corner near perfection at any aperture, frame everything from f/1.4-4 like you're going to crop it down to a 40-45mm FoV. When the corners don't matter at those apertures, treat it like a 35. It saves you $400 and you sidestep a potential service headache.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great info Ron! It's just something to keep in mind when composition the scene using this lens.
Interesting. So it's focus shift for tangential structures. Which means that just focusing on peripheral subjects won't fix things completely, because there's astigmatism: different structures focussed differently. A reason to consider waiting for a Lixia version, or otherwise save money by waiting for the One Perfect 35!
freaklikeme wrote:
Rich, didn't Kolari send your a7r back the first time with a misaligned sensor?
I had my a7 modified v2 and I don't feel it's worth it, particularly not for an owner of an a7rII using this lens. If you really want corner-to-corner near perfection at any aperture, frame everything from f/1.4-4 like you're going to crop it down to a 40-45mm FoV. When the corners don't matter at those apertures, treat it like a 35. It saves you $400 and you sidestep a potential service headache.
Hi Brad,
My A7rM V3 was returned to Kolari after it was determined that the sensor was misaligned. When it was returned we not only cofirmed and corrected the alignment issue but also changed from the V2 to the V3 thin sensor cover. It is suspected that the camera came from Sony with the misalignment. But, since lenses were normally used for landscape and it was never used at such wide apertures (f1.4 to about f2.8 or possibly f4 the problem was never realized. We found that there was a misalignment problem with the camera when testing my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon after the modification. As Ilija of Kolari indicated when they perform a sensor modification it should have no affect on the sensor alignment (Sony uses many shims to align the sensor). Therefore though we can not prove this, it is suspected that the misalignment of the sensor came this way with the camera from Sony. Kolari had to really work hard to realign the sensor for all 4 corners and both sides.
