Today my open box VM 28/2 Ultron II arrived with an TTArtisan 6bit adapter II. The first tests on my A7Rv were not satisfying. The adapter was doa. My A7Rv went in freeze with the adapter mounted and did not turn off, I had to remove the battery. When I turned the camera on before mounting the adapter it worked but no lens profile was transmitted, I had to manually dial in the focal length for IBIS.
Beside this I ran a decentering test and unfortunately the lens was slightly decentered. Was not easy to test on that sony sensor were the edges are soft, but one corner was clearly worse than the others. So will send the lens back. And I think I won't order another lens regard the difficulties finding a PCX filter for that specific lens.
Sometimes I really miss my A7Riii I sold for my A7Rv. Sure it was not that resonsive and the viewfinder is not that great and there are a couple of other improvements, but I really miss that 42mp sensor. Perheps sometimes in the future I will buy one again and let Kolari modify that sensor stack. Then we'll see...
Adl999 wrote:
Today my open box VM 28/2 Ultron II arrived with an TTArtisan 6bit adapter II. The first tests on my A7Rv were not satisfying. The adapter was doa. My A7Rv went in freeze with the adapter mounted and did not turn off, I had to remove the battery. When I turned the camera on before mounting the adapter it worked but no lens profile was transmitted, I had to manually dial in the focal length for IBIS.
Beside this I ran a decentering test and unfortunately the lens was slightly decentered. Was not easy to test on that sony sensor were the edges are soft, but one corner was clearly worse than the others. So will send the lens back. And I think I won't order another lens regard the difficulties finding a PCX filter for that specific lens.
Sometimes I really miss my A7Riii I sold for my A7Rv. Sure it was not that resonsive and the viewfinder is not that great and there are a couple of other improvements, but I really miss that 42mp sensor. Perheps sometimes in the future I will buy one again and let Kolari modify that sensor stack. Then we'll see......Show more →
Kolari does a great job with their thin sensor mod, and based on my testing, all of my Leica lenses performed optimally on the Sony camera following the sensor modification. Nevertheless, a notable drawback is that you'll need to manually adjust the white balance for each shot, as the automatic white balance and presets will no longer yield optimal results.
Certainly, there's minimal changes in IQ from the A7R III. While we now benefit from improved AF tracking, in terms of image quality, it continues to offer ample resolution and dynamic range.
Hi everyone, I have designed and 3D printed a front adapter ring for the sigma koki 5000PCX and Contax G 21mm lens - this allows the 5000PCX to sit centered and just above the font lens. The remaining setup is as originally described, 55-52mm step-down adapter + retaining ring. I have attached some photos. This is for use with the kolari modded A7r if you own one - I have the original A7r with the kolari UT sensor mod. If anyone is interested I can post the STL file on thingyverse, presumably this approach may work for other lenses that can accommodate the PCX glass directly in front of then lens if elevation is also provided by the plastic adapter ring. Cheers Jude
JT AU wrote:
Hi everyone, I have designed and 3D printed a front adapter ring for the sigma koki 5000PCX and Contax G 21mm lens - this allows the 5000PCX to sit centered and just above the font lens. The remaining setup is as originally described, 55-52mm step-down adapter + retaining ring. I have attached some photos. This is for use with the kolari modded A7r if you own one - I have the original A7r with the kolari UT sensor mod. If anyone is interested I can post the STL file on thingyverse, presumably this approach may work for other lenses that can accommodate the PCX glass directly in front of then lens if elevation is also provided by the plastic adapter ring. Cheers Jude
JT AU wrote:
Hi everyone, I have designed and 3D printed a front adapter ring for the sigma koki 5000PCX and Contax G 21mm lens - this allows the 5000PCX to sit centered and just above the font lens. The remaining setup is as originally described, 55-52mm step-down adapter + retaining ring. I have attached some photos. This is for use with the kolari modded A7r if you own one - I have the original A7r with the kolari UT sensor mod. If anyone is interested I can post the STL file on thingyverse, presumably this approach may work for other lenses that can accommodate the PCX glass directly in front of then lens if elevation is also provided by the plastic adapter ring. Cheers Jude
I have created an account and submitted the plastic adapter ring as "Contax G21mm PCX5000 Front Lens adapter" on thingyverse, please allow 24 hours for it to become public. I took some quick test photos today, does work with a 52mm to 77mm step-up adapter ring and Hoya circular polarizing filter, however the vignetting is noticeably worse, particularly in the far corners. Cheers Jude
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm finally happy with my set-up.
I am able to use the original hood with more filters without vignetting. Removing the hood allows me to use square filters like the Lee Seven5.
Start with a blank slim 49mm. Then add the hood. After attach the 49-55mm step up ring + blank 55mm with a thick 55mm retention ring. (I use the ELPRO3)
Here is a quick picture of the set-up:
Hi Fred, I picked up the ZM 35mm f1.4 recently for my a7cii and thought I'd give the pcx filter a shot, hoping the mid-zone dip and slightly lower central contrast don't detract from the things I like about the zeiss.
I think I understand the setup for without a hood based on the quote below and the image guide.
But your instructions seem to omit the 55 to 52mm... and I don't have the ELPRO3.
I know it was a while ago, and some people already left the party, but would the below be okay, or if you remember something else better?
I was also thinking of instead of step (1) to use a real filter there just in case there is a build up of humidity between the pcx and the lens without one.
And then, because I'm paranoid, putting a 52mm protector on the front of the PCX, just worried about vignette.
You can see why I want to cover it up with the hood!
My current simulation environment well matched contax G biogons but seems not be able to handle zm35d.
Perhaps zm35d's modern floating element / internal focusing design is affected, but I'm not sure at this time.
So I can't tell that simulated 1.75m meniscus is really work or not, and the Nikon No.0 as well.
No problem. Thank you for encouraging me
These pics may help you
1. Hakuba 49-55mm step-up ring
2. Optosigma SLB-50-5000PM bare lens. Curved surface faces to subject.
3. Hakuba 55-52mm step-down ring
4. 52mm front part of AmazonBasics Protection Lens Filter 52mm
When I attach this filter, I tried loosening and tightening the filter and IQ seems not affected.
Unlike meniscus lens, when using PCX, that distance seems to have very small impact on any aberrations in theory also.
seems like the pcx gives a 2-3 stop improvement in the corners over the stock a9, but the lens is as good at f/4 on the UT as it ever gets on the a9 even with the pcx filter.
This does seem a little minor, I know there was a different PCX filter that was tested by Bastian for this lens.
But he did a comparison against the 40mm f1.2 native E mount with this same PCX ... and they seemed pretty close in terms of sharpness at the same apertures to me.
At least relatively because that kolari mod shows a HUGE difference.
Maybe I'm mis-understanding but I wonder if the VM 40mm f1.2 performs better on Leica, compared to the 40 e on sony..
Yogifi wrote:
This does seem a little minor, I know there was a different PCX filter that was tested by Bastian for this lens.
But he did a comparison against the 40mm f1.2 native E mount with this same PCX ... and they seemed pretty close in terms of sharpness at the same apertures to me.
At least relatively because that kolari mod shows a HUGE difference.
Maybe I'm mis-understanding but I wonder if the VM 40mm f1.2 performs better on Leica, compared to the 40 e on sony..
i dunno, never used the e-mount version of the 40/1.2, just the m-mount which is much better on the kolari than a stock sony. it seems like they are at least pretty similar when used on their corresponding sensor stacks.
Yogifi wrote:
Hi Fred, I picked up the ZM 35mm f1.4 recently for my a7cii and thought I'd give the pcx filter a shot, hoping the mid-zone dip and slightly lower central contrast don't detract from the things I like about the zeiss.
I think I understand the setup for without a hood based on the quote below and the image guide.
But your instructions seem to omit the 55 to 52mm... and I don't have the ELPRO3.
I know it was a while ago, and some people already left the party, but would the below be okay, or if you remember something else better?
I was also thinking of instead of step (1) to use a real filter there just in case there is a build up of humidity between the pcx and the lens without one.
And then, because I'm paranoid, putting a 52mm protector on the front of the PCX, just worried about vignette.
You can see why I want to cover it up with the hood!
sebboh wrote:
i dunno, never used the e-mount version of the 40/1.2, just the m-mount which is much better on the kolari than a stock sony. it seems like they are at least pretty similar when used on their corresponding sensor stacks.
Sorry I know it was years ago to randomly quote you on that!
I didn't even include the comparison.
Native e-mount 40mm f1.2 vs 35mm f1.7 + pcx and they look pretty similar, or the 35mm VM doing better.
And together with your comparison showing the 35mm f1.7 on kolari mod massively outperforming the pcx there.
Maybe just because they're different designs.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My apologies, I no longer own this lens ... I sold it along with the hood and the PCX 5m.
All filters needed to be thin to avoid vignetting.
It worked well because you couldn’t tell there was a PCX 5m attached...the hood went right on top. Here's a picture of it in place.
Brilliant, that lines up, I will try to find the thinnest step down instead (was going for big for the retention ring, getting confused with the ELPRO3) - though the options are a bit scarce here. Will give it a go, thank you.
Native e-mount 40mm f1.2 vs 35mm f1.7 + pcx and they look pretty similar, or the 35mm VM doing better.
And together with your comparison showing the 35mm f1.7 on kolari mod massively outperforming the pcx there.
Maybe just because they're different designs.
Brilliant, that lines up, I will try to find the thinnest step down instead (was going for big for the retention ring, getting confused with the ELPRO3) - though the options are a bit scarce here. Will give it a go, thank you....Show more →
ah, i see what you are asking. if your are interested in edge to edge sharpness at large aperture the cv 35/1.7 is just a better design. the cv 35/1.7 + 5m PCX on a stock sensor will perform equal or better than the m-mount cv 40/1.2 on a kolari sensor too for those types of tests (though the cv 35/1.7 is still much better without pcx on a kolari sensor). different lens design priorities plus the extra stop. having said that, i would make the opposite choice as Bastian, i much prefer the cv 40/1.2 to the cv 35/1.7 for my shooting.
sebboh wrote:
ah, i see what you are asking. if your are interested in edge to edge sharpness at large aperture the cv 35/1.7 is just a better design. the cv 35/1.7 + 5m PCX on a stock sensor will perform equal or better than the m-mount cv 40/1.2 on a kolari sensor too for those types of tests (though the cv 35/1.7 is still much better without pcx on a kolari sensor). different lens design priorities plus the extra stop. having said that, i would make the opposite choice as Bastian, i much prefer the cv 40/1.2 to the cv 35/1.7 for my shooting....Show more →
sebboh, a slightly off the topic question, what is your assessment of VM 40mm f1.2 on a stock Sony sensor? decent at the portrait distance? Thanks.
Tim Zhou wrote:
sebboh, a slightly off the topic question, what is your assessment of VM 40mm f1.2 on a stock Sony sensor? decent at the portrait distance? Thanks.
it is still quite nice for portraits, but the field curvature is noticeable so you have to compose around it. the e-mount version will be noticeably better.
it is still quite nice for portraits, but the field curvature is noticeable so you have to compose around it. the e-mount version will be noticeably better.
Thanks sebboh, appreciate your input, for 35-40MM focal range, leica m-mount, which one works overall good on a sony stock sensor, i have tried Voigtlander 35mm f2 (now sold) and Minolta 40mm f2. The former has quite obvious mid-zone dip and doesn't seem to improve when stopping down. Minolta seems okay, but the wide open bokeh is too busy for my liking. I have been looking at VM 40mm f1.4 and f1.2. Thanks if you have any other recommendations. I would like to have a modified sensor, but it is not quite doable in the Uk.
Thanks sebboh, appreciate your input, for 35-40MM focal range, leica m-mount, which one works overall good on a sony stock sensor, i have tried Voigtlander 35mm f2 (now sold) and Minolta 40mm f2. The former has quite obvious mid-zone dip and doesn't seem to improve when stopping down. Minolta seems okay, but the wide open bokeh is too busy for my liking. I have been looking at VM 40mm f1.4 and f1.2. Thanks if you have any other recommendations. I would like to have a modified sensor, but it is not quite doable in the Uk.
honestly, the cv 40/1.2 might be the best for that. pretty much all the fastish m-mount 35-40mm lenses are either noticeably effected by the sensor stack or just kinda wonky. The vm 40/1.4 is a lot like the minolta 40/2 but more so. The vm 40/1.2 is a better landscape lens and has better bokeh even with the field curvature on a stock sony sensor – it's not terribly noticeably on waist up portrait distance, but glaringly obvious on full body portrait distance.
the vm 35/1.7, zm 35/1.4, and (probably) the lux asph are all very good with a PCX filter, but annoying without it.
the lux pre-asph might be better on stock sensor than a thin filter camera, but it has a very distinctive "classic" look.
my m 35mm lens that has the most consistent behavior across thin and stock filters is the contax g 35/2 (i think i posted the test of it in my review of the kolari mod). it isn't really available in m-mount though and it's not a great behaved lens.
honestly, the cv 40/1.2 might be the best for that. pretty much all the fastish m-mount 35-40mm lenses are either noticeably effected by the sensor stack or just kinda wonky. The vm 40/1.4 is a lot like the minolta 40/2 but more so. The vm 40/1.2 is a better landscape lens and has better bokeh even with the field curvature on a stock sony sensor – it's not terribly noticeably on waist up portrait distance, but glaringly obvious on full body portrait distance.
the vm 35/1.7, zm 35/1.4, and (probably) the lux asph are all very good with a PCX filter, but annoying without it.
the lux pre-asph might be better on stock sensor than a thin filter camera, but it has a very distinctive "classic" look.
my m 35mm lens that has the most consistent behavior across thin and stock filters is the contax g 35/2 (i think i posted the test of it in my review of the kolari mod). it isn't really available in m-mount though and it's not a great behaved lens.
Thanks a lot! The price for VM 40 F1.2 has also come down quite a bit.
interesting to hear the mention of Contax g 35, which is a bit overshadowed by its siblings like 45 or 28. I haven't really read much about it.
Thanks a lot! The price for VM 40 F1.2 has also come down quite a bit.
interesting to hear the mention of Contax g 35, which is a bit overshadowed by its siblings like 45 or 28. I haven't really read much about it.
the 45 and definitely the 28 are better behaved lenses. the 35 has the same color though and isn't nearly as effected by the sensor stack as the 45 and 28. it has a fairly noticeable midzone dip and funky bokeh wide open (pretty good stopped down though).
I agree with Sebboh, but with a bit of distinction/nuance—I actually like the performance of the 35 Lux FLE on a stock Sony because it trades corner sharpness for midzone. The midzone on a stock Sony is better.
The CV 35/1.7 performs well enough for many uses/is less affected than a ZM 35/1.4 or CV 35/1.5 or CV 35/2. The 35/1.7 has good central and midzone performance WO, and is good across the frame by 2.8.
