Fred Miranda wrote:
On the article the author mentions: "At 1:5.6 the performance becomes impeccable over the full area of the sensor and the lens can be used as a universal tool."
I don't see that on the samples posted on this thread at f/5.6. There is very noticeable softening towards the edges with samples images at f/5.6 or f/8. It could be copy variation but I don't think it's 'impeccable performance' on the full area of the sensor. It would be nice if someone could post 1:1 crops showing the mid-field and edges of the frame at f/5.6 and f/8. (Preferably at infinity)...Show more →
This lens has an aperture adjustment?!
Of the few images I've shot at narrow apertures, I've not been impressed with the edges at all but I haven't been very scientific about it. If it wasn't dull and rainy here, I'd go out and shoot some test shots. But, I don't think this lens is a universal tool... It's a character lens.
virtualrain wrote:
This lens has an aperture adjustment?!
Of the few images I've shot at narrow apertures, I've not been impressed with the edges at all but I haven't been very scientific about it. If it wasn't dull and rainy here, I'd go out and shoot some test shots. But, I don't think this lens is a universal tool... It's a character lens.
I have not tried it yet but from the samples posted here, from wide open to about f/2, I'm impressed by the lovely rendering and clean bokeh balls. The uncorrected spherical aberration gives that unique look at wide apertures and images can be sharp around the center area at mid-distance. Contrast can always be tweaked in post.
It does not seem to be a lens that will sharpen up even by f/8 towards the edges but I don't think it was intended for that. It reminds me of the ZM 50/1.5c but with lower contrast wide open.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It reminds me of the ZM 50/1.5c but with lower contrast wide open.
What bugs me about my ZM 50 1.5 is the long mfd at 1m. It is too far away for intimate portraiture, and so requires cropping. The 7A can focus much closer.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have not tried it yet but from the samples posted here, from wide open to about f/2, I'm impressed by the lovely rendering and clean bokeh balls. The uncorrected spherical aberration gives that unique look at wide apertures and images can be sharp around the center area at mid-distance. Contrast can always be tweaked in post.
It does not seem to be a lens that will sharpen up even by f/8 towards the edges but I don't think it was intended for that. It reminds me of the ZM 50/1.5c but with lower contrast wide open.
I almost purchased the ZM 50/1.5 based on your and others reviews of it, but I felt that it just didn't offer enough added speed and background blur beyond what I could get with the FE55 and it seemed like a lot of money to invest in a lens I might not use very often. However, this 7A definitely delivers background blur in spades... reminds me of what I could do with the 85L when I was on Canon... and for the price, was a no-brainer. As you say, it does seem to have the best bokeh balls... at least the best I've ever shot.
Desmolicious wrote:
What bugs me about my ZM 50 1.5 is the long mfd at 1m. It is too far away for intimate portraiture, and so requires cropping. The 7A can focus much closer.
Yes, it's a bit long at 0.9m instead of the more common 0.7m or shorter. It definitely can be an issue with film cameras but when used on the A7 series, TAP or a close-focus adapter allows very close focusing. On the negative side, it does not perform as great closer than 0.9m.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it's a bit long at 0.9m instead of the more common 0.7m or shorter. It definitely can be an issue with film cameras but when used on the A7 series, TAP or a close-focus adapter allows very close focusing. On the negative side, it does not perform as great closer than 0.9m.
Fred Miranda wrote:
David, Have you tested the 7Artisans 50mm f/1.1?
No. haven't. My comments was about trying out an achromatic diopter on the ZM C-SOnnar to get better close up performance. Tempting to try the 7A, but life is short...
DavidBM wrote:
No. haven't. My comments was about trying out an achromatic diopter on the ZM C-SOnnar to get better close up performance. Tempting to try the 7A, but life is short...
Although not very popular, achromatic close-up lenses really increase IQ for the CV 40/1.2 at closer distances. I see a noticeable improvement but it's a bit bulky.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Although not very popular, achromatic close-up lenses really increase IQ for the CV 40/1.2 at closer distances. I see a noticeable improvement but it's a bit bulky.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Although not very popular, achromatic close-up lenses really increase IQ for the CV 40/1.2 at closer distances. I see a noticeable improvement but it's a bit bulky.
Yeah I got a range of them now - the ELPRO4, the Nikon 1.5, the minolta, and a couple of super Raynoxes (multicoated doublet diopter and a multicoated triplet !! 3 dipopter)
The Elpro is night and day on the CV at close distances. And I'm not prone to saying night and day. It makes it perform similarly to it's excellent distance performance, with no bad effect on bokeh or anything I can discern (though in the extreme periphery there's no benefit, but I never care given the sorts of images taken at wider apertures at close distances. I'm not using it for art reproduction)
In general if an lens doesn't have floating elements, and performs much worse at close distances, this strategy ought work. After all, all it's doing is making the lens "see" the world as though it's much further away, and so allows the lens to operate in it's best range. Just as long as the achromat is doing only mild harm itself, the net balance should be positive. I think with the C-Sonnar the weakest possible achromat is called for, because the C-Sonnar seems to be best neither at infinity or close, so you want to be able to get closeups with the lens focussed at about 2m..
The best ones for the CV 40/1.2 are the Leica Elpro 3 and Elpro 4. The latter allows you to focus from MDF until about 1.5m which is ideal. The close-up lens will move the lens focusing closer to infinity where it's optimal, so 1.5m = infinity with the Elpro 4. The Minolta is also a great option but I much prefer the IQ of the Leicas...and I'm not stuck-up...the different in IQ is real.
DavidBM wrote:
Yeah I got a range of them now - the ELPRO4, the Nikon 1.5, the minolta, and a couple of super Raynoxes (multicoated doublet diopter and a multicoated triplet !! 3 dipopter)
The Elpro is night and day on the CV at close distances. And I'm not prone to saying night and day. It makes it perform similarly to it's excellent distance performance, with no bad effect on bokeh or anything I can discern (though in the extreme periphery there's no benefit, but I never care given the sorts of images taken at wider apertures at close distances. I'm not using it for art reproduction)
In general if an lens doesn't have floating elements, and performs much worse at close distances, this strategy ought work. After all, all it's doing is making the lens "see" the world as though it's much further away, and so allows the lens to operate in it's best range. Just as long as the achromat is doing only mild harm itself, the net balance should be positive. I think with the C-Sonnar the weakest possible achromat is called for, because the C-Sonnar seems to be best neither at infinity or close, so you want to be able to get closeups with the lens focussed at about 2m.....Show more →
It's worth a try David. Perhaps one of the Elpros with a 46-55mm set-up ring?
As you say, it does seem to have the best bokeh balls... at least the best I've ever shot.