This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
p.2 #1M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Desmolicious wrote:
As such, I am going to stick with Leica for Leica glass, as I have no intention of unloading them to replace them with specific Leica lenses that work better on a Nikon!
I really wanted them to work perfectly on my Z7, as then I could have reduced my camera body count, but this is not to be. What is nice is the Z7 with M adapter and M lenses, is much smaller than the equivalent focal length slr lenses with matching adapter.Do you have any side by side comparison with the M240 and the 50 lux Asph? All I saw were some samples with the 50 lux Asph not any comparisons, but perhaps I missed it.They should be there in what I posted. The M was sharper even in the center. But.. I dont consider this as
actual image making just pixel peeping. And I have yet to use it w M lenses to take ‘real’ pics, because the reality is all these lenses work so much better on their native bodies, no matter the brand or format.
I just checked again and for the 50 lux Asph only the Z7 shots are posted. Would you mind reposting here with the M240 shots as well? TIA.
Edited on Feb 11, 2019 at 04:07 PM · View previous versions
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
I understand that some Leica lenses would work better on non Leica cameras than other ones, but I tested with some of what I have, including the 50 Asph, and every single one of them was better on my Leica M than my Z7.As such, I am going to stick with Leica for Leica glass, as I have no intention of unloading them to replace them with specific Leica lenses that work better on a Nikon!
I really wanted them to work perfectly on my Z7, as then I could have reduced my camera body count, but this is not to be. What is nice is the Z7 with M adapter and M lenses, is much smaller than the equivalent focal length slr lenses with matching adapter.
actual image making just pixel peeping. And I have yet to use it w M lenses to take ‘real’ pics, because the reality is all these lenses work so much better on their native bodies, no matter the brand or format.
I just checked again and for the 50 lux Asph only the Z7 shots are posted. Would you mind reposting here with the M240 shots as well? TIA.
Edited on Feb 11, 2019 at 04:07 PM · View previous versions
Feb 11, 2019 at 02:56 PM
p.2 #2M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Desmolicious wrote:
As such, I am going to stick with Leica for Leica glass, as I have no intention of unloading them to replace them with specific Leica lenses that work better on a Nikon!
I really wanted them to work perfectly on my Z7, as then I could have reduced my camera body count, but this is not to be. What is nice is the Z7 with M adapter and M lenses, is much smaller than the equivalent focal length slr lenses with matching adapter.Do you have any side by side comparison with the M240 and the 50 lux Asph? All I saw were some samples with the 50 lux Asph not any comparisons, but perhaps I missed it.the reality is all these lenses work so much better on their native bodies, no matter the brand or format.
My own observations are not consistent with this "reality," as you put it. All of my Zeiss ZE lenses had noticeably better performance on the Sony A7r II than on the Canon 5D MKII for which they were made. The reason for this is simple: the Sony has a much better sensor and these lenses with long exit pupils are not affected by the cover glass on the Sony. IMO, "the reality," that you mention is way way too simple even for Leica lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
I understand that some Leica lenses would work better on non Leica cameras than other ones, but I tested with some of what I have, including the 50 Asph, and every single one of them was better on my Leica M than my Z7.As such, I am going to stick with Leica for Leica glass, as I have no intention of unloading them to replace them with specific Leica lenses that work better on a Nikon!
I really wanted them to work perfectly on my Z7, as then I could have reduced my camera body count, but this is not to be. What is nice is the Z7 with M adapter and M lenses, is much smaller than the equivalent focal length slr lenses with matching adapter.
My own observations are not consistent with this "reality," as you put it. All of my Zeiss ZE lenses had noticeably better performance on the Sony A7r II than on the Canon 5D MKII for which they were made. The reason for this is simple: the Sony has a much better sensor and these lenses with long exit pupils are not affected by the cover glass on the Sony. IMO, "the reality," that you mention is way way too simple even for Leica lenses.
Feb 11, 2019 at 04:07 PM
p.2 #3M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Steve Spencer wrote:
As such, I am going to stick with Leica for Leica glass, as I have no intention of unloading them to replace them with specific Leica lenses that work better on a Nikon!
I really wanted them to work perfectly on my Z7, as then I could have reduced my camera body count, but this is not to be. What is nice is the Z7 with M adapter and M lenses, is much smaller than the equivalent focal length slr lenses with matching adapter.Do you have any side by side comparison with the M240 and the 50 lux Asph? All I saw were some samples with the 50 lux Asph not any comparisons, but perhaps I missed it.the reality is all these lenses work so much better on their native bodies, no matter the brand or format.My own observations are not consistent with this "reality," as you put it. All of my Zeiss ZE lenses had noticeably better performance on the Sony A7r II than on the Canon 5D MKII for which they were made. The reason for this is simple: the Sony has a much better sensor and these lenses with long exit pupils are not affected by the cover glass on the Sony. IMO, "the reality," that you mention is way way too simple even for Leica lenses.
Ahh, with that I agree. I meant non-native/non format lenses. Not lenses like ZF/ZE which are SLR lenses designed for use on SLR cameras. I meant more like rangefinder lenses, or even cross usage eg using FF lenses on m43 for example.
But I have found in a less structured/organized environment that I will get better results with my AF Nikon mount lenses on Nikons (for example), than with manual focus Nikon lenses purely for the fact that there is far less chance of missing focus.
Desmolicious wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
I understand that some Leica lenses would work better on non Leica cameras than other ones, but I tested with some of what I have, including the 50 Asph, and every single one of them was better on my Leica M than my Z7.As such, I am going to stick with Leica for Leica glass, as I have no intention of unloading them to replace them with specific Leica lenses that work better on a Nikon!
I really wanted them to work perfectly on my Z7, as then I could have reduced my camera body count, but this is not to be. What is nice is the Z7 with M adapter and M lenses, is much smaller than the equivalent focal length slr lenses with matching adapter.
Ahh, with that I agree. I meant non-native/non format lenses. Not lenses like ZF/ZE which are SLR lenses designed for use on SLR cameras. I meant more like rangefinder lenses, or even cross usage eg using FF lenses on m43 for example.
But I have found in a less structured/organized environment that I will get better results with my AF Nikon mount lenses on Nikons (for example), than with manual focus Nikon lenses purely for the fact that there is far less chance of missing focus.
Feb 11, 2019 at 06:23 PM
p.2 #4M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
I will do another test once I have Panasonic.
Maybe I missed where you mentioned it, but given you are so pleased with the Nikon Z7 (V. good with m lenses, good viewfinder, well sealed and small) why would you be interested in that great lump of a Panasonic camera?
Just interested.
Maybe I missed where you mentioned it, but given you are so pleased with the Nikon Z7 (V. good with m lenses, good viewfinder, well sealed and small) why would you be interested in that great lump of a Panasonic camera?
Just interested.
Feb 12, 2019 at 03:32 AM
p.2 #5M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Steve Spencer wrote:
....
.... IMO, "the reality," that you mention is way way too simple even for Leica lenses.
I have a ZM 35mm Biogon f/2 that didn't play well with my a7ii, or so I thought. Nice on the M-240 but mush in the corners and edges on the a7ii. I tried it on the Z7 and the softness was even more noticeable with the higher rez, but more or less the same as the a7ii when resampled down. So I went back and did some comparisons between all three bodies and the softness was there on the M-240 also, I just hadn't used the lens the same way on all three bodies.
With the M, I was using it at events where the point-of-focus was 2-4m away, wide open and stopped down to f/5.6 and the results were consistent with what one would expect from that type of reportage use. I tried it on the a7ii outside with point-of-focus 5-15m wide open and near infinity, f/8 and it wasn't the same lens as on the M. Usage is key, as is knowing how a lens works on a native body. So the ZM stays on the M.
It's a different story with a Voigt. 35mm Ultron LTM. In this case, its very good on the M, better on the a7ii and better yet on the Z. And that's all down to the sensors (imho)... I can say the same for all my Voigtlander lenses on the three cameras (they're the only M/LTM wide/ultra wides I have).
Context... ; - )
....
.... IMO, "the reality," that you mention is way way too simple even for Leica lenses.
I have a ZM 35mm Biogon f/2 that didn't play well with my a7ii, or so I thought. Nice on the M-240 but mush in the corners and edges on the a7ii. I tried it on the Z7 and the softness was even more noticeable with the higher rez, but more or less the same as the a7ii when resampled down. So I went back and did some comparisons between all three bodies and the softness was there on the M-240 also, I just hadn't used the lens the same way on all three bodies.
With the M, I was using it at events where the point-of-focus was 2-4m away, wide open and stopped down to f/5.6 and the results were consistent with what one would expect from that type of reportage use. I tried it on the a7ii outside with point-of-focus 5-15m wide open and near infinity, f/8 and it wasn't the same lens as on the M. Usage is key, as is knowing how a lens works on a native body. So the ZM stays on the M.
It's a different story with a Voigt. 35mm Ultron LTM. In this case, its very good on the M, better on the a7ii and better yet on the Z. And that's all down to the sensors (imho)... I can say the same for all my Voigtlander lenses on the three cameras (they're the only M/LTM wide/ultra wides I have).
Context... ; - )
Feb 12, 2019 at 06:29 AM
p.2 #6M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
wolfloid wrote:
Maybe I missed where you mentioned it, but given you are so pleased with the Nikon Z7 (V. good with m lenses, good viewfinder, well sealed and small) why would you be interested in that great lump of a Panasonic camera?
Just interested.
Panasonic S1 was the one in my mind What Nikon mirrorless should be before Z introduced. I have soft spot for Nikon's D700/D300 era camera, Panasonic remind me of just that.
If I can have duel system before with D8xx and Sony, Why I can't do it here with Z7 and S1. Z7 is definitely make more sense for now if I am traveling or only keep one system. During daily shooting, I usually only bring one or two prime lens such as Leica M, R or ZF, they are all manual. In that case, I'd say I wouldn't mind better EVF with faster refresh rate for better viewing experience and even better grip for ergonomics. Camera for me is always shooting experience first given all system have similar IQ now. I'd like to enjoy picking it up and take it everywhere first.
I don't think it is very reasonable to get it in additional to Z
but not everything need a reason. I have learned that review can only give certain information but only real world use can get you true feeling about tool. Different people with different perspective can value thing totally different and affect the tones of their review and rating. If I just read review or watch youtube, Nikon Z got tons of criticisms but until it is in my hand and put it in field you realize how much better it works for you, and only that matters in the end.
The same here. If it turn out doesn't work for me, I will just sell it and move on just like what I decided before got Z7.
Earlier quote
I will do another test once I have Panasonic.Just interested.
Panasonic S1 was the one in my mind What Nikon mirrorless should be before Z introduced. I have soft spot for Nikon's D700/D300 era camera, Panasonic remind me of just that.
If I can have duel system before with D8xx and Sony, Why I can't do it here with Z7 and S1. Z7 is definitely make more sense for now if I am traveling or only keep one system. During daily shooting, I usually only bring one or two prime lens such as Leica M, R or ZF, they are all manual. In that case, I'd say I wouldn't mind better EVF with faster refresh rate for better viewing experience and even better grip for ergonomics. Camera for me is always shooting experience first given all system have similar IQ now. I'd like to enjoy picking it up and take it everywhere first.
I don't think it is very reasonable to get it in additional to Z
but not everything need a reason. I have learned that review can only give certain information but only real world use can get you true feeling about tool. Different people with different perspective can value thing totally different and affect the tones of their review and rating. If I just read review or watch youtube, Nikon Z got tons of criticisms but until it is in my hand and put it in field you realize how much better it works for you, and only that matters in the end. The same here. If it turn out doesn't work for me, I will just sell it and move on just like what I decided before got Z7.
Feb 12, 2019 at 11:09 AM
p.2 #8M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
mapgraphs wrote:
I have a ZM 35mm Biogon f/2 that didn't play well with my a7ii, or so I thought. Nice on the M-240 but mush in the corners and edges on the a7ii. I tried it on the Z7 and the softness was even more noticeable with the higher rez, but more or less the same as the a7ii when resampled down. So I went back and did some comparisons between all three bodies and the softness was there on the M-240 also, I just hadn't used the lens the same way on all three bodies.
With the M, I was...Show more →
After reading multiple reviews, I purchased a secondhand Biogon ZM 35/2 to use with my recently acquired M10-P, settling on that lens as a compromise between the C Biogon ZM 35/2.8 and the Distagon ZM 35/1.4. Initially I thought I'd got a bad copy because the corners and edges never got as sharp as I would have expected. Then I read Sean Reid's comprehensive review in which he describes similar behaviour. I realised that I'd wanted a 35mm lens that would be sharp across the frame and which would only be used in daylight, basically when my ZM 28/2.8 is too wide. So I returned the 35/2 and bought a new C Biogon ZM 35/2.8. Since the 35/2.8 is such a sharp, contrasty lens I also picked up an Ultron 35/1.7 LTM to complement it. Interesting that you find the Ultron even better on the Z7 since that camera is the only one that appeals to me out of the three Sony mirrorless competitors. I'll hold off on a Z7 purchase though because I'd much prefer to put that money towards a new Monochrom model based on the M10/M10-P sensor.
I have a ZM 35mm Biogon f/2 that didn't play well with my a7ii, or so I thought. Nice on the M-240 but mush in the corners and edges on the a7ii. I tried it on the Z7 and the softness was even more noticeable with the higher rez, but more or less the same as the a7ii when resampled down. So I went back and did some comparisons between all three bodies and the softness was there on the M-240 also, I just hadn't used the lens the same way on all three bodies.
With the M, I was...Show more →
After reading multiple reviews, I purchased a secondhand Biogon ZM 35/2 to use with my recently acquired M10-P, settling on that lens as a compromise between the C Biogon ZM 35/2.8 and the Distagon ZM 35/1.4. Initially I thought I'd got a bad copy because the corners and edges never got as sharp as I would have expected. Then I read Sean Reid's comprehensive review in which he describes similar behaviour. I realised that I'd wanted a 35mm lens that would be sharp across the frame and which would only be used in daylight, basically when my ZM 28/2.8 is too wide. So I returned the 35/2 and bought a new C Biogon ZM 35/2.8. Since the 35/2.8 is such a sharp, contrasty lens I also picked up an Ultron 35/1.7 LTM to complement it. Interesting that you find the Ultron even better on the Z7 since that camera is the only one that appeals to me out of the three Sony mirrorless competitors. I'll hold off on a Z7 purchase though because I'd much prefer to put that money towards a new Monochrom model based on the M10/M10-P sensor.
Feb 13, 2019 at 04:29 AM
p.2 #9M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Hoping for Lumix S1 to do better in the corners than Sonys with wider Ms, like 28cron
Apr 24, 2019 at 02:00 PM
p.2 #10M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.
retrofocus wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22While I think that is true for the wides you tested, Leica M 18 f/3.8, Leica M 28 f/2.8, CV 21 f/4, CV 25 f/4, and to a lesser extent the Leica M 24 f/3.8, that we see clear degraded performance on the Nikon Z those aren't any of the lenses that faired best on the Sony cameras. In fact all of these lenses did horribly on the Sony camera and look a lot better on the Z and all but the Leica M 18 f/3.8 and Leica M 24 f/3.8 did quite poorly on even the Leica SL. If you want small symmetrical wides, then you definitely want an M camera. Keep in mind, however, a number of lenses do a lot better than these on the Sony cameras and the Leica SL and may perform much better on the Nikon Z. I am waiting to see performance of the Leica M 21 f/3.4 (which I expect to be better on the Leica M, but the difference to be even smaller than the Leica M 24 f/3.8). At the wide end there is also the WATE, which actually performs quite well with the Sony cameras and I would not be surprised if the Leica M shows only a small advantage over the Nikon Z's with this lens or perhaps no advantage at all. There is also the Leica M 21, 24, & 28 luxes, which all do fairly well on the Sony cameras and likely would perform pretty well on the Nikon Zs. I have less basis to predict the 35mm lenses, but I would love to see a range of those as well. The 35 lux Asph does quite poorly on the Sony, but how does it do on the Nikon Z, and some older lenses do well as does the CV 35 f/1.2 on the Sony. How do those and the CV 35 f/1.7 and Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 do on the Nikon Z? There is lots still to learn. At 50mm the 50 cron AA does beautifully on the Sony's and I would be surprised if it didn't perform even better on the Nikon Zs. From your 50 lux Asph picks there is probably some degradation for landscapes, but did you compare it tot he M240? I couldn't find those comparisons. That to me is an interesting and important lens and I would love to see the comparison there. On Sony to 50 lux Asph did not do well at all, and my guess is that its performance is degraded on the Nikon Zs, but not nearly as much as it is on the Sony's. Finally, I expect anything over 50mm to do quite well on the Nikon Zs with little to no reduction in performance, that was pretty much true on the Sony's so I expect it to be even more true on the Nikon Zs.
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.+1. It probably comes down to similar lens issues seen already with M-lenses on Sony sensors before - my rule of thumb from personal experience is to stay away from Leica f/2 ASPH lenses since they only perform well on Leica M cameras (different story for f/1.4 ASPH lenses with wider pupil angle, but this is also a different price class). I am personally more interested to see older M lenses used - meaning maybe not the latest lens iteration - on the new high res sensors. Or in other words: getting the best image quality out of the combination...Show more →
retrofocus wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
My brief tests are here. I was hoping that I could replace my M with my Z, but I'll be keeping both as the Z is awesome with my Sigma Art glass (better than my now sold D850), while the M is better with M glass.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
Apr 24, 2019 at 07:11 PM
p.2 #11M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
When you say that the 28/2.8 is not worth the money, can you elaborate? I've read the v2 Elmarit Asph 28mm was tweaked more for digital sensors, was this the version you have experience with?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.
retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
My brief tests are here. I was hoping that I could replace my M with my Z, but I'll be keeping both as the Z is awesome with my Sigma Art glass (better than my now sold D850), while the M is better with M glass.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
Apr 24, 2019 at 07:26 PM
p.2 #12M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
I tested the newest version of the 2.8/28. It may well be worth the money on Leica M. On the Z6, it has mushy corners. So I would guess that for most applications, a slightly heavier Voigtländer would probably achieve similar or better results - therefore you don't need to spend extra money on the Leica M. So I think you actually need to test every lens separately, and preferably at different aperture settings.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
When you say that the 28/2.8 is not worth the money, can you elaborate? I've read the v2 Elmarit Asph 28mm was tweaked more for digital sensors, was this the version you have experience with?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22While I think that is true for the wides you tested, Leica M 18 f/3.8, Leica M 28 f/2.8, CV 21 f/4, CV 25 f/4, and to a lesser extent the Leica M 24 f/3.8, that we see clear degraded performance on the Nikon Z those aren't any of the lenses that faired best on the Sony cameras. In fact all of these lenses did horribly on the Sony camera and look a lot better on the Z and all but the Leica M 18 f/3.8 and Leica M 24 f/3.8 did quite poorly on even the Leica SL. If you want small symmetrical wides, then you definitely want an M camera. Keep in mind, however, a number of lenses do a lot better than these on the Sony cameras and the Leica SL and may perform much better on the Nikon Z. I am waiting to see performance of the Leica M 21 f/3.4 (which I expect to be better on the Leica M, but the difference to be even smaller than the Leica M 24 f/3.8). At the wide end there is also the WATE, which actually performs quite well with the Sony cameras and I would not be surprised if the Leica M shows only a small advantage over the Nikon Z's with this lens or perhaps no advantage at all. There is also the Leica M 21, 24, & 28 luxes, which all do fairly well on the Sony cameras and likely would perform pretty well on the Nikon Zs. I have less basis to predict the 35mm lenses, but I would love to see a range of those as well. The 35 lux Asph does quite poorly on the Sony, but how does it do on the Nikon Z, and some older lenses do well as does the CV 35 f/1.2 on the Sony. How do those and the CV 35 f/1.7 and Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 do on the Nikon Z? There is lots still to learn. At 50mm the 50 cron AA does beautifully on the Sony's and I would be surprised if it didn't perform even better on the Nikon Zs. From your 50 lux Asph picks there is probably some degradation for landscapes, but did you compare it tot he M240? I couldn't find those comparisons. That to me is an interesting and important lens and I would love to see the comparison there. On Sony to 50 lux Asph did not do well at all, and my guess is that its performance is degraded on the Nikon Zs, but not nearly as much as it is on the Sony's. Finally, I expect anything over 50mm to do quite well on the Nikon Zs with little to no reduction in performance, that was pretty much true on the Sony's so I expect it to be even more true on the Nikon Zs.
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.+1. It probably comes down to similar lens issues seen already with M-lenses on Sony sensors before - my rule of thumb from personal experience is to stay away from Leica f/2 ASPH lenses since they only perform well on Leica M cameras (different story for f/1.4 ASPH lenses with wider pupil angle, but this is also a different price class). I am personally more interested to see older M lenses used - meaning maybe not the latest lens iteration - on the new high res sensors. Or in other words: getting the best image quality out of the combination of best sensors with very good M glass for the best price! But it is open for tests with all kind of M lenses!
Edited on Apr 24, 2019 at 09:28 PM · View previous versions
imagesfromobjects wrote:
When you say that the 28/2.8 is not worth the money, can you elaborate? I've read the v2 Elmarit Asph 28mm was tweaked more for digital sensors, was this the version you have experience with?
AcuteShadows wrote
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
My brief tests are here. I was hoping that I could replace my M with my Z, but I'll be keeping both as the Z is awesome with my Sigma Art glass (better than my now sold D850), while the M is better with M glass.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
Edited on Apr 24, 2019 at 09:28 PM · View previous versions
Apr 24, 2019 at 09:05 PM
p.2 #13M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
I'm going to have a little side-by-side of the Leica 28 Elmarit-R II and 28 Elmarit-M ASPH II on the Z1, S1r, and D850 ready within about a week. Probably just a couple side by sides and then some "regular shooting" samples. If I let myself spend too much time I will get too obsessive about it.
Apr 24, 2019 at 09:10 PM
p.2 #14M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Gotcha.
It may actually be helpful to test *very* specific versions of different lenses. This is somewhat anecdotal, but I just picked up an early LTM version of the Color Skopar 21/4 for use on a Minolta CLE. For s***s and giggles, I put it on my a7S to see just how awful it was. I owned (and subsequently sold) the M Skopar 25/4, which was just about unusable, even by my lo-fi standards, and the 21... actually did pretty well? Minimal vignetting and a very subtle hint of cyan corners. Still early to say, but I'm pleasantly surprised.
AcuteShadows wrote:
I tested the newest version of the 2.8/28. It may well be worth the money on Leica M. On the Z6, it has mushy corners. So I would guess that for most applications, a slightly heavier Voigtländer would probably achieve similar or better results - therefore you don't need to spend extra money on the Leica M. So I think you actually need to test every lens separately, and preferably at different aperture settings.
imagesfromobjects wrote
When you say that the 28/2.8 is not worth the money, can you elaborate? I've read the v2 Elmarit Asph 28mm was tweaked more for digital sensors, was this the version you have experience with?AcuteShadows wrote
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
My brief tests are here. I was hoping that I could replace my M with my Z, but I'll be keeping both as the Z is awesome with my Sigma Art glass (better than my now sold D850), while the M is better with M glass.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
Apr 24, 2019 at 09:38 PM
p.2 #15M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Gotcha.
It may actually be helpful to test *very* specific versions of different lenses. This is somewhat anecdotal, but I just picked up an early LTM version of the Color Skopar 21/4 for use on a Minolta CLE. For s***s and giggles, I put it on my a7S to see just how awful it was. I owned (and subsequently sold) the M Skopar 25/4, which was just about unusable, even by my lo-fi standards, and the 21... actually did pretty well? Minimal vignetting and a very subtle hint of cyan corners. Still early to say, but I'm pleasantly surprised.
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.+1. It probably comes down to similar lens issues seen already with M-lenses on Sony sensors before - my rule of thumb from personal experience is to stay away from Leica f/2 ASPH lenses since they only perform well on Leica M cameras (different story for f/1.4 ASPH lenses with wider pupil angle, but this is also a different price class). I am personally more interested to see older M lenses used - meaning maybe not the latest lens iteration - on the new high res sensors. Or in other words: getting the best image quality out of the combination of best sensors with very good M glass for the best price! But it is open for tests with all kind of M lenses!
Even the digital M cameras have problem with those lenses. Those CV "pancakes" were designed for film and their exit pupil distance is very short.
Gotcha.
It may actually be helpful to test *very* specific versions of different lenses. This is somewhat anecdotal, but I just picked up an early LTM version of the Color Skopar 21/4 for use on a Minolta CLE. For s***s and giggles, I put it on my a7S to see just how awful it was. I owned (and subsequently sold) the M Skopar 25/4, which was just about unusable, even by my lo-fi standards, and the 21... actually did pretty well? Minimal vignetting and a very subtle hint of cyan corners. Still early to say, but I'm pleasantly surprised.
AcuteShadows wrote
I tested the newest version of the 2.8/28. It may well be worth the money on Leica M. On the Z6, it has mushy corners. So I would guess that for most applications, a slightly heavier Voigtländer would probably achieve similar or better results - therefore you don't need to spend extra money on the Leica M. So I think you actually need to test every lens separately, and preferably at different aperture settings.imagesfromobjects wrote
When you say that the 28/2.8 is not worth the money, can you elaborate? I've read the v2 Elmarit Asph 28mm was tweaked more for digital sensors, was this the version you have experience with?AcuteShadows wrote
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
While I think that is true for the wides you tested, Leica M 18 f/3.8, Leica M 28 f/2.8, CV 21 f/4, CV 25 f/4, and to a lesser extent the Leica M 24 f/3.8, that we see clear degraded performance on the Nikon Z those aren't any of the lenses that faired best on the Sony cameras. In fact all of these lenses did horribly on the Sony camera and look a lot better on the Z and all but the Leica M 18 f/3.8 and Leica M 24 f/3.8 did quite poorly on even the Leica SL. If you want small symmetrical wides, then you definitely want an M camera. Keep in mind, however, a number of lenses do a lot better than these on the Sony cameras and the Leica SL and may perform much better on the Nikon Z. I am waiting to see performance of the Leica M 21 f/3.4 (which I expect to be better on the Leica M, but the difference to be even smaller than the Leica M 24 f/3.8). At the wide end there is also the WATE, which actually performs quite well with the Sony cameras and I would not be surprised if the Leica M shows only a small advantage over the Nikon Z's with this lens or perhaps no advantage at all. There is also the Leica M 21, 24, & 28 luxes, which all do fairly well on the Sony cameras and likely would perform pretty well on the Nikon Zs. I have less basis to predict the 35mm lenses, but I would love to see a range of those as well. The 35 lux Asph does quite poorly on the Sony, but how does it do on the Nikon Z, and some older lenses do well as does the CV 35 f/1.2 on the Sony. How do those and the CV 35 f/1.7 and Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 do on the Nikon Z? There is lots still to learn. At 50mm the 50 cron AA does beautifully on the Sony's and I would be surprised if it didn't perform even better on the Nikon Zs. From your 50 lux Asph picks there is probably some degradation for landscapes, but did you compare it tot he M240? I couldn't find those comparisons. That to me is an interesting and important lens and I would love to see the comparison there. On Sony to 50 lux Asph did not do well at all, and my guess is that its performance is degraded on the Nikon Zs, but not nearly as much as it is on the Sony's. Finally, I expect anything over 50mm to do quite well on the Nikon Zs with little to no reduction in performance, that was pretty much true on the Sony's so I expect it to be even more true on the Nikon Zs.Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
Even the digital M cameras have problem with those lenses. Those CV "pancakes" were designed for film and their exit pupil distance is very short.
Apr 24, 2019 at 10:06 PM
p.2 #16M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
My early 21/4 ltm Skopar was horrible in the corners on an A7, and isn't much good even on a Fuji Xpro2,same for the 35/2.5
Gerry
Gerry
Apr 25, 2019 at 01:24 AM
p.2 #17M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
AcuteShadows wrote:
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22While I think that is true for the wides you tested, Leica M 18 f/3.8, Leica M 28 f/2.8, CV 21 f/4, CV 25 f/4, and to a lesser extent the Leica M 24 f/3.8, that we see clear degraded performance on the Nikon Z those aren't any of the lenses that faired best on the Sony cameras. In fact all of these lenses did horribly on the Sony camera and look a lot better on the Z and all but the Leica M 18 f/3.8 and Leica M 24 f/3.8 did quite poorly on even the Leica SL. If you want small symmetrical wides, then you definitely want an M camera. Keep in mind, however, a number of lenses do a lot better than these on the Sony cameras and the Leica SL and may perform much better on the Nikon Z. I am waiting to see performance of the Leica M 21 f/3.4 (which I expect to be better on the Leica M, but the difference to be even smaller than the Leica M 24 f/3.8). At the wide end there is also the WATE, which actually performs quite well with the Sony cameras and I would not be surprised if the Leica M shows only a small advantage over the Nikon Z's with this lens or perhaps no advantage at all. There is also the Leica M 21, 24, & 28 luxes, which all do fairly well on the Sony cameras and likely would perform pretty well on the Nikon Zs. I have less basis to predict the 35mm lenses, but I would love to see a range of those as well. The 35 lux Asph does quite poorly on the Sony, but how does it do on the Nikon Z, and some older lenses do well as does the CV 35 f/1.2 on the Sony. How do those and the CV 35 f/1.7 and Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 do on the Nikon Z? There is lots still to learn. At 50mm the 50 cron AA does beautifully on the Sony's and I would be surprised if it didn't perform even better on the Nikon Zs. From your 50 lux Asph picks there is probably some degradation for landscapes, but did you compare it tot he M240? I couldn't find those comparisons. That to me is an interesting and important lens and I would love to see the comparison there. On Sony to 50 lux Asph did not do well at all, and my guess is that its performance is degraded on the Nikon Zs, but not nearly as much as it is on the Sony's. Finally, I expect anything over 50mm to do quite well on the Nikon Zs with little to no reduction in performance, that was pretty much true on the Sony's so I expect it to be even more true on the Nikon Zs.
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.+1. It probably comes down to similar lens issues seen already with M-lenses on Sony sensors before - my rule of thumb from personal experience is to stay away from Leica f/2 ASPH lenses since they only perform well on Leica M cameras (different story for f/1.4 ASPH lenses with wider pupil angle, but this is also a different price class). I am personally more interested to see older M lenses used - meaning maybe not the latest lens iteration - on the new high res sensors. Or in other words: getting the best image quality out of the combination of best sensors with very good M glass for the best price! But it is open for tests with all kind of M lenses!
That's good to know! I have only experience with M lenses on the A7R. When you say "...is not worth the money" - do you mean the lenses are not performing well on the Z7 or that in your opinion the lenses are just not good enough for some reason? Are you referring to the latest lens versions - for example 35/2 ASPH?
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.
retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
My brief tests are here. I was hoping that I could replace my M with my Z, but I'll be keeping both as the Z is awesome with my Sigma Art glass (better than my now sold D850), while the M is better with M glass.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
That's good to know! I have only experience with M lenses on the A7R. When you say "...is not worth the money" - do you mean the lenses are not performing well on the Z7 or that in your opinion the lenses are just not good enough for some reason? Are you referring to the latest lens versions - for example 35/2 ASPH?
Apr 25, 2019 at 05:04 AM
p.2 #18M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
retrofocus wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22While I think that is true for the wides you tested, Leica M 18 f/3.8, Leica M 28 f/2.8, CV 21 f/4, CV 25 f/4, and to a lesser extent the Leica M 24 f/3.8, that we see clear degraded performance on the Nikon Z those aren't any of the lenses that faired best on the Sony cameras. In fact all of these lenses did horribly on the Sony camera and look a lot better on the Z and all but the Leica M 18 f/3.8 and Leica M 24 f/3.8 did quite poorly on even the Leica SL. If you want small symmetrical wides, then you definitely want an M camera. Keep in mind, however, a number of lenses do a lot better than these on the Sony cameras and the Leica SL and may perform much better on the Nikon Z. I am waiting to see performance of the Leica M 21 f/3.4 (which I expect to be better on the Leica M, but the difference to be even smaller than the Leica M 24 f/3.8). At the wide end there is also the WATE, which actually performs quite well with the Sony cameras and I would not be surprised if the Leica M shows only a small advantage over the Nikon Z's with this lens or perhaps no advantage at all. There is also the Leica M 21, 24, & 28 luxes, which all do fairly well on the Sony cameras and likely would perform pretty well on the Nikon Zs. I have less basis to predict the 35mm lenses, but I would love to see a range of those as well. The 35 lux Asph does quite poorly on the Sony, but how does it do on the Nikon Z, and some older lenses do well as does the CV 35 f/1.2 on the Sony. How do those and the CV 35 f/1.7 and Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 do on the Nikon Z? There is lots still to learn. At 50mm the 50 cron AA does beautifully on the Sony's and I would be surprised if it didn't perform even better on the Nikon Zs. From your 50 lux Asph picks there is probably some degradation for landscapes, but did you compare it tot he M240? I couldn't find those comparisons. That to me is an interesting and important lens and I would love to see the comparison there. On Sony to 50 lux Asph did not do well at all, and my guess is that its performance is degraded on the Nikon Zs, but not nearly as much as it is on the Sony's. Finally, I expect anything over 50mm to do quite well on the Nikon Zs with little to no reduction in performance, that was pretty much true on the Sony's so I expect it to be even more true on the Nikon Zs.
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.+1. It probably comes down to similar lens issues seen already with M-lenses on Sony sensors before - my rule of thumb from personal experience is to stay away from Leica f/2 ASPH lenses since they only perform well on Leica M cameras (different story for f/1.4 ASPH lenses with wider pupil angle, but this is also a different price class). I am personally more interested to see older M lenses used - meaning maybe not the latest lens iteration - on the new high res sensors. Or in other words: getting the best image quality out of the combination of best sensors with very good M glass for the best price! But it is open for tests with all kind of M lenses!That's good to know! I have only experience with M lenses on the A7R. When you say "...is not worth the money" - do you mean the lenses are not performing well on the Z7 or that in your opinion the lenses are just not good enough for some reason? Are you referring to the latest lens versions - for example 35/2 ASPH?
On the 2.8/28 (newest version) with the Z6 (not Z7), you see the mushy corners as soon as you go 100% on the camera screen, on a well-lit target without any specular lights or other challenges. So rather buy a Nikon 1.8/28G and save some money, or a Voigtländer, if you want a smaller lens. Yes, I'm referring to the newest lenses, those that were on offer at Leica Wetzlar at the time, i.e. December 2018.
AcuteShadows wrote
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
My brief tests are here. I was hoping that I could replace my M with my Z, but I'll be keeping both as the Z is awesome with my Sigma Art glass (better than my now sold D850), while the M is better with M glass.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
On the 2.8/28 (newest version) with the Z6 (not Z7), you see the mushy corners as soon as you go 100% on the camera screen, on a well-lit target without any specular lights or other challenges. So rather buy a Nikon 1.8/28G and save some money, or a Voigtländer, if you want a smaller lens. Yes, I'm referring to the newest lenses, those that were on offer at Leica Wetzlar at the time, i.e. December 2018.
Apr 25, 2019 at 05:30 AM
p.2 #19M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
AcuteShadows wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22While I think that is true for the wides you tested, Leica M 18 f/3.8, Leica M 28 f/2.8, CV 21 f/4, CV 25 f/4, and to a lesser extent the Leica M 24 f/3.8, that we see clear degraded performance on the Nikon Z those aren't any of the lenses that faired best on the Sony cameras. In fact all of these lenses did horribly on the Sony camera and look a lot better on the Z and all but the Leica M 18 f/3.8 and Leica M 24 f/3.8 did quite poorly on even the Leica SL. If you want small symmetrical wides, then you definitely want an M camera. Keep in mind, however, a number of lenses do a lot better than these on the Sony cameras and the Leica SL and may perform much better on the Nikon Z. I am waiting to see performance of the Leica M 21 f/3.4 (which I expect to be better on the Leica M, but the difference to be even smaller than the Leica M 24 f/3.8). At the wide end there is also the WATE, which actually performs quite well with the Sony cameras and I would not be surprised if the Leica M shows only a small advantage over the Nikon Z's with this lens or perhaps no advantage at all. There is also the Leica M 21, 24, & 28 luxes, which all do fairly well on the Sony cameras and likely would perform pretty well on the Nikon Zs. I have less basis to predict the 35mm lenses, but I would love to see a range of those as well. The 35 lux Asph does quite poorly on the Sony, but how does it do on the Nikon Z, and some older lenses do well as does the CV 35 f/1.2 on the Sony. How do those and the CV 35 f/1.7 and Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 do on the Nikon Z? There is lots still to learn. At 50mm the 50 cron AA does beautifully on the Sony's and I would be surprised if it didn't perform even better on the Nikon Zs. From your 50 lux Asph picks there is probably some degradation for landscapes, but did you compare it tot he M240? I couldn't find those comparisons. That to me is an interesting and important lens and I would love to see the comparison there. On Sony to 50 lux Asph did not do well at all, and my guess is that its performance is degraded on the Nikon Zs, but not nearly as much as it is on the Sony's. Finally, I expect anything over 50mm to do quite well on the Nikon Zs with little to no reduction in performance, that was pretty much true on the Sony's so I expect it to be even more true on the Nikon Zs.
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.+1. It probably comes down to similar lens issues seen already with M-lenses on Sony sensors before - my rule of thumb from personal experience is to stay away from Leica f/2 ASPH lenses since they only perform well on Leica M cameras (different story for f/1.4 ASPH lenses with wider pupil angle, but this is also a different price class). I am personally more interested to see older M lenses used - meaning maybe not the latest lens iteration - on the new high res sensors. Or in other words: getting the best image quality out of the combination of best sensors with very good M glass for the best price! But it is open for tests with all kind of M lenses!That's good to know! I have only experience with M lenses on the A7R. When you say "...is not worth the money" - do you mean the lenses are not performing well on the Z7 or that in your opinion the lenses are just not good enough for some reason? Are you referring to the latest lens versions - for example 35/2 ASPH?On the 2.8/28 (newest version) with the Z6 (not Z7), you see the mushy corners as soon as you go 100% on the camera screen, on a well-lit target without any specular lights or other challenges. So rather buy a Nikon 1.8/28G and save some money, or a Voigtländer, if you want a smaller lens. Yes, I'm referring to the newest lenses, those that were on offer at Leica Wetzlar at the time, i.e. December 2018.
Thanks - I made a bad experience myself when using the 35/2 ASPH on the A7R in the past. This lens simply doesn't work well on non Leica based cameras. I returned it and replaced it with the excellent performing (and cheaper) 35/2 Version IV lens (non ASPH).
retrofocus wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Desmolicious wrote
My brief tests are here. I was hoping that I could replace my M with my Z, but I'll be keeping both as the Z is awesome with my Sigma Art glass (better than my now sold D850), while the M is better with M glass.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
Thanks - I made a bad experience myself when using the 35/2 ASPH on the A7R in the past. This lens simply doesn't work well on non Leica based cameras. I returned it and replaced it with the excellent performing (and cheaper) 35/2 Version IV lens (non ASPH).
Apr 25, 2019 at 05:39 AM
p.2 #20M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
retrofocus wrote:
Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.+1. It probably comes down to similar lens issues seen already with M-lenses on Sony sensors before - my rule of thumb from personal experience is to stay away from Leica f/2 ASPH lenses since they only perform well on Leica M cameras (different story for f/1.4 ASPH lenses with wider pupil angle, but this is also a different price class). I am personally more interested to see older M lenses used - meaning maybe not the latest lens iteration - on the new high res sensors. Or in other words: getting the best image quality out of the combination of best sensors with very good M glass for the best price! But it is open for tests with all kind of M lenses!That's good to know! I have only experience with M lenses on the A7R. When you say "...is not worth the money" - do you mean the lenses are not performing well on the Z7 or that in your opinion the lenses are just not good enough for some reason? Are you referring to the latest lens versions - for example 35/2 ASPH?On the 2.8/28 (newest version) with the Z6 (not Z7), you see the mushy corners as soon as you go 100% on the camera screen, on a well-lit target without any specular lights or other challenges. So rather buy a Nikon 1.8/28G and save some money, or a Voigtländer, if you want a smaller lens. Yes, I'm referring to the newest lenses, those that were on offer at Leica Wetzlar at the time, i.e. December 2018.Thanks - I made a bad experience myself when using the 35/2 ASPH on the A7R in the past. This lens simply doesn't work well on non Leica based cameras. I returned it and replaced it with the excellent performing (and cheaper) 35/2 Version IV lens (non ASPH).
That's quite interesting. I was assuming that older lenses would always be worse than current lenses on third party bodies - but even that seems not to be guaranteed.
AcuteShadows wrote
retrofocus wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
I wouldn't make that generalization to f/2 or ASPH lenses on the Z7 in general. I have tested various lenses in Wetzlar with the Z6. 2/28 ASPH newest version is near perfect, 2/50 APO is as perfect as it gets, 2.4/75 and 2.4/90 are very good, 2.4/50 is very good given its size. 2.8/28 is not worth the money, nor is the 2/35 and 1.4/45, Summilux 50 can be very good, depending on the use case. I did not test WATE, 3.8/18, 3.4/21 for lack of time, unfortunately.retrofocus wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
While I think that is true for the wides you tested, Leica M 18 f/3.8, Leica M 28 f/2.8, CV 21 f/4, CV 25 f/4, and to a lesser extent the Leica M 24 f/3.8, that we see clear degraded performance on the Nikon Z those aren't any of the lenses that faired best on the Sony cameras. In fact all of these lenses did horribly on the Sony camera and look a lot better on the Z and all but the Leica M 18 f/3.8 and Leica M 24 f/3.8 did quite poorly on even the Leica SL. If you want small symmetrical wides, then you definitely want an M camera. Keep in mind, however, a number of lenses do a lot better than these on the Sony cameras and the Leica SL and may perform much better on the Nikon Z. I am waiting to see performance of the Leica M 21 f/3.4 (which I expect to be better on the Leica M, but the difference to be even smaller than the Leica M 24 f/3.8). At the wide end there is also the WATE, which actually performs quite well with the Sony cameras and I would not be surprised if the Leica M shows only a small advantage over the Nikon Z's with this lens or perhaps no advantage at all. There is also the Leica M 21, 24, & 28 luxes, which all do fairly well on the Sony cameras and likely would perform pretty well on the Nikon Zs. I have less basis to predict the 35mm lenses, but I would love to see a range of those as well. The 35 lux Asph does quite poorly on the Sony, but how does it do on the Nikon Z, and some older lenses do well as does the CV 35 f/1.2 on the Sony. How do those and the CV 35 f/1.7 and Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 do on the Nikon Z? There is lots still to learn. At 50mm the 50 cron AA does beautifully on the Sony's and I would be surprised if it didn't perform even better on the Nikon Zs. From your 50 lux Asph picks there is probably some degradation for landscapes, but did you compare it tot he M240? I couldn't find those comparisons. That to me is an interesting and important lens and I would love to see the comparison there. On Sony to 50 lux Asph did not do well at all, and my guess is that its performance is degraded on the Nikon Zs, but not nearly as much as it is on the Sony's. Finally, I expect anything over 50mm to do quite well on the Nikon Zs with little to no reduction in performance, that was pretty much true on the Sony's so I expect it to be even more true on the Nikon Zs.Suffice it to say for those who want to do so, I am fairly confident that someone could put together a set of Leica M mount lenses that have very little to no degraded performance. The choice of lenses, would of course be a lot more limited than it would be using a Leica M camera, but the devil is in the details here and I don't think anything as simple as the Leica M is better if you want to shoot Leica M lenses is helpful. Yes, for some lenses the Leica M is way better. For others it probably isn't any advantage at all. I am eager to see more tests and I thank retrofocus for starting this thread.
That's quite interesting. I was assuming that older lenses would always be worse than current lenses on third party bodies - but even that seems not to be guaranteed.
Apr 25, 2019 at 05:47 AM