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.3 #1M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
AcuteShadows wrote:
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.
There is no golden rule which M lenses work better or worse even from what I was reading the f/2 ASPH lenses mostly are troublemakers at FL < 50 mm on other than Leica M mount cameras (the f/1.4 ASPH lenses work fine again due to a larger pupil diameter). It is worthwhile digging online to reports how specific M lenses perform on specific sensor based Alt cameras. The 35/2 Summicron version III and IV are two excellent ones (and increased used lens prices getting close to the 35/2 ASPH prices indicate that others found the same).
retrofocus wrote
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
+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!There is no golden rule which M lenses work better or worse even from what I was reading the f/2 ASPH lenses mostly are troublemakers at FL < 50 mm on other than Leica M mount cameras (the f/1.4 ASPH lenses work fine again due to a larger pupil diameter). It is worthwhile digging online to reports how specific M lenses perform on specific sensor based Alt cameras. The 35/2 Summicron version III and IV are two excellent ones (and increased used lens prices getting close to the 35/2 ASPH prices indicate that others found the same).
Apr 25, 2019 at 07:49 AM
p.3 #2M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
retrofocus wrote:
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.There is no golden rule which M lenses work better or worse even from what I was reading the f/2 ASPH lenses mostly are troublemakers at FL < 50 mm on other than Leica M mount cameras (the f/1.4 ASPH lenses work fine again due to a larger pupil diameter). It is worthwhile digging online to reports how specific M lenses perform on specific sensor based Alt cameras. The 35/2 Summicron version III and IV are two excellent ones (and increased used lens prices getting close to the 35/2 ASPH prices indicate that others found the same).
I haven't found a Leica 1.4 lens that excels on Nikon Z yet. But maybe I'm spoiled from using Zeiss Milvus lenses (where specular highlights in the corners of the 1.4/50 and in the far corners of the 1.4/85 are the only problems I was able to detect). With Zeiss, you get much more lens for a lot less money - both in terms of volume and in terms of weight.
AcuteShadows wrote
retrofocus wrote
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.I haven't found a Leica 1.4 lens that excels on Nikon Z yet. But maybe I'm spoiled from using Zeiss Milvus lenses (where specular highlights in the corners of the 1.4/50 and in the far corners of the 1.4/85 are the only problems I was able to detect). With Zeiss, you get much more lens for a lot less money - both in terms of volume and in terms of weight.
Apr 25, 2019 at 09:30 AM
p.3 #3M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
AcuteShadows wrote:
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.
retrofocus wrote:
There is no golden rule which M lenses work better or worse even from what I was reading the f/2 ASPH lenses mostly are troublemakers at FL < 50 mm on other than Leica M mount cameras (the f/1.4 ASPH lenses work fine again due to a larger pupil diameter). It is worthwhile digging online to reports how specific M lenses perform on specific sensor based Alt cameras.
Going through my archives I came across test shots I did with the 28 Lux on the a7RII and M240. The 28 Lux looked fine at the edges on the M240 from wide open with subject content near infinity, whereas it need to be stopped down to f/5.6 for acceptable results in that region and was better at f/8-11 (ignoring the onset of diffraction effects).
IMO, one can't assume the Lux lenses will work well across the board on non-native cameras. 50 Lux ASPH can also be problematic in part due to the FLE design, particularly with adapters that are not the right thickness.
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.
retrofocus wrote:
There is no golden rule which M lenses work better or worse even from what I was reading the f/2 ASPH lenses mostly are troublemakers at FL < 50 mm on other than Leica M mount cameras (the f/1.4 ASPH lenses work fine again due to a larger pupil diameter). It is worthwhile digging online to reports how specific M lenses perform on specific sensor based Alt cameras.
Going through my archives I came across test shots I did with the 28 Lux on the a7RII and M240. The 28 Lux looked fine at the edges on the M240 from wide open with subject content near infinity, whereas it need to be stopped down to f/5.6 for acceptable results in that region and was better at f/8-11 (ignoring the onset of diffraction effects).
IMO, one can't assume the Lux lenses will work well across the board on non-native cameras. 50 Lux ASPH can also be problematic in part due to the FLE design, particularly with adapters that are not the right thickness.
Apr 25, 2019 at 09:49 AM
p.3 #4M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
AcuteShadows wrote:
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.There is no golden rule which M lenses work better or worse even from what I was reading the f/2 ASPH lenses mostly are troublemakers at FL < 50 mm on other than Leica M mount cameras (the f/1.4 ASPH lenses work fine again due to a larger pupil diameter). It is worthwhile digging online to reports how specific M lenses perform on specific sensor based Alt cameras. The 35/2 Summicron version III and IV are two excellent ones (and increased used lens prices getting close to the 35/2 ASPH prices indicate that others found the same).I haven't found a Leica 1.4 lens that excels on Nikon Z yet. But maybe I'm spoiled from using Zeiss Milvus lenses (where specular highlights in the corners of the 1.4/50 and in the far corners of the 1.4/85 are the only problems I was able to detect). With Zeiss, you get much more lens for a lot less money - both in terms of volume and in terms of weight.
I am with you when it comes down to finding alternatives to Leica M lenses from Zeiss and CV. I still believe that the price/quality of CV is best out there of all the options for M lenses. Regarding Zeiss lenses, I have compared once the 50/1.5 ZM lens with the Leica 50/2 Summicron IV M lens. At f/2, the Leica lens was definitely sharper but the bokeh was a bit smoother with the Zeiss lens. To be fair, the Zeiss 50/1.5 ZM lens serves more the purpose of a portrait lens whereas the Leica 50/2 is more a sharper all-round lens.
retrofocus wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
retrofocus wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
retrofocus wrote
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 am with you when it comes down to finding alternatives to Leica M lenses from Zeiss and CV. I still believe that the price/quality of CV is best out there of all the options for M lenses. Regarding Zeiss lenses, I have compared once the 50/1.5 ZM lens with the Leica 50/2 Summicron IV M lens. At f/2, the Leica lens was definitely sharper but the bokeh was a bit smoother with the Zeiss lens. To be fair, the Zeiss 50/1.5 ZM lens serves more the purpose of a portrait lens whereas the Leica 50/2 is more a sharper all-round lens.
Apr 25, 2019 at 11:14 AM
p.3 #5M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
retrofocus wrote:
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.There is no golden rule which M lenses work better or worse even from what I was reading the f/2 ASPH lenses mostly are troublemakers at FL < 50 mm on other than Leica M mount cameras (the f/1.4 ASPH lenses work fine again due to a larger pupil diameter). It is worthwhile digging online to reports how specific M lenses perform on specific sensor based Alt cameras. The 35/2 Summicron version III and IV are two excellent ones (and increased used lens prices getting close to the 35/2 ASPH prices indicate that others found the same).I haven't found a Leica 1.4 lens that excels on Nikon Z yet. But maybe I'm spoiled from using Zeiss Milvus lenses (where specular highlights in the corners of the 1.4/50 and in the far corners of the 1.4/85 are the only problems I was able to detect). With Zeiss, you get much more lens for a lot less money - both in terms of volume and in terms of weight.I am with you when it comes down to finding alternatives to Leica M lenses from Zeiss and CV. I still believe that the price/quality of CV is best out there of all the options for M lenses. Regarding Zeiss lenses, I have compared once the 50/1.5 ZM lens with the Leica 50/2 Summicron IV M lens. At f/2, the Leica lens was definitely sharper but the bokeh was a bit smoother with the Zeiss lens. To be fair, the Zeiss 50/1.5 ZM lens serves more the purpose of a portrait lens whereas the Leica 50/2 is more a sharper...Show more →
Zeiss Sonnar and Leica Summicron are very different lenses with regard to their intended usage, so I wouldn't compare them to each other. Zeiss 35 look competitive to Leica, and maybe some older lenses for analog photography. For many of the other ZM lenses, I think that the price difference reflects a difference in image quality (although there are some Leica lenses with particular use targets, and they may not be best for general use). For really demanding situations, like backlit stuff, I would avoid the Voigtländer lenses. But I'm happy to use the Nocton 40mm and 58mm if I don't want to be worried about lugging the Leica stuff around.
AcuteShadows wrote
retrofocus wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
retrofocus wrote
AcuteShadows wrote
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.Zeiss Sonnar and Leica Summicron are very different lenses with regard to their intended usage, so I wouldn't compare them to each other. Zeiss 35 look competitive to Leica, and maybe some older lenses for analog photography. For many of the other ZM lenses, I think that the price difference reflects a difference in image quality (although there are some Leica lenses with particular use targets, and they may not be best for general use). For really demanding situations, like backlit stuff, I would avoid the Voigtländer lenses. But I'm happy to use the Nocton 40mm and 58mm if I don't want to be worried about lugging the Leica stuff around.
Apr 25, 2019 at 11:38 AM
p.3 #6M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
The ZM 50 1.5 used to give quite some headaches due to focus shifting during the time only rangefinders were available to measure the distance. It should be quite an interesting lens to use for portraiture now on the new mirrorless bodies.
I happen to have some M lenses (not the Zeiss mentioned) and I do enjoy the fact I can use most of them on the Z7 (50, 75, 90, mostly) without any problems.
I happen to have some M lenses (not the Zeiss mentioned) and I do enjoy the fact I can use most of them on the Z7 (50, 75, 90, mostly) without any problems.
May 02, 2019 at 04:04 AM
p.3 #7M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
So I guess a Leica SL is the only way to go for rangefinder wides using EVF?
Would be nice to have something to use with focus shift prone lenses, and lenses that are notoriously hard to focus with a rangefinder without resorting to an m10 and visoflex
Would be nice to have something to use with focus shift prone lenses, and lenses that are notoriously hard to focus with a rangefinder without resorting to an m10 and visoflex
Feb 01, 2021 at 10:00 PM
p.3 #8M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Photon42 wrote:
The ZM 50 1.5 used to give quite some headaches due to focus shifting during the time only rangefinders were available to measure the distance. It should be quite an interesting lens to use for portraiture now on the new mirrorless bodies.
I happen to have some M lenses (not the Zeiss mentioned) and I do enjoy the fact I can use most of them on the Z7 (50, 75, 90, mostly) without any problems.
The thing about the ZM 50 1.5 is that its portraiture use is hampered by the 1m min focus distance. Even though I have that lens, I use my 7A 50 1.1 more because it focuses down to .7m, and has a very similar look wide open.
The ZM 50 1.5 used to give quite some headaches due to focus shifting during the time only rangefinders were available to measure the distance. It should be quite an interesting lens to use for portraiture now on the new mirrorless bodies.
I happen to have some M lenses (not the Zeiss mentioned) and I do enjoy the fact I can use most of them on the Z7 (50, 75, 90, mostly) without any problems.
The thing about the ZM 50 1.5 is that its portraiture use is hampered by the 1m min focus distance. Even though I have that lens, I use my 7A 50 1.1 more because it focuses down to .7m, and has a very similar look wide open.
Feb 07, 2021 at 04:15 PM
p.3 #9M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
roofdweller49 wrote:
So I guess a Leica SL is the only way to go for rangefinder wides using EVF?
Would be nice to have something to use with focus shift prone lenses, and lenses that are notoriously hard to focus with a rangefinder without resorting to an m10 and visoflex
Used SL is now about $2000.
You can get an M240 +EVF2 for about the same. When I use my ZM 50, I first checked it with the EVF to see the disparity between RF and EVF for focus shift. After I did it once and saw where it was, I did not have to use the EVF again, I knew how much to adjust to accommodate.
You don't even need to use the EVF, just look at the image on the back panel.
So I guess a Leica SL is the only way to go for rangefinder wides using EVF?
Would be nice to have something to use with focus shift prone lenses, and lenses that are notoriously hard to focus with a rangefinder without resorting to an m10 and visoflex
Used SL is now about $2000.
You can get an M240 +EVF2 for about the same. When I use my ZM 50, I first checked it with the EVF to see the disparity between RF and EVF for focus shift. After I did it once and saw where it was, I did not have to use the EVF again, I knew how much to adjust to accommodate.
You don't even need to use the EVF, just look at the image on the back panel.
Feb 07, 2021 at 04:38 PM
p.3 #10M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
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
I wish I could see this test but the images are no longer available.
Can you repost it?
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
I wish I could see this test but the images are no longer available.
Can you repost it?
Jul 12, 2022 at 02:54 PM
p.3 #11M-Mount Lenses on Nikon Z7 and Panasonic S1R MLC
Fred Miranda wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1559075/22I wish I could see this test but the images are no longer available.
Can you repost it?
Sorry those images are swimming wid da fishes. Gone. Vanished. Not of this earth.
I do remember I was disappointed with the results.
If you have a particular lens in mind, and I happen to have it, I can see if Heidi Klum is willing to pose for a reshoot.
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
Can you repost it?
Sorry those images are swimming wid da fishes. Gone. Vanished. Not of this earth.
I do remember I was disappointed with the results.
If you have a particular lens in mind, and I happen to have it, I can see if Heidi Klum is willing to pose for a reshoot.
Jul 12, 2022 at 03:16 PM