Any idea of the MFD on the different versions? Just wondering if the M is limited to 0.7m for rangefinder coupling and/or whether the Sony version focuses closer. Something worth considering if someone wants to squeeze more bokeh out or whatever would be the option to use it on a helicoid M-E adapter.
I suppose both versions focus to 0,7m. With TAP I can focus down to 20cm, which gives nice possibilities. Should be the same with helicoid M-E adapter.
Yes, i bought the crappy hood from their ebay stores and it got delivered with DHL as well.
The felt lining is held by a doible sided sticky tape and in my case it was not placed properly to begin with. I adjisted it to sit properly. Despte that, it slips causing trouble.
Besides that the hood itself is useless. Also, I can not add a filter with that hood on or mount the hood with a filter on the lens.
AVOID it by all means!
smodjo wrote:
Do you have the one from 7artisans itself?
I ordered mine directly from their ebay store. It has some sort of fleece inside, so it cannot scratch the lens. Mine is fixed by a screw. Of cource you cannot take it off without lossen the screw. I don't know if this lens hood helps against light from the side, but I use it as an extra protection against scratches since the camera is hanging & bumping on my body.
quote]realVivek wrote:
I found their hood not only useless but dangerous!
It scratches the body of the lens while mounting/dismounting!
DavidBM wrote:
It’s hard to say of course how much worse the corners will be; but I’ve seen careful comparisons of ZM 35 with Loxia35, where the only difference is optimisation, and it’s a 3 stop difference in the periphery. And it could, on a wider lens, be even greater.
I could have saved myself some inconvenience if I’d read Sean Reid’s review of the ZM 35/2 before purchasing a copy to use on a Leica M. He states that the corners never really get sharp and that’s what I found too. Happily I was able to return the lens for a refund and buy a C Biogon 35/2.8 instead. I mention this to suggest that the peripheral difference between the ZM 35/2 and the “optimised” Loxia 35/2 might not be entirely due to the thickness of the Sony sensor stack.
realVivek wrote:
Corners are good even by f/2.8.
Good is a very subjective term.
I expect about the same difference the correct PCX filter makes to a rangefinder wide angle lens.
And if we look at highly corrected lenses like Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 or Zeiss ZM 35mm 1.4
the optimisation still shows an improvement of 3 stops at the very least.
So if you say it looks "good" by f/2.8 I would not be too surprised if the optimized version looked the same at f/1.4.
If they did a good job with it, which obviously I don't know yet.
But adjusting a lens design for a different filter stack is not exactly rocket science, so I have a bit of hope.
Here is the one factor in here it’s a 28mm lens. We Have very few options here. I’m not expecting miracles but I have enjoyed looking at Viveks images with it and they look pretty strong. I’m really not looking for a landscape lens here but a good street , urban landscape type would make me happy. I have a secret trip the end of the month than a NY, Del Mar trip in May so it be nice to sport around a 28 in my bag.
Now if we see a big diffrence between mounts than I’ll need to make a decision. If it’s a stop probably not but 2 stops I would probably return repurchase it. So we will see. The flare ring is not even a factor. It goes away on half a click. Not a big deal. I will use a 52mm metal screw in hood or 52mm filter rings. I got that stuff by the truck load on hand. The one thing I could do is also add a PCX as well. Not sure which one though maybe a PCX 5000. We will see.
So look forward to Bastians test and my own . Maybe we will get a good read on it from a technical viewpoint.
Sony A7r, 7 Artisans 28/1.4, f/1.6, ISO320, 1/800s, The Hague
It's often hard to gauge FC from images like this, because we don't know exactly how the camera is held, but my sense here is that optimal focus on the bottom corners is quite away behind the bottom of the frame, but it looks like optimal focus is right at the bottom at the middle, so a fair bit of field curvature, which may well be reduced in the FE plus.
That’s quick. When will you get it here in Germany?
One question: would you like to have my version (Leica M, 2nd without flare) for your testing? I could borrow it to you. I also live in Germany and could send it to you, if you like to compare both. I think that would be interesting for many readers here and on your website.
smodjo wrote:
That’s quick. When will you get it here in Germany?
I will pick it up in Scotland next week and return to Germany on 21st of March.
I agree that it would be very helpful to have a comparison between these two.
If it fits your schedule it would be great if you could send it to me for the weekend of 22nd to 24th.
But let me check first if it is properly centered. Will get back to you!
DavidBM wrote:
It's often hard to gauge FC from images like this, because we don't know exactly how the camera is held, but my sense here is that optimal focus on the bottom corners is quite away behind the bottom of the frame, but it looks like optimal focus is right at the bottom at the middle, so a fair bit of field curvature, which may well be reduced in the FE plus.
1/800s should be fast enough to freeze the action of someone walking towards the camera (I get consistently sharp results with the FE 55/1.8 at 1/640s, although that's with an A7R3) but the elderly Asian gentleman's face does not look sharp whereas the bottom section of his coat does look in focus. I can't decide which of his feet is sharper. Field curvature can be seen at the top and bottom edges of the frame as well as at the left and right edges, doesn't it? Although it may be less obvious at the top and bottom of the frame. Very pleasing bokeh though.
realVivek wrote:
Does anyone know a Leica M mount lens that would do better at f/1.6?
It would be interesting to see if the “Feplus” version does any better in a comparison shoot out.
Well photos like this aren’t really harmed by FC (except that it means the background in the corners is a bit less OOF that if the lens were flatter field on this sensor). I don’t know how flat field other M lenses are on Leica. I agree, though, the FC here is as low as any comparably fast M mount lens *on Sony*.
realVivek wrote:
I would love to see field distortion measured and expressed in numbers to be objective. Rest is subjective.
FWIW, i was impressed with the Summilux 28/1.4 images (on a M camera). The 7A 28/1.4, when came out, i grabbed one. I am glad I did.
Quite an impressive lens, in general and an impressive accomplishment for 7A.
FWIW: on the street snap, no sharpening was applied at any point. The camera had an inexpensive replacement metal mount (makes a world of difference).
Easy way to do it
At infinity focus for centre, focus for corner, see the difference on focus ring (needs a very fine grained ring to get numbers though)
For say 3m: find a brick wall, set camera parallel, focus for centre. Measure exact distance to wall. Moce camera without changing focus ring until corners at optimal focus. The difference between the distance that the camera is to the wall and the old is the degree of filed offset between centre and corners at 3m
