tsdevine
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.22 #8 · Voigtlander 28mm f/1.5 Nokton Review | |
And yet this thread is cross posted to the Sony forum, and I'm not trying to criticize Fred, but there is some intent that Sony forum members see this thread. So I understand that priority be placed on the aspects of performance based on the mount that the lens was designed for, but Sony shooters reading this thread might be interested in how it performs on Sony.
I know some M mount lenses perform better on Sony stack than others, but I believe generally that the wider it is, the more it may deviate from M mount performance. Unfortunately 28mm is probably wide enough that it will not come away unscathed (which I think is supported by Fred's test.)
Some may not mind the idiosyncrasies introduced by the mismatched sensor stack, but many will. And invariably those looking at this thread, shooting Sony, are going to want to know more about how it performs on Sony.
I think some people believe that Cosina isn't producing E mount lenses as the the M mount lenses can be adapted to Sony. But a non-Sony optimized lens is not going to be a guaranteed winner when adapted. Some may do very well, some may not.
Arguably Leica shooters don't care about how it performs on stock Sony sensor stack. Stock Sony shooters probably don't care how it performs on Leica, even though thats the mount it was designed for. Modified sensor stack Sony shooters will probably be more interested in this lens than stock Sony shooters. And those who shoot Leica and Sony probably care how it performs on both.
You fall into the "don't care how it performs on anything but Leica stack" group, and I'm not sure you'd disagree with what I said above. And nobody should fault you for not caring how it performs on other mounts.
RustyBug wrote:
Which is probably the same criteria that the engineers targeted when designing it.
There's no way that an engineer can try to accommodate the variants of different camera's with different thickness of cover glass, or retro-fitted cover glass vs. native OEM thickness.
AND ... add to that, (which rarely gets mentioned) the difference in refractive index of the glass that gets used over the sensor.
While I DO NOT KNOW, what the refractive index of the glass Leica uses is vs. Sony vs. Kolari ... I would expect that in order for Leica to be able to make the glass THIN (and reliably strong) and OPTICALLY for the baseline of their optical path from the lenses, that it would be a composition that is both more expensive in material of composition and process of creation.
I'm guessing that the mineral composition of the Leica cover is NOT the same as that of Sony / Kolari, nor the refractive index.
So, yeah ... I'm of the perspective that baseline testing for M mount lenses should be evaluated FIRST / FOREMOST on Leica M bodies.
That said, yeah ... I played with a ton of alternate / adapters in years past, so I GET IT, that folks want to know how it plays on the Sony, or the Sony / Kolari, or Nikon, etc. But, from a TESTING standpoint ... I'm of the perspective that TESTING should be done in the CONTEXT of the engineering DESIGN INTENT.
And, by that an M mount lens, is DESIGNED to be used on an M mount body, by INTENT. Thus, that's the foremost consideration I give to TESTING. Everything else, on alternative mounts, adapted, different cover glass thickness, different cover glass composition, different cover glass refractive index ... that's all alternative experimentation, and lots of folks do want to know about that, too. But, there's no way I'm going to judge a lens by how it works on a non-intended mount ... particularly, when it is being compared to another native lens that is also designed for the M mount.
In theory, I can have a perfectly designed optical path OEM > OEM, and then put them on a non-OEM, and make it look worse than it is capable of. I'm not really wanting to know how things look when I intentionally de-optimize the light path ... at least, not from a testing perspective.
From an "I like to mismatch my gear" away from the best possible optical path ... there are a lot of folks who are indeed interested in this. But, that's not me. And, for those situations where folks are going to intentionally mismatch things ... yeah, that's going to have its own foibles. But, I'm with Bruce that judgment is best based on testing that is congruous with engineering design intent ... which means on M mount bodies, through M mount cover glass thickness, of M mount cover glass refractive index, etc.
There are plenty of challenges enough with optics, but when you start pushing the light path through a different refractive index, of different dimension ... yup, the wider you go, the tougher it gets. For that reason, I like to see (first) how it performs on the equipment for which it was designed.
I mean, I don't take the pistons from a Chevy and put 'em in a Honda, to try and find out how good the piston is. The optical path is a systemic combination, and the cover glass thickness ... and, refractive index is a key part of that path. Yeah, I know everyone already knows about the cover thickness difference ... but, I think many folks forget to consider the influence of the glass composition and refractive index.
So, yup ... test on Leica M, first. Play time after that. 
 ...Show more →
Edited on Feb 06, 2024 at 07:45 PM · View previous versions
|
I'm surely excited to see what they are cooking next even if it's something unexpected.
