Has anyone used a PCX filter to get closer to native performance on a Sony sock sensor?
Not interested in shooting it on Nikon and already have a modded Sony sensor. I’d like to use the lens for video as well as film and my modded Sony.
I have my doubts it would help. It didn't help with the earlier version of the CV 28/2, which I tested at 5000 and 2500. I had better success using 35mm lenses with PCX filters.
If you're shooting movies with a stock Sony, the quirky field curvature might not be too much of an issue if your subject is close to the camera. However, at mid-distance, it may show some rendering issues. I would just use the FE 28/2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have my doubts it would help. It didn't help with the earlier version of the CV 28/2, which I tested at 5000 and 2500. I had better success using 35mm lenses with PCX filters.
If you're shooting movies with a stock Sony, the quirky field curvature might not be too much of an issue if your subject is close to the camera. However, at mid-distance, it may show some rendering issues. I would just use the FE 28/2.
Thanks for answering. Not a fan of that Sony 28/2 and would like the 1.5 aperture and mechanically coupled focus. The 28/1.5 works well if the subject is central and not more than mid-distance.
I’ll probably sell it and pick up something more video friendly.
Oct 08, 2024 at 04:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thanks for answering. Not a fan of that Sony 28/2 and would like the 1.5 aperture and mechanically coupled focus. The 28/1.5 works well if the subject is central and not more than mid-distance.
I’ll probably sell it and pick up something more video friendly.
If you are willing to shoot in Super 35mm, then the Voigtlander 21 f/1.4 is a great video lens and should be close to the focal length you want. You can also use the e-mount version. If you want to shoot FF, then you might consider getting the Laowa Argus 28 f/1.2, which I think is an intriguing lens for video but it is pretty large. If a Cine housing wouldn't make it too big you might look at the Irix 30 T1.5 as well, but because it comes in a cine housing it will be more money. If you can live with an f/2 aperture/T 2.1, then a Zeiss ZF (for C/Y version) 28 f/2 has a long history as a really nice video lens and could be a really nice choice.
Steve Spencer wrote:
If you are willing to shoot in Super 35mm, then the Voigtlander 21 f/1.4 is a great video lens and should be close to the focal length you want. You can also use the e-mount version. If you want to shoot FF, then you might consider getting the Laowa Argus 28 f/1.2, which I think is an intriguing lens for video but it is pretty large. If a Cine housing wouldn't make it too big you might look at the Irix 30 T1.5 as well, but because it comes in a cine housing it will be more money. If you can live with an f/2 aperture/T 2.1, then a Zeiss ZF (for C/Y version) 28 f/2 has a long history as a really nice video lens and could be a really nice choice....Show more →
Good suggestions Steve. The CV 21/1.4 for Super 35mm is interesting, but given I am shooting only a 12ml (barely 4k), not wanting that crop…
Irix looks good but quite large—was not aware of that lens.
I used to own a ZF 28/2 and CY 28/2 MMG—the price on MMG’s have skyrocketed lately.
The Argus is pretty beefy and with a long MFD..but still temping.
Part of me just thinks forget 28mm…adapt a 31 Pentax or 35 Lux ASPH (where the center is great WO and the midzone actually benefits from a stock Sony). Hmmm
Just got this lens, no real complaints but I always prefer my 35 distagon iq over any other m mount lens ive tried.
Can anyone point me towards a 28mm with the same wizardry the 35 1.4 distagon has?
luminorsubm wrote:
Just got this lens, no real complaints but I always prefer my 35 distagon iq over any other m mount lens ive tried.
Can anyone point me towards a 28mm with the same wizardry the 35 1.4 distagon has?
Do you mean in terms of micro-contrast or structure of the draw or resolution across the field WO?
Micro contrast and resolution. The images seem to be higher resolution. Ive read around and a lot of people seem to agree the distagon is a unique lens. The size doesnt bother me because I love the photos I get. Thanks
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Do you mean in terms of micro-contrast or structure of the draw or resolution across the field WO?
luminorsubm wrote:
Just got this lens, no real complaints but I always prefer my 35 distagon iq over any other m mount lens ive tried.
Can anyone point me towards a 28mm with the same wizardry the 35 1.4 distagon has?
---------------------------------------------
luminorsubm wrote:
Micro contrast and resolution. The images seem to be higher resolution. Ive read around and a lot of people seem to agree the distagon is a unique lens. The size doesnt bother me because I love the photos I get. Thanks
Those impressions are vindicated by the very high MTF. It's a traditional Zeiss lens wide open, with restrained high spatial frequency content. But it's a very modern lens for 2014 - a 10/7 design with two asph and three APD elements, plus a floating lens system, very low distortion (0.6% smooth barrel). And a price tag to match.
Unlike Leica, Zeiss were more interested in even cross-frame performance than dramatic center-of-frame imaging, and this excellent field curvature control started from f1.4, where it was designed to be used. Zeiss designed to constrain the curvature seen in so many fast Leica lenses. And by f4, the ZM 35/1.4 is very close in performance to the modern APOs, albeit with a lesser midfield. So you get two lenses in one.
Many Leica users disliked the weight of the D 35/1.4, but at 380 grams it would make a fine EVF lens. It also proudly displays Zeiss's beautiful traditional font on the lens front. Zeiss's last lens was their best in the ZM series and also in Otus. They went out with a bang, not a whimper. I doubt you will see a 28mm like it, in M-mount.
philip_pj wrote:
Those impressions are vindicated by the very high MTF. It's a traditional Zeiss lens wide open, with restrained high spatial frequency content. But it's a very modern lens for 2014 - a 10/7 design with two asph and three APD elements, plus a floating lens system, very low distortion (0.6% smooth barrel). And a price tag to match.
Unlike Leica, Zeiss were more interested in even cross-frame performance than dramatic center-of-frame imaging, and this excellent field curvature control started from f1.4, where it was designed to be used. Zeiss designed to constrain the curvature seen in so many fast Leica lenses. And by f4, the ZM 35/1.4 is very close in performance to the modern APOs, albeit with a lesser midfield. So you get two lenses in one.
Many Leica users disliked the weight of the D 35/1.4, but at 380 grams it would make a fine EVF lens. It also proudly displays Zeiss's beautiful traditional font on the lens front. Zeiss's last lens was their best in the ZM series and also in Otus. They went out with a bang, not a whimper. I doubt you will see a 28mm like it, in M-mount. ...Show more →
The only 28 M lens I’ve used that had Zeiss-like micro contrast was the 28 Ultron.
philip_pj wrote:
Those impressions are vindicated by the very high MTF. It's a traditional Zeiss lens wide open, with restrained high spatial frequency content. But it's a very modern lens for 2014 - a 10/7 design with two asph and three APD elements, plus a floating lens system, very low distortion (0.6% smooth barrel). And a price tag to match.
Unlike Leica, Zeiss were more interested in even cross-frame performance than dramatic center-of-frame imaging, and this excellent field curvature control started from f1.4, where it was designed to be used. Zeiss designed to constrain the curvature seen in so many fast Leica lenses. And by f4, the ZM 35/1.4 is very close in performance to the modern APOs, albeit with a lesser midfield. So you get two lenses in one.
Many Leica users disliked the weight of the D 35/1.4, but at 380 grams it would make a fine EVF lens. It also proudly displays Zeiss's beautiful traditional font on the lens front. Zeiss's last lens was their best in the ZM series and also in Otus. They went out with a bang, not a whimper. I doubt you will see a 28mm like it, in M-mount. ...Show more →
That's some great info, I appreciate it. Given the fact I prefer close focus & fast lenses. I guess the buck stops here with the voightlander 28. Cheers
'micro contrast was the 28 Ultron'. I'm glad to hear that, it's my preference. And as I just got one, figuring it's pretty light and very competent, even with a few flaws. It gets a mixed reception here, and it's hard to wade through the CV options and various opinions on them. thanks.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The only 28 M lens I’ve used that had Zeiss-like micro contrast was the 28 Ultron.
The 28/2 Ultron is excellent, and I would say it surpasses the Leica cron in contrast when wide open. However, the 28/1.5 Nokton, when stopped down to f/2, matches its resolution and contrast across most of the frame. The Ultron still has an advantage at the very corners even when wide open, but when both lenses are stopped down to f/2.8-4, their performance is very similar throughout.
I don't want to disparage a lens that others really enjoy, but the general impression I have of the 28/1.5 is one of old school color with some of what I would call tetchy bokeh. It uses two asph surfaces to obtain the stop faster max aperture, perhaps.
I like Zeiss's (and many CV lenses') use of just one rear such element, here with the same element count. Maybe the different blade count plays a part too - 10 vs 12. The 28/2 has surprisingly settled bokeh from what I see thus far. Here is a YT video on it from Ashwin Rao which might show what I am getting at:
One from a show at last night's Barbossa Red Room series here in Montréal. I've been building up a collection of photos of musicians listening to music, and this is one. It's very, very dark in there (I was several stops underexposed at ISO 12,800) and very, very red. I ended up shooting a lot of photos with the 28/1.5, all wide open, because I meant to pack my C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and put the 28/1.5 in my bag by mistake since it's a similar size. A happy accident, as I was satisfied with most of the shots I got with it, although I did miss having a 50.
