Steve Spencer mentioned Bastian's review on the phillip reeve site, but that review makes it pretty clear that the M-mount version on a Leica looks quite sharp, but the E version on a Sony is not as sharp. It sounds like a great lens, I just wish it had been optimized for Sony (Nikon, Canon).
Apr 07, 2025 at 12:20 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jay w wrote:
Steve Spencer mentioned Bastian's review on the phillip reeve site, but that review makes it pretty clear that the M-mount version on a Leica looks quite sharp, but the E version on a Sony is not as sharp. It sounds like a great lens, I just wish it had been optimized for Sony (Nikon, Canon).
My understanding, see what you think, is that Bastian is testing the M-mount version on a Sony camera and is not testing the E mount version on a Sony camera. Although it is true that the M-mount version does not perform as well on Sony as the M-mount version does on a Leica camera, I don't think this review says anything about how an E mount version would perform on Sony. I suspect an E mount version would perform better on Sony than the M mount version that Bastian tested, but there is no way to know that until somebody tests both an E mount and an M mount version of the lens on a Sony camera. I don't think Bastian did that, or any one else I know of.
jay w wrote:
Steve Spencer mentioned Bastian's review on the phillip reeve site, but that review makes it pretty clear that the M-mount version on a Leica looks quite sharp, but the E version on a Sony is not as sharp. It sounds like a great lens, I just wish it had been optimized for Sony (Nikon, Canon).
Steve is correct in his post above. Bastian did not test an E-mount lens. However, you can see some of the images I have posted from my E-mount 28/1.4 and see for yourself how sharp it is. It's VERY sharp on my Sony A7R5.
jay w wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Mudlake, do you have a full size image(s) anywhere?
Worthy line of questioning; I'm mostly thinking of this lens for limited DOF work, where bokeh is of primary concern, but wouldn't mind knowing how/if the Sony thick sensor stack field curvature plays out. It won't stop me from likely buying this, though, I've got the Loxia 25 for my dedicated landscape work for cross frame sharpness. Dustin Abbot's review of the M mount version shows excellent sharpness midfield by about f/5.6 and in to the corners by about f/8.
Philip also has this lens in E mount, I believe, and may have some samples.
jay w wrote:
Steve Spencer mentioned Bastian's review on the phillip reeve site, but that review makes it pretty clear that the M-mount version on a Leica looks quite sharp, but the E version on a Sony is not as sharp. It sounds like a great lens, I just wish it had been optimized for Sony (Nikon, Canon).
That's the wide consensus on Thypoch...they make their lenses against M, and then port to E/Z without the necessary adjustments for sensor stack thickness.
Some report getting around this by way of certain brand M to whatever adapters and using the M lens.
There is at least one person that posts on this forum, can't remember who, who has said that the E mount 50 appeared to be optimized for Sony's sensor. I assume they compared an adapted M mount to a native E, but can't find that reference. I realize that a 50mm M mount lens would have a better shot at being good(ish) on Sony sensor stack than a 28mm lens, but they seemed pretty sure that the E mount version appeared to have been tweaked.
Do we have a definitive reference showing that the E mount version performs similarly to an adapted M mount on Sony, which obviously suffers based on the tests on Phillip Reeve's site? It sounds like mudlake finds the E mount version sharp, which to me implies it may be tweaked as well.
RoamingScott wrote:
That's the wide consensus on Thypoch...they make their lenses against M, and then port to E/Z without the necessary adjustments for sensor stack thickness.
Some report getting around this by way of certain brand M to whatever adapters and using the M lens.
It was nehemiahphoto who bought Simera 50/1.4 Cinema version in E-mount (I think that Cinema version was only released in E-mount so far?) and found it to work better on his unmodified stock Sony vs. his thin stack modified Sony:
I think It would make some more sense for them to tweak the Cinema versions that were only released in E-mount for the Sony native sensor stack even if they didn't optically tweak the original versions from M-mount version to other native stacks.
I haven't bought any of their lenses so far, but they are also available here, for example at Map Camera.
tsdevine wrote:
There is at least one person that posts on this forum, can't remember who, who has said that the E mount 50 appeared to be optimized for Sony's sensor. I assume they compared an adapted M mount to a native E, but can't find that reference. I realize that a 50mm M mount lens would have a better shot at being good(ish) on Sony sensor stack than a 28mm lens, but they seemed pretty sure that the E mount version appeared to have been tweaked.
Do we have a definitive reference showing that the E mount version performs similarly to an adapted M mount on Sony, which obviously suffers based on the tests on Phillip Reeve's site? It sounds like mudlake finds the E mount version sharp, which to me implies it may be tweaked as well.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
It was nehemiahphoto who bought Simera 50/1.4 Cinema version in E-mount (I think that Cinema version was only released in E-mount so far?) and found it to work better on his unmodified stock Sony vs. his thin stack modified Sony:
I think It would make some more sense for them to tweak the Cinema versions that were only released in E-mount for the Sony native sensor stack even if they didn't optically tweak the original versions from M-mount version to other native stacks.
I haven't bought any of their lenses so far, but they are also available here, for example at Map Camera.
Philosophically, I have a tough time buying a lens that I know works better on another camera/sensor for which it was designed...irrespective of whether it still performs nicely. Silly I guess, but it gets in my head. Like if I didn't know...ignorance might be bliss.
tsdevine wrote:
Philosophically, I have a tough time buying a lens that I know works better on another camera/sensor for which it was designed...irrespective of whether it still performs nicely. Silly I guess, but it gets in my head. Like if I didn't know...ignorance might be bliss.
I have bought a lot of M-mount lenses and adapted to my Sony over the years but I'm also becoming less interested to buy more of them going forward since there is now a pretty good coverage of manual focus lenses optimized for Sony. I'm trading away some of my M-mount lenses nowadays when buying more of the E-mount native lenses.
And I feel that E-mount versions that are not optimized for Sony sensor stack are pretty much same as adapting M-mount versions. I would be also more interested in trying out Thypoch (at least the 28mm) if it was optimized for Sony, and I'd want to have very good corner-to-corner performance stopped down a bit (before f8) since I shoot a lot of cityscapes and such with 28mm. I have the impression that Thypoch 28mm has very pleasant bokeh rendering but might not be as good for stopped down corner-to-corner sharpness (on Sony at least).
I'm still buying new character lenses in M-mount from the likes of MS-Optics since those are so tiny and I love them for their character. They are not so critically optimized for digital M and work pretty well on Sony too (sometimes better, since some special features on some of those lenses can't be utilized with rangefinder focusing), but for lenses where corner-to-corner performance is more important I'm leaning more towards sticking to natively optimized lenses now.
You argue: adapted, not adapted.
I specifically show all the pictures in full size so that you can evaluate the work of the glass.
And I do not have such a huge experience and knowledge in the field of photography as some of you, but ...
I am very pleased with the result of shooting at aperture 1.4
I was lucky with the copy, I did not check it for decentering, no other tests, it does not matter to me, most of the time I will shoot at 1.4
I noticed that since the purchase of this lens, I stopped taking with me my other favorite glasses: Nokton 40 / 1.2 and Loxia 25 / 2.4
They are completely different, but one Thypoch is enough for me.
Something needs to be done
p.s. I hope you understand me correctly, I am writing through Google translator.
I don't want to enter this fray that suggests a reputable and established lens maker operating successfully in the cinema industry can't figure out how to produce secondary mount versions of their very well-received stills lenses - the silly billies.
People should stick with their preferences and form their own conclusions however, no matter if they hold water or not. Losses in translation with this rather secretive 'quiet achiever' company are not uncommon.
Regarding 'mismount errors' I'll stick with my lying eyes. ;-) Just buy what you are comfortable with, for whatever reasons that are in the mix. No one's suggesting otherwise.
If you want to suggest users are delusional in their takes regarding a lens they actually use, it would become a different matter at that point, wouldn't it? You might want to consider providing evidence rather than mere hearsay, if you want the opinion to be taken seriously, that is. That's how things generally work.
On the question of whether 28/1.4 E-mount version is optimized for Sony sensor stack or not, I think it would be good to get some feedback on how it works with regards to corner-to-corner performance when stopped down in infinity shooting scenario.
From Bastian's review of M-mount version: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-thypoch-simera-28mm-1-4/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Leica M10 this 28mm 1.4 shows a very good performance. There is a hint of a midzone dip at f/1.4 and f/2.0 and slightly lower contrast in the corners, but I actually wouldn’t mind using these aperture settings for infinity shooting if needed. Best across frame performance is reached somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.0.
....
On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the situation looks very different. The midframe needs f/5.6 to look decent, the corners look best at f/11 but still not that great.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the available samples with E-mount version shown are wide open at rathe close range and it looks good there, but if the owners can confirm how it works on stopped down infinity shooting scenario, and whether it reaches very good corner-to-corner sharpness between f5.6 and f8 (like M-mount version on Leica) or whether the corners are not very good even at f8, it would be useful information to understand if it's optimized for Sony sensor or whether it works just like the M-mount version adapted on Sony.
If they optimize for different sensor stacks, it would be beneficial for them to advertise it and it should be fairly easy to demonstrate it.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
On the question of whether 28/1.4 E-mount version is optimized for Sony sensor stack or not, I think it would be good to get some feedback on how it works with regards to corner-to-corner performance when stopped down in infinity shooting scenario.
From Bastian's review of M-mount version: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-thypoch-simera-28mm-1-4/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Leica M10 this 28mm 1.4 shows a very good performance. There is a hint of a midzone dip at f/1.4 and f/2.0 and slightly lower contrast in the corners, but I actually wouldn’t mind using these aperture settings for infinity shooting if needed. Best across frame performance is reached somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.0.
....
On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the situation looks very different. The midframe needs f/5.6 to look decent, the corners look best at f/11 but still not that great.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the available samples with E-mount version shown are wide open at rathe close range and it looks good there, but if the owners can confirm how it works on stopped down infinity shooting scenario, and whether it reaches very good corner-to-corner sharpness between f5.6 and f8 (like M-mount version on Leica) or whether the corners are not very good even at f8, it would be useful information to understand if it's optimized for Sony sensor or whether it works just like the M-mount version adapted on Sony.
If they optimize for different sensor stacks, it would be beneficial for them to advertise it and it should be fairly easy to demonstrate it....Show more →
I agree it would be good for DZO/Thypoch to tell us for which sensors their lenses are optimized. They may not, however. Remember they come from the cine world and making interchangeable mounts for cine lenses is fairly common and when companies do that they say nothing about sensors. It also could get complicated.
For example I suspect that the Thypoch M-mount stills lenses and the M-mount cine lenses might not be optimized in the same way. Their M mount still lenses clearly perform better on Leica M mount cameras than mirrorless cameras, but do their M mount cine lenses? Perhaps not. They market their cine lenses as ideal because they can be adapted easily to any mirrorless mount (and even other mounts). Given this marketed adaptability and given that Leica M is a very limited mount for cine, it would make sense that their Leica M cine lenses are optimized for mirrorless rather than for Leica M cameras? Is that what they did? We don't know, but following what is typical for cine lens companies they don't tell us.
Ripolini and Mudlake thanks for offering some shots on Nikon Z and Sony E with the lens in those mounts that begins to help us understand how these lenses in general and the 28mm specifically have been optimized. One further question, however, do your Z mount and E mount versions have a focus tab or an infinity lock?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree it would be good for DZO/Thypoch to tell us for which sensors their lenses are optimized. They may not, however. Remember they come from the cine world and making interchangeable mounts for cine lenses is fairly common and when companies do that they say nothing about sensors. It also could get complicated.
For example I suspect that the Thypoch M-mount stills lenses and the M-mount cine lenses might not be optimized in the same way. Their M mount still lenses clearly perform better on Leica M mount cameras than mirrorless cameras, but do their M mount cine lenses? Perhaps not. They market their cine lenses as ideal because they can be adapted easily to any mirrorless mount (and even other mounts). Given this marketed adaptability and given that Leica M is a very limited mount for cine, it would make sense that their Leica M cine lenses are optimized for mirrorless rather than for Leica M cameras? Is that what they did? We don't know, but following what is typical for cine lens companies they don't tell us.
Ripolini and Mudlake thanks for offering some shots on Nikon Z and Sony E with the lens in those mounts that begins to help us understand how these lenses in general and the 28mm specifically have been optimized. One further question, however, do your Z mount and E mount versions have a focus tab or an infinity lock? ...Show more →
I've been researching aperture blade counts across the stills and cine industries, with some surprising results, most of which do not reflect great credit on what many imagine is a high tech, fast moving and innovative sector. I'll do much more in due course as time permits, but suffice to say that the DZO/Thypoch company are extremely unusual in providing customers with 14/16 blade apertures, upon which the bokeh and image depth rest.
They key message for those buying in, is that you can have a large measure of assurance in sometimes opting for near wide open settings. And doing so meshes nicely with the courageous decision by DZO to ensure a soft and smooth f1.4 performance. If near MFD, you might experiment with up to (numerically) f2.4 or so.
In error, as we might see the E vsn as a different product from the M lens, I provide an analysis of the aperture ring design and a note on the very fine haptics of the focus tab in the main (M) review of the 28/1.4 in the Leica forum.
