I've been thinking about putting up a comparison of the lenses I own (Simera, Zeiss 25, Contax and Nikon), but actually taking the time to do it is another case. I was thinking that I'd have to shoot at 2.8 since 2.8 is the widest common aperture and maybe 5.6, figuring that's peak resolution. Also, that I'd shoot at 5-10 ft. No post process.
-I figure all lenses kind of look the same at small apertures
-Shots at infinity probably won't show much except resolution
-Post process...don't remove the faults as that's part of the lens
RustyRus wrote:
I think on the M mount, they are a great value and perform quite well actually. I think the 50 shows great character and looks very similar to my all time favorite lens the 50 Lux.
What I am seeing in these pictures is leaves that look like peanut butter though, which I am guessing is due to Thypochs lazy release on Sony and didn't account for sensor stack differences.
I would happily pick one up for an M mount and probably will one day- I think our reference to animal dung is accurate when looking at this lens at f/8 on a sony stack-
Thats how I see it- If you are taking great pictures, great! Post them up. We are talking about these images though....Show more →
Yeah, I in no way was presenting these as great pictures. And at some point, I will try to shoot some wider aperture shots, different distances, etc. These shots are what they are, not sure how much weight to put into them.
Ultimately we each choose based on our own preferences.
jay w wrote:
I've been thinking about putting up a comparison of the lenses I own (Simera, Zeiss 25, Contax and Nikon), but actually taking the time to do it is another case. I was thinking that I'd have to shoot at 2.8 since 2.8 is the widest common aperture and maybe 5.6, figuring that's peak resolution. Also, that I'd shoot at 5-10 ft. No post process.
-I figure all lenses kind of look the same at small apertures
-Shots at infinity probably won't show much except resolution
-Post process...don't remove the faults as that's part of the lens
Tim, I really enjoy these types of posts. I was able to guess the Simera was "A", mostly by the details along the edge. They all make pleasing photos, I can see why some would like one more than the others, it seems mostly personal preference. For myself I like the image the Sigma made.
jay w wrote:
I've been thinking about putting up a comparison of the lenses I own (Simera, Zeiss 25, Contax and Nikon), but actually taking the time to do it is another case. I was thinking that I'd have to shoot at 2.8 since 2.8 is the widest common aperture and maybe 5.6, figuring that's peak resolution. Also, that I'd shoot at 5-10 ft. No post process.
-I figure all lenses kind of look the same at small apertures
-Shots at infinity probably won't show much except resolution
-Post process...don't remove the faults as that's part of the lens
Yeah, this wasn't a "planned" comparison. It was just some test shots I had that a post in the 3D pop thread caused me to go back and review.
Here is less post processing. Just exposure and color balance. No CA correction, distortion, or vignetting. Much more than that I guess I can post SooC JPEGs.
tschopp wrote:
Tim, I really enjoy these types of posts. I was able to guess the Simera was "A", mostly by the details along the edge. They all make pleasing photos, I can see why some would like one more than the others, it seems mostly personal preference. For myself I like the image the Sigma made.
Thank you, I'd like to do some more comparisons. It's just this time of the year, days are so short and it always seems busy. At some point I'll get a chance.
Well, there's no EXIF, but I shot f/5.6, f/8 and f/11...and this shot was the middle shot. And I can tell by the sharpness of the foreground corners which was which. And the shutter speed lines up too.
I would think the other Simera 28 shooters could chime in and comment on vignetting stopped down.
RustyRus wrote:
At a distant on a 60MP sensor, you should be able to crop into and not have your image look like smudge- Especially at F8 on a sunny day-
tsdevine wrote:
Well, there's no EXIF, but I shot f/5.6, f/8 and f/11...and this shot was the middle shot. And I can tell by the sharpness of the foreground corners which was which. And the shutter speed lines up too.
I would think the other Simera 28 shooters could chime in and comment on vignetting stopped down.
The OP mentioned f/8; thus, I though that the vignetting of "Simera written all over it" was with reference to f/8.
ruthenium wrote:
The OP mentioned f/8; thus, I though that the vignetting of "Simera written all over it" was with reference to f/8.
Okay, you just replied to the OP (me). All I was confirming was that I was pretty sure the shot was at f/8. And was inviting anyone who's shot the Simera 28/1.4 and disagreed that f/8 has that much vignetting, could speak up.
Not really, the values are relatively normal for a lens of this type/focal length.
This is an excerpt from the Optical Limits review of the Z-mount version of the Simera 28mm f/1.4.
However, I would assume that there will be no significant difference from the Sony E-mount version in terms of vignetting.
It doesn't look any worse than significantly larger lenses such as the Z 20/1.8 S, Z 24/1.8 S, Sony 24/1.4 GM, or Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB without active profile correction.
It is visibly reduced from f/2.8 and then remains at a fairly identical level.
But even that is nothing unusual.
Otherwise, it can be assumed that it will harmonize better with the thinner filter stack of a Z-body.
There is a detailed review on this topic by philipreeve-net, and Sony is significantly worse when it comes to performance with M-mount lenses, especially in the wide-angle range.
With today’s high performance lenses with short register distance it actually makes a notable difference for what filter stack they have originally been designed for though – at least when it comes to wide angle lenses. The compact M-mount lenses work best on a Leica M10 or a Kolari UT modded camera. In terms of color cast the Kolari modded cameras actually perform better than all the Leica M cameras that came before the M11. When it comes to Nikon’s Z-mount cameras there were a lot of rumors regarding their filter stack thickness and how well they work with M-mount wide angle lenses. I don’t like rumors, I like facts, so I decided to check for myself. And what we found out here is, that they may not work as well with these M-mount wide angle lenses as a Leica M or Kolari modded camera, but in many cases they come very close. And they play much better with these lenses than stock Sony E-mount cameras....Show more →
It looks extremely bad/smeary to me here in the corner areas for f/5.6 and f/8, something I can't confirm with my Z-mount version.
On the contrary, I was actually surprised at how well it performs when stopped down, even in the corners, which is also confirmed by Optical Limits MTF results of the Z-mount version.
MTF (resolution) at 45 megapixels The Simera 28mm f/1.4 has its ups and downs in this chapter. The center performance is very good at f/1.4 already. The near-image quality is still good, falling further towards the edges, which are on the soft side. f/2 boosts the quality quite a bit already, although the corners remain unimpressive. This changes at f/2.8. The center quality is outstanding here and the borders are very sharp as well. The corner recovered to good levels. The peak performance is reached around f/5.6 with the corners reaching very good results. The center quality of the tested lens was good. The focus field is slightly wavy....Show more →
Vento wrote:
Not really, the values are relatively normal for a lens of this type/focal length.
This is an excerpt from the Optical Limits review of the Z-mount version of the Simera 28mm f/1.4.
However, I would assume that there will be no significant difference from the Sony E-mount version in terms of vignetting.
It doesn't look any worse than significantly larger lenses such as the Z 20/1.8 S, Z 24/1.8 S, Sony 24/1.4 GM, or Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB without active profile correction.
It is visibly reduced from f/2.8 and then remains at a fairly identical level.
But even that is nothing unusual.
Otherwise, it can be assumed that it will harmonize better with the thinner filter stack of a Z-body.
There is a detailed review on this topic by philipreeve-net, and Sony is significantly worse when it comes to performance with M-mount lenses, especially in the wide-angle range.
It looks extremely bad/smeary to me here in the corner areas for f/5.6 and f/8, something I can't confirm with my Z-mount version.
On the contrary, I was actually surprised at how well it performs when stopped down, even in the corners, which is also confirmed by Optical Limits MTF results of the Z-mount version.
Nkon uses thinner cover glass than Sony. There is a pretty strong set of evidence that the lens wasn't optimized for Sony sensor cover stack. But with Nikon being thinner, it should be better. (Assuming it wasn't optimized for Sony.)
-Picked a scene with distance 5-10ft
-4 different lenses:
-Thypoch Simera 28mm 1.4
-Nikon AI-s 28mm 2.8 K&H adapter
-Contax 28mm 2.8 K&H adapter
-Zeiss Distagon 25mm 2.0 with Sigma Canon to Sony adapter
-Trying to show "overall look" so apertures 2.8 and 5.6
-Shot at -1 EV in Sony A7rV, 400 ISO, auto shutter speed
-Photoshop processing: Levels: 10, 1.3, 255 (all shots), sized to 2400x3600
-Focus in the scene was on the white lamp, but it was windy and the lamp never stopped moving, but that distance on the fence is in focus
-I'll list order at the end with a couple comments.
2.8 series
5.6 series
The order of lenses is in alphabetical order, so Contax, Nikon, Thypoch, Zeiss. I'm not seeing much difference in the "look" of the lenses, and I was hoping for a scene that showed more dimension (front to back). There are differences in color balance and the I'm surprised that the corners of the Contax look so soft. I believe the scene also hides the vignetting, as I (from memory) think that they all (except maybe the Nikon) vignette quite a bit.
I don't think this test shows much difference and is "one data point." Let me know if you guys see something interesting.
The Simera seems to have the most punch, color is nice too.
Might be nice to do this type of test where there is some object at that distance, but with some structure behind it more distant. Like trees, etc. Then you could see more of the bokeh and how well it renders.
quite a difference in color. Is this because of different white balance, or because of processing (levels turning up contrast on some of the files). If the color difference comes straight from the lenses, I would consider it a big difference in rendering.
-Picked a scene with distance 5-10ft
-4 different lenses:
-Thypoch Simera 28mm 1.4
-Nikon AI-s 28mm 2.8 K&H adapter
-Contax 28mm 2.8 K&H adapter
-Zeiss Distagon 25mm 2.0 with Sigma Canon to Sony adapter
-Trying to show "overall look" so apertures 2.8 and 5.6
-Shot at -1 EV in Sony A7rV, 400 ISO, auto shutter speed
-Photoshop processing: Levels: 10, 1.3, 255 (all shots), sized to 2400x3600
-Focus in the scene was on the white lamp, but it was windy and the lamp never stopped moving, but that distance on the fence is in focus
-I'll list order at the end with a couple comments.
The order of lenses is in alphabetical order, so Contax, Nikon, Thypoch, Zeiss. I'm not seeing much difference in the "look" of the lenses, and I was hoping for a scene that showed more dimension (front to back). There are differences in color balance and the I'm surprised that the corners of the Contax look so soft. I believe the scene also hides the vignetting, as I (from memory) think that they all (except maybe the Nikon) vignette quite a bit.
I don't think this test shows much difference and is "one data point." Let me know if you guys see something interesting. ...Show more →
I have to admit these are too close for me to notice anything. Also, *I* don't see much 3d pop here at all so even harder to distinguish between the lenses . Sorry.
. 
. Sorry.