Wondering if anybody has had any experience adapting M mount lenses (Leica and Voigtlander specifically) to the A7V. Read old Sony sensors have a prohibitively thick sensor stack that makes the edges of the image less than ideal at wider focal lengths. Seems like the A7V sensor is its own thing though, hoping maybe this issue has been improved. Any insights would be greatly appreciated!
Sensor stack thickness shouldn't change between different camera generations on the same system as if it did, all native E-mount lenses optimized for Sony sensor stack and verified with previous camera models could work less than perfectly on the new model... Also, I don't think there have been noticeable changes regarding this with past generation Sony cameras from the first generation until now...
I don't personally have an A7V but I own and have used A7R, A7CII, A9, A7C, A7CII and have never seen noticeable changes in terms of sensor stack affecting adapted M-mount lens behaviour between generations. However, BSI sensors are better when it comes to color shading (A7R is quite problematic with many WA lenses in this regard).
Also curious about how everything interacts with the newer IBIS system. Heard there can be some limitations depending on the adapter. Looking at the Techart (the Z mount version has been great on my Zf), but it seems to be way less popular on E/Sony, not a lot of first hand accounts out there.
I have used this Thypoch M-E adapter with my A7V and have had no issues with IBIS or other functionality. It is a “dumb” adapter so there’s no lens data being transmitted into the camera.
I’ve mostly used it with Thypoch Simera-C lenses as wide as 21mm. These all have more of a “vintage” look to them, especially towards the edges (vignetting, swirly bokeh), but I haven’t noticed anything beyond the lenses’ own character.
FeralTames wrote:
Ah, yeah, that makes perfect sense actually hah. What focal lengths have you adapted successfully?
It's quite lens specific but generally WA lenses will be affected more by the thicker sensor stack. I've adapted lots of rangefinder glass from CV, MS-Optics and others, mostly Japanese brands. I have 0 Leica brand lenses. From the wide angle side, e.g. CV 15/4.5 III and 21/3.5 and 28/2.8, 35/1.2 adapt well in my experience, but I usually always shifted to native CV E-mount options when available.
50mm and longer usually adapt quite well but there are some exceptions.
Overall I've adapted a wide range of M-mount (and LTM) with focal lengths from 15mm to 135mm covering almost every commonly used FL + some exotic ones. 15, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35, 36, 40, 50, 55, 57, 73, 75, 90, 135 at least.
Yeah, mostly interested in “character” lenses, so not super overly concerned with perfect edge to edge sharpness/clairy. Would be nice to retain a reasonable level of detail across the frame though, especially stopped down.
Interesting. Been reading a lot of conflicting reports, some saying anything wider than 50mm you’ll start seeing the corners smear. Most saying anything wider than 35mm, but 21mm or wider would be awesome. Widest I have currently is a 28mm, though been considering something in the 14-21mm range.
FeralTames wrote:
Also curious about how everything interacts with the newer IBIS system. Heard there can be some limitations depending on the adapter. Looking at the Techart (the Z mount version has been great on my Zf), but it seems to be way less popular on E/Sony, not a lot of first hand accounts out there.
I have a Techart LM-EA9 MK2 (their latest adapter for Sony E), but I don't use it so often. In my experience the effective (actually working) focusing area is too limited with this adapter with wider angle lenses, focusing basically only works in the central 3rd of the sensor area or even smaller area with many wider lenses. Somehow it works best with 50mm and longer lenses. There are also a not of lens specific difference. I usually prefer focusing manually.
I haven't noticed any particular issues with IBIS when adapting lenses.
Yeah, the E mount Techart doesn’t seem to work quite as well as the Z mount. That may have been where I read that 50mm and longer figure. Need to start compiling some simple notes, all starting to blur together at this point hah.
Trying to put a two lens/body setup together for events where I can get a bit more creative/characterful, low light concerts/music shows mostly. Having some level of AF would be very nice to have. Worst case scenario, use the wider angle on the Zf and longer lens on whatever Sony I end up with.
FeralTames wrote:
Interesting. Been reading a lot of conflicting reports, some saying anything wider than 50mm you’ll start seeing the corners smear. Most saying anything wider than 35mm, but 21mm or wider would be awesome. Widest I have currently is a 28mm, though been considering something in the 14-21mm range.
I adapt the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 Super Wide Heliar III from M-mount to E-mount primarily using the Hawks Factory V5 helicoid. I don't get smearing with that lens.
To your question about focal lengths, I adapt 15 (VC 15/4.5), 35 (Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM), 85 (Zeiss 85/4 ZM). The only one that I have an issue with is the 35mm, which has a mid-field and corner dip with apertures below f/8. To fix that, I have a PCM adapter, which sharpens the corners, but the mid-field dip is still there, but not generally noticeable with shots.
I also have an older Techart auto-focus adapter. It worked great on the A7rII and A7rIII, but is not reliable on the A9, and it does not work at all with the A1. I had the same sharpness in the corners performance with the Techart that I have with the Hawks Factory helicoid.
Thats really unfortunate to hear about the A1, trying to decide between that and the A7V to replace my R5s… goal was both sooner than later, before hoops really picks up again. That’s Techart Gen 1 tho, newer may be fine?
FeralTames wrote:
Interesting. Been reading a lot of conflicting reports, some saying anything wider than 50mm you’ll start seeing the corners smear. Most saying anything wider than 35mm, but 21mm or wider would be awesome. Widest I have currently is a 28mm, though been considering something in the 14-21mm range.
There are many lens specific differences too. In general it's true that wider lenses that are purely designed for M will have more problems when adapted on E, but it doesn't apply equally to every lens and it depends a lot on individual lens designs.
There are some specific WA lenses that are available from Cosina Voigtländer as both VM version and E-mount versions, e.g. 15/4.5 III released in 2015 as VM and in 2016 as E, and 21/3.5 released in 2018 as E-mount version (already discontinued), and afterwards in 2019 (Type I) and 2021 (Type II) as VM.
These 2 appear to work well also as adapted from VM to E, and there would of course be the option of getting E-mount native versions too. Perhaps Cosina made these 2 lens designs so that they would work pretty well on both sensor stacks from the beginning and on top of that there could be some additional sensor stack specific tweaks.
Film era wide angle legacy lenses could also be particularly problematic since they would not have been designed with any consideration for digital sensors, and sensor stack related impacts could become even bigger.
I am all for character lenses, but personally I've found that Sony EVF and manual focus assist doesn't create a fast-enough manual focus lens shooting experience and results for me to really enjoy the process or the results. I like shooting wide open, often people, and surely it is because of my aging eyes and lack of practice/user error, but I've given up on putting Leica glass on Sony bodies.
If you want to experiment I'd say get a Sony E mount Voigtlander 40/1.2 and see how you like it. The results are cool when you get it right.
The best thing is to look at each M lens on a case-by-case basis. The overwhelming consensus (almost holy writ), here is that Sony-sensor-stack-bad, but I advise you to think what you shoot and then select lenses on that basis of research.
How important are pristine corners at f1.4, really? Many lenses drop 1/3 of their performance center to corner, by design! No need for Sony to bugger things up, but people don't care about that design factoid for reasons of their own.
As an example, no one reading the doomsayers would ever contemplate a fast 21mm M-mount lens on those nasty Sony sensors. But I would not be without my 21/1.4, and this guy found the exact same thing:
'When looking at the performance on the Sony A7rII the M-mount version of the Voigtländer VM 21mm 1.4 Nokton performed pretty bad: midzone dip at wider apertures and mediocre corners. This Thypoch 21mm 1.4 Simera only shows a slight midzone dip and the *corners actually look better than on the Leica*. On the Sony A7rII this lens *shows great across frame performance from f/4.0*.
As the Thypoch lenses are often available for different mounts my guess is they might be designed for an “average” filter thickness, allowing them to perform well enough on various camera systems. Good news for those among us that use more than one camera system.'
I often use 21s at f5.6-f8, if not shooting people and interiors at f1.4-f2.8. I use several M lenses (maybe a half dozen) with gay abandon and great enjoyment on my Sonys. What an ignorant renegade! good luck.
good luck.