p.1 #1 · Better than expected results from the Megadap ETZ adapter
My primary system is the Sony, which means I have accumulated a nice collection of E-lenses. I am especially fond of manually-focused Voigtlanders due to their petite size, sublime build quality, and excellent optical qualities.
But I also love my Nikon Zf, which is my always-on-me everyday camera where I've been missing my E-mount Voigtlanders. To avoid having a second set of identical lenses, I got the Megadap ETZ+ adapter and been using it happily for over a year now. The results seem idetical to how they perform on a native Sony body. But this weekend I decided to make sure that I'm not leaving anything on the table by using the adapter. Actually, that's BS. The real reason is that I got bored.
I picked two Voigtlander E-lenses to test the effects of the adapter. The magnificent Nokton 35mm Classic f/1.4 II, and the Nokton 21mm f/1.4.
I mounted them onto a Sony body on a tripod, took an image of a test scene, and then swapped the body for the Zf+Megadap, repeating the procedure for center focus, corner focus, and different aprtures. Since the manual focus is involved, I had to play with focusing taking multiple shots and using focus peaking on both cameras, selecting the best-of-3 image for comparison.
The results were not only great, but even better than I expected from the standpoint of a Nikon owner. Both E-mount lenses performed **better** on the Zf+Megadap in the corners of the frame than they did on a native Sony body. The difference wasn't dramatic, but it's there. I also realize that the adapter performance is lens-dependent, so keep that in mind.
I thought this experiment was worth sharing. I lost my image posting rights due to my B&S membership expiring, so I'll have to rely on imgur not to damage the 100% crop too much:
VC Nokton 35mm Classic f/1.4 wide open, 100% crop from the far corner of the frame. I focused on that corner, which means the field curvature is not evaluated here.
p.1 #3 · Better than expected results from the Megadap ETZ adapter
Can't comment on the Loxia 21/2.8 but I had and again have the Loxia 25/2.4. I first had it on Sony, now on Nikon. While I couln't make a comparison, I'd say I see no difference. Maybe at MFD.
p.1 #4 · Better than expected results from the Megadap ETZ adapter
This is very close to my experience, too.
In my setup, I find the Voigtlander 21mm f1.4 E ever so slightly better in the corners at infinity on my a7rIV than my Z8 with the ETZ Pro +. But the difference is so slight that even being just a bit off focus will be much more impactful on image quality. As Greg also noted, I only have 1 copy of each piece of gear too, so individual tolerances can also be coming into play.
Greg, if you have any AF E-mount lenses, I would give them a try on the ZF as well. You will probably be pleasantly surprised.
p.1 #5 · Better than expected results from the Megadap ETZ adapter
asdfghreturns wrote:
Thanks for the report. I wonder if the same applies to the Loxia 21mm!
I’ll say amen, and thanks to the OP, for the report!
If Curren Sheldon mentioned the adapter that he uses, I did not manage to hear it, but, he seems to be the real deal, rather than just another brand fan/influencer.
I am seriously considering acquiring the entire Loxia set, now that I have a ZR. I remember being dismayed that Loxia lenses were only made for the one system I was least-likely to add. (I started with Canon EF, which remains my macro system. I shifted toward Nikon, so my Nikon-devotee wife and I could share a common set of pro zooms and expensive bird/wildlife-oriented telephoto lenses. Then, in 2018, I had side-stepped to Leica M. A fourth brand seemed to be A Bridge Too Far.)
I really like that the Loxia lenses are so compact, weather sealed at the mount, and can be found for rather low asking prices, though that may not remain true, much longer.
p.1 #6 · Better than expected results from the Megadap ETZ adapter
old-gregg wrote:
VC Nokton 35mm Classic f/1.4 wide open, 100% crop from the far corner of the frame. I focused on that corner, which means the field curvature is not evaluated here.
