douglasf13 wrote:
IIRC, native nex lenses still focus and meter at shooting aperture, no?
I don't think so. I haven't checked in detail as the only native lens I have is the 16mm. If they are like the micro cameras they meter and focus wide open unless it is too bright. Then they stop down to around f/4 IIRC. I think our Nexes do something similar. Checking the DOF at working aperture isn't possible.
Jonas B wrote:
I don't think so. I haven't checked in detail as the only native lens I have is the 16mm. If they are like the micro cameras they meter and focus wide open unless it is too bright. Then they stop down to around f/4 IIRC. I think our Nexes do something similar. Checking the DOF at working aperture isn't possible.
the 16mm focuses and meters at shooting aperture unlike dslrs and µ4/3 camera lenses. it's easy to tell if you focus on something close at f/2.8 in aperture priority and then stop down a ways. the dof changes as you turn the wheel. i hope the zeiss does this too, but i don't recall seeing. seeing as this does not require rapid aperture movements it makes me feel that 7 aperture blades is really skimping. :/
BluePixel wrote:
So far the best AF lens for NEX 5n. IMHO.
High contrast images look good, low contrast looks very average
and the amount of CA is as high as it gets...
Not sure it really is worth $1000. Can't really tell this lens brings anything special,
just a "C+" Zeiss lens with an OK look... Kind of reminding me my 25 f2.8 ZK lens,
an OK lens, but nothing special...
Jonas B wrote:
I'm more of a 50mm sort of photographer so for me it is a 35 on the Nex. From time to time you can read that normal lenses are the most boring ones. (But I wish the SMC-P FA31/1.8 Limited had been a notch better optically, I think that would be the perfect normal FL for me.) !
Image diagonal for APS-C is 27.3 mm, so in truth 35mm is well beyond what a 50 is to 135---more than what 52.5mm would have you expect.
I found myself often constrained in framing with 35 beyond what I was expecting on the nex. When I finally started using a 28 more often, i nearly did a double take as the FOV truly was quite natural. For landscapes it is perfectly usable, while 35 demands considerable selection. 28 does both portraits and multiple subject shots with ease. It's just a dramtically more flexible FOV.
I wish it were not the case, since the selection at 35mm is unbelievable; in fact that's the problem. Which is your ONE 35? I can see why the M9 shooters are ready to invest in the various luxes at 35. For many that is their standard lens--which suggests it's better to be on the short side of the diagonal for a standard street lens. You are about as close to 43.3 as a 50 is, but on the side which brings more of the world into your lens. After all you can always crop out, but it's tricky to crop in---unless you take the mulitple shots.
The 5N sensor size is 15.6 x 23.4, so the diagonal is 28.12mm. A 35mm lens is equivalent to about 53.8mm on a 24x36 sensor. Granted, most 35mm lenses aren't exactly 35mm, so it could vary a little either way. My ZM 35/2.8 is a little narrower than most 35mm lenses, and it is probably closer to 55mm on the 5N.
I agree about the 28mm on the 5N. It is essentially the equivalent of the standard 80mm on Hasselblad, which I like. 28mm is a true "standard" lens on the 5N, being the same as the diagonal, and I find it a nice compromise between 35mm and 50mm equivalents.
FWIW, I was playing around a little bit the other day with the kit zoom, and it looks like somewhere around the 40-45mm range gives you a 1:1 equivalent with the EVF, so you can shoot with both eyes open easily. Could be another good reason to shoot the Contax G 45.
For landscapes it is perfectly usable, while 35 demands considerable selection. 28 does both portraits and multiple subject shots with ease. It's just a dramtically more flexible FOV. (...)
OK, I'll sell all my 35mm lenses and by a 28 instead.
Sony needs to step up with a 30/1.4 for you
Bottomline: this aps-c is killing us!
Yes, but can they make a good one? Will we get an aperture ring and a good feeling when trying to focus the thing manually?
I plan to survive until we have a FF LIVE camera.
Very nice shot, Jonas! I have actually been there many times, and thought how to make this shot intersting, without finding a solution, which you have done elegantly! Incidentally, the inside hall which we can see through the glass is one of the top spots for statue photography. Great lighting, and good space with a 35mm. No need for a 28...:-)
snowboarder wrote:
High contrast images look good, low contrast looks very average
and the amount of CA is as high as it gets...
Not sure it really is worth $1000. Can't really tell this lens brings anything special,
just a "C+" Zeiss lens with an OK look... Kind of reminding me my 25 f2.8 ZK lens,
an OK lens, but nothing special...
At this point I have somewhat the same feeling about it.
I had high hopes for this lens, but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
I already posted this in another NEX thread, but I might as well post it here too.
A chinese thread with shots from the new 24/1.8: 24/1.8 examples
Many of them look flat to me. Especially the ones with low contrast.
Now that it's available I'm waiting for more shots from different people. Maybe I might still like it.
sebboh wrote:
the 16mm focuses and meters at shooting aperture unlike dslrs and µ4/3 camera lenses. it's easy to tell if you focus on something close at f/2.8 in aperture priority and then stop down a ways. the dof changes as you turn the wheel. i hope the zeiss does this too, but i don't recall seeing. seeing as this does not require rapid aperture movements it makes me feel that 7 aperture blades is really skimping. :/
I stand corrected. This is great! I was stuck in micro 4/3 thinking and hadn't checked this carefully. The aperture opens up for a moment when half pressing the shutter button but from a quick check it seems to me as the metering is active all the time and then from the working aperture. Maybe it is different at very low light conditions (hopefully it is). There is also something going on when aiming the camera against a strong light source; then the aperture doesn't open up fully (during the half press) and behaves a little differently. All this is from checking the 5 and the 5N indoor.
This make me feel better about the new 50mm I have on order. Not being able to check the DOF stopped down worried me a little about that lens.
So I broke two of my own rules then... When discussing camera gear I usually tell people they should know their gear (and I also think people in general, not me obviously, should keep their holes closed if they don't know what they are talking about).
philber wrote:
Very nice shot, Jonas! I have actually been there many times (...)
Thank you Philippe for the nice comment. Yes, I think a 28 or a 35 is down to personal preferences more than math. Good light is always the key. Nicely dressed up young women always help.
No, they are not the same. The basic design idea is similar but there are differences resulting in different MTFs and different type of distortion and... You can have a look at the Zeiss data sheets here.
Jonas B wrote:
No, they are not the same. The basic design idea is similar but there are differences resulting in different MTFs and different type of distortion and... You can have a look at the Zeiss data sheets here.
Jonas B wrote:
Heh. That's a question keeping my economy at the edge for the moment. I have a CV35/1.2, the FA31/1.8, a 35Lux ASPH (pre.FLE as the current FLE version has a scary bokeh) at home and then, finally?, a ZM Biogon 35/2 on order. I hope to be able to sell at least two of them in a not too distant future...
If you know of a super well performing 35mm not slower than f/2 please let me know. When I am at it I can as well try another one at the same time. I do however think I got the top contenders gathered now.
(I have ruled out the Zeiss C/Y Distagon 35/1.4, the Nikon offers, the Sony/Minolta 35/1.4, the CV 35/1.4 and 35/1.7, the SMC-P 35/2 and a couple more, all for more or less rational reasons.) No need for an apology Jacob... ...Show more →
Sounds like you've got them all covered! Well... you did leave out the CV 40/1.4, but it's not a 35 technically and I think it's similar in some ways to the 35/1.4 anyway. I have this lens and have mixed feelings about it
I really need to find myself a f2 or preferably faster 24-28mm in the smallest size possible, but not sure what that is yet. I don't know if the new Sony Zeiss is worth $1000 for me, the sample I've seen so far have been nice, but haven't knocked me over.
