philber wrote:
Morfeus, in the unlikely event that a learned and able photog like you hasn't got it on his radar screen, my ZM 35C f:2.8 fits your description pretty well IMHO. Small, light, superior IQ.
Morfeus wrote:
Yes Philippe, this is on my list. I am also contemplating about the Hexanon 40mm f/1.8 pancake, as many describe it at super sharp and relatively small. Have never tried one though.
Heinz
for what it's worth, i sold my hexanon 40mm after i got the NEX. it was my goto compact fast prime on my dslr, but is outdone in terms of small size and performance by a number of reasonably priced (but still more expensive) lenses (40mm cron, pen f's, and of course the contax g 45mm).
Which doubts do you have, Philippe? From my limited experience with the Nex, mind you, I only have it since last week, it works incredibly well with the Elmarit 90 in peaking mode.
philber wrote:
My question, Heinz, is whether using the NEX with this focal length is still reasonably easy/practical. I tried only briefly a 90mm, and it felt less than comfortable. Your opinion would be most helpful.
Again, Philippe, my experience is limited. But after your question I went out today in the afternoon for a little walk. I did put a cheap 135mm Porst lens in the bag and, to my surprise, was using it almost exclusively. Technical, I got about 70% keepers. Off course it needs some discipline even in good light to hold the Nex as stable as possible. But it felt easy and practical. Off course the DOF was paper thin at close distances wide open (f/2.8), but with peaking you could see the sharp zone moving like a laser beam on the screen whilst turning the focus ring.
Here is an extreme example, Philippe. Porst Tele 135mm f/2.8 at 2.8, I was kneeling, did not have a stable stand. The gooses stood still but some little devil decided to chase them . I was trying to following them with the camera, paper thin DOF, but still quite ok technically. Not a super capture, I know.
Morfeus wrote:
Here is an extreme example, Philippe. Porst Tele 135mm f/2.8 at 2.8, I was kneeling, did not have a stable stand. The gooses stood still but some little devil decided to chase them . I was trying to following them with the camera, paper thin DOF, but still quite ok technically. Not a super capture, I know.
great shot! i agree, i find 135mm to be doable and 90mm to be quite easy on the NEX. anything longer than that and i have difficulty maintaining framing during focusing unless i squat down and rest the lens on my thigh.
philber wrote:
My question, Heinz, is whether using the NEX with this focal length is still reasonably easy/practical. I tried only briefly a 90mm, and it felt less than comfortable. Your opinion would be most helpful.
Still ZM 50 f:2.0
Lenses of fl 85-100mm are generally no problem on NEX.Sonnar 85/2.8 for example does very well on it.Even long and rather heavy Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 is quite handy.
Sonnar 135/2.8 C/Y+ NEX is more difficult to focus handheld as magnified picture jumps wildly here and there - but still usable.
In general Philippe I try not to tresspass 135mm borderline when handholding.
Philippe, I think peaking is the next best thing since the invention of sliced bread. Seriously.
If you want to try the 90mm focal length before you buy one I can send you my Elmar 90/4, I have the 90/2.8 also and you could try it for a week or two before sending it back.
I use peaking in red,(little bit distracting but IMO not too much), as you do Philippe and yes-it is not an ideal tool,but combined with image magnifier it speeds up the whole focusing process - I mean first step is to focus roughly with the aid of peaking and than 7x to fine tune.
Thanks to peaking I almost stopped using 14x which isn't a very helpful option for me
:
