Of course, Boris, Ken, sebboh, mnscott, all of you are correct and I am wrong. Only rangefinder lenses are affected by colour shift. On that subject, Ken, not everybody agrees that the Contax 21G presents problems. I will soon know...
I agree that infinity focus with various adapted lenses on NEX is still a bit of a mystery to me. I've seen lenses focus past infinity and others focus right at infinity with the same adapter. Not sure what the deal is.
douglasf13 wrote:
I agree that infinity focus with various adapted lenses on NEX is still a bit of a mystery to me. I've seen lenses focus past infinity and others focus right at infinity with the same adapter. Not sure what the deal is.
This is my experience as well. I have no idea why some lenses focus beyond infinity and others don't. I cannot find a pattern....
Interesting Philippe. The 35 f/2.8 C-Biogon is clearly the winner there in my opinion. The 50 comparison is rather close....and very similar in rendering. With these small samples, I still see slightly more detail and saturated colors in the 50 Planar shot though. I think a 100% crop would definitely show the difference
lotus, @f:3,5, the zoom would be wide open, whereas the 50 prime would be closed down one and a half stops. Not a fair comparison IMHO. But if you have something else in mind, let me kwow.
Philippe, could you post some 100% crops of these images? For example center and/or lower left corner. I agree with rsolti13 that both 50mm images look pretty similar to me. And there is a small but clearly visible difference between both 35mm images.
interesting comparison philber. i think i would probably stick to the primes for walk around just because of the size. how is using a push pull zoom with the NEX?
i'm excited because my contax g lenses finally arrived yesterday (45mm and 35mm)! i have only gotten a chance to take a few random test shots but one thing is clear: the 45/2 is an all round excellent lens. very sharp and contrasty from wide open with very good correction of every aberration i know how to look for (except loCA). smooth bokeh with diffuse borders on circles of confusion as well. the only problem i can find with it is that it isn't as small as the 35/2. the 35/2 clearly isn't as perfect a lens. i'll have to spend more time with it to decide how i feel about it. anyway some shots.
at some point in the (hopefully) not too distant future i'll do a comparison of these lenses against the most equivalent lenses i have on the NEX (pen f 38/1.8, 42/1.2, rokkor 45/2).
Gary Clennan wrote:
This is my experience as well. I have no idea why some lenses focus beyond infinity and others don't. I cannot find a pattern....
I don't think it's a function of the adapter so much as the lens itself (but I don't know anything about this particular adapter).
My understanding is that many lenses are designed to extend past infinity somewhat to allow for changes in temperature. Many lenses can be adjusted by a limiter to stop at a chosen spot if you want them to. You can also make a small mark on the barrel, to use as a reference as to where that lens focuses best on infinity.
Nice examples everyone!
It is remarkable how good the image quality is getting with these small cameras when coupled to nice glass. Which illustrates just how important good glass is.
Thanks for posting :-)
Thanks for the comparisons, Philber! very helpful! I have been wondering how much better SLR lenses would be on NEX or more importantly how much I loose by using using rangefinder ones. Well, at least the ZM are as good as the famous zoom. I have a bunch of contax G on Nex and a few ZF on the old canon 30D. Still prefer the outcome of 30D. I suspect it is partly due to my old habits and brain conditioning (maybe also different raw formats). I really want a camera that would make the little contax G lenses shine.
Philber - thanks for the comparison. Both ZF35 , 50 looks slightly better to my eyes, but considering the 'ease' of getting dust on NEX, zoom has its own charm. It does not look too bad at all.
Sebboh - 1st shot from 45 f2 has some magical transparency feeling. I like it very much. Great job on the high ISO food shot. I'd not know it was high ISO if you did not tell us. 35 shots are lovely, with your bokeh shots. Very painterly photos.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Thanks for the comparisons, Philber! very helpful! I have been wondering how much better SLR lenses would be on NEX or more importantly how much I loose by using using rangefinder ones. Well, at least the ZM are as good as the famous zoom. I have a bunch of contax G on Nex and a few ZF on the old canon 30D. Still prefer the outcome of 30D. I suspect it is partly due to my old habits and brain conditioning (maybe also different raw formats). I really want a camera that would make the little contax G lenses shine....Show more →
if you are looking at files from both at 100% part of it might also be the difference in pixel density (the nex's sensor should be considerably harder on a lens than the 30D's). i would think any of the contax g lenses should still outresolve the nex's sensor at f/5.6 (at least in the center of the frame though). using the same software nex + contax g 45/2 looks sharper (even at 100%) than my old files from a canon 40D + L glass. i don't have much experience processing canon files though, so perhaps i don't have those shots optimized. could also be that modern zeiss lenses are significantly better than zeiss from the 80's.
philber wrote:
lotus, @f:3,5, the zoom would be wide open, whereas the 50 prime would be closed down one and a half stops. Not a fair comparison IMHO. But if you have something else in mind, let me kwow.
But it certainly is a practical comparison. If you need to use a 50mm lens a f3.5, then the comparison matters. If in a given situation, you would use the 50/2 at f3.5 but not the 35-70 at f3.5 then that is something to consider. If I said compare them at f2.0, that wouldn't be fair, becuase you just can not use the 35-70 at f2.0. But you can use it at f3.5. You can use both lenses at f3.5, so how do they perform there? Comparing them stopped down at f5.6 of f8 (around the optimum apertures) will show minimal differences other than say some qualitative and style differences. Useful to be sure, but not usually very revealing. The differences "may" be, or are potentially greater at larger apertures.
sebboh wrote:
if you are looking at files from both at 100% part of it might also be the difference in pixel density (the nex's sensor should be considerably harder on a lens than the 30D's). i would think any of the contax g lenses should still outresolve the nex's sensor at f/5.6 (at least in the center of the frame though). using the same software nex + contax g 45/2 looks sharper (even at 100%) than my old files from a canon 40D + L glass. i don't have much experience processing canon files though, so perhaps i don't have those shots optimized. could also be that modern zeiss lenses are significantly better than zeiss from the 80's....Show more →
Indeed, that Contax G 45 is considered one of the sharpest lenses for any mount, ever. I wish that I wasn't so married to the ~50mm focal length (equiv,) because I have to make due with the Contax G 35 instead...not that it is awful or anything.
p.s. i've been shooting square lately, which conveniently cuts off corner issues.
sebboh wrote:
if you are looking at files from both at 100% part of it might also be the difference in pixel density (the nex's sensor should be considerably harder on a lens than the 30D's). i would think any of the contax g lenses should still outresolve the nex's sensor at f/5.6 (at least in the center of the frame though). using the same software nex + contax g 45/2 looks sharper (even at 100%) than my old files from a canon 40D + L glass. i don't have much experience processing canon files though, so perhaps i don't have those shots optimized. could also be that modern zeiss lenses are significantly better than zeiss from the 80's....Show more →
The Zeiss G 45/2 is a truly outstanding lens. Very hard to fault it. It works out as a great short tele on the NEX.
douglasf13 wrote:
Indeed, that Contax G 45 is considered one of the sharpest lenses for any mount, ever. I wish that I wasn't so married to the ~50mm focal length (equiv,) because I have to make due with the Contax G 35 instead...not that it is awful or anything.
that is what i've always heard about the 45, i'm glad to see it seems to be born out in my use. i'm really not much of a fan of the normal focal length. i much prefer 35mm and 70mm so the 45mm seems ideal on NEX. i will probably use it as my main lens whenever i don't think i'll need f/1.2. i do wish it was a little smaller though, it's basically the same size with adapters as the pen f 42/1.2.
the 35/2 clearly isn't as perfect a lens. i'll have to spend more time with it to decide how i feel about it. anyway some shots.