Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

best 50mm for A7r
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
In my experience macro lenses do not work that well on landscapes and don't render portraits that well. Of course there are lenses that could work, like the Bokina (90/2.5), some AF lenses like zuiko 50/2 and Canon L 100/2.8, but these are exceptions... For portraits you don't need that much sharpness, any decent 50mm would do. As for landscapes, if per-pixel sharpeness is important prepare to invest...

IMHO, ofc.

The Pentax FA 50/2.8 is very sharp at infinity and delivers great results in lanscape photography. It also has one of the smothest bokeh I have ever seen. Here's a portrait taken wide open at F/2.8 (not my picture):


Credit: McKajVah on PentaxForums

And the 100% crop:


Credit: McKajVah on PentaxForums

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
memetph wrote:
Thank you all for your opinions or feedbacks.

My friend shoots mainly portraits and landscapes. He is hesitating between A7 and A7r.
The question of this thread is connected to this choice he has to do.
I told him that the A7r might be a better choice for landscapes.

The idea of using macrolenses is quite interesting .


In my experience macro lenses do not work that well on landscapes and don't render portraits that well. Of course there are lenses that could work, like the Bokina (90/2.5), some AF lenses like zuiko 50/2 and Canon L 100/2.8, but these are exceptions... For portraits you don't need that much sharpness, any decent 50mm would do. As for landscapes, if per-pixel sharpeness is important prepare to invest...

IMHO, ofc.


This is case by case. For example, even the Nikon 55 micro, made since the sixties, has some early versions which are as you describe. But the later models and all the 55/2.8 micros are fantastic at infinity. I mean fantastic.

These are very cheap in general.


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By the way, I just realized that we all appear to be assuming here that outresolving the A7r's sensor is going to be really hard just because it has so many pixels (36 million!), but in fact those are distributed over a much larger area than crop sensors'. It's kind of obvious, but seems to have slipped my mind, that what we need to be concerned with here is not total pixels, but pixel density. And on that score, if I'm calculating right, the A7r has a slightly lower pixel density than a 16MP APS-C sensor (A7r: 41666.667/mm2, Fuji X: 43459.365/mm2). And probably way lower than a 16MP Four Thirds sensor. So if a lens can outresolve a modern crop sensor, then it can outresolve the A7r's as well.

In the center, that is. The big difference of course is that it now has to be sharp from edge to edge over a much wider area. So consistent edge-to-edge sharpness, rather than very high center sharpness, seems like it should be the most important criterium.


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
By the way, I just realized that we all appear to be assuming here that outresolving the A7r's sensor is going to be really hard just because it has so many pixels (36 million!), but in fact those are distributed over a much larger area than crop sensors'. It's kind of obvious, but seems to have slipped my mind, that what we need to be concerned with here is not total pixels, but pixel density. And on that score, if I'm calculating right, the A7r has a slightly lower pixel density than a 16MP APS-C sensor (A7r: 41666.667/mm2, Fuji X: 43459.365/mm2). And probably way lower than a 16MP Four Thirds sensor. So if a lens can outresolve a modern crop sensor, then it can outresolve the A7r's as well.

In the center, that is. The big difference of course is that it now has to be sharp from edge to edge over a much wider area. So consistent edge-to-edge sharpness, rather than very high center sharpness, seems like it should be the most important criterium.


Not "we all"! Additionally there are much more criterias than only resolution. However, you are absolutely right, that the density per given area is a more important factor and not the number of pixels alone. There are physical limits anyway. Therefore for maximal quality and sharpness the small sensor format up and inclusive 24X36mm has it's limits and for large posters a middle format or large format camera for film is still the better solution if the ultimate quality is the final target.


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The is a myth that the A7r can "outresolve" this lens or that. Not even close.

Here is A7 yesterday with 45USD Nikon micro 55/3.5 (late version)


DSC07843 by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:08 pm    Post subject: Link to test of 20 Leica/Zeiss/Minolta 50mm lenses inside Reply with quote
On my website (artaphot) i've published a small test of Rokkor lenses and the native Sony Zeiss 1.8/55mm on the A7R:


At f1.8 and f2.8, the Sony Zeiss 1.8/55 is much better than the Minolta MC 1.4/50mm (1973). At f5.6, which is were landscape images are usually done, the differences are negligeable.

I have tested about 20 normal lenses on the NEX-5N which has the same pixel pitch as the A7R:


A few more remarks:
* All Minolta f1.7 normal lenses are inferior to their f1.4 counterparts
* The Minolta MD 1.2/50mm (not included in the tests cited before) has a similar resolution as the 1.4/50 MD lenses, but more pronounced CAs
* The venerable MC 1.2/58mm is very low-contrast at f1.2, but good at f2.8 and really excellent from f5.6 on.
* The newFD 1.4/50mm performs nearly identical to the later MD 1.4/50mm lenses
* The new MD-III Minolta 2/50mm is nearly distortion-free (the f1.4 have quite a lot of distortion, in the 2-3% range)

I would simply start with a good FD or MD 1.4/50mm. Later, if one should not be satisfied any more, on mightmove on to the Sony Zeiss 1.8/55mm.

Stephan


EDIT: for unknown reasons, i cannot link my website directly. Go to artaphot.ch => Minolta SR/MCMD => Objektiv-Vergleiche => and then to the corresponding articles on the A7R and the NEX-5N, respectively. Sorry ...


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here it is:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Buy Otus from Zeiss or Leica most expensive ones, like Noctilux Smile price will be helps to defense point of view why those are best Laughing Laughing probably any 50mm lens is good enough on a fantastic camera like A7R


+1

even a sticky iris domiplan Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cicala published today an article on the variation of normal lenses. Quite a good read. The article includes MTF charts of many lenses discussed here which constructed from 10-copies measurement (as opposed to the usual manufacturer's _calulated_ charts).


http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurement-for-50mm-slr-lenses


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
great link. This is the unmentioned scandal of modern Sony glass. Huge copy variation in FE 35, FE 55 etc.

Make proper lens testing not so easy LOL

Kubrick used to get many copies of the lenses he was using and finally pick just one.

The other day at L forum, a guy was talking about a meh copy of the 75/2, which he returned and a fantastic one which replaced it.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not just Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Samsung, they all suffer from bad QC. I guess they find it cheaper to replace duff copies than to apply stringent QC in the first place. Probably the worst are Samyang, and as they make lenses for others, the issue is widespread.

QC must be very expensive due to manhours, Leitz applied their stringent QC to the lenses built for them by Minolta and were horrified to discover the majority didn't pass the Leitz QC tests.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just came across little test
http://contaxian.com/2014/04/16/10-03-14-zeiss-cy-50mm-vs-fe-55mm-thoughts/

The Contax 50/1.4 (or at least a good copy of that) seems to come very close to the FE55.

Which, if you think about it, is quite remarkable, considering it was not purposefully designed for the E-mount. And yet it is still no bigger, and it does not make full use of the space before that sensor.

I wonder if an even higher end lens will enter the FE stable in the future.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can recommend the Contax 50/1.7 ! I bought one recently, and I'm blown away. The character, the depth, it's an awesome lens. Better than the f/1.4 for me... Lighter, sharper.
I had a lot of 50mm lenses... FD 50/1.4 and 1.8, Olympus 50/1.8, Summicron R 50/2, Schneider Kreuznach 50/1.9, Topcor, Pentax, Minolta... The best ones for me, for a budget under 300 euros, were Summicron and Contax 1.7.

Few pictures from the first walk with the lens...







PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Billou wrote:
I can recommend the Contax 50/1.7 ! I bought one recently, and I'm blown away. The character, the depth, it's an awesome lens. Better than the f/1.4 for me... Lighter, sharper.
I had a lot of 50mm lenses... FD 50/1.4 and 1.8, Olympus 50/1.8, Summicron R 50/2, Schneider Kreuznach 50/1.9, Topcor, Pentax, Minolta... The best ones for me, for a budget under 300 euros, were Summicron and Contax 1.7.


That's a remarkable statement. The topic is the best lens for the 36MP sensor and you are obiously (according to your signature) using the 24MP version. Furthermore your presented pictures are very nice but in the presented size not really convincing.
However, the mentioned Summicron and Contax lenses are not bad at all but certainly not really far better than comparable lenses from the same period from other well known manufacturers. I wouldn't see any difference on my A850 (24MP FF) in the presented size either if I would compare my lenses.
According to a ColorFoto Report from the 1980's (test of 18 different 50mm lenses in the same class) it was clear that there was hardly any bad lens (with few exceptions) and nearly ALL performed excellent stopped down (hardly to distinguish), whereas no single one was close to perfect fully open, not even the Zeiss and Leica ones. So even fully open the differences have been very minimal and are not likely to be seen except in a extreme pixel peeping mode on the screen (100% crops). BTW, the Contax lens was even slightly below the Rollei 50/1.8 from Singapore (fully open/corners) and stopped down the Fujinon 1.6 was (measured very minimal) best.
All I wanted to say is that I hardly believe from my own experience on my A850 and on other cameras as well that there are really visible differences except when you include really sub standard lenses like e.g a Pentacon 50/1.8 which is known to be not really sharp but nevertheless liked by some folks for some other effects. Though, I never tried the 36MP sensor from Sony which may deliver different results as nearly all my lenses are somehow different on different sensors (in pixel peeping mode).
However, the only important thing is that you or everybody else is happy with the lens and it's result. No matter why. Wink
Finally I am not in the position to recommend anything in particular as I don't own an A7R as well.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:

...
Though, I never tried the 36MP sensor from Sony which may deliver different results as nearly all my lenses are somehow different on different sensors (in pixel peeping mode).


There's no dramatic decrease in resolution from A7R to A7 (18.5% decrease). If a lens performs well on the A7, it will do so on the A7R as well. In "real life photography" other factors are much more important.

I'm still using the Sony A900 DSLR series for professional work, since i often need her built-in stabilisator (together with 2.8/20mm, 1.4/50mm, 1.4/85mm, and 2.8/200mm lenses). I have tested the D800, but she needs about 10x shorther exposure than the A900 for comparable sharpness when i use my fast primes (e. g. Nikkor 1.8/105 vs Minolta AF 2/100mm).

Size and handling of the body are very important as well. The vertical grip of the A900, for instance, is much better than the one of the D810 or Leica S2. This translates, in real life, again to one step "higher sensitivity" (in other words: i can hold slower speeds with the A900 vertical grip than with the D800 VG).

One thing is, however, for sure: The Sony Zeiss 1.8/5mm is way better than any of the >30 legacy 50/55/58mm lenses i have used on the A7II (Minolta MC/MD/AF, Nikon MF/AF, Canon FD)!

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is tons of good 50 mm lenses out there and the benefit of A7R is that you can adapt any of them.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
There is tons of good 50 mm lenses out there and the benefit of A7R is that you can adapt any of them.


+10

Most 50mm lenses are more than good enough so that choice comes down to personal taste more than anything else.

I am not able to pick a favourite, but I have a small group of 50s that I really like and always produce the goods.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some industrial lens are pretty good at the resolution department. However, they are hard to find in cheap price.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Which industrial lenses do you refer to?

Most are for smaller sensors, a good example of which is the Schneider Xenoplan 1.4/23, which only covers a 1" sensor but is very sharp. The Fujinon-TV 1.7/17mm is another, a machine vision lens for 1" sensors and very sharp indeed.

I do have some lenses from printing machines, such as an Agfa/Stable 4/107mm, I remounted it for use on my Sony a850 and it is very sharp and contrasty, I use it as a macro lens mostly.




PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those made in Nikon F mount which covers FF sensor like the one below.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/979796-REG/ricoh_c52893f_yf5028_line_scan_lens.html


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just buy a lens and take pictures already.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
gaeger wrote:
Just buy a lens and take pictures already.


+1,000,000


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

One thing is, however, for sure: The Sony Zeiss 1.8/5mm is way better than any of the >30 legacy 50/55/58mm lenses i have used on the A7II (Minolta MC/MD/AF, Nikon MF/AF, Canon FD)!
Stephan


Well, most probably I will never see that as it's an E-mount only lens and not available for my A850. Only the Planar 50/1.4 would be available for AF. But from my point of view certainly far over budget. It's my strong believe that the difference to the "normal" Minolta AF lens (which I have anyway besides many others) in real life pictures doesn't justify the investment of apprx. 1.200 Euro for me being only a leisure photographer. Maybe for the 500/4 Sony lens I would spend even a little bit more, but not for another "normal" lens. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would rather spend money for 45mm Contax G Planar.
and it is autofocus too Smile on e-mount


PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
That's a remarkable statement. The topic is the best lens for the 36MP sensor and you are obiously (according to your signature) using the 24MP version.


Read again please, I wrote "for me".
Do you really believe that Contax 50s and Summicrons can be nice on A7 but not work well on A7R ? Then you can just tell him to buy an Otus, case closed. He will be happy for sure.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3