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

Zhongyi Mitakon Turbo II for NEX Corner Sharpness?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Michael, obviously the NEX-7 is not really the best performer for wide angle lenses. Also in other forums I've read a lot about as there are some incompatibilities with certain wide RF lenses as well. On the other hand also the A7 struggles with some of the wider RF-lenses what I've learned so far. Interestingly my old and cheap NEX-C3 with an older 16MP sensor than the NEX-5N does it better, even with RF lenses which are causing troubles on the 24MP sensors of the NEX-7 and A7. Maybe you should really think about either an affordable FF SLR to overcome this problem or even to buy a used NEX-C3 for $ 100? For the exclusive use of wide angles the lack of the special EVF of the C3 isn't that dramatically. Even with the very problematic ultra wide RF lenses from CV in LTM (I have them all) the C3 performs better than the newer NEX's and the A7 what I have seen so far on internet. However, it somehow appears to me that the edges are still sharper on the Ricoh GXR-M if I compare them directly. Obviously the special microlens design in combination with the lack of the blurring filter of the Ricoh is still unbeaten for wide angles on mirrorless cameras.
However, I had never any problems with any of the SLR wides on my A850. Obviously the Canon 5D which is available already for rather affordable prices (if you have some luck) is also a very good performer in that respect. Both are more than fine also for M42 lenses, the Sony A850 even more. I think it's worth at least to consider. I don't believe that any of the older lenses which is not specifically designed for the new mirrorless cameras will perform much better on the Sony ones which haven't been designed to take care about such issues.
However, that's just my point of view based on my own experience. Other's or let's say another member of this forum may see it differently, I am rather sure.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dang it! News like Lloydy's really makes me wish now that I'd gotten an a6000 instead of the NEX 7! Oh well.

Here's a photo I took with one of my 17s on my NEX 7, with the camera set to ISO 100. I used image magnification and focus peaking as well, for all the good it did. I think the lens was the Tamon, but I'm not really sure -- I took this shot and several others a few months ago. Both lenses perform almost identically, so ultimately it doesn't matter which len's image I select.

First is the image reduced for display here. No sharpening or contrast enhacement or anything else was done to the image. It was just converted from raw to jpg.



Next is a 100% crop of the middle area of the photo:


And finally is a 100% crop of the edge of this photo:


Pretty horrible, huh?

Thomas, your comments make a lot of sense, and they reminded me of one other thing I tried -- I mounted the Tamron onto my EOS (couldn't mount the Vivitar because it's in Canon FD mount) and took some test shots with it. I was hopeful that I'd get nice, sharp images with the EOS since it was a different sensor. But no, the images were just as bad with my 10.1mp EOS DSLR as they were on my NEX. So, I dunno, maybe I should spring for a NEX 3 just for wide use until I can afford a good FF digital.

In the mean time, I'll just content myself to shooting film with my 17s. I've still got a bunch of frozen outdated C-41 in the freezer that I need to start working my way through, so I have no shortage of film at least.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought canon 10-18 for my NEX and there are no problems with image quality on the wide angle. Those old wide lenses can not stand against the modern cheap zoom. Also the LTII loses a lot of the wideness, for me it is more a portrait and telephoto adapter than wide one. But still it is much better than the old one..


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
I bought canon 10-18 for my NEX and there are no problems with image quality on the wide angle. Those old wide lenses can not stand against the modern cheap zoom. Also the LTII loses a lot of the wideness, for me it is more a portrait and telephoto adapter than wide one. But still it is much better than the old one..

The LT2 loses a lot of wideness? How are you comparing this? A 10 on the Crop sensor will be 15mm so very close to something like a Rokinon 14mm with an LT2 adapter. At least on FF the Rokinon should be able to beat the 10-18 across the frame..not sure on a crop sensor though.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm stumped Mike, I used to have a Tokina AT-X 17mm, which is basically the 17mm in AF form, and that performed brilliantly on an EOS 10D, and EOS 400D and an EOS 450D. My manual 17 worked brilliantly on a NEX-3, a Samsung NX100 and an NX200.

I think what you need to do is try your lens on someone else's camera that they have already been using successfully with a similar ultrawide lens.

I did have a Tokina 17 in not so hot condition that was an awful performer, I gave it away to a friend to see if he could improve it.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
shaolin95 wrote:
simbon4o wrote:
I bought canon 10-18 for my NEX and there are no problems with image quality on the wide angle. Those old wide lenses can not stand against the modern cheap zoom. Also the LTII loses a lot of the wideness, for me it is more a portrait and telephoto adapter than wide one. But still it is much better than the old one..

The LT2 loses a lot of wideness? How are you comparing this? A 10 on the Crop sensor will be 15mm so very close to something like a Rokinon 14mm with an LT2 adapter. At least on FF the Rokinon should be able to beat the 10-18 across the frame..not sure on a crop sensor though.

Well you are very wrong Wink. First of all the LTII is with 0.726 factor which makes 14mm lens on FF actually 15,2mm on 1.5x crop camera. And that is the result in perfect conditions(optical schemes mach perfectly - which never happens, the manufacturer do not lie about the 0.726x factor). Because there are no perfect conditions the real results are actually worse. Nobody can make focal reducer who will work perfectly with all lenses because of the different designs of the lenses. And another thing is that wider lenses makes bigger difference when you change 1mm focal lenght. If you compare 50mm and 51mm lens - there will be almost no difference at all, 200 and 250mm - same thing. But if you compare 14mm and 15mm lenses - you will easily see the difference in the wideness.
From there - the cheap 10-18 canon beast all much more expensive combinations of LTII or other focal reducer and a wide lens. The only downside is the fastness - it is only 4.5 on the wide end but in terms of IQ, weight, filter prices, user friendliness(working electronic aperture with exif) it is unbeatable.

The focal reducers for me have one and only purpose - shooting with 35mm to 600mm lenses with fast apertures to get more light and more bokeh. That is where they shine and worth every cent you spent on them. I see that there are people using them for macro - that is very ... they are not good in that discipline. The only thing they are good for is the fast primes shooting wide open. This is where FF cameras have advantage - and the focal reducer is the cheapest way to get that on crop camera.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:

The focal reducers for me have one and only purpose - shooting with 35mm to 600mm lenses with fast apertures to get more light and more bokeh. That is where they shine and worth every cent you spent on them. I see that there are people using them for macro - that is very ... they are not good in that discipline. The only thing they are good for is the fast primes shooting wide open. This is where FF cameras have advantage - and the focal reducer is the cheapest way to get that on crop camera.

I do the same. The focal reducer can also effectively increase the field curve of some lenses and add more lens flare in some situation.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm stumped Mike, I used to have a Tokina AT-X 17mm, which is basically the 17mm in AF form, and that performed brilliantly on an EOS 10D, and EOS 400D and an EOS 450D. My manual 17 worked brilliantly on a NEX-3, a Samsung NX100 and an NX200.

I think what you need to do is try your lens on someone else's camera that they have already been using successfully with a similar ultrawide lens.

I did have a Tokina 17 in not so hot condition that was an awful performer, I gave it away to a friend to see if he could improve it.


This is strange. The 450D is the same as the XSi here in the US, which is basically the same as my XS (1000D), but with a slightly more dense sensor (12.2 mp compared to my camera's 10.1 mp). Far as I know, same mirror, mirror box, focusing screen and porro fnnder as mine. And my Vivitar 17mm has the same optical formula as the Tokina 17mm. BUT! I didn't try the Vivitar 17mm on my EOS because my Vivitar's mount is Canon FD. And I do have a few images handy that I shot with this lens. So I have used it on another camera -- my Canon F-1. I don't recall the film emulsion, but the images were decent. Here are a couple:




The above photos are full frame (of course) and show some softening in the corners, but I would describe them as very good overall in terms of sharpness and contrast. The images were resized only -- no PP other than shrinking them for viewing on the 'net. I have some slides somewhere that I shot with this lens and they came out great.

The Tamron 17mm is the unknown at this point-- since I don't have any good images from it yet. Just inferior ones taken with the EOS and the NEX. I should have some images from the roll of C-41 soon, though.

I finally finished the two rolls of film in my F-1 and F4. I need to get them developed ASAP. The comparisons should be interestting.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
shaolin95 wrote:
simbon4o wrote:
I bought canon 10-18 for my NEX and there are no problems with image quality on the wide angle. Those old wide lenses can not stand against the modern cheap zoom. Also the LTII loses a lot of the wideness, for me it is more a portrait and telephoto adapter than wide one. But still it is much better than the old one..

The LT2 loses a lot of wideness? How are you comparing this? A 10 on the Crop sensor will be 15mm so very close to something like a Rokinon 14mm with an LT2 adapter. At least on FF the Rokinon should be able to beat the 10-18 across the frame..not sure on a crop sensor though.

Well you are very wrong Wink. First of all the LTII is with 0.726 factor which makes 14mm lens on FF actually 15,2mm on 1.5x crop camera. And that is the result in perfect conditions(optical schemes mach perfectly - which never happens, the manufacturer do not lie about the 0.726x factor). Because there are no perfect conditions the real results are actually worse. Nobody can make focal reducer who will work perfectly with all lenses because of the different designs of the lenses. And another thing is that wider lenses makes bigger difference when you change 1mm focal lenght. If you compare 50mm and 51mm lens - there will be almost no difference at all, 200 and 250mm - same thing. But if you compare 14mm and 15mm lenses - you will easily see the difference in the wideness.
From there - the cheap 10-18 canon beast all much more expensive combinations of LTII or other focal reducer and a wide lens. The only downside is the fastness - it is only 4.5 on the wide end but in terms of IQ, weight, filter prices, user friendliness(working electronic aperture with exif) it is unbeatable.

The focal reducers for me have one and only purpose - shooting with 35mm to 600mm lenses with fast apertures to get more light and more bokeh. That is where they shine and worth every cent you spent on them. I see that there are people using them for macro - that is very ... they are not good in that discipline. The only thing they are good for is the fast primes shooting wide open. This is where FF cameras have advantage - and the focal reducer is the cheapest way to get that on crop camera.


I misunderstood the 10-18 for the SEL1018 lens. In any case Yes I am fully aware that at those wide ranges every mm is easily noticeable BUT still, you cannot tell me that when talking of 15mm - 17mm your framing is so tight that it matters so much to keep that..come on now Wink
I am not saying the LT2 is perfect by any means but It is quite usable although I myself was using it mostly at 35mm or longer so we agree on that. At 24mm the center was amazingly sharp but not so much the very edges of the lens.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
shaolin95 wrote:

I misunderstood the 10-18 for the SEL1018 lens. In any case Yes I am fully aware that at those wide ranges every mm is easily noticeable BUT still, you cannot tell me that when talking of 15mm - 17mm your framing is so tight that it matters so much to keep that..come on now Wink
I am not saying the LT2 is perfect by any means but It is quite usable although I myself was using it mostly at 35mm or longer so we agree on that. At 24mm the center was amazingly sharp but not so much the very edges of the lens.

I use Canon 10-18 Smile with Viltrox adapter. About the 15-17mm... I like it wider Wink. I know very well what LTII is capable of - I have two of them Smile(FD and EOS EF). About the 24mm - it depends on the lens, try another one Wink. As you see - some of them make curved focal plane(with focal reducers) and the sharpness in corners is worse and after all most of the old 24mm lenses are not that good at all compared to modern wide lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
shaolin95 wrote:

I misunderstood the 10-18 for the SEL1018 lens. In any case Yes I am fully aware that at those wide ranges every mm is easily noticeable BUT still, you cannot tell me that when talking of 15mm - 17mm your framing is so tight that it matters so much to keep that..come on now Wink
I am not saying the LT2 is perfect by any means but It is quite usable although I myself was using it mostly at 35mm or longer so we agree on that. At 24mm the center was amazingly sharp but not so much the very edges of the lens.

I use Canon 10-18 Smile with Viltrox adapter. About the 15-17mm... I like it wider Wink. I know very well what LTII is capable of - I have two of them Smile(FD and EOS EF). About the 24mm - it depends on the lens, try another one Wink. As you see - some of them make curved focal plane(with focal reducers) and the sharpness in corners is worse and after all most of the old 24mm lenses are not that good at all compared to modern wide lenses.

I sold the LT2 as I moved to the A7ii full frame and about to get a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 UMC version next Very Happy
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2