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

Sony A7r, gamechanger, to be announced Wed
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Sony-NEX
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
This is FF, not APS-C Wink No need for modifications on a FF Very Happy


Why is that though? Is the sensor further back? I ask as this lens has that big bulge at the back Question


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
This is FF, not APS-C Wink No need for modifications on a FF Very Happy


Why is that though? Is the sensor further back? I ask as this lens has that big bulge at the back Question


No, sensor must be on the correct distance and is equal, it is the width of the backpart that collides with the raised area surrounding the sensor of APS-C and M43. The backpart is wider than the "plastic" around the sensor. Very Happy English is not my first language, but I hope you understand Wink


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kyoei Optical f. M39 80/3,5 Acall. This is a pretty rare RF lens and it is doing ok I guess Wink Shot wide open. ISO 2000


100% peep


ISO3200 wide open


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
This is FF, not APS-C Wink No need for modifications on a FF Very Happy


Why is that though? Is the sensor further back? I ask as this lens has that big bulge at the back Question


No, sensor must be on the correct distance and is equal, it is the width of the backpart that collides with the raised area surrounding the sensor of APS-C and M43. The backpart is wider than the "plastic" around the sensor. Very Happy English is not my first language, but I hope you understand Wink


Ah, I see! Totally understand now, thank you! Now get back to those samples please Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon LTM 25mm f/3.5, one of my favorite RF lenses. I added little bit of vignetting compensation on this one. Probably shot at F8. The light conditions are difficult up in the north at this time of year. We have just a few hours of light, and the light is weak.



Peeping


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
Canon LTM 25mm f/3.5, one of my favorite RF lenses. I added little bit of vignetting compensation on this one. Probably shot at F8. The light conditions are difficult up in the north at this time of year. We have just a few hours of light, and the light is weak.



The sky color is odd, isn't it?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's a very good copy of the J12, most aren't that sharp wide open!

What year is it please?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
The sky color is odd, isn't it?


Yes, there is some color shift going on Wink

Almost all wide RF lenses will have similar problems I guess, it is better from 35mm and up. Safest way is to use SLR lenses for ultra wide angle.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
That's a very good copy of the J12, most aren't that sharp wide open!

What year is it please?


-85 Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is the PEN F lens report:

20mm f/3.5 vignettes heavy
38mm f/1.8 vignettes just slightly when focus is far (not mechanical)
40mm f/1.4 vignettes mechanical when focus is far, it is ok when focus is near.
42mm f/1.2 vignettes mechanical when focus is far, it is ok when focus is near.
60mm f/1.5 is ok
70mm f/2 is ok
100mm f/3.5 is ok or just a tiny slight fall off in the corners

The surprise was that the 38mm did better than the 40mm and the 42mm.

I also tested 20+ C-mounts just for the curiosity and none of them was even close to cover FF.
But some of them could be cropped to squares (24x24) with minimal or no vignetting.

The half frame Industar 69 does not cover either


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
The half frame Industar 69 does not cover either


It barely covers APS-C, so no surprise Smile . But J-12 looks not bad.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BurstMox wrote:
Quote:
The half frame Industar 69 does not cover either


It barely covers APS-C, so no surprise Smile . But J-12 looks not bad.


J-12 is a huge surprise, it renders very nice


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
I also tested 20+ C-mounts just for the curiosity

wow! what a great day, I guess you forgot about your wife & kid and return on earth only when they call you for dinner Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
I also tested 20+ C-mounts just for the curiosity

wow! what a great day, I guess you forgot about your wife & kid and return on earth only when they call you for dinner Very Happy


Ha ha, I had luck today. My daughter is with her aunt and my wife went for shopping Christmas gifts Wink


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
great samples, the resolution looks superior--is that what you see?

might i ask if you have any biogons to test? i very recently traded for the 35/2 in anticipation of this camera...
tony


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The J12 is a Biogon Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The J12 is a Biogon Rolling Eyes

I posted a link in this thread yesterday, with a lot of ultra wides.
Unfortunately the C Biogon 21mm seems to perform really bad...


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thanks nikos; white noise notwithstanding, it was obvious i meant i was interested in performance of the zm biogons. thats too bad about the 21, but i'm most interested in the 35/2 since i just traded for one. it sure is a cracking lens on my gxr.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
thanks nikos; white noise notwithstanding, it was obvious i meant i was interested in performance of the zm biogons. thats too bad about the 21, but i'm most interested in the 35/2 since i just traded for one. it sure is a cracking lens on my gxr.

I believe the 2/35 will perform fine.
It is an amazing lens on my NEX-5N...

That said, the Biogon 4.5/21 is also great on my NEX-5N. But seems awful on the a7r.
I can't believe the 12mm Voigtlander is better!


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice to see how well the J-12 performs on this camera.
Thanks a lot for sharing!

Nikos wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The J12 is a Biogon Rolling Eyes

I posted a link in this thread yesterday, with a lot of ultra wides.
Unfortunately the C Biogon 21mm seems to perform really bad...

Zeiss explicit recommends to use the 21/4.5 on film only, so it doesn't wonder me at all.
rbelyell wrote:

might i ask if you have any biogons to test? i very recently traded for the 35/2 in anticipation of this camera...
tony

The 21/2.8 ZM Biogon works much better than 21/4.5 ZM Biogon on digital but it still has serious corner issues. Sad
I've seen samples from the 25/2.8 ZM Biogon on A7 - also a lot vignetting and color shift Sad
I've also seen samples from 28/2.8 Contax G Biogon on A7r - really horrible smearing, imho not usable without crop. Sad
The C-Biogon 35/2.8 should perform about as good as the Jupiter-12 and old 35/2.8 Biogon du similar design - I expect only slight problems Smile

I expect that the 35/2 ZM Biogon and 35/2 Contax G Planar will work better than 35/2.8 Biogon/J12/C-Biogon in terms of corner issues due optical design (longer distance between rear element and sensor). I will confirm this when my A7 arrives, which should be monday or thursday according to the tracking#
I expect the 35/2 Leica Summicrons and 35/1.4&35/1.2 Voigtländers to work without serious problems aswell.

35mm focal length seems to be the general border of what's works well of RF lenses on digital. There should be a few exceptions though, like ZM Distagons (retrofocus-designs) and some of the Cosina Voigtländer like the 21/1.8 or 28/2 might/should also perform at least better than the Biogon-counterparts due less "digital-aggressive" optical designs - maybe they are well usable. The Zeiss Hologon 16/8 works pretty well on digital Leica M so it might work well on A7 with dedicated graduated ND filter (see http://forum.mflenses.com/zeiss-hologon-16mm-gallery-t62954.html)

PS: Does anybody here know if the ZM 28/2.8 and the Contax G 28/2.8 have the same optical formula?

Last edited by ForenSeil on Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:

I expect that the 35/2 ZM Biogon and 35/2 Contax G Planar will work better than 35/2.8 Biogon/J12/C-Biogon in terms of corner issues due optical design (longer distance between rear element and sensor). I will confirm this when my A7 arrives, which should be monday or thursday according to the tracking#
I expect the 35/2 Leica Summicrons and 35/1.4&35/1.2 Voigtländers to work without serious problems as well.

I wonder how the F-Distagon would perform.
Any idea? It is an SLR lens and absolutely perfect on NEX-5N.
If it works well, I could throw away 12MP and correct the distortion Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
rbelyell wrote:
thanks nikos; white noise notwithstanding, it was obvious i meant i was interested in performance of the zm biogons. thats too bad about the 21, but i'm most interested in the 35/2 since i just traded for one. it sure is a cracking lens on my gxr.

I believe the 2/35 will perform fine.
It is an amazing lens on my NEX-5N...

That said, the Biogon 4.5/21 is also great on my NEX-5N. But seems awful on the a7r.
I can't believe the 12mm Voigtlander is better!


thx nikos! ive seen the cv15 and that looked damned good to me too.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Very nice to see how well the J-12 performs on this camera.
Thanks a lot for sharing!

Nikos wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The J12 is a Biogon Rolling Eyes

I posted a link in this thread yesterday, with a lot of ultra wides.
Unfortunately the C Biogon 21mm seems to perform really bad...

Zeiss explicit recommends to use the 21/4.5 on film only, so it doesn't wonder me at all.
rbelyell wrote:

might i ask if you have any biogons to test? i very recently traded for the 35/2 in anticipation of this camera...
tony

The 21/2.8 ZM Biogon works much better than 21/4.5 ZM Biogon on digital but it still has serious corner issues.
I've seen samples from the 25/2.8 ZM Biogon on A7 - also a lot vignetting and color shift Sad
I've also seen samples from 28/2.8 Contax G Biogon on A7r - really horrible smearing, imho not usable without crop.
The C-Biogon 35/2.8 should perform about as good as the Jupiter-12 and old 35/2.8 Biogon du similar design - I expect only slight problems

I expect that the 35/2 ZM Biogon and 35/2 Contax G Planar will work better than 35/2.8 Biogon/J12/C-Biogon in terms of corner issues due optical design (longer distance between rear element and sensor). I will confirm this when my A7 arrives, which should be monday or thursday according to the tracking#
I expect the 35/2 Leica Summicrons and 35/1.4&35/1.2 Voigtländers to work without serious problems aswell.

35mm focal length seems to be the general border of what's works well of RF lenses on digital. There should be a few exceptions though, like ZM Distagons (retrofocus-designs) and some of the Cosina Voigtländer like the 21/1.8 or 28/2 might/should also perform at least better than the Biogon-counterparts due less "digital-aggressive" optical designs - maybe they are well usable. The Zeiss Hologon 16/8 works pretty well on digital Leica M so it might work well on A7 with dedicated graduated ND filter (see http://forum.mflenses.com/zeiss-hologon-16mm-gallery-t62954.html)


well, lets hope the zm 21/2.8 works well. indeed ive seen the 28/2.8 looks awful, and that is really too bad about the 25 as i was hoping thatd be ok. ive seen samples of the cv 21/1.8 and it looked amazing.
tony


PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:

I expect that the 35/2 ZM Biogon and 35/2 Contax G Planar will work better than 35/2.8 Biogon/J12/C-Biogon in terms of corner issues due optical design (longer distance between rear element and sensor). I will confirm this when my A7 arrives, which should be monday or thursday according to the tracking#
I expect the 35/2 Leica Summicrons and 35/1.4&35/1.2 Voigtländers to work without serious problems as well.

I wonder how the F-Distagon would perform.
Any idea? It is an SLR lens and absolutely perfect on NEX-5N.
If it works well, I could throw away 12MP and correct the distortion Laughing Laughing


Any SLR Distagon should work perfect an A7/r! These are (like every SLR wide-angle lens!) retrofocus-design lenses with several cm space between rear element and sensor, so they are all completly free of any sensor-caused vignetting, smearing and color-shifting! These corner issues only occur on rangefinder/viewfinder-camera lenses!

That's why I've bought an Samyang 14/2.8 to have an good FF ultra wide angle instead of an compact rangefinder glass like 15mm Heliar - no corner problems at all, cheaper, faster and optically about as good but without corner issues on digital sensors. Only huge benfit of the Heliar would have been the size - the Samyang is rather large and heavy while the Heliar is really small (I had one, it's really VERY compact)

rbelyell wrote:


well, lets hope the zm 21/2.8 works well. indeed ive seen the 28/2.8 looks awful, and that is really too bad about the 25 as i was hoping thatd be ok. ive seen samples of the cv 21/1.8 and it looked amazing.
tony

I've just seen samples from 21/1.8 Voigtländer - it's a very crispy lens - might be an alternative aswell. Seems to work with slight-medium vignetting issues only. At least better than the 21/4.5 Biogon
Samples (last one shows most vignetting - but it's an F1.8 lens!)
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DSC00875.jpg
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DSC00878.jpg
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DSC00839.jpg

Last edited by ForenSeil on Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:49 am; edited 5 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:

Any SLR Distagon should work perfect an A7/r! These are (like every SLR wide-angle lens!) retrofocus-design lenses with several cm space between rear element and sensor, so they are completly free of any sensor-caused vignetting, smearing, color-fringing and so on! These corner issues only occur on rangefinder/viewfinder-camera lenses.

That's why I've bought an Samyang 14/2.8 to have an good FF ultra wide angle instead of an compact rangefinder glass like 15mm Heliar - no corner problems at all, cheaper, faster and optically about as good but without corner issues on digital sensors. Only benfit of the Heliar would have been the size - the Samyang is rather larger while the Heliar is really small (I had one, it's really VERY compact)

So you are telling me to get the Metabones adapter for Canon lenses...
I have a 15mm Heliar L39 too. I use it on my NEX.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Sony-NEX
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 18 of 27