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

42 MP FF: Leica 1.4/35, Zeiss FE 2.8/35 and MD 2.8/35
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:14 pm    Post subject: 42 MP FF: Leica 1.4/35, Zeiss FE 2.8/35 and MD 2.8/35 Reply with quote
Yesterday i had the opportunity to compare three classical 35 mm lenses, using the 42 MP Sony A7RII as a test camera:

* Minolta MD 2.8/35mm (1981, MD-III)
* Leica Summilux-M ASPH 1.4/35mm (1994/2010)
* Sony Zeiss Sonnar FE 2.8/35mm (2013)

I have published the results here on my website:
http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/434-sony-a7rii-and-summilux-1-4-35mm-asph-sony-zeiss-fe-2-8-35mm-and-minolta-md-2-8-35mm

Not completely surprising, the cheap Minolta MD gave the best results, closely followed by the Sony Zeiss ZE 2.8/35mm. The Leica Summilux doesn't work well with the A7RII; obvioulsy Sony has kept the thick filter pack in front of the sensor which causes corner problems for symmetrical wide-angles (unless they are specifically designed for the A7-series).

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thats pretty convincing.
Good test.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IMHO the Minolta is far better than the Leica there in perfomance, infact i would say the minolta is the best of the bunch when cost is considered


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent work and clear result. I am glad to have the winner in my collection.
Merci vielmals. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting to see the heavy color aliasing on the roof (upper right corner) wih the A7RII. Long live the Bayer-Pattern... Wink


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quite a big surprise, even if I love Minolta pretty much , was better than Zeiss. Thank you for sharing!


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice work! These are the first 100% crops that I've seen with Sony's 42mp sensor. It's simply hard to believe the resolution at 100%! (I can't hide in the shadows anymore.)


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
obvioulsy Sony has kept the thick filter pack in front of the sensor which causes corner problems for symmetrical wide-angles


There are upgrades to a thinner filter stack you can have done by Kolarivision (http://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-series-thin-filter-legacy-lens-upgrade/) but I don't think they are offering the A7rII upgrades as yet.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow i'm suprinsed by the performance in term of sharpness of the sony fe compared to the old minolta MD.

Did you have other shoots of sonnar vs minolta please ?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thebbm wrote:
Wow i'm suprinsed by the performance in term of sharpness of the sony fe compared to the old minolta MD.

Did you have other shoots of sonnar vs minolta please ?


I have repeated the series three times (only one of them shown in my website), and the results were always the same. A few remarks, though, in English:

1) All 100% crops shown are JPGs directly out of camera => RAWs will give more detail, and i hope to have time for RAW conversion during the weekend
2) I have used the A7RII with auto-correction; thus the A7RII removes CAs and distortion, and reduces aberrations and vignetting of the Sonnar FE 2.8/35mm. Obvioulsy, the results are very uniform from f2.8 to f11 (i would even say "boring"), but - as a result of these corrections by software - the Zeiss 2.8/35mm JPGs seem to loose details. I think - but this is nothing than speculation - that without these corrections the Sony Zeiss FE 2.8/35mm would be crispier.
3) i don't own the Sonnar 2.8/35mm, since my first tests on the A7R (2014) came to same conclusion: not better than the MD 2.8/35mm
=> i cannot provide you with other shoots "Sonnar FE 2.8/35 vs Minolta MD 2.8/35"

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok no problem.
Thank you for the detailled answer.

The sonnar was on my wish list (specially for the autofocus) but maybe it did'nt worth the price compared to some older lenses and thus i already own ( leica r 35mm , sony fe 28-70mm zoom kit)


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thebbm wrote:
Ok no problem.
Thank you for the detailled answer.

The sonnar was on my wish list (specially for the autofocus) but maybe it did'nt worth the price compared to some older lenses and thus i already own ( leica r 35mm , sony fe 28-70mm zoom kit)


The Sony Zeiss Sonnar FE 2.8/35mm feels quite "cheap" in my hands: lots of plastic, very small an lightweight, and an awkward design. A strange lens. Ir simply doesn't feel like 800 CHF / EUR / USD.
The Sony Zeiss FE 1.8/55mm, however, is well built (metal), and wide open it's much better than corresponding vintage lenses.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I own the Sonnar FE and the Rokkor MD W (5 elements) but I use them only on a Sony A7 ( I make only raw wo corrections)
On this camera my conclusion is that the Sonnar is not really sharper than the MD . A f2.8 it is nevertheless better out of the center.
The rendition of the Sonnar is really more crispy due to very good micro contrasts. In my opinion the Sonnar is a superior lens on the A7.

It might be different on the A7r II .

PS: the Sonnar is made of metal


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:

...
PS: the Sonnar is made of metal


Hmm ... really? The immediate feeling - whenever i had it in my hands - was clearly "plastic" (outer barrel). Comparing the two lenses directly side by side, the outer barrel of the FE Sonnar 1.8/55mm feels "cold" and "metallic" while the 35mm Sonnar feels "warm" and "plastic-like".


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm sorry,
but the test may well be highly misleading, due to the frame chosen. I would not base any opinion on it.

The fact that you show the MD beating the FE 35 should raise alarm bells, since the FE35 is the sharpest 35 on every A7 until this one by a good margin.

A proper test shot with the Sony is very simple to make but few seem to make them. I've seen many "test" shots like this since the start of the A7 line, and they are worse than inconclusive, but can quite often mislead because of the innate FC caused by the thick glass over the sony sensor.

Basically:we need an infinity landscape with distant details across the frame, the foreground needs to be at least a distance where infinity focus really has come into effect.

For example:

L1020950 by unoh7, on Flickr

Even that foreground is too close, but since we have distant details in the upper right corner, we can judge the lens very well. It's also a great help that the lens, ZM 35/2 on M9 has a positive infinity stop, which is where it is set.

Once you have a proper frame, you will need to specify the focus point and perhaps shoot a pair at each aperture with focus alternatively in the center and at or near the edge, this because the Sony cover glass tends to create field curvature at 35mm. Just finding a critical focus without the stop is not easy, and variation will skew results.

Taking the time to really do it right is fairly painful, but not doing so is why we have so many conflicting views of how Sonys perform.

Here is another test shot I used to see how the Kolari mod was working:


a7M_M28E_f28 (1 of 1)-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

Also not a perfect test subject, but fine to judge WA performance on a Sony sensor.

So, OP, please try again Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stevemark will answer better than me but his test seems to be run at infinity focus ( small yellow square on the picture)
It is important to test those WA on the A7 at infinity because we need the closest position to the sensor for maximum incidence.
But with my 35mm at 2.8 on an A7 at 25m distance , the focus position is already at infinity.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks again for the test Steve.

Slightly off topic, but then again... Is there a difference in the optics between the MD-III 35/2.8 and the MD-II W. Rokkor 35/2.8?


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
I'm sorry,
but the test may well be highly misleading, due to the frame chosen. I would not base any opinion on it.

???
uhoh7 wrote:

The fact that you show the MD beating the FE 35 should raise alarm bells, since the FE35 is the sharpest 35 on every A7 until this one by a good margin. A proper test shot with the Sony is very simple to make but few seem to make them.

So you know the result before making the test?
Did you read the text where i wrote that
1) ... all images are JPGs "out of cam"
2) ... the aberration / distortion correction of the A7RII was "on"
3) ... therefore the Sony Zeiss 2.8/35mm JPGs loose detail because of the distortion correction
4) ... i'll try to convert the RAWs this weekend (without distortion corrction of course), and see if they have more detail

Of course i've written this in German language - but if you can't read it then, please, do not rant and rave about what i've published ... Wink

uhoh7 wrote:

I've seen many "test" shots like this since the start of the A7 line, and they are worse than inconclusive, but can quite often mislead because of the innate FC caused by the thick glass over the sony sensor.

Which lens does have "field curvature caused by the thick glass over the sony sensor"? The Sony Zeiss FE 2.8/35 or the Minolta MD 2.8/35?
* The Sony Zeiss FE 2.8/35mm lens was calculated including the sensor cover glass, therefore the glass should not decrease its performance
* The Minolta MD 2.8/35mm is obviously a retrofocus design of relatively low speed; its exit pupil has enough distance from the sensor, and in practise it will not be influenced by the sensor glass as well.

uhoh7 wrote:

Basically:we need an infinity landscape with distant details across the frame, the foreground needs to be at least a distance where infinity focus really has come into effect.
...
Even that foreground is too close, but since we have distant details in the upper right corner, we can judge the lens very well.

That's exactly what i did Wink

uhoh7 wrote:

It's also a great help that the lens, ZM 35/2 on M9 has a positive infinity stop, which is where it is set.

I don't understand what you mean ... and i've never been working with the ZM 2/35mm, by the way. Why do you talk about the ZM 2/35mm ?

uhoh7 wrote:

Once you have a proper frame, you will need to specify the focus point and perhaps shoot a pair at each aperture with focus alternatively in the center and at or near the edge, this because the Sony cover glass tends to create field curvature at 35mm. Just finding a critical focus without the stop is not easy, and variation will skew results.

Very complicated description.
The Sony Zeiss 2.8/35mm does include the sensor glass in its optical construction; therefore it should not have field curvature caused by the sensor glass (yes, i personally know the chief designer of the current Sony lenses, and yes, i have discussed exactly this topic back in 2011 (!) with Sony representatives here in Zurich/Switzerland).

Considering my tests, I just have
1) put the clock tower in the center of the frame
2) focused the lenses in the center (clock-tower),
3) and then re-composed the frame, so that the clock-tower is in the extreme corner.

Very simple, actually, and basically the same as you suggested ...


uhoh7 wrote:

Taking the time to really do it right is fairly painful, but not doing so is why we have so many conflicting views of how Sonys perform.

Again, i don't understand what you mean. If i do landscape work with the main part of the subject in the "infinity" range, i should be able to focus in the center, and the corners should be razor sharp as well (no field curvature, almost no aberrations). If i focus in the center, and the coners are either out of focus (bcause of field curvature) or smeared (because of aberrations), the lens is not good. [/quote]

uhoh7 wrote:

So, OP, please try again Smile

There's no reason to "try again" Wink ...

As i told you, i have ...
1) put the clock-tower to the center of the frame
2) focused (clock tower)
3) re-composed the image, now putting the clock-tower to the corner
4) taken the photo

What would, you have done, instead?

Steve


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
VLR wrote:
Thanks again for the test Steve.

Slightly off topic, but then again... Is there a difference in the optics between the MD-III 35/2.8 and the MD-II W. Rokkor 35/2.8?


If you look at the published optical design of the three lenses (MD-i, MD-II and MD-III) there's no obvious difference. I don't own the MD-II, but i've quickly compared the MD-I and the MD-III. If focus in the image center to "infinity", the MD-I corners are slightly worse than the MD-III corners. If i focus the corners themselves, they are identical, but of course the center sharpness varies slightly.

In my tests, i've seen several times that the image quality improves from MD-I/II to MD-III (or even within MD-III!!). Sometimes this is due to a new construction (MD 4.5/75-200 => MD4/70-210, and the two versions of MD 35-105), sometimes because of new glass (MD-II 35-70 => MD-III 35-70). Maybe also lower tolerances / better quality control ??

The early 7-lens design of the MC-X 2.8/35mm (#73 at Dennis' Lens List), however, has a more pronounced field curvature: If i focus in the center, the corners will loose detail. If i focus in the corners, they are very good (as good as with the MD-III), but the center is not sharp any more.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

What would, you have done, instead?

Steve


I would have taken a shot with equally distant details in the center, foreground, edges and at least one corner. These details need to be a bit further away. In your environment, I would look for a roof top over-looking a large square. I would set the lower edge of the frame at the opposite end of the square. If it's a hill over looking a city, that's even better.

Sorry if I've offended you, but your test shot is not good for the sony issues. G knows I've seen and made very many myself. Perhaps you get off your high horse you might learn. Or you already know it all?

Sincerely,
Your bleeding messenger. Wink

I was looking for some good ones with the new Batis and came across the most entertaining review of the A7r2 I've yet seen:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/izumiflowers/20325321840/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1