35mm M-mount lens for the A7II

jc48375

jc48375

Changstein
Local time
6:05 PM
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
74
I am looking for a 35mm M-mount lens to go with the A7ii.

I have been very fond of the Zeiss 50mm Sonnar ZM and would like to explore the 35mm Biogon f/2.0

All the reviews have raved about that lens' performance, however, a few here and there will mention issues such as purple fringing at the extreme corners.

Has anyone here had the same combination and share your experience of the 35mm f/2.0 Biogon ZM on an a7 or a7II?

Or would you go to a Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 for the same price? Obviously, the best choice in this focal length category could be the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4.. But that's $2,300...

What are your thoughts, opinions and recommendations?

cheers
 
I am waiting for the mail to deliver to me my Biogon 35/2. I suspect that there is a need to code the lens or at least set the lens identification to "pre-asph Summilux" on the M9. I have no idea what you would do with your A7II.
 
The 35mm F1.2 performs better on E-mount bodies. The biogon is fine, but with an A7ii the 35 1.2 will balance better and perform better between f2.8 and f5.6.
 
YYV_146 said:
The 35mm F1.2 performs better on E-mount bodies. The biogon is fine, but with an A7ii the 35 1.2 will balance better and perform better between f2.8 and f5.6.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply;

How would the two lenses perform at f/2.0 on the a7II?

Cheers
 
Actually the ZM35/2 I do not consider usable on any A7 camera without the Kolari mod.

There are 3 35s I know which are OK, still not like a M240:

CV 35/1.2
Leica 35 FLE
and wait for it.....
CV 35/1.4 (no kidding)
 
FWIW, the ZM 35/1.4 has edge smearing problems at farther focusing distances (this is different from the color shift problem) that prevents it from reaching its full potential on Sony a7 series cameras compared to Leica digital M. Having the a7 sensor modified by Kolari Vision brings performance to a similar level as Leica digital M.

I did some comparisons at infinity focus of numerous rangefinder lenses on the first generation a7 cameras, including the ZM 35/2 and 35/2.8 and CV 35/1.2 II. I don't remember exactly how the 35/2 performed, but as already stated by Victor, the 35/1.2 is one of the better 35mm rangefinder lenses on unmodified a7 series cameras. In case you're not familiar with the edge smearing problem, it's worst at infinity and gradually lessens by some degree, depending on each lens, at nearer distances. It will generally be the most noticeable in situations where subject distance is relatively far and you want good sharpness across the frame. It's less of a concern if the subject doesn't fill the frame and the foreground/background is out of focus around the edges.

The comparison I posted on my blog (a7S test or a7R test) will give you an idea of how bad the edge smearing is at infinity, but doesn't really give you much of an impression about lens rendering in many other situations.

The new CV 35/1.7 is potentially another option. I've been using one now for over a week and am quite impressed with it on Leica digital M. It's very sharp and extremely good across the frame only a couple stops down. Rendering-wise it doesn't quite have the Zeiss punch or Leica richness out of the box, but for the price is very impressive. But some early results I've seen on Sony a7 series cameras hint at edge smearing problems.
 
Ron has a great point about the new ultron, but the jury is out so far.

No RF 35 can touch the FE 35/2.8 on a stock Sony. It's way better.

With the Kolari Mod, even the ZM 35/2 even becomes quite decent.
 
Out of curiosity... What about the loxia lens line on the a7 family.. I think of it as a compriomise between the size of rf lens w/ a lens designed for the a7 but still retains the mf feel of old rf lenses. Would this be a better choice for the op?

Btw..only native lens I own for the a7 is the Sony/zeiss 35f2.8 af. Most of my legacy rf lenses have some issue w/ vignetting, smearing or color shift starting wider than 40mm. All but smearing can be corrected by post processing.

Starting w/ the nex5n, I have always used the Sony e mount cameras as my universal back to play around w/ legacy lenses.

Gary
 
jc48375 said:
Thanks for the reply;

How would the two lenses perform at f/2.0 on the a7II?

Cheers
Click to expand...

some smearing with the Biogon. Depends on your use case but I wouldn't care. The 35 1.2 is better but the lens is not very sharp even at F2 anyways.
 
GaryLH said:
Out of curiosity... What about the loxia lens line on the a7 family.. I think of it as a compriomise between the size of rf lens w/ a lens designed for the a7 but still retains the mf feel of old rf lenses. Would this be a better choice for the op?

Gary
Click to expand...
Gary, as you know, the Loxia 35/2 is the ZM35/2 adjusted for the Sony Sensor.

It's a little controversial, with lovers and those who say meh. It is not at the level of the ZM 35/2 on an M9 or 240, but it is pretty good. Close looks show the FE 35/2.8 superior.

The Loxia 50 has more consistent high reviews.
 
uhoh7 said:
Actually the ZM35/2 I do not consider usable on any A7 camera without the Kolari mod.

There are 3 35s I know which are OK, still not like a M240:

CV 35/1.2
Leica 35 FLE
and wait for it.....
CV 35/1.4 (no kidding)
Click to expand...

Well - if the CV 35/1.4 is viable, there is no reason to turn it down.

can you compare and contrast the differences between the 1.2 vs 1.4 version? Is the barrel distortion really visibly disturbing with the 1.4?
 
Unless you want the M-mount in order to also use it on M-mount cameras, you should probably get the Loxia if you want manual focus, or the FE 35/2.8 Sonnar if you want AF. Nothing adapted comes close. The Loxia is exactly the Biogon ZM 35/2 but adjusted for Sony sensors.

Here is a review of the Loxia, with some comparison material with the ZM Biogon 35/2, the FE Sonnar 35/2.8 and the ZM Distagon 35/1.4.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-loxia-biogon-352-review/
 
jc48375 said:
Well - if the CV 35/1.4 is viable, there is no reason to turn it down.

can you compare and contrast the differences between the 1.2 vs 1.4 version? Is the barrel distortion really visibly disturbing with the 1.4?
Click to expand...

The CV 35/1.4 should be awful on all of them, but it was even decent on the original A7r:


cv 35/1.4 by unoh7, on Flickr

Of course it's good in a situation like this, like many RF 35s: central subject, edges immaterial. These sort of shots are often used as "proof" a lens works on the A7. They are true but useless as a test for the real issues.


cv 35 1.4 by unoh7, on Flickr

Now here is something we can really look at, though still not an optimal test shot. This is at 5.6 or 8. First look, you think ahhhh! But a close look will show some wavy rez across the frame.

What we have here is a quirky lens meeting a quirky sensor in a way which is more or less positive. The A7r kind of likes the CV 35/1.4 quirks.

a better test of A7r, unmodified at f/8:

cv3514f8 by unoh7, on Flickr
How should the lens really perform?


DSC02987 by unoh7, on Flickr
Here it is in a true test shot (for sony issues) on the A7.mod, that is, an A7 with the thick cover glass stripped by Kolari and replaced with thinner glass.
This is a very sharp lens at f/8. Pretty even too.

It has huge barrel distortion on every camera, but this is really a non-issue as there are profiles for the lens in Lightroom which adjust the distortion in a click.

Compared to 35/1.2? Well I'd take the 1.4, because having the 1.2 (which I own, love and often use) on the camera is like carrying two cameras. Handling is terrible. For IQ, the 1.4 should be better at f/8: it is on the M9. But the Sonys do like the the CV 35/1.2 family well, here it is on a stock A7 at around f/8 or 5.6:


DSC02304 by unoh7, on Flickr

How do we look at these? Go to the flickr fulls and pan across the frames center to edge. Edges are the main issues, as corners can vary with design even on a M body. If the edge seems great we have to check the center carefully, as it may be because of the focus.

No reliable infinity stop is a huge bugaboo for testing. "Smearing" is a very misleading way to describe the Sony issues: because it is not smearing at all, it's a field curve. Than means you can cure a smeared edge: just focus on it. But now the center is gone :(

That last shot is pretty good, a very close look shows the "smear" on the ridgeline as you approach the edge. It does the same thing on the M9 LOL

Who cares? Well why even pick a great lens if you don't care about performance? The designers work hard, and I like to see the lens showing it. Any landscape shooter cares.

One other note: the A7 and A7II sensors are supposedly the same. Much better than the A7r. However the A7rII is a new sensor, which still smears, but is much better with color shift. The A7S has huge pixels which are more forgiving, but still the smearing happens.

Kolari Mods are available for all these cameras. I would like someday a A7s with the Kolari, as a dedicated low light shooter. That camera has the best high ISO performance of any FF by a light year. The new Leica Q, which is well ahead of all the other Sony A7 series fro ISO, still is not close to the A7s in this regard, but of course it has many more pixels. The Q also has a much better EVF than the Sonys and better AF as well.
 
uhoh7 said:
The CV 35/1.4 should be awful on all of them, but it was even decent on the original A7r:





It has huge barrel distortion on every camera, but this is really a non-issue as there are profiles for the lens in Lightroom which adjust the distortion in a click.

Compared to 35/1.2? Well I'd take the 1.4, because having the 1.2 (which I own, love and often use) on the camera is like carrying two cameras. Handling is terrible. For IQ, the 1.4 should be better at f/8: it is on the M9. But the Sonys do like the the CV 35/1.2 family well, here it is on a stock A7 at around f/8 or 5.6:



One other note: the A7 and A7II sensors are supposedly the same. Much better than the A7r. However the A7rII is a new sensor, which still smears, but is much better with color shift. The A7S has huge pixels which are more forgiving, but still the smearing happens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for such extensive writing, images and detailed reasoning.. I truly appreciate all of your efforts. Looks like, unless I am going to modify my a7II, my best options would be the VC 1.2 or Nokton 1.4...

cheers,
 
cpc said:
Unless you want the M-mount in order to also use it on M-mount cameras, you should probably get the Loxia if you want manual focus, or the FE 35/2.8 Sonnar if you want AF. Nothing adapted comes close. The Loxia is exactly the Biogon ZM 35/2 but adjusted for Sony sensors.

Here is a review of the Loxia, with some comparison material with the ZM Biogon 35/2, the FE Sonnar 35/2.8 and the ZM Distagon 35/1.4.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-loxia-biogon-352-review/
Click to expand...

I would like to have one lens to switch between a film and a digital body. So a rangefinder lens it has to be.

thank you -
 
uhoh7 said:
Gary, as you know, the Loxia 35/2 is the ZM35/2 adjusted for the Sony Sensor.

It's a little controversial, with lovers and those who say meh. It is not at the level of the ZM 35/2 on an M9 or 240, but it is pretty good. Close looks show the FE 35/2.8 superior.

The Loxia 50 has more consistent high reviews.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update

Gary
 
anyone tried the canon 35/2 ltm on the a7?
considering cost and size, it will be a great fit if there isn't any major issue.
 
I understand the the A7rII is very good with RF lenses, but this post is talking about older cameras that weren't as good as the now discontinued A7s.

I know all these cameras can be helped with the Kolari mod for $400. But with the A7rII out and everyone taking orders for the A7sii I would like to know if the new cameras help solve old Sony A7x problems with RF lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom