behyer
Member
I know this has been discussed to some degree, but I'm looking at the question from a slightly different angle. I'm going to order an A7r shortly and am looking for the best, widest wide-angle lens. I understand that the A7r suffers from color shifting in the corners, just like the NEX-7 (I own one). I sent back a Voigtlander 15 because of it.
Also, I shoot a lot of video, so Corner Fix is not a solution.
From what I've read, all 21mm or wider lenses exhibit the same characteristic, although the Voigtlander 21/1.8 seems less so. Ken Rockwell says the 21/2.8 Zeiss is good on the M9, as it doesn't have the color shift (which means it probably won't do it on a NEX-7 or presumably an A7r either).
So the question is, which of the following lenses don't have the color shift on a NEX-7?
Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon
Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon
Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon
Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH
Anybody? Any other suggestions?
Also, I shoot a lot of video, so Corner Fix is not a solution.
From what I've read, all 21mm or wider lenses exhibit the same characteristic, although the Voigtlander 21/1.8 seems less so. Ken Rockwell says the 21/2.8 Zeiss is good on the M9, as it doesn't have the color shift (which means it probably won't do it on a NEX-7 or presumably an A7r either).
So the question is, which of the following lenses don't have the color shift on a NEX-7?
Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon
Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon
Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon
Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH
Anybody? Any other suggestions?
uhoh7
Veteran
Honestly, for video:
nFD 20/2.8
possibly:
cv 21/1.8
colorhift is a real risk with all the glass you mention.
f16sunshine
Moderator
The Biogons are all going to be suspect.
I would try and choose retro focus designs.
You may have to live with a more distortion which is more easily repaired in post than smearing and color shift.
Jockos
Well-known
There are good zuiko lenses in that range, if you don't require M-mount specifically..
uhoh7
Veteran
If you are really serious about video:
SAL1635Z + Laea4 + A7(r) gives you speed, very fast AF, and suberb still image quality as well.
an example of the incredible flexibilty of A7r as digital back.
SAL1635Z + Laea4 + A7(r) gives you speed, very fast AF, and suberb still image quality as well.
an example of the incredible flexibilty of A7r as digital back.
behyer
Member
Good points, all. I'll probably shy away from the SAL16-35Z and adapter because of the size (I have the Zeiss 16-35 for my a99), but I bet a Zuiko 21/3.5 would work. I have a Zuiko adapter too, and with the lens, it'd probably be smaller than the LAE4 alone. The CV 21/1.8 is intriguing, though. Steve Huff likes it but Ken Rockwell doesn't.
YYV_146
Well-known
KR's Voigtlander bashing is seemingly without reason. I have come to the conclusion that he simply hates the brand. The 21 1.8 is a fantastic piece of glass.
FYI the 21mm Summilux does not have corner degradation or smearing on the NEX7. I would assume that performance on the A7r would be a bit worse, certainly not as bad as the Zeiss biogon
FYI the 21mm Summilux does not have corner degradation or smearing on the NEX7. I would assume that performance on the A7r would be a bit worse, certainly not as bad as the Zeiss biogon
rscheffler
Well-known
The 21 Lux doesn't look great on the NEX-7. There is edge smearing/degradation. Probably a lot due to its significant mid zone sharpness dip. I did a 4-way comparison of it, the CV21/1.8, ZM21/2.8 and 21 SEM. On the NEX-7, I would go with the CV.
I haven't yet tried the a7R, but have tested the A7... of the RF 21s I had available (unfortunately not the CV), the Lux actually performed quite well, even better than the SEM at wider apertures, which on the M9 outclasses the Lux.
I think you're best to wait until there is some conclusive information about various RF ultra-wides on the new Sony cameras... too many conflicting reports/opinions at the moment. An SLR design will probably be a safer choice, if you can't wait that long.
I haven't yet tried the a7R, but have tested the A7... of the RF 21s I had available (unfortunately not the CV), the Lux actually performed quite well, even better than the SEM at wider apertures, which on the M9 outclasses the Lux.
I think you're best to wait until there is some conclusive information about various RF ultra-wides on the new Sony cameras... too many conflicting reports/opinions at the moment. An SLR design will probably be a safer choice, if you can't wait that long.
YYV_146
Well-known
Are you sure? I shot some MTF charts with my 21mm Summilux on the NEX-7, X-E1 and an M8. Corner results were mostly good with the NEX-7 and M8, the only camera I noticed that had significant degradation was the X-E1 (which I will be selling because of the issue). Maybe your copy has some optical issues?
BTW very nice comparison with the A7 and manual glass. It convinced me not to sell my 12mm f5.6. Looking foward to one with the A7r
Godfrey
somewhat colored
What works "best" we really can't say until someone has an A7r and tests it with all these lenses. In general FF sensors and short focal length RF lenses are problematic, and the A7r has not been specially tuned for their short mount register. Personally, I'd bet that SLR lenses adapt much more successfully to the A7r.
I would be looking for either Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5, Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8, or Super-Angulon-R 21mm f/3.4 or f/4. And in the Contax/Zeiss T* line, the Distagon T* 16mm f/2.8 and Distagon T* 18mm f/4 are also good potentials.
Ultimately, I do expect that Sony FE mount Zeiss lenses designed for the A7r will be the best performers.
G
I would be looking for either Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5, Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8, or Super-Angulon-R 21mm f/3.4 or f/4. And in the Contax/Zeiss T* line, the Distagon T* 16mm f/2.8 and Distagon T* 18mm f/4 are also good potentials.
Ultimately, I do expect that Sony FE mount Zeiss lenses designed for the A7r will be the best performers.
G