A7r with RF glass

thompsonks said:
Thx for suggestion, William! The V2 looks fine in terms of corner resolution, though maybe a bit blue in corners? I think I can borrow one from a friend to try.

Currently very happy with 40 Cron (as in the post that's 3d above).

Kirk
Click to expand...

better than all the 35 we test

cron 35 ver 1, 2 and 4 ( we choose ver 2 )
voigt 35 1.4 and 40 1.4 ( the 40 1.4 seem better overall)
hexanon uc 35 f2 (funny color though)
voigt 35 1.2 ver 1 (no no no)
canon ltm 35 1.8 and 35.2 ver 1 (35 ver 2 is better , 35 1.8 give dull color funny color ... but 35.2 is kind a soft , cron 35 v2 beat it to the ground)

well i am not expert but i choose cron 35 v2 that give overall values for the A7R

Sincerely
William
 
Hello William,

Can you please upload some full-size shots? I have a 35 Cron V3, and I can tell you the coma and smearing is not acceptable, even at f/4. I always thought that V3 and V2 are principally the same lenses, just from two different eras. All the documentation online confirms that as well. I am amazed to see V2 performs better than V3. It will be great to see some shots in larger format.

Cheers,
Mah
 
thompsonks said:
Puzzled by this entry:
"voigt 35 1.2 ver 1 (no no no),"
because v1 is supposedly identical, optically, to v2, except for coating?
What were its faults?
Kirk
Click to expand...

I simply felt the performance compared to other 35 I test , is below my expectation....
I only have ver 1 to test against all other 35 (if only have ver 2 to compare)

Sincerely
William
 
Hi Dave – Finally a 28 that works well in the corners! Were you using a large aperture?

Someone posted a 28mm Konica/Minolta in M mount for Hexar in classifieds, and I'm going to give that a try too. Hope it works out as well as your version for CLE above.
Kirk

PS, Here's another with 40 Cron. Remember Tower Records? The red and yellow sign has faded considerably in the years since they left the scene.
This is f8 and cropped a bit, but the file is sharp, with the wall textures clear all the way to the corners.

12044127726_54d4013f69_o.jpg
[/url]
Remember Tower Records? by thompsonkirk, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
This was posted in another forum but has elicited no replies as the participants are apparently too involved with in-fighting to reply 🙄

I am trying to sort out what is going on.
I was given to understand that the R version with microlenses and with the thinner cover ( no AA filter) would be more compatible with my Leica glass than the 7 with a thicker cover glass and no microlenses. Looking here at 28mm and wider where my M8, not being FF is letting me down.
It seems the other way around, or is it unbalanced reports I read, surely the pixel density increase does not more than cancel out those advantages or are they spurious ?
Also looking to use Nikon manual primes but the concerns are less, other than the inevitable weeding out of the weak and feeble.

I do not care whether I have 24 or 36 MP, or a noisier shutter, or more magnesium, or more fps, just the "best" option for wider glass. Thank you, I already know the best option for Leica wides is an M9 or an M240 obviously. So shall we agree I am looking for second best?
 
Chris, very briefly, the A7 is better for wide-angle, short flange distance lenses.
Both cameras are sufficiently capable of wide angle SLR flange distance lenses.

Now, I just got my Techart V2 AF adapter, and slapped the Contax G Biogon 28mm f2.8 on it and used the lens compensation app that I roughly threw some settings into while at the office (note i'm going to try to get a better setting made with more appropriate lighting etc)


Sony A7R - Contax G Biogon 28mm f2.8 Test by lamlux.net, on Flickr
 
Good – another 28 that seems OK in corners.

IMO best test is 2 shots: one of an OOF gray card or something of constant tone, to see if corners are discolored; and another of a brick wall, to see if corners are mushy/smeared.

Kirk
 
lam said:
Chris, very briefly, the A7 is better for wide-angle, short flange distance lenses.
Both cameras are sufficiently capable of wide angle SLR flange distance lenses.
Click to expand...

Very much appreciated. It is looking that software fixes can largely negate the issues other than "smearing".

Kirk, The use of a translucent sheet for looking at the lens cast/vignetting is best, as used by large format and shift Digital users to make a LCC. Lens cast correction shot in eg Capture One, Lightroom as well I think but not my program.
 
Yeah, I went from using "Lens Compensation" app within the Sony camera to Lightroom 5's "Flat Field" Plug-in and it's producing dramatically better results, like Chris mentions, using a translucent material (my case a plastic bag) and getting exposure to almost clip in the center gave me a very good "external" profile DNG for me to base my corrections on.

It's seemless now, since I don't use Lightroom other than the plugin, rest is in Camera RAW (CS6), of course no worthwhile day shots today to show this..

Here's some from tonight.

Contax G 28mm f2.8 on A7R


Cold light. by lamlux.net, on Flickr


Advertising reluctance. by lamlux.net, on Flickr
 
My only complaint about a7's IQ, and I am happy it has been pointed out very clearly in the review, is the [lossy] compressed RAW. This results in harsh gradients, and sometimes posterization, in the zones of smooth transition from highlight to shadow. This is rarely visible in color shots (I have seen it a couple of times though) unless if one looks at the file channel by channel, in which case it can be seen most of the time. Now if you think this is being picky, try to apply a color filter for B&W conversion where you fetch most of the image data from one channel, and it is almost sure you will see it at least in one shot over too. Although I am pleased with this camera in general, I am very highly disappointed by B&W performance. I love B&W and I think it should be possible to shoot excellent B&Ws on a camera at this price level. My fuji point and shoot makes better B&Ws with in-camera jpegs, although it's image quality suffers in many other areas.
 
mszargar said:
My only complaint about a7's IQ, and I am happy it has been pointed out very clearly in the review, is the compressed RAW. This results in harsh gradients, and sometimes posterization, in the zones of smooth transition from highlight to shadow. This is rarely visible in color shots (I have seen it a couple of times though) unless if one looks at the file channel by channel, in which case it can be seen most of the time. Now if you think this is being picky, try to apply a color filter for B&W conversion where you fetch most of the image data from one channel, and it is almost sure you will see it at least in one shot over too. Although I am pleased with this camera in general, I am very highly disappointed by B&W performance. I love B&W and I think it should be possible to shoot excellent B&Ws on a camera at this price level. My fuji point and shoot makes better B&Ws with in-camera jpegs, although it's image quality suffers in many other areas.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what most of that means, but I do understand the need for acceptable to stunning B&W photos. From any source.
Perhaps, should I jump on the Sony FF bandwagon, I shall use digital for color and continue to use the real monochrome sensors for black & white.

Wayne
 
Sony A7r plus some oldies but goodies - LTM & M lenses

Sony A7r plus some oldies but goodies - LTM & M lenses

Last night a friend handed me his hours old Sony A7r with Leica M adapter in place. I had been forewarned to expect this event and came prepared with a few lenses.
The location and lighting was horrid. A burger joint in Houston with harsh, bright floodlights in spots and Black Holes in between. I knew nothing about the handling of the camera. Exposure was set to manual. I never did see any indication of meter readout in the viewfinder. Exposure was by guesstimate after fact looking at the TV screen on the back of the camera. I eventually got close to passable exposures with a bit of trial and error.
Lenses used in focal length order:
Konica M-Hexanon 28mm/f:2.8.
Canon 35mm/f:2.8. The mid-50s, tiny, chrome on brass lens that I have owned for decades.
Leitz Dual Range Summicron 50mm/f:2.0. 'Nuff said.
Leitz Elmarit-M 90mm/f:2.8. Last version. Perfect paired with the D.R. Summicron.

Cliff's Notes Summary:
I only had time to look briefly at the SOOC JPEG files after I got home last night. Exposure & focus glitches aside (purely the result of operator error), I didn't see ANY of the JUNK that y'all have been fussing about for weeks RE: A7r & rangefinder lenses.
Konica M-Hexanon 28mm/f:2.8: Encouraging results. Warrants proper evaluation under normal conditions.
Canon 35mm/f:2.8: Very pleasantly surprised. One more time. Very pleasantly surprised.
Dual Range Summicron 50mm/f:2.0: Wide open. Minimum focus distance - 18". Goggles not required to get to 18" either. Imminently usable on the Sony A7r.
Leitz Elmarit-M 90mm/f:2.8, last version: O. M. G. I am Gobsmacked, as our cousins across various seas would say, by this lens. Counting threads on camera bags, hats and purses from 10 feet away. Now I know what some people mean by "Sharp enough to make your eyes bleed." Transitions from out to in to out of focus is very nice as well.
Standing by for evaluation:
My small, but worthy, collection of Canon FD lenses.
Bottom line: I want one. A7r. Pending an outdoor, daytime, properly exposed evaluation of the 28mm & 35mm rangefinder lenses in my collection.

My bank account could be in serious danger.

Wayne
 
venchka said:
... Exposure & focus glitches aside (purely the result of operator error), I didn't see ANY of the JUNK that y'all have been fussing about for weeks ...
Click to expand...

I am happy you liked it. It is a fantastic camera, specially at that price point. If somebody asks me what I don't like about my a7, I will have very little to say. But if I try hard, I can come up with some. But before we get to that, you should know that you have tried all the lenses that actually work. All RF lenses longer than 50 work superbly on a7 (and r) to my best knowledge. All 50s work as well, with the exception of some old designs. I have the C Sonnar (a classic design) and it is pretty good on a7, but it was spectacular on M9. All the DSLR lenses should work on the a7/r, even the super-wide ones, at least theoretically there is no reason they don't. And finally your Rokkor 28 is one of the wide RF lenses that works particularly well on the a7. Not all of them do. Even my Cron 35 v3 has a very suboptimal performance. Down to f/4 it is unusable.

For the complaints, I will probably write my mini-review of the camera tonight on my photoblog. I will post a link here afterwards. I will be focused more on usability than on pixel-peeping.
 
Clarification

Clarification

I was using the Sony A7r not the A7.
My 28mm lens is the Konica M-Hexanon 28/2.8. Not the Rokkor that people have shown to work well on the Sony cameras.
The next time that I see my friend and his Sony A7r, I will have my other rangefinder lenses with me: 35mm/2.0 UC-Hexanon, 50mm/1.4 & 85mm/2.0 Nikkor and 135mm/3.5 Canon. All in LTM. Should be fun and informative.
Cheers.

Wayne

mszargar said:
I am happy you liked it. It is a fantastic camera, specially at that price point. If somebody asks me what I don't like about my a7, I will have very little to say. But if I try hard, I can come up with some. But before we get to that, you should know that you have tried all the lenses that actually work. All RF lenses longer than 50 work superbly on a7 (and r) to my best knowledge. All 50s work as well, with the exception of some old designs. I have the C Sonnar (a classic design) and it is pretty good on a7, but it was spectacular on M9. All the DSLR lenses should work on the a7/r, even the super-wide ones, at least theoretically there is no reason they don't. And finally your Rokkor 28 is one of the wide RF lenses that works particularly well on the a7. Not all of them do. Even my Cron 35 v3 has a very suboptimal performance. Down to f/4 it is unusable.

For the complaints, I will probably write my mini-review of the camera tonight on my photoblog. I will post a link here afterwards. I will be focused more on usability than on pixel-peeping.
Click to expand...
 
I bought an A7 (not A7r) almost specifically for use with my Leica R and Nikkor lenses, but have just ordered an M-mount to NEX adapter. I will evaluate using it with all of my M-mount lenses over the next few weeks, after the adapter arrives:

Color Skopar 21mm f/4
Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5
Ultron 28mm f/2
Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5
M-Rokkor 40mm f/2
Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC
Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5
Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM)
M-Rokkor 90mm f/4
Hektor 135mm f/4.5

I specifically bought the A7 rather than the A7r because I feel the 24 Mpixel sensor is likely to be a better match to my R and Nikkor lenses, as well as to more of my M-mount lenses. I don't expect the 21/28/35 Color Skopars will fare all that well ... the short register and near symmetric formula is usually difficult with adaptation. I expect the Ultron 28, Nokton 40, and longer focal lengths to work well. Of course, I'll post results as they come.

So far, I've briefly tried the A7 with Summicron-R 90/2, Summilux-R 50/1.4, Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 and Nikkor-H 85/1.8 lenses. All of them seem to work very nicely, and that lovely Leica Look™ is very evident in the test photos made with the 90 and 50. I will at some point more formally test these lenses by doing paired shooting with both a Leicaflex SL and the A7 so as to isolate what the lens native behavior on film is and compare it with its behavior on the A7 sensor. I'll do similarly with the Nikkors.

This should be a fun adventure. 🙂

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
836
Jason Schneider
J
TenEleven
  • Sticky
TenEleven's Zeiss Contax (I, II, IIa) Lens Compendium
2 3
Replies
55
Views
13K
davidswiss
D
Back
Top Bottom