Sony A7 and Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8 on CNY 2014

M

music_healing

Well-known
Local time
1:45 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
1,242
View My Gallery
Yesterday, i have a walk with a good friend, my mentor actually

He miss film, so he use my Leica M5 and Cron 35, while he gave me his Sony A7 and Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8

the deal is like shot film, we only take max of 36 frames
The setting is flat grey sky (its been raining) at 3-5 PM , inhouse is a dark smoky vihara

All these photos are straight OOC Jpeg with AWB and Auto ISO setting.. min shutter i set to 1/60 second

I use lightroom 4.4 to import the jpeg and tweak a bit in saturation (all is reduce +/- 5-10 pt)


Candles by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


God of Prosperity by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


Shrine by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


Pray CNY 2014 by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


Pray in CNY 2014 by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


Light them by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


CNY 2014 by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


DSC09058 by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr

and this is me while shooting with my M5 ... OOC BW JPEG in standard mode

Me and my big girl M5 by DRW's Daddy, on Flickr


Sincerely
William
 
what I simply analize with this lens and A7 are :
- the JPEG color is so much different with other M lens I use and the native 35 2.8 .. this lens give very warm but precise color

- A7 tend to use auto ISO to the lowest ISO possible .. thats good... when I think it will choose ISO 800, they choose ISO 400

- Zeiss FE 55mm seem to give 1 stop faster in same condition and same apperture
I compare it to M5 and other A7 with cron 35 ..

when we use other A7 and M5 in F2 @ 1/60 @ ISO 400, the zeiss 55mm will take F2 1/60 @ iso 200 or F2 1/125 ISO 400

so it basically 1 stop faster than ussual setup

- AF is fast enouigh in dark vihara and from 36 frames... I dont miss anything I want to be in focus (all shot in F1.8 to 4.0 in street) but i do shake a bit while on street (i should set it min 1/100 sec)

very good native lens for Sony A7

Sincerely
William
 
Even when I shot film I'd carry like 8 rolls with me with another dozen in the car. I don't get the whole self imposed restrictions or the notion that just because you have a digital camera you should shoot like a madman.
 
swoop said:
Even when I shot film I'd carry like 8 rolls with me with another dozen in the car. I don't get the whole self imposed restrictions or the notion that just because you have a digital camera you should shoot like a madman.
Click to expand...

actually I dont plan this little trip ..
my M5 only carry 1 neopan 400 half filled and 1 fresh tri x

🙂 its just a fun way to do it
just to be little game .. since I only give my friend +/- 36 frames .. why dont I do the same ?

its each preference how to shot .. yesterday , I simply think it will be a fair play .. 1 roll and 36 frames

Sincerely
William Jusuf
 
swoop said:
Even when I shot film I'd carry like 8 rolls with me with another dozen in the car. I don't get the whole self imposed restrictions or the notion that just because you have a digital camera you should shoot like a madman.
Click to expand...

People like to shoot differently. May I remind you of a famous quote by Orson Welles: "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." So to challenge or "limit" oneself will often bring out the best in an artist. I've adopted it as my personal mantra, and it has always worked for me. It's just another way of working.

Though, it seems obvious that the poster limited his frames for the sake of equalizing the two cameras and making the day into a fun game.
 
Samouraï said:
Great shots, Music. Could you speak more to the 35/2,8?
Click to expand...

only try it in some frames ..
it is nice ... the color of the jpeg is a bit strange (sony style that strangley gone by the zeiss 55mm)
sharp.. contrasty ... not too busy rendering of the BG ...
its an ok modern lens for my preference


But on previous occasion, in 35 mm tryout
I prefer to use the cron 35 v2 more on A7 if I go 35 mm

Maybe thats just me

Sincerely
William Jusuf
 
They say (at DXO) the 55 is the sharpest AF lens ever made by anyone.

Your wonderful shots seem to bear that out 🙂
 
music_healing said:
- Zeiss FE 55mm seem to give 1 stop faster in same condition and same apperture

Sincerely
William
Click to expand...

William
DxO test stated the T for the Zeiss (actual transmission) was same as f stop f1.8. I don't see a figure for the 'cron but that T stop is the first I have seen equalling f stop.
The Zeiss is passing more light than the 'cron. the f stops are not equivalent across lenses. (T stops are)
 
ChrisLivsey said:
William
DxO test stated the T for the Zeiss (actual transmission) was same as f stop f1.8. I don't see a figure for the 'cron but that T stop is the first I have seen equalling f stop.
The Zeiss is passing more light than the 'cron. the f stops are not equivalent across lenses. (T stops are)
Click to expand...

Basically, if I understand this correctly, the 55mm is acting more like a traditional f1.4 lens (in terms of the amount of light that is passing through it) than the f1.8 lens it is?

I've played with the lens in the store and it's a killer lens. This plus the 35mm f2.8 (which is a sonnar design I believe) really are extremely nice primes for this system.

Cheers,
Dave
 
ChrisLivsey said:
The Zeiss is passing more light than the 'cron. the f stops are not equivalent across lenses. (T stops are)
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you saying that F-number in Zeiss is f / d and something completely different in Leica?! How would F-numbers not be comparable between lenses then?

dcsang said:
This plus the 35mm f2.8 (which is a sonnar design I believe)...
Click to expand...

It's not.
 
it's actually far more likely that Sony is reporting ISO figures lower than they are in actuality.

when DxOmark got the FE55 they reported, at least on the A7r, a T value of 1.8. The problem with that is, the F value is 1.8. Or, 50 iso on the A7r could really be equivalent to ISO 75 on another camera, which is certainly possible.
 
brbo said:
Huh? Are you saying that F-number in Zeiss is f / d and something completely different in Leica?! How would F-numbers not be comparable between lenses then?



It's not.
Click to expand...

So I guess Sony (and Zeiss) may want to reconsider the naming of the lens which states "Sonnar" ?

Curious,
Dave
 
brbo said:
Huh? Are you saying that F-number in Zeiss is f / d and something completely different in Leica?! How would F-numbers not be comparable between lenses then?
Click to expand...

  • T numbers are consistent across lenses and makers f stops are not.
  • f stops may or may not be consistent across different lenses from the same maker.
  • f stops may not be exact differences within the same lens, the stop is mechanical and subject to tolerances.
  • iso as stated by the maker is not consistent across digital models.
  • The same shot taken at a given iso as RAW file will give different densities when opened with different RAW developer programs.

These are some of the reasons why comparisons are exceptionally difficult to perform to a consistent standard. Even then as with DxO and the 55mm lens the figures supplied as "fact" by makers may be economical with the truth.
The 55mm cannot have a t and f stop the same. The lens cannot transmit all the light entering it. Assuming DxO are correct then the lens is not f1.8 as stated by Zeiss it is "faster". Why they would say what they do I do not know I'm sure they have their reasons.
It may be that it is f1.6 say. That would confuse customers and they would rather state a conservative f1.8 rather than an optimistic f1.4, which some manufacturers have done in the past. Maybe it was designed as f1.8 but when built actually performed "better" than predicted but they ran with the design spec?
 
ChrisLivsey said:
The 55mm cannot have a t and f stop the same. The lens cannot transmit all the light entering it. Assuming DxO are correct then the lens is not f1.8 as stated by Zeiss it is "faster". Why they would say what they do I do not know I'm sure they have their reasons.
It may be that it is f1.6 say. That would confuse customers and they would rather state a conservative f1.8 rather than an optimistic f1.4, which some manufacturers have done in the past. Maybe it was designed as f1.8 but when built actually performed "better" than predicted but they ran with the design spec?
Click to expand...

DxO T-stops are not really T-stops. They use camera sensor to measure it so they end up sometimes with several different numbers for one lens (which does not make sense very much).
...

Nice photos, I really like the colors and drawing of the lens.
 
ChrisLivsey said:
  • T numbers are consistent across lenses and makers f stops are not.
  • f stops may or may not be consistent across different lenses from the same maker.
  • f stops may not be exact differences within the same lens, the stop is mechanical and subject to tolerances.
  • iso as stated by the maker is not consistent across digital models.
  • The same shot taken at a given iso as RAW file will give different densities when opened with different RAW developer programs.
Click to expand...

My point was that F-number is hard math and T-number is not (it's measured - with varying accuracy or "measured" in the case of DxO).

Sure, F-number (marketing) designations of a particular lens may bare more or less resemblance to real F-number of that lens, but blindly relying on T-number is just as "wrong" as F-number can be. Same T-number on two different lenses for two different systems could give a very different exposure. Just consider different edge/corner performances of two different systems, different vignetting/corner fall-off properties of two different lenses etc.
 
swoop said:
Even when I shot film I'd carry like 8 rolls with me with another dozen in the car. I don't get the whole self imposed restrictions or the notion that just because you have a digital camera you should shoot like a madman.
Click to expand...

Well said. I never understood the people who think you learn more by photographing less (with small format cameras).
 
brbo said:
blindly relying on T-number is just as "wrong" as F-number can be.
Click to expand...

We agree, as I never stated T number should be relied upon, and certainly not "blindly". As a measurement, however done, by eg DxO, provided it is consistent (and if they measure by sensor and change the sensor then it is not) then it is a "better" measurement across lenses. In still photography it has very limited application.
My intention was to disabuse the OP of the idea that simple comparisons are valid and indeed that complex ones may indeed not be a great deal better either.
None of this quantifies a lens's "character" which may well override any calculated or measured parameters.

I also agree, nice pictures 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom