Which mirrorless system for native lenses?

[Dante_Stella]

Fuji X with a bullet for stills (unless you have an M240 and some top-flight lenses).

For video, the NEX.

Dante

 

[Godfrey]

...
Of course if you already own a bunch of third-party lenses the availbility of very inexpensive adapters make trying adapted lenses tempting. And you can easily find scores of outstanding photographs made with adapted lenses. But the same is so for the native lenses as well.

And there's the rub ...

I'm breaking my own considered thought and looking into acquiring a Sony A7 because I have a bunch of very nice Leica R lenses that need a digital body to work with them.

My notion is that the A7 sensor is more forgiving than the A7r sensor—R lenses seem to perform well with it. Widest I have is a 24mm, the rest are 50mm and up.

I'll report if/when I get a camera and adapter set up and see what the results look like. These lovely old lenses are too good to relegate to just film as I don't have enough time to shoot and process film so much these days. I've used these lenses on the Olympus E-M1 with good results, but it's not ideal; I'm missing the magic that they provide with 24x36 format, and the Olympus/Panasonic-Leica FT and mFT lenses work better for that format.

Another great adventure... 🙂

G

 

[TKH]

Fuji no doubt.

 

[redisburning]

Zeiss' new lenses for the Sony FE mount are significantly better (and upmarket) than the other mirrorless systems IMO

 

[Godfrey]

Zeiss' new lenses for the Sony FE mount are significantly better (and upmarket) than the other mirrorless systems IMO

There are currently only three, and the zoom is only just "very good" from what I've seen. The 35 and 55 seem very very good to excellent, but are they really much better performers than the corresponding M.Zuiko 12/2, M.Zuiko 12-40/2.8, M.Zuiko 17/1.8, Pana-Leica Summilux 25/1.4, M, M.Zuiko 45/1.8, Nocticron 42.5/1.2, Macro-Elmarit 45/2.8, or M.Zuiko 75/1.8 ... and others? Never mind some of the superb Fuji lenses for the X system. That's a very hard call ... Once at the quality level of these lenses, better generally translates more into "a rendering you prefer" rather than technical numbers. There's very little to not like about the Summilux 25, M-E 45, or M.Z 75 from what I see using them.

Perhaps I'll find out sometime soon, but my initial interest in the Sony A7 body is as my "digital Leicaflex SL" body for the 21st Century. It's hard to fault the quality of even my older generation Leica R lenses, never mind the more recent models from the 1990s. I have five Leica R lenses from 50mm to 180mm to work with, and if they perform as well with the A7 body as they do with the SL body on film, I'll be delighted.

G

 

[Rob-F]

As an owner of the Fuji X100 and X10: Without having looked at the models listed, I would probably stay with Fuji for the great results I am getting, unless I saw something that changed my mind.

 

[redisburning]

There are currently only three, and the zoom is only just "very good" from what I've seen. The 35 and 55 seem very very good to excellent, but are they really much better performers than the corresponding M.Zuiko 12/2, M.Zuiko 12-40/2.8, M.Zuiko 17/1.8, Pana-Leica Summilux 25/1.4, M, M.Zuiko 45/1.8, Nocticron 42.5/1.2, Macro-Elmarit 45/2.8, or M.Zuiko 75/1.8 ... and others?

G

Yes.

hold output size constant, and yes they are. obviously they cover much larger image circles. and they are some of the best full frame optics ever created.

there is no replacement for displacement. or for any company's ability to make lenses better if they cost more.

ps the 55 is not 'excellent', it is nearly the best ever in the focal length from a number's standpoint. MTF numbers are reportedly superior to the Lux ASPH at every equivalent aperture.

 

[Godfrey]

...ps the 55 is not 'excellent', it is nearly the best ever in the focal length from a number's standpoint. MTF numbers are reportedly superior to the Lux ASPH at every equivalent aperture.

Numbers alone rarely tell anyone how good a lens is. Imaging qualities are far more complex than an MTF graph can characterize.

G

 

[redisburning]

well, if you feel that way, I cant help you.

my experience has always been that numbers do a much better job explaining things than most people are like to admit. but then, I work with numbers every day and probably place greater value on them more than others do.

 

[Godfrey]

well, if you feel that way, I cant help you.

my experience has always been that numbers do a much better job explaining things than most people are like to admit. but then, I work with numbers every day and probably place greater value on them more than others do.

LOL! I wasn't aware that I needed any help. ;-)

I graduated college with a degree in Mathematics and a specialization in Statistical Pattern Recognition. In the course of doing that work, I discovered that numbers weren't the important thing. What is important are the structures of the world that they could characterize.

The problem with using numeric analysis tools like the MTF curve to make decisions about lens quality is that lens quality is so much more, aesthetically, than just how much resolution, saturation, and contrast is evident. There are elements of lens quality that have little to do with such simple graphs, like bokeh and the influence of coma on a photograph.

Some lenses which test poorly have beautiful rendering qualities as the result of a happy congruence of aberrations. These interactions are very complex, far more complex than MTF curves, resolution and contrast results alone can characterize.

But if you're happy with the simplistic notions of 'better' provided by good MTF curves, who am I to deflect you from your comfort?

G

 

[redisburning]

perhaps we have a difference in our level of disillusion with the descriptive power of numbers.

MTF graphs say an awful lot. their shape describes much of the things you mentioned and more. certainly not limited to just contrast at specific frequencies.

maybe if more makers than Zeiss provided real graphs it would be easier. Fuji and Sony and Olympus' graphs are as much fantasy as a reflection of the lens.

And I can tell you that one lens can show enough different sides that a person would never get as good a grip on it first hand as the results from a K8 machine can tell you in about 5 minutes.

 

[kuzano]

Far More than one micht expect for Pana/Oly m43

Far More than one micht expect for Pana/Oly m43

I would like to know which system you would buy into if you were only to use their native lenses. I'm not including Leica here, because it doesn't seem to fit in for whatever reason.

OK... this is more than you asked for, but just on the Pana/Oly native lenses, nobody can touch the range and number of lenses for micro4/3 .

Now in addition, this table lists all the third party lenses that are Auto Focus on the m4/3 lens mounts WITHOUT ADAPTORS.

Then there is a second table for all manual focus lenses.

This is an incredible list of choices. With the head start on m4/3, doubtful anyone will catch up.

This sinks Canon and Nikon mirrorless into simply dealt out of the market for a long time.

http://hazeghi.org//mft-lenses.html

Is This what you are looking for?????

 

[FrozenInTime]

http://hazeghi.org//mft-lenses.html

Good list that:
Includes some sleeper lenses that I forgot about, such as the Sigma 60mm.
I has also forgotten about Schneider's plans ; top notch primes hopefully.