The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Best "non-Nex" Lenses

jonoslack

Active member
I know the theory behind what you are talking about. And I believe some of the corner problems in the M cameras (and lenses) are due to the fact that they were designed decades back for film and were not digital specific designs. Once the digital age hit, they are now trying to make the old film designs perform really well under digital, which is what led to the M8 requiring to be a 1.3x sensor, even with micro-lens offsetting and the M9 requiring even more radical micro-lens offsetting design to make it work, with a 1.0x sensor.

The above however, is diametrically different from cameras like the NEX, which have been built from the ground up, with digital in mind. And as long as the RF lenses were designed over the past 5 years or so (after the onset of the digital age), my feeling is that it will not have any issues.
Sorry, this is absolutely not the case - in fact, the lens with the steepest angle of incidence in the Leica range is the 28mm elmarit asph, which was designed to go with the M8.
Telecentric lens design adds complications which have ramifications in terms of size and design - Leica and Zeiss and especially Voigtlander are not designing their modern lenses with consideration for modern sensors which don't correct for them.

Of course the older lenses may or may not have issues and its performance is, in turn dependent on how they were originally designed and whether there was a big focus on lens telecentricity during their original design phase.
There wouldn't have been, as it really isn't an issue with film!
And everytime Douglas brings up the "incident angle" issue, I point him to the Sony DSC-R1, which came with a 1.68x near-APS-C sized sensor and its 14.3-71.5mm f/2.8-4.8 lens, had its rear element positioned just 2.1mm (that is millimeters !) from the digital sensor plane. Absolutely no micro-lens offsetting, absolutely no vignetting, absolutely no aberrations or optical imperfections that one could detect - corner to corner. The imaging was as close to perfect, from an optical standpoint. Of course the difference here is that the Sony R1 was built from the ground up to be a digital product (and so was its lens)......as is the NEX camera.
Exactly, so the lens would have been both telecentric, and, more to the point, it wold have had an exit pupil around the size of the tiny 2/3 sensor in the R1.

The lenses we are talking about, are Full-frame rangefinder lenses after all, and not lenses that barely cover the APS-C imaging circle. But I agree, that with the older designs, I might treat it on a case-by-case basis on how well they perform on digital.
You should treat all rangefinder lenses like this - they mostly have a small exit which means that there must be a steep angle of incidence at the edge of a sensor.

these modern lenses are costly (often many times the cost of the NEX) - I think it's pretty rash to assume that they are going to work well on a sensor which wasn't even a consideration during the design procedure. I don't say they WON'T work, just that one shouldn't make assumptions.
 

sebboh

New member
The above however, is diametrically different from cameras like the NEX, which have been built from the ground up, with digital in mind. And as long as the RF lenses were designed over the past 5 years or so (after the onset of the digital age), my feeling is that it will not have any issues. Of course the older lenses may or may not have issues and its performance is, in turn dependent on how they were originally designed and whether there was a big focus on lens telecentricity during their original design phase.
the fact that the NEX was designed from the ground up with digital in mind is where the (possible) problem stems from. most of the lenses were not. i am relatively certain that zeiss's zm line as well as voigtlander's rangefinder line was designed with film in mind. leica lenses designed since development of the m8 started are more likely to be designed for digital; however, they are could also be designed specifically for the offset microlenses of leica cameras. i agree with you though that none of this is a worry for a lens designed specifically for a standard digital sensor.
 

douglasf13

New member
And everytime Douglas brings up the "incident angle" issue, I point him to the Sony DSC-R1, which came with a 1.68x near-APS-C sized sensor and its 14.3-71.5mm f/2.8-4.8 lens, had its rear element positioned just 2.1mm (that is millimeters !) from the digital sensor plane. Absolutely no micro-lens offsetting, absolutely no vignetting, absolutely no aberrations or optical imperfections that one could detect - corner to corner. The imaging was as close to perfect, from an optical standpoint. Of course the difference here is that the Sony R1 was built from the ground up to be a digital product (and so was its lens)......as is the NEX camera.
I pretty much agree with what Jono says (outside of the R1 sensor size.) Many of the newer rangefinder lenses in question still have issues on m4/3, and we've yet to see how they perform on NEX. NEX seems to have a thinner sensor pack, so it looks to be performing better with these lenses than the m4/3, despite the sensor size difference, but I'm still having a hard time finding examples of razor sharp corners at infinity when stopped down a bit.

I know that the R1 is your example in these discussions, but it is quite a different beast. I'd like to see a diagram of its lens elements. How big is the rear element of the lens? Since the R1 doesn't have to work in the confines of a system with an interchangeable lens mount, Sony may have stuck some pretty large elements in there (especially the ones located nearer to the sensor in the body of the camera.) The R1 lens is relatively huge in NEX terms, and it extends well into the body of the camera, giving the illusion of a smaller lens (and the sensor is a bit smaller than NEX.) I certainly don't doubt that lens makers can make short-focus, modern NEX lenses that exhibit good corners at wide angles, but size certainly comes into play. In fact, I have a feeling that is why the NEX mount diameter is so big to begin with. It'll be interesting to see what Sony does with higher end lens designs.

Sony please give us a 50mm equivalent prime! :) :deadhorse:
 

sebboh

New member
Sony please give us a 50mm equivalent prime! :) :deadhorse:
actually sony (zeiss) don't listen to him :). i want a 35mm and a 85mm equiv prime. i'd rather carry these two than one normal lens (plus there's a lot of legacy options in the neighborhood of 50mm). make them f/2 or faster and decently compact. also if you could make the 85mm equiv a sonnar with similar rendering to the zm 50mm f/1.5 that would be glorious.
 
C

Coms37

Guest
One of the concerns I have is lugging around all these lenses again, you will need a shoulder bag, or equivalent, and it will become slightly unhandy.... Why not go for a D3 with a 24-70 2.8 lens which will probably provide a better rendition than all these mentioned lenses anyway.

I like the Nex, though I rather prefer carrying the X1 around (always) for it does fit in pockets and you can have a good IQ camera with you at all times.
 

monza

Active member
One of the concerns I have is lugging around all these lenses again, you will need a shoulder bag, or equivalent, and it will become slightly unhandy.... Why not go for a D3 with a 24-70 2.8 lens which will probably provide a better rendition than all these mentioned lenses anyway.
I lift weights on the weekend, but wouldn't want to carry them around with me all the time. :)
 

douglasf13

New member
One of the concerns I have is lugging around all these lenses again, you will need a shoulder bag, or equivalent, and it will become slightly unhandy.... Why not go for a D3 with a 24-70 2.8 lens which will probably provide a better rendition than all these mentioned lenses anyway.

I like the Nex, though I rather prefer carrying the X1 around (always) for it does fit in pockets and you can have a good IQ camera with you at all times.
I agree it's too large if you're using a zoom. With tiny primes, it seems at least partially pocketable.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thanks Douglas / Monza

I believe the R1 had an APS-C sensor.
I pretty much agree with what Jono says (outside of the R1 sensor size.)
Quite right - apologies - grovel even - up a gum tree, I was thinking it was 2/3". it was roughly APS-c sized . . . mind you, it doesn't alter the idea that it was almost certainly telecentric with a large exit pupil.

Fab camera incidentally.
 

sebboh

New member
One of the concerns I have is lugging around all these lenses again, you will need a shoulder bag, or equivalent, and it will become slightly unhandy.... Why not go for a D3 with a 24-70 2.8 lens which will probably provide a better rendition than all these mentioned lenses anyway.

I like the Nex, though I rather prefer carrying the X1 around (always) for it does fit in pockets and you can have a good IQ camera with you at all times.
seriously? i can take the D3, rip out the internals and use it (just the body) as my carrying case for a NEX-5, 16mm pancake, voigtlander 35mm f/1.4, zm 50mm f/1.5, and at least 3 extra batteries (or a possibly a contax g 90mm). i know this because i currently have my NEX-3 sitting next to a D1x (same basic body as the D3) on my desk. who knows what other goodies i could fit in a hollowed out 24-70mm. for an extra 4 pounds and $5000+ the D3 plus 24-70mm had better provide better images then the NEX with these lenses.

from my experience neither the X1 nor the NEX would fit comfortably in a front pocket (they both do uncomfortably). both fit equally well for me in a jacket or cargo pocket so the shorter lens of the X1 doesn't really provide any real size advantage though it is supposed to be an excellent 35mm equiv lens. i certainly don't need a shoulder bag or any other kind of bag to carry the NEX with 2 lenses (not zooms).
 

douglasf13

New member
Word, sebboh.

p.s. I'd love to see you actually make a D1x carrying case for your NEX-5. That would be hilarious and awesome!
 

sebboh

New member
Word, sebboh.

p.s. I'd love to see you actually make a D1x carrying case for your NEX-5. That would be hilarious and awesome!
i would but the D1x is my work's not mine. i'll have to see how much old busted pro bodies are going for on the bay.
 

jonoslack

Active member
from my experience neither the X1 nor the NEX would fit comfortably in a front pocket (they both do uncomfortably). both fit equally well for me in a jacket or cargo pocket so the shorter lens of the X1 doesn't really provide any real size advantage though it is supposed to be an excellent 35mm equiv lens. i certainly don't need a shoulder bag or any other kind of bag to carry the NEX with 2 lenses (not zooms).
Which is where I got to.......
If I'm being serious I have no problem with a small bag with an M9 and a couple of lenses. If I'm not , then I really want a zoom, in which case pocket-ability is out of the window anyway so I can either carry a bag or use a shoulder strap. In which case one may as well do without the compromises inherent in these cameras and just carry a small DSLR with a zoom. Not a D3 however!

Currently a weatherproof Pentax K7 with a short zoom and a couple of tiny primes in pockets seems favourite.
 

sebboh

New member
Which is where I got to.......
If I'm being serious I have no problem with a small bag with an M9 and a couple of lenses. If I'm not , then I really want a zoom, in which case pocket-ability is out of the window anyway so I can either carry a bag or use a shoulder strap. In which case one may as well do without the compromises inherent in these cameras and just carry a small DSLR with a zoom. Not a D3 however!

Currently a weatherproof Pentax K7 with a short zoom and a couple of tiny primes in pockets seems favourite.
that makes sense to me. i am lucky in that i never really got the hang of normal zooms, thus i never think i want them. when i go back through and look at what focal lengths i shot zooms at i find that i use them as oversized primes (90% are at a single focal length).
 

douglasf13

New member
What can I say, I've apparently discovered that I like working with constraints in photography. 50mm or bust! :LOL::deadhorse:
 
Top