Best "non-Nex" Lenses

[Coms37]

I don't even like carrying any sort of bag with me. I tend to forget them at cafe's and restaurants and such. I also tend to drop lenses, the camera or both when changing them. The X1 as well as the Nex with the 16 fits in my pockets (any of them) fine, either that or I hang them around my neck, they don't get in the way and they're quite comfortable, you don't really feel them.

 

[jonoslack]

Go figure, I was a tennis coach in my early twenties.

I thought you were still in your early twenties Douglas.

 

[roweraay]

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. .....

Thanks, for the clarification. You are right in that if telecentricity (especially required in the wides/ultra-wides) was a big consideration, then the lens(es) would probably be dimensionally larger than some of these small classics.

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.

Good point. At least one solid candidate is the ZM 35/2 biogon, and based on deepdiver's posts above, seem to be great performer on the NEX. Seems like the RF lenses have to be tested for compatibility on a case-by-case basis.

Wondering if anyone know how the Voigtlander 35/1.4 performs on the NEX. The f/1.4, small size/weight and the relatively cheap price is certainly an attraction for me.

 

[douglasf13]

I would say that deepdiver's tests are inconclusive at this point. The corner crops at the bottom are too close to the shooter, and the top crops aren't in the top corners. Jury is still out for me.

I'm also anxious to see the CV 35 1.4 on NEX. If that lens doesn't smear, thqn it would possibly be my first choice. It does have some barrel distortion issues, but that could be good news, because more retro-focus wides have a problem with distortion, and retro-focus could mean good corners for NEX.

 

[roweraay]

I would say that deepdiver's tests are inconclusive at this point. The corner crops at the bottom are too close to the shooter, and the top crops aren't in the top corners. Jury is still out for me..

Actually all four of his crops cover the four extreme corners. Check it again. I am pleasantly impressed, especially considering that it is an in-camera JPG and not something done with some careful additional processing.

 

[douglasf13]

The top two crops don't have anything with detail in the corners. It's just sky. The veiling glare from the sun makes it difficult to tell, also. We need a solid scene of buildings that extends to the top of the frame.

 

[roweraay]

The top two crops don't have anything with detail in the corners. It's just sky. The veiling glare from the sun makes it difficult to tell, also. We need a solid scene of buildings that extends to the top of the frame.

But the bottom two crops do go into the very corners and do have quite a bit of detail, right ? Those two should suffice to gauge how the corners perform, I would imagine ?

 

[Brian Mosley]

Yes, the R1 was before its time. I used to have one! Not sure why I sold it...

I've still got mine... where can I get a sensor upgrade?

Cheers

Brian

 

[douglasf13]

But the bottom two crops do go into the very corners and do have quite a bit of detail, right ? Those two should suffice to gauge how the corners perform, I would imagine ?

Ha! I was just about to say that I'm not even convinced that deepdiver focused that shot at infinity, because the bushes in front are so in-focus, but then I realized that those examples are from his Leica 18/3.8, not the ZM 35/2. Doh! That DOF makes a lot more sense to me now. The Leica 18mm is a modern, retrofocus design that was introduced last year. It's relatively gigantic in M lens terms, and it appears to handle the corners quite well. The ZM 18mm Distagon is a cheaper alternative that I'm betting also performs well at the edges, due to its retro-focus design (also pretty large in size.)

 

[roweraay]

Ha! I was just about to say that I'm not even convinced that deepdiver focused that shot at infinity, because the bushes in front are so in-focus, but then I realized that those examples are from his Leica 18/3.8, not the ZM 35/2. Doh! That DOF makes a lot more sense to me now. The Leica 18mm is a modern, retrofocus design that was introduced last year. It's relatively gigantic in M lens terms, and it appears to handle the corners quite well. The ZM 18mm Distagon is a cheaper alternative that I'm betting also performs well at the edges, due to its retro-focus design (also pretty large in size.)

That is true ! Those shots were from the 18/3.8.

However, he did state that:
---------------
Sorry i did not bring the infinity photo with ZM 35 today.
I tried it yesterday, It's really good... did not see any smearing at all
will post it later.
---------------

So I guess you are in the "trust, but verify" mode ? !

 

[jonoslack]

Ha! I was just about to say that I'm not even convinced that deepdiver focused that shot at infinity, because the bushes in front are so in-focus, but then I realized that those examples are from his Leica 18/3.8, not the ZM 35/2. Doh! That DOF makes a lot more sense to me now. The Leica 18mm is a modern, retrofocus design that was introduced last year.

But, worth mentioning, that the 18 SE has been the cause of more argument and corner problem with the M9 than almost any other leica lens.

 

[douglasf13]

Hmm, very interesting.

 

[monza]

NEX5 with Pen F 25/4. The image circle covers the sensor but there is vignetting. Will post samples of this and a Pen F 38/1.8.

 

[gsking]

So, who's buying all the Minolta MC 35/1.8's and 50/58 1.2's now, if it's not the NEX crowd?

Don't forget the 45mm if you wanna get tiny.

Okay, probably not up to snuff with the Euroglass you guys are throwing around here, but the prices seem to be staying high (if not going up), so someone's buying them for something.

 

[sebboh]

So, who's buying all the Minolta MC 35/1.8's and 50/58 1.2's now, if it's not the NEX crowd?

Don't forget the 45mm if you wanna get tiny.

Okay, probably not up to snuff with the Euroglass you guys are throwing around here, but the prices seem to be staying high (if not going up), so someone's buying them for something.

they are all quite easy to convert to canon or alpha mount. even nikon mount though it's a bit tougher and infinity is doubtful. you can mount them on 4/3 and µ4/3 with an adapter too, so there's lots of reason for demand. i believe it's the canon people really driving up the prices over the past couple years once the conversion became widely known and conversion kits started to be sold. the 45mm is still quite cheap though. got mine for under $5 dollars a few months ago. performance is pretty good too even if build quality isn't.

 

[roweraay]

So, who's buying all the Minolta MC 35/1.8's and 50/58 1.2's now, if it's not the NEX crowd?

Well, being a dSLR lens, the adapter is going to be really thick, which makes even a small lens look huge. That is precisely where the RF lenses come in, with their smaller flange-back distances (and hence slimmer adapters), even though the performance seems to be a hit-and-miss with them.

 

[douglasf13]

Agreed, roweraay. That's why I'm so interested in M lens performance.

 

[gsking]

Well, being a dSLR lens, the adapter is going to be really thick, which makes even a small lens look huge. That is precisely where the RF lenses come in, with their smaller flange-back distances (and hence slimmer adapters), even though the performance seems to be a hit-and-miss with them.

Aha, gotcha. That must be the reason that none of the lenses rang a bell with me.

And I suppose that getting TTL capability with a RF lens adds a new dimension to it.

I was never really that excited with my 58 1.2 on my A750, because it's just too hard to focus with the useless focusing screen. Even the confirm light doesn't help much. Figured FF or now the NEX would breathe new life into it. Well, once I run out of K-14.

 

[dhsimmonds]

This thread and a few other Nex5 threads are very reminiscent of the Epson R1 threads to me. Absolutely fascinating the results and experiences obtainable from such a wide variation of ancient and modern lenses with the added advantage of that view screen for TTL focusing.:thumbs:

 

[jonoslack]

Okay Okay Okay - as a service to the forum I've bought one of these little buggers - I shall now do some testing on various M lenses, just for Douglas's benefit.

WATE
MATE
28 'cron
35 'lux and summarit
50 'lux
75 'cron
90 elmarit

unfortunately I dont have the adapter yet!

Such altruism:ROTFL: