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!

Brick Wall Lens Tests with the NEX

jonoslack

Active member
:sleep006::sleep006::sleep006::sleep006:

Well, I've just spent a boring hour shooting a brick wall with the NEX on a tripod with various lenses:

Kit Lens at equivalent focal lengths (i.e. 18,24,28,35,55)
Leica 28mm f2 summicron ASPH
Leica 35mm f1.4 summicron ASPH (new version)
Leica 35mm f2.5 summarit ASPH
Leica 50mm f1.4 summilux ASPH

each tested at:
1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 (or starting at widest aperture)

Whilst I was about it I stuck the X1 and the M9 (with the 35 'lux and 50 'lux) on the tripod and banged away a few more shots.

I've been peering at the results, and I've come to the following conclusions:

1. all those Leica lenses are fine on the NEX - right to the corners - at all apertures. They do lose a little wide open, but neither vignetting or smearing seem to be a real issue.
2. the 35 'lux is better than the 35 summarit towards the edges and corners at all apertures (more so wide open)
3. the kit lens really does quite well comparison (distortion and CA is an issue of course). If you don't want the speed of the leica lenses, then with this test the Kit lens is really almost as good at the centre as equivalent apertures as the leica lenses costing 10 times as much. Corners are less good, but still mostly acceptable
4. the 24mm lens on the X1 is marginally better than the 28 'cron on the NEX at equivalent apertures. (unfortunately I didn't have a 24 leica lens to
5. If you're wondering how the NEX compares with the M9 with equivalent lenses, then you can stop wondering - It's like a different world!

OF COURSE
brick wall tests tell you little about the drawing of the lens or how things look in real shots, added to which, in lots of situations some softness in the corners doesn't much matter anyway.

I was doing these for my own enlightenment, and I have come to some conclusions . . . .

1. I'm only going to use Leica lenses on the NEX in low light situations where using the LCD is more discreet than the M9 (i.e. when having a camera at one's eye is more obvious than the clatter of the NEX shutter).
(worth noting that I shot 100 snaps last night with the 35 'lux at f1.4 and the NEX at a party - it worked really well, good focus hit rate, good colour and low noise at ISO 1600)

2. If I want a little package with a fixed lens then I'll probably use the X1 rather than the NEX and the Leica summarit.

3. I'll use the NEX kit lens with even more confidence.

4. I'll use the M9 if I'm really keen on detail and definition (or the A900 of course)

But, basically, all of these combinations produce decent results - no great surprises for me I think.

For What It's Worth.
 

Braeside

New member
Thanks Jono, good to know all this.

For now I am sticking with the A900 and your rather fine old M8u.

However, I am keeping up with what everyone is saying about the brave new world of NEX.
 

douglasf13

New member
Thanks for all of the info, Jono. I'm interested in knowing more about the difference between the M9 and NEX files. Is it mostly a detail thing? Also, were the brick wall shots at infinity (where smearing tends to show up?)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thanks for all of the info, Jono. I'm interested in knowing more about the difference between the M9 and NEX files. Is it mostly a detail thing? Also, were the brick wall shots at infinity (where smearing tends to show up?)
Hi Douglas
Not at infinity - around 2 - 2.5 metres, so maybe they're not that relevant.

At base ISO the difference between the two is pretty much what you'd expect by going from 12mp - 18mp without having smaller photosites, and by removing the AA filter and adding angled microlenses (i.e. significant). It would probably reduce above around 1000 ISO, but I haven't tried that.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thanks so much for the test. Do you have other less expensive RF lens for similar test?
Sorry, no. I might be able to wrench a Zeiss 50 f1.5 from my son- but I'm sure that would be okay anyway.

To be honest I'm not terribly convinced of the benefits of using expensive RF lenses on the NEX unless you already have them and you DONT have an M9.

I think that if I didn't have an M9 and I was looking to use M lenses on my NEX I'd mostly be looking at interesting secondhand lenses. Or more likely still the lovely Contax G lenses
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Those lovely Contax lenses are a treasure trove (oops, did I just drive up the prices?)
-bob
 

roweraay

New member
Thanks for your testing, Jono. Provided some new perspectives on this raging issue !

Just a minor point: When you referred to a "Leica 35mm f1.4 summicron ASPH (new version)", you meant to state "Summilux", I presume ? The "Summicron" term refers to f/2 lenses, while the "elmarit" refers to f/2.8 and "Summilux" refers to f/1.4 lenses, right ?

Been updating myself on some of these Leica terminologies, during my recent RF lens research.:eek::D
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I don't have an M9, but I do have an M8u and a bunch of M lenses. My choice for my NEX is the Contax Zeiss G lenses. My advice to those who don't already have M lenses and are looking for nice lenses for the NEX is to look to the Contax G lenses. I have 35 f/2, 45 f/2 and 90 f/2.8. I plan to use them with my Sony 16 f/2.8 as my NEX kit. The Contax G lenses are very sharp, have nice bokeh and are a nice shape and weight for pairing with the NEX. The close focus distance for the 35 and 45 is .5 meters which is closer than my M lenses. The Pen-F lenses are a good fit for NEX, too, but they have become very hard to find. If you happen to have them, give them a try. They won't disappoint.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I don't have an M9, but I do have an M8u and a bunch of M lenses. My choice for my NEX is the Contax Zeiss G lenses. My advice to those who don't already have M lenses and are looking for nice lenses for the NEX is to look to the Contax G lenses. I have 35 f/2, 45 f/2 and 90 f/2.8. I plan to use them with my Sony 16 f/2.8 as my NEX kit. The Contax G lenses are very sharp, have nice bokeh and are a nice shape and weight for pairing with the NEX. The close focus distance for the 35 and 45 is .5 meters which is closer than my M lenses. The Pen-F lenses are a good fit for NEX, too, but they have become very hard to find. If you happen to have them, give them a try. They won't disappoint.
Hi Cindy
I couldn't agree more; the combination of the small size and close focusing seems to me to be a no brainer. Added to which they're still so much cheaper than M lenses. I wish I hadn't sold mine two years ago:(

All the best
 
V

Vivek

Guest
AbsolutelyMy Brian seems to be collapsing :ROTFL:
Just for the records, I did not prompt you to do the brick wall tests this time. ;):angel:

(Someone wanted brick wall tests of Olympus pen F lenses.....as you pointed out Jono, it is clear that you do not entertain requests.)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Just for the records, I did not prompt you to do the brick wall tests this time. ;):angel:
You are, of course, entirely innocent . . .:ROTFL:
(Someone wanted brick wall tests of Olympus pen F lenses.....as you pointed out Jono, it is clear that you do not entertain requests.)
. . . but I haven't got any pen F lenses.

Actually, you have to understand that my whole existence depends on a cascade of 'displacement activity', meaning that the jobs I don't enjoy only get done if there is something even LESS attractive that I OUGHT to be doing.
This means that Brick Wall tests are a long way down the pecking order.

In Fact, Saturday afternoon I did Brick Wall Tests, AND I mowed the lawn - this was because I should have been writing a workshop manual :ROTFL:

So, it's nothing to do with not entertaining requests, just a function of my simplistic prioritisation :)

all the best
 

roweraay

New member
My advice to those who don't already have M lenses and are looking for nice lenses for the NEX is to look to the Contax G lenses. I have 35 f/2, 45 f/2 and 90 f/2.8. I plan to use them with my Sony 16 f/2.8 as my NEX kit. The Contax G lenses are very sharp, have nice bokeh and are a nice shape and weight for pairing with the NEX. The close focus distance for the 35 and 45 is .5 meters which is closer than my M lenses. The Pen-F lenses are a good fit for NEX, too, but they have become very hard to find. If you happen to have them, give them a try. They won't disappoint.
Thanks for your perspective, Cindy. My original "concern" with the Contax G (which was what led me to the M 'cron) was the diminishing pool of available candidates, when it comes to lens selections, since these have been out of production for a while, right ?

Unlike say the Leica M, where there are in-current-production options all the way from CV, to Zeiss ZM to Leica (and even older options like Minolta M-rokkor) and so on.....a larger pool of candidates.
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
Thanks for your perspective, Cindy. My original "concern" with the Contax G (which was what led me to the M 'cron) was the diminishing pool of available candidates, when it comes to lens selections, since these have been out of production for a while, right ?

Unlike say the Leica M, where there are in-current-production options all the way from CV, to Zeiss ZM to Leica (and even older options like Minolta M-rokkor) and so on.....a larger pool of candidates.
They have been out of production, but my set of 3 (bought separately), looks like new. My glass is perfect. Terry told me that her 35 and 45 looked like they had never been used. Contax G lenses do seem to be disappearing fast from the usual places, like the excellent Pen-F lenses did, but they are still there if you want them.
 
Last edited:

roweraay

New member
It would probably reduce above around 1000 ISO, but I haven't tried that.
Since the M9 uses a CCD sensor (unlike the CMOS equipped NEX), I would presume its strengths all lie at the lower ISOs.

CCDs, due to their inability to accomodate on-sensor secondary circuitry (unlike CMOS sensors), lose steam as the ISOs climb, and I would presume the NEX5 would be the better performer at the higher ISOs.
 

Jim DE

New member
Cindy.... From my experience with the Contax G system much was written on the 35mm F2 lens being the weakest IQ in the series. I still use my G2 and never carried the 35 in my kit. I would carry the 21 (IMO best in class), the 28, the 45, and the 90mm using the Contax G2. I have always liked this system for color positive work.

Have you noticed how the prices are rising esp on the 35mm f2? I see the 90 mm going for $500+ now as well. 18 months ago you could get either for $200 or slightly more.
 

douglasf13

New member
2 weeks ago, keh had a couple of 90mm Contax Gs for well under $200. I went to buy one, and they were both gone.
 
Top