Wides for A7R

[lambert]

Re: A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

Many thanks for posting the Ultron samples! I noticed blue, purple and grey haloes around the foliage and the branches in the top right corner of the last image. Are these JPEG compression artifacts, or do you see this in RAW, too?

I just double checked the RAW file and they are also present. I set defringe to 0 in LR5 and the halos disappeared.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49116332/A7R-CV21-ultron-6.jpg

 

[lambert]

Thanks for the photos! Think the Ultron 21/1.8 would do similarly on the A7?

Based on what others have posted, I expect it will perform much the same in terms of sharpness across the frame, but there may be less colour shift in the outer zones.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Wate on A7R seems to look great! http://www.getdpi.com/forum/553377-post57.html

 

[lambert]

A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

Thanks Carl!

Lambert; great set of photo's to see the capabilitys of that lens. It really looks good and the perfect lens for a lot of what I do. Better investment for me then a 14mm (to wide).

I shot with it once on my GXR at the Photokina when it was released and was impressed as well. Especially the fact it had almost no distortion.

Thank you for the effort!

Michiel, here's another building facade with some intricate detail. This image was cropped/corrected for distortion prior to export (same parameters - f8, raw, LR5)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49116332/A7R-CV21-ultron-7.jpg

 

[retow]

Re: A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

Michiel, here's another building facade with some intricate detail. This image was cropped/corrected for distortion prior to export (same parameters - f8, raw, LR5)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49116332/A7R-CV21-ultron-7.jpg

Looking really good. Which adapter are you using?

 

[lambert]

Re: A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

Looking really good. Which adapter are you using?

I'm using a Novoflex.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Re: A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

Michiel, here's another building facade with some intricate detail. This image was cropped/corrected for distortion prior to export (same parameters - f8, raw, LR5)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49116332/A7R-CV21-ultron-7.jpg

Increadable detail, just like a Sigma DPm2. Lovely facade and old and new combination!

Did you use vertical adjustment as well or did you have a higher viewpoint?

Thank you!

 

[scho]

Here is a shot with my CV21mm f/1.8 Ultron, mounted to A7R with Metabones M-E adapter, f/6.3 autoISO, before/after correction with LR flat field plugin using the whitecard ahot above. Note color shift/vignetting assymetry in my lens/adapter and in the LL image the off color halos that were pointed out earlier.

These are LR screen grabs. Flatfield image left, original right.

Full image

Center 100%

Lower Left Corner

 

[lambert]

Re: A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

Increadable detail, just like a Sigma DPm2. Lovely facade and old and new combination!

Did you use vertical adjustment as well or did you have a higher viewpoint?

Thank you!

The camera had to be tilted back for that scene. I simply applied LR5's perspective distortion correction function in auto mode.

I owned both the DP1M and DP2M. If you down-res the A7R files to 14mp, it easily rivals the Sigma's for detail.

 

[scho]

Re: A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

The camera had to be tilted back for that scene. I simply applied LR5's perspective distortion correction function in auto mode.

I owned both the DP1M and DP2M. If you down-res the A7R files to 14mp, it easily rivals the Sigma's for detail.

When you used distortion correction in auto mode did you have a default custom lens profile specified for the CV Ultron?

 

[lambert]

Re: A7R + Voigtlander 21/1.8

When you used distortion correction in auto mode did you have a default custom lens profile specified for the CV Ultron?

No. I only applied correction to fix perspective distortion (buildings were leaning back). The Voigtlander 21/1.8 has no visible distortion.

 

[lambert]

Here is a shot with my CV21mm f/1.8 Ultron, mounted to A7R with Metabones M-E adapter, f/6.3 autoISO, before/after correction with LR flat field plugin using the whitecard ahot above. Note color shift/vignetting assymetry in my lens/adapter and in the LL image the off color halos that were pointed out earlier.

These are LR screen grabs. Flatfield image left, original right.

Lower Left Corner

The color halos in your last image may be a LR issue. Try setting defringe to 0.

 

[scho]

The color halos in your last image may be a LR issue. Try setting defringe to 0.

Yes, that does work, but the flat field correction also took care of the halo problem in addition to fixing the corner color shift/vignetting.

 

[Vivek]

These are quick snaps, resized from the original.

M Rokkor 28/2.8 on A7R

f/2.8


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

f/8


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

f/16 (dirt on the sensor is visible now- an indication of going into diffraction territory, interestingly, it isn't visible at f/8)


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

The fast moving clouds had a bit of color that are seen in the frames. Corners (bricks)are very clear and sharp by f/5.6.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Vivek. So stopping down a little and a flat field correction should make this lens useable in your opinion?

 

[Godfrey]

The Summicron-C 40/2 and M-Rokkor 40/2 gen 1 were identical design other than the lens bezel and filter mount, with the Summicron built in Wetzlar and the M-Rokkor built in Japan. The M-Rokkor 40/2 gen 2 added multicoating and seems a slightly smaller, lighter lens assembly, also built in Japan. Having had all three, I kept the generation 2 M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 as I found it produced the nicest results (by a hairsbreadth) and the least flare, and the 40.5 mm filter mount matches the M-Rokkor 90mm f/4.

(The latter lens {at least the first production runs until the CL was discontinued and Minolta released the CLE} were actually identical to the Elmar-C 90mm f/4 and produced on the same production line in Wetzlar, differing only in the bezel markings and filter mount. You know if you have the Leica manufactured one as it will say "Made in Germany" on the bottom of the lens barrel by the serial number. )

They comprise my primary lens kit for the CL; both work very nicely on the M9 as well. No surprise that they would work well on the A7r too.

G

 

[Vivek]

Thanks Vivek. So stopping down a little and a flat field correction should make this lens useable in your opinion?

K-H, I am sorry. I was about to pull these snaps out but decided to leave them in. These were with the Hawk Peng adapter (either gen. 1 or 2). I will try (blue skies permitting) similar snaps to morrow with a cheap adapter that has a bigger opening than the Hawk adapter. My feeling is that one does not need FF plugin and such when a proper adapter is used.

 

[k-hawinkler]

K-H, I am sorry. I was about to pull these snaps out but decided to leave them in. These were with the Hawk Peng adapter (either gen. 1 or 2). I will try (blue skies permitting) similar snaps to morrow with a cheap adapter that has a bigger opening than the Hawk adapter. My feeling is that one does not need FF plugin and such when a proper adapter is used.

Thanks Vivek. I think you are right.

 

[douglaspboyd]

I just ordered a mint CL version of this lens (by mistake). Everybody seems to be buying the CLE-version, and paying more for it. Have you people tried the CL version? Optically, there shouldn't be much difference besides multi-coating if I understand things correctly.

Is your sample, scho, from the CL or CLE?

Summicron-C 40mm works great on my A7r. Here's a quick shot at f2.2, focussed on the infinity stop of a cheap $10 Hong Kong adapter.

==Doug

 

[k-hawinkler]

Doug,

Gorgeous image, love the colors. Thanks.