A7R - time to buy some glass!

[Ron Pfister]

Nice side-by-site test of 4 different 50mm M-lenses here:

diglloyd blog - Shootout: Four 50mm Rangefinder Lenses on the Sony A7R

The gist: the AA Cron unsurprisingly takes the cake, but the ZM 2/50 comes very close between f/4-8 - and costs 1/8th!!

 

[iiiNelson]

Bought the 14 Rokinon, the 55 FE off Amazon today, and traded my A77 for a 35FE (whenever that comes in.) I'll probably get the LA-E4 and keep my 70-200/2.8 for those rare occasions I need crap that long and of course there's still my M kit.

 

[Ocean]

Originally, I was hoping to use my Contax G lenses and Leica R lenses on the A7r. Now, it seems Leica R lenses are my only hopes for new Sony. For Leica M glasses, I still prefer using them on M9 and M240.

 

[mark1958]

Has anyone tried the Leica 28-35-50mm? I have had very good results with the Leica 16-18-21mm. Some vignetting but otherwise no major complaints. Sharp edge to edge very little flair or fringing. My CZ 18mm/3.5 (Nikon mount) is also good but much more flaring. I am using Nikon Metabones and Leica M voigtlander adapter.

 

[jagsiva]

Has anyone tried the Leica 28-35-50mm? I have had very good results with the Leica 16-18-21mm. Some vignetting but otherwise no major complaints. Sharp edge to edge very little flair or fringing. My CZ 18mm/3.5 (Nikon mount) is also good but much more flaring. I am using Nikon Metabones and Leica M voigtlander adapter.

Michael has some samples on LULA with that lens. Look at his latest as well as two previous ones.

 

[jagsiva]

THE FINAL VERDICT .... for me for now

Stick with native Sony Zeiss Lenses:

I just got my 55 FE and looks great. Light, fantastic wide open, no adapters, AF etc. etc. Along with the 35FE, it is a great kit and I will patiently await a 21 or 24 in this line.

Here's my rationale:

1. There appear to be several issues even with 50mm M-mount lenses - Diglloyd just posted some samples with the Leica 50 Lux, Nocti, Cron ASPH and Zeiss 50/2. All appear to have issues of one sort or another. For the money and hassle of an adapter, not sure it is worth it.

2. If you already have these lenses, then by all means, the $300 cost of an adapter is no big deal.

3. DSLR lenses appear to work better, but negate the size advantage with the size of the lenses themselves, and the relatively large adapter needed. Again, in my case, I just got the Novoflex NikonG/Nex adapter and $300 is no biggie for the flexibility of using Nikon glass in a pinch. But I would not go out and buy DSLR lenses for this purpose. I'm sure there are others that have older and smaller MF glass where this may make sense. Also lenses highly specialized lenses like the Canon 24 TSE II have similar appeal for various folks.

4. I do believe there is a lot of RAW file cooking going on in camera. This is not true just of sony, but for all manufacturers. One of the reasons for the success of the Sigma Merill (the fixed lens ones) and the Sony RX1/RX1R is that the manufacturer has far more control of the full image processing workflow. To further this cause, lens profiles etc. available in C1, LR and other RAW converters further augment this. However, this is only possible when manufactures work together with access to each other's technologies. Again, this cannot happen in an open-ended model such as when using any 3rd party lens.

5. The only exception to the above is tech lenses and tech cams with MFDBs. In this case, I think the lens designs are so basic and pure that we have workable solutions, BUT, even in this case, we do a lot of manual processing with LCCs etc. to get the final result.

6. If Zeiss/Sigma etc. release native FE lenses it is likely that LR, C1 and other RAW processors will have lens profile support, even if Sony itself does not provide the additional "cooking" in-camera. With Zeiss, they might. If this happens, then we will have an alternative MF set of lenses for the FE mount. Even better would be if Sony white-labels/OEMs the A7/R to Zeiss for new IKON, and we would have a great platform with native Zeiss MF lenses.

7. For me, this was a small go-to kit for casual work. In keeping with that, I think FE native lenses make the most sense.

So there it is. Of course, this might change, but I though I'd share my perspective since I started this thread, and several people have contributed so well.

Notwithstanding any of this very rational thinking, Guy is supposedly getting his A7 today, so he could re-ignite the arms race all over again

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I actually have the A7r sitting here and waiting on my adapter and to be real honest what you all are not seeing on the forum yet is a Nikon Fire sale as i may just completely switch. Ill get another body a A7 with the zoom which I will trade out later when the 24-70 comes out but I am at least getting the 55mm and flash and i may either go with a FE 35mm or a Zeiss 35mm F2 in Nikon mount( tough call they are both good). My idea is A7R for manual work, clients, landscapes and such and use the A7 for PR work. Its almost like having a D600 and D800e the way i got this figured out. This could also be a big mistake, so i need to decide and decide quick. I have a really big gig starting Jan1 but I don't shoot until the 6th. I have a headache

Actually I tend to agree with you on almost all counts. I would stay with DSLR lenses as much as you can. There simple is no reason to be out shooting LCC and plugins to correct **** when Zeiss has some really nice glass in DSLR mounts that are very good the 18mm, 25mm F2 and 35mm F2 are hard to beat in the DSLR mount. But on the same hand these FE 35mm and 55mm look very good. Also those Zeiss glass I just mentioned are very small. About the only thing I'm giving up is my Sigma 35mm 1.4 but I am keeping in my Nikon mount the Zeiss 135 and Leica 19mm. Reason I am thinking the 25 and 35mm Zeiss glass in Nikon is than I will have 4 Nikon mounts for one adapter only and in case i want to go back i have the glass in place and all of them are outstanding on any system.

 

[thedigitalbean]

Jag, I am starting to come to a similar conclusion, except the 50 Noct though, it is a f'ing brilliant on the A7r but my usage pattern is different from Lloyd, I want to photograph people in low light, handheld (not landscapes on a tripod). I wouldn't put any wide Ms on there, but I did get a 90 'cron APO to try out. I decided to get both the 35 and 55 based on how good the reviews are with it.

 

[jagsiva]

....you all are not seeing on the forum yet is a Nikon Fire sale as i may just completely switch. Ill get another body a A7 with the zoom which I will trade out later when the 24-70 comes out but I am at least getting the 55mm and flash and i may either go with a 35mm or a Zeiss 35mm F2 in Nikon mount. My idea is A7R for manual work, clients, landscapes and such and use the A7 for PR work. Its almost like having a D600 and D800e the way i got this figured out. This could also be a big mistake.....

Guy, I'm sure you'll have the camera in your hands for a while and be quite sure before you make such a jump. Between the FF Nikons and the Sony A7R, the biggest difference for me is the "crispness" of operation. Not sure I am expressing this correctly. The D800 and D800E are just more responsive in an almost intuitive way, whether it is in focussing, pushing the shutter button, clicking on a lens etc...yes, intangible, but a big difference in use for me.

From an IQ standpoint, I think either will work. What I loose in lens availability in the Sony, I gain in portability, meaning, I have the camera with me most of the time, and especially when I am not expecting to be shooting.

Looking forward to your experience.....as long as I don't have to spend more money

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I honestly think regardless of some of the bad press having the FE 35 and 55 for a total of what 1700 dollars is pretty cheap considering what people are bolting on these things. To ME they look like nice lenses to have in the bag. Regardless AF comes in handy once in awhile

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy, I'm sure you'll have the camera in your hands for a while and be quite sure before you make such a jump. Between the FF Nikons and the Sony A7R, the biggest difference for me is the "crispness" of operation. Not sure I am expressing this correctly. The D800 and D800E are just more responsive in an almost intuitive way, whether it is in focussing, pushing the shutter button, clicking on a lens etc...yes, intangible, but a big difference in use for me.

From an IQ standpoint, I think either will work. What I loose in lens availability in the Sony, I gain in portability, meaning, I have the camera with me most of the time, and especially when I am not expecting to be shooting.

Looking forward to your experience.....as long as I don't have to spend more money

Yea exactly my thinking I have to see how this feels. My other issue is I am dead tired of lugging **** after 40 years my back is totally shot. I have to eat four advil just to play golf. LOL

I agree though the IQ is equal or better, its the functionality but here is where i am very adaptable. i can adjust to just about any camera but I do need certain things in place. Firmware Im not worried about some of hess minor things as i think Sony will address that soon.

 

[jagsiva]

Jag, I am starting to come to a similar conclusion, except the 50 Noct though, it is a f'ing brilliant on the A7r but my usage pattern is different from Lloyd, I want to photograph people in low light, handheld (not landscapes on a tripod). I wouldn't put any wide Ms on there, but I did get a 90 'cron APO to try out. I decided to get both the 35 and 55 based on how good the reviews are with it.

I hear you, the 50/.095 is a special lens and was extremely difficult to part with when I sold my Leica kit. The main issue I have heard of, all second-hand, is more exagerated CA. I did have CA with the M9, but not to the point where i could not easily correct it. Interested to see how your experience is.

My other favourite lens in this category is the Canon 85 1.2. Again, a lens that was hard to part with. A different look, but DOF was similar to the Nocti for a fraction of the price, great colours and sharpness. I may go back to one of these on the A7R, although I am not sure how the focus-by-wire will work without any power to the lens with most adapters.

In any case, you already have these M-lenses, so it's a no brainer to use them with an adapter.

Now if I could find an adapter to get me Rodies on the A7R.........Hmmmmmm

 

[thedigitalbean]

I hear you, the 50/.095 is a special lens and was extremely difficult to part with when I sold my Leica kit. The main issue I have heard of, all second-hand, is more exagerated CA. I did have CA with the M9, but not to the point where i could not easily correct it. Interested to see how your experience is.

My other favourite lens in this category is the Canon 85 1.2. Again, a lens that was hard to part with. A different look, but DOF was similar to the Nocti for a fraction of the price, great colours and sharpness. I may go back to one of these on the A7R, although I am not sure how the focus-by-wire will work without any power to the lens with most adapters.

In any case, you already have these M-lenses, so it's a no brainer to use them with an adapter.

Now if I could find an adapter to get me Rodies on the A7R.........Hmmmmmm

Ooohhh the Rodies with a shift adapter, oh boy!

 

[ashwinrao1]

The issues that Diglloyd reports were similar to what I saw in testing M lenses on the A7R. As also has been reported, lenses have far less issue with color cast (smearing may still be there for ultra wides of certain sorts) with the A7, so despite the amazing resolution of the A7R, I went with the A7 as it plays better with the lenses that i have. The shutter slap vibration issue seems real to me, plus 36 mp is hard to hand hold stably without pixel level blurring, even at reasonably fast shutter speeds. All in all, I figured that the A7 would be a beter bridge camera until such a time when Sony releases a body with leaf shutter and/or in body stabilization (if they elect to do the latter at all, which I have questions about)....I do feel that if using native lenses (at this time 35 and 55 FE, eventually the SCZ 24-70), the A7R would be a great match and a solid choice, but with adaptability of M lenses in particular, to keep the bulk down, the A7 does just fine...I have now put on about 1000 clicks on my A7, and I find it to be a real pleasure to use, with IQ to boot...

To demonstrate why I didn't go for the A7R, here's a sample image from a recent grey day, shot with the 50 lux asph on the A7R....

Fairly heavy vignetting, and edge casts can be readily seen, even for me and my slightly color blind eyes.

 

[jagsiva]

Totally agree Ashwin. Of course, you could stick a piece of film on the end of a coke bottle and create great images, some great recent posts from you out there.

 

[stephengilbert]

"Guy, I'm sure you'll have the camera in your hands for a while and be quite sure before you make such a jump."

Anyone want to start a poll? How many weeks, days, hours, etc.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Anyone wanna bet at 4 K. LOL

 

[ohnri]

Apparently, Lloyd Chambers thinks the 55mm FE does not suck.

Considering this is a brand new system from Sony, I am very impressed.

If they come out with a body that can replace my D4, which I think is unlikely, I will be hard pressed to think of a reason to keep my Nikon gear.

Maybe I can get rid of everything except my D4 and a couple of sporty lenses?

More realistically, I hope a high quality wide angle is on tap for 2014.

-Bill

 

[algrove]

Ashwin
Can you show us the same shot with the a7? That would be important for me. Thanks.

 

[PeterA]

The issues that Diglloyd reports were similar to what I saw in testing M lenses on the A7R...

To demonstrate why I didn't go for the A7R, here's a sample image from a recent grey day, shot with the 50 lux asph on the A7R....

Fairly heavy vignetting, and edge casts can be readily seen, even for me and my slightly color blind eyes.

Is this vignetting 'really' such a big deal? With a 6X polariser on my Nocti on M9/MM I get the same vignetting - most of it to do with the fact that shooting wide open in daylight makes it compulsory to use a ND filter ...

takes me all of 2 seconds to correct for this in LR or Aperture...am I missing something here??


Cheers
Pete