55 1.8

[fmueller]

Yes the M-mount 50's are smaller but not by that much. Here's a size comparison between the Leica 50 Summilux ASPH, the Zeiss 55/1.8 FE, and the Sony 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Sorry for the crappy cell phone quality.

I've used the 50 Summilux ASPH on my A7r and have been sorely disappointed with the edges at wide apertures---with a $4000 lens!

I am seriously contemplating selling the Leica gear. It used to be "you couldn't go wrong owning Leica M lenses." The A7r has shown me that Leica has done some fine engineering with the digital M's covering the ray angle issue but they are losing the size and weight issue that has been their advantage.

 

[iiiNelson]

Agreed and I'd say this is a great substitute for the 50 Lux. That or the ZM50 Planar

 

[kuau]

Would be nice if Tim could share some of his magic

I was thinking of adapting my old versalab Parallel for my camera but would probably need to mount it to a wooden board first.

Any one done this before ?

Funny, I used this device for years when I was shooting fine art with my better light scan back. This device and Zigalign is the only way to get your camera to subject 100% parallel.
Check out
zig-align Home page

I used an Schneider enlarger lens back in the day to get as flat as field as possible.
IMHO doing these brick wall test to check decentering issues is pointless unless you use one of these devices.

 

[kuau]

Received mine today from Amazon. After a few quick test shots, I'm OK with it. The AF with the A7R is quick and precise. Manual focusing using the EVF is easy. I'll test more outdoors over the weekend.

Test shot, handheld at f/2.8, focused on the middle of the snowman on the right:

100% crop:

Joe

Joe, what's up with the noise in the background? Was this image taken at base ISO and processed in LR5.3?
Yikes.

 

[engel001]

ISO 2000, 1/125 (according to EXIF).

 

[kuau]

ISO 2000, 1/125 (according to EXIF).

That makes sense then.
Thanks

 

[tashley]

Agreed and I'd say this is a great substitute for the 50 Lux. That or the ZM50 Planar

Look at the double-edged Bokeh on straight edged objects on the 55 first: there's no free lunch...

 

[tashley]

IMHO doing these brick wall test to check decentering issues is pointless unless you use one of these devices.

In isolation, yes, if you're not extremely careful. But when the wall shots are repeatable and back up other behaviours, they are very useful.

 

[Ron Pfister]

Agreed and I'd say this is a great substitute for the 50 Lux. That or the ZM50 Planar

The Planar is very good between f/3.5 and 8, but unfortunately nowhere near the FE wide open, especially in the periphery of the image.

Edit: for my uses, that makes the Planar ideal, and it's a really lovely lens (both in terms of its rendering and the handling). Plus the size is just about perfect for the A7/A7R, IMO.

 

[iiiNelson]

Look at the double-edged Bokeh on straight edged objects on the 55 first: there's no free lunch...

To be honest I find your lab tests somewhat above my head for the type of pictures I take and while I'm sure your tests and conclusions have some validity/ accuracy I choose not to drive myself crazy in pursuit of the "perfect" lens. I think we can all agree that imperfect lenses tend to have more character and a less sterile look. That's not to say I don't appreciate technology improvements/ advancements but I refuse to make decisions on a lens purely from a controlled lab test alone. If I like the look if gives, it's proves to be a reliable performer, and it fills a void in my kit then I tend to keep it... If not then it goes back or I sell it to someone else who can use it for their purposes. I just don't think that any of the lenses that I own are "perfect" probably the closest two to "perfection" would be my 24 Elmar and the 50 Planar but that's just to my eyes... no lab work done.

 

[iiiNelson]

The Planar is very good between f/3.5 and 8, but unfortunately nowhere near the FE wide open, especially in the periphery of the image.

Edit: for my uses, that makes the Planar ideal, and it's a really lovely lens (both in terms of its rendering and the handling). Plus the size is just about perfect for the A7/A7R, IMO.

I really didn't find in problems with the 50 Planar for me at any aperture in any of my test shots... Actually I found it to be pretty good to excellent all around.

 

[Ron Pfister]

Like I said, I really like the ZM Planar. I was simply speaking of what I had observed with my copy compared to what I'd seen of the FE 1.8/55, and it seems to me that there's quite a difference in performance WO:

 

[iiiNelson]

Yeah I can see that... Mine doesn't appear to be anywhere near that bad wide open at base ISO. I'd agree though that the 55/1.8 seems to be pretty good and I don't think I will have the strong urge to replace it for any of my M-mount 50's on either my A7 or A7r.

 

[Ron Pfister]

Perhaps I have a bad copy, but the edges clean up nicely by f/4, and are just about perfect by f/5.6:

 

[vjbelle]

If you don't mind me asking... So, you just order multiple copies and keep the best and return the other?

Not being critical, I've got one on the way and I'm going to wring it our pretty good but I confess I've bought a fair amount (OK, a LOT) of lenses and except for one tech cam lens I've never had to have anything returned or repaired.

If one is good enough yes..... I'm not going to shell out good money for sloppy manufacturing. Lenses that aren't centered exhibit focus differences from left to right. I need accurate focusing across the plane for what I photograph. This is very different than curvature. What works for you may not for me.

Victor

 

[vjbelle]

Perhaps I have a bad copy, but the edges clean up nicely by f/4, and are just about perfect by f/5.6:

More than likely you are seeing curvature. It actually looks very good at F5.6. I considered that lens as I have ZF 50mm Planar which is quite good. But once I saw what the 55mm Sony/Zeiss was capable of I realized I was in another world of lens design. A good copy will blow away the competition.

Victor

 

[Ron Pfister]

More than likely you are seeing curvature. It actually looks very good at F5.6. I considered that lens as I have ZF 50mm Planar which is quite good. But once I saw what the 55mm Sony/Zeiss was capable of I realized I was in another world of lens design. A good copy will blow away the competition.

Victor

I agree, Victor. In the f/2 edge crop, it looks like we're seeing a combination of de-focused blur and poorly controlled primary and secondary aberrations. I'm very happy with the performance at f/5.6, and the residual CA cleans up nicely in LR. The currently available FE-primes look tempting, but I have no use for AF as long as the camera can't read my mind. Will wait to see what the FE 24-70 brings to the table. A high-quality compact zoom would be handy...

 

[Ron Pfister]

Speaking of focusing: what is the MF experience like with native FE lenses? I know the features from my NEXen (MF-assist, etc.), but what does it feel like? About the same or better when compared to E-mount designs for crop sensors?

 

[tashley]

To be honest I find your lab tests somewhat above my head for the type of pictures I take and while I'm sure your tests and conclusions have some validity/ accuracy I choose not to drive myself crazy in pursuit of the "perfect" lens. I think we can all agree that imperfect lenses tend to have more character and a less sterile look. That's not to say I don't appreciate technology improvements/ advancements but I refuse to make decisions on a lens purely from a controlled lab test alone. If I like the look if gives, it's proves to be a reliable performer, and it fills a void in my kit then I tend to keep it... If not then it goes back or I sell it to someone else who can use it for their purposes. I just don't think that any of the lenses that I own are "perfect" probably the closest two to "perfection" would be my 24 Elmar and the 50 Planar but that's just to my eyes... no lab work done.

I don't own or run a lab and I've never shot a Lab test! I don't have a copy of imatest or a bench. All my reviews, whether informally on here or more 'written up' elsewhere, are field tests in which I use realistic real world scenes to check two things: how good a lens is, technically, and how well made it is.

If you were in St Mark's square in Venice and shot one of the facades at the far end, you'd appreciate why i do the harbour side shots: getting home and finding that the facade you shot is sharp on one edge and soft on the other would probably annoy you, as would a shot across the 'basin' to Giudecca with the same effect. Go into the basilica and shoot a fresco and see if you like a result that is soggy at one side or blurry at on corner and sharp at the other.

I too own a lot of lenses that are not 'good' technically. I keep and use them for their look. But there are lenses where are not marketed as 'look' lenses and for which certain levels of technical ability are claimed by their makers. A lens like the 55 F1.8 or the 35 F2.8 should both, at their price and design point, be capable of producing images by F5.6 that are convincingly sharp at the edges when viewed at 50% on a 100dpi screen. Good copies of both clearly are. What I am testing for is de-centering, which is a manufacturing defect rather than a design and price point compromise, and which will make all your shots look like they were taken with a tilt/swing lens.

Of course, if that's your style of shooting (and you're happy for the degree of tilt and swing to remain constant across all shots) then that's your choice and you're very welcome to it! Again, many photographers don't care about the edges. But if your purchased a Mercedes and discovered three years later, that they hadn't put the spare in the trunk, just when you needed it, it would be both Mercedes and you that were to blame by that time. That's why I test carefully at first: to get what I paid for. A look through my personal galleries will show that as a mainly landscape photographer, I very very often don't give a damn for a technically perfect look. But sometimes I do and I don't want my options to be cut off by a dodgy copy of a lens.

Your comment was also specifically regarding what I said about bokeh on this lens. That is less a technical question than an aesthetic one and I was noting that the 55 F1.8 has the double edged bokeh problem that has raised some alarm on the 35 F2.8 - it won't bother me much, but some people hate it. And it does relate to the 'look and character' of the optic rather than the strictly technical performance… there's a difference between aesthetic imperfection, which is in the eye of the beholder (or possibly the client) and manufacturing imperfection, which is in the eye of anyone who likes a sharp snap from a $1000+ lens…. I personally will often choose to keep and not return a partially de-centered lens because it isn't bad enough to be worth the hassle. But as a general point, products which are clearly poorly made and shouldn't IMHO have passed QC are really a form of rip-off and I don't like being ripped off! YMMV...

 

[Deleted member 7792]

Joe, what's up with the noise in the background? Was this image taken at base ISO and processed in LR5.3?
Yikes.

Steven, ISO 2000 with no in-camera or LR noise reduction. Just a test shot to assess focus.

Joe