Leica R, Zeiss Lens and M lens Mount choices.

[psy501]

..sorry for cluttering this thread that was intended to avoid chatter..just couldnt send the photo via pm as i dont have it stored in the web..just putting it here, sending some comments and running away..

..dull photo from vacation during the christmas days in the dolomites just to show the bokeh..didnt nail the focus exactly..jpg out of cam, just resized, otherwise untouched..the vignetting as seen in the left lower corner comes from the lens hood which is a bit too long (not original)..the lens does vignette wide open but not that much..hope this helps..fine lens that is for the effects it delivers, but of course not too sharp wide open..best regards, erik..



*clutter end*..:angel:

you have any pic with the canon dream lens?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

From
Michiel Schierbeek for the A7r

I must admit i do have quiet a few of them.
24/2.8 nice sharp but hard to correct distortion in upper corners
28/3.5 very good sharp lens but slow. There is a F2 one, hard to find and expensive.
no 35
40/1.8 good and small
50/1.4 nice and fast
50/1.7 sharper, so better as the 1.4
50/1.8 the worst of the 50mm range
Then there is the 57/1.2, which I don't have, but seems to be wonderfull for portraits.
85/1.8 one of my favourite lenses for portraits as well for landscapes.
100 I don't know
I have three 135 of which the 3.2 is the best.
200mm Oké but so are so many.

 

[thomas]

ZM Planar 2.0/50: sharp in the center wide open (center can show moiré even at large distances). Very good at the edges at f5.6 (moiré). Perfect edges at f8. Very well usable at f11. f16 is clearly diffraction limited on the A7R. Very well corrected for chromatic aberrations. Moderate, simple distortion. Typical Planar look.

ZM Tele Tessar 4.0/85: relatively small and light (due to its somewhat modest aperture). Extremely well corrected for distortion (only the very corners show minor disortion... hardly ever noticable even in architecture and similar subjects). Extremely well corrected for chromatic aberrations. Very sharp wide open with usable but slightly soft edges. Very sharp all over the image plane from f5.6.

 

[mark1958]

I am still not happy with the choices in the 24-28mm range… The Zeiss 25mm 2 sounds good but it is big and heavy and trying to keep So how does the Zeiss 25mm 2.0 and Zeiss 25mm 2.8 compare on the A7r. I know that the 2.0 is is better but in what specific ways? Has anyone compared directly and how do these two compare to the Leica 28mm 2.0 R --

 

[doug]

Leica 280mm f/4 APO

 

[Chuck Jones]

Not trying to kick up a dust storm with this, but I like my 28mm 'Cron on my A7R. Here is my take on the whole controversy: A7R And Leica 28mm Summicron - MythBusted? | The Camera Forum

35mm Summicron ver. III - EXCELLENT, incredibly sharp lens, with amazing micro contrast but softer overall contrast than the modern versions. Wonderful video lens. I totally love this lens so much, I haven't even bothered testing the Sony autofocus f/2.8 Zeiss.

90mm f/2.8 Elmarit - 57 years old, well used, and still beautiful softer contrast for portraits on A7R, both still and video. My wife even loves the portraits from this lens ;=)

 

[mark1958]

Chuck. My comment was based on the few 28mm I had tried and what i had read. I have never tried the Leica 28mm Summicron. However this lens is even more than a 28mm Leica R. I guess if you already own one.

To be honest after correction for distortion, I am getting decent results with my 24-70mm zoom. Mine seems to be quite good on the wide end. There is some falloff in the corners and edges but not as bad as I might have imagined based on what i had heard from others.

 

[Chuck Jones]

Chuck. My comment was based on the few 28mm I had tried and what i had read. I have never tried the Leica 28mm Summicron. However this lens is even more than a 28mm Leica R. I guess if you already own one.

To be honest after correction for distortion, I am getting decent results with my 24-70mm zoom. Mine seems to be quite good on the wide end. There is some falloff in the corners and edges but not as bad as I might have imagined based on what i had heard from others.

Mark, my article wasn't intended specifically in response to what you said. In fact, I wrote the article before you posted your comment. There are other threads in several forums, not only here on GetDPI that I was responding to. You would think reading some people's opinions the 28mm 'Cron is horrible on an A7R. I can't see the problem with mine save pixel peeping at 100% and even then it is not that big a deal.

My point is, if you already own a lens, test it for yourself and then decide. What is one man's pleasure is another man's pain. In the case of the Leica 28mm 'Cron, for me it is a pleasure given the high resolving power and the small size and weight. And as always, any of these threads are only as good as the photographs that document our statements :worthless: :ROTFL: :ROTFL:

If I did not already own a 28mm 'Cron, I may or may not have considered buying one for the A7R due to the cost. Having owned both 28mm Leica lenses, M and the R versions, the M lens is the superior of the two but a lot more money, as you rightly point out. Being an old retired "geezer" these days, the cost for me always has to enter the equation. I guess we all have to ask ourselves where do we put the resource dollars available? In my case, the big money is not going to stay in a Leica 28mm very much longer

I also own the Zeiss Contax 28mm f/2, another beautiful lens I would recommend for your consideration at about a third the cost of the Leica 28mm 'Cron. Son told me they have nicknamed this lens the "Hollywood" because so many directors here in town have converted the mount and de-clicked the aperture ring for video use. That likely tells you more about how it looks than everything positive I could say about it.

 

[iiiNelson]

Well I just bought a 85/1.4, 135/28, and 180/2.8 LNIB all in Zeiss Contax/Yashica mounts after looking at results from them online. They all came to a total of about $1650 which is less than I was ready to spend on some Leica R lenses. The main reason was to have similar signature and color since I already have the Zeiss FE 35 & 55. Just waiting to see what happens with the rumored Zeiss FE wide zoom as I want to add a native wide zoom outside my Rokinon 14/2.8.

Will share results once they arrive.

 

[Godfrey]

A clever dodge around all the M-mount lens corner smearing occurred to me this morning. I love to shoot square format (old Rolleiflex/Hasselblad user).

So just crop what the A7 nets to a central square ... that's still a 16Mpixel image or 24Mpixel with the A7r. Aside from broad-based color shifting, all the corner problems will be gone. That opens up using a much larger range of M-mount lenses for me.

Woo hoo! Back to squares!

(I'm testing the M-Rokkor 40/2 on the A7 today. So far, I'm finding it a better fit ergonomically than the Nokton 40/1.4, and I think it will produce a sweeter photograph too.)

G

 

[Godfrey]

A friend is asking which of these works well on the A7/A7r:

Elmarit M 24mm F2.8
Summilux M 35 F 1.4
Summilux M 50mm F1.4
Elmarit 90 M 2.8

I suspect the Elmarit-M 90/2.8 for sure. The others I'm unsure about.

Thanks for any info.

G

 

[iiiNelson]

A friend is asking which of these works well on the A7/A7r:

Elmarit M 24mm F2.8
Summilux M 35 F 1.4
Summilux M 50mm F1.4
Elmarit 90 M 2.8

I suspect the Elmarit-M 90/2.8 for sure. The others I'm unsure about.

Thanks for any info.

G

The 24 Elmar works well on the A7. It's not as good on the A7r. I suspect the Elmarit might be okay and if you use the lens profiles in Lightroom - they help.

I think some have reported great results with the 35 Summilux on both cameras. I know the 35 Nokton II works without issue.

The 50 Summilux works fine on either for me but admittedly I have yet to use it at infinity either. I also rarely concern myself with perfect corners so take that FWIW. The 55 FE is a much better option honestly though and is 1/4 the price new. The ZM 50/2 Planar works great as well.

I have the Pre-AA 90 Summicron. It's great. It's as close to a perfect portrait lens as I've ever used. I assume the 90 Elmarit is great as well and almost certainly better balanced.

That being said I've since decided to add a set of Contax Yachica lenses for a consistent look amongst my Zeiss glass.

 

[dchew]

Sooooo....
What do you guys think between these two Leica lenses on the a7r:
M WATE vs 19mm R??
I suspect they are about the same size (with R adapter mounted). The WATE is a bit more money but more versatile. What about quality?

Dave

 

[Ocean]

The WATE is smaller than the Elmarit-R 19. In term of performance, Elmarit-R 19 has a very smooth rendition which you don't find in the latest M classes. It reminds me a bit of Summilux 35 ASPH (pre-FLE), which to me is very attractive. WATE, on the other hand, is a more contrasty lens, particular in the center. Among the ranges for the WATE, 16mm has the best performance, followed by 21mm and then 21mm. But WATE is also a very flexible lens since it's a true zoom lens.

 

[dchew]

There are currently 7 WATE's on ebay that I found. 5 of them are more than a new one at B&H.
:banghead:

Dave

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks! I suspect he already owns those lenses so is interested in how they might perform, rather than looking for new lenses.

G

The 24 Elmar works well on the A7. It's not as good on the A7r. I suspect the Elmarit might be okay and if you use the lens profiles in Lightroom - they help.

I think some have reported great results with the 35 Summilux on both cameras. I know the 35 Nokton II works without issue.

The 50 Summilux works fine on either for me but admittedly I have yet to use it at infinity either. I also rarely concern myself with perfect corners so take that FWIW. The 55 FE is a much better option honestly though and is 1/4 the price new. The ZM 50/2 Planar works great as well.

I have the Pre-AA 90 Summicron. It's great. It's as close to a perfect portrait lens as I've ever used. I assume the 90 Elmarit is great as well and almost certainly better balanced.

That being said I've since decided to add a set of Contax Yachica lenses for a consistent look amongst my Zeiss glass.

 

[Ocean]

There are currently 7 WATE's on ebay that I found. 5 of them are more than a new one at B&H.
:banghead:

Dave

If one plans to stay with Sony system for a longer period of time, the Elmarit-R 19 is a 'better' and more interesting lens. Personally, I prefer it over the WATE and Zeiss ZF 21 Distagon, purely for it's look and smooth rendering color/style. But if one has already invested in Leica M system, then, WATE will be an obvious choice.

As a side note, I also felt that the WATE performs better on M9/M240 than on A7r.

 

[dchew]

Interesting. I tried the Zeiss 21 (ZE) but did not like it just because of its size. I'd love to get my hands on both, even if it is for an hour. I could tell pretty quickly which one I would bond with.

As you can tell from my previous "ebay" post I've been leaning toward the WATE because of the type of photography I do (mostly higher f-stop on a tripod). But I must say this camera is challenging that premise and expanding my interest in ways the 19 might excel.

Dave

 

[philip_pj]

It's degrees of excellence for these wide angles, I'd buy purely on preference (and cost/condition). The ZF version of the 21/2.8 Distagon is 120 grams lighter than the ZE according to the data sheets - 600g against 720g. These were a redesign to emulate the original CY version (530 grams) which Carl Zeiss threw the kitchen sink at - lots of ED and high index glass for perfect correction, floating element, internal focusing, build quality (it's 15/13), etc.

The ZE/F 21/2.8 is a bit more clinical and contrasty to my eyes, and stopped down performance was less than the Contax while wide open IQ improved somewhat. A sign of the times, many other modern 'digital' Distagons are similar. All the 21s are 25mm longer than the 19mm Elmarit-R and have an 82mm ($$) filter thread.

The 19mm Elmarit-R v2 looks very similar in design and dates from three years earlier than the CY - 1990 to 1993. That era produced a lot of character lenses like these two. Technically the 19mm is also close to the Distagons - MTF, distortion, vignetting, corners will be a little less good.

The CY 21mm is great as expected on the a7r. I am not sentimental though I like it a lot, it is a little long on the a7r and the overly long focus ring is easily shifted while holding the camera it is on, so when Zeiss come along with something as good or (egad!) better for FE, it will be replaced.

 

[Godfrey]

Being as we seem to be on a wide-angle kick at present ...

I did some shooting with the A7 and Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 series I on Saturday. It's a beast of a thing with that huge front element, but not too heavy or off-putting at all. Focusing is crisp but still takes some effort. Corners and edges are good, even wide open—they're just soft, not smeared, and LR5.3's CA removal and occasionally a minor bit of defringing produce excellent results.

I posted four frames from the walk at
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/574377-post250.html

I haven't had time to take out both the Elmarit 19 and Nikkor 18 at the same time yet. They're very different lenses in several ways, and both are excellent on the A7.

Just for grins, I've pulled out the Voigtländer Color Skopar 21mm f/4 and fitted it to the A7 now. A couple of test shots show some color shifting and I haven't examined corners in detail, but it's so tiny compared either of the 18 or 19 mm lenses it will be fun to give it a whirl, even if I end up only liking it for effect and B&W .. ;-)

I also spent time shooting in the dark with the M-Rokkor 40mm on Saturday night as I went to a midnight movie event in downtown San Jose. Mostly wide open and at f/2.8, in those circumstances whatever happens at the corners of the FoV are mostly unimportant and it proves another compact, light-weight, fun lens to shoot with.

More when...

G