The lens is an M42 (screwmount) lens. So it's the adaptor they call 'NEX-CO'.
I have had my A7R in the box, on the shelf for 10 days now. No lens.....
5 minutes ago I ordered the first one It is 'my' copy on the pic...
The default lens normally fitted to my A7, so far, is the Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4. Second to that has been the Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8.
In the past couple of weeks, however, the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 has been sitting on it a bit more of the time: it makes the A7 into a compact camera.
But I really like to use it with the 90mm, the 19mm, the 18mm, the 135mm, and the 35mm just arrived ...
The one lens I could likely do without is the Elmarit-R 180mm f/2.8 mostly because of its size and weight. I should likely have gotten the Elmar-R 180mm f/4 instead.
That's as much as I can say about 'the one manual focus lens' ... ;-)
I think Leica Summicron 40 Very nice pics indeed, and a size/FL that fits the A7R very nciely IMHO..
Just Sandra.. World of Games
My M-Rokkor 40 is the generation II model that shipped with the Minolta CLE. It adds to the Summicron-C and generation I M-Rokkor lenses with multi-coating and is a tiny bit smaller/lighter as well; same optical formula. It's a very very nice lens.
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream1 Member(s) liked this post
My first post...I tried 4 of my standard lenses on my A7R and ended up selling 2 of them.
The 55mm f1.8 FE Sonnar performed the best in terms of IQ IMHO.
I still felt that the 58mm f1.2 Rokkor had a look all of it's own to make me still want to keep it as well.
I was pretty happy with the 50mm ZM Planar until I tried the 55MM FE Sonnar.
The Leica Summilux was my least favourite of the 4 lenses tested on the A7R.
Last edited by Barry Haines; 12th March 2014 at 15:21.
Barry: it's been widely recognized that summilux-m 50 doesn't really play nice with the A7(r). Some report success but vast majority say it's useless. Summilux-R however seems really nice. Though if you're looking for just one 50'ish, then the native FE55 puts up hard to beat competition.
Godfrey: been playing with the 50 cron for some time and especially wide open it seems rather soft. Unfortunately I have a crap adapter, so I can't say whether that is the actual culprit.. maybe I'll just buy a quality one and see what that does. This chinese one I got for free.. so guess i'm getting what I paid for - a full bag of nothing
Here's a page showing the results of the Summicron-R 50mm:
I use a Novoflex NEX/LER adapter and a Novoflex ASTAT/NEX tripod mount. Expensive. Worth it.
Last edited by Godfrey; 12th March 2014 at 23:48.
Here are a couple of samples. I'm not actually sure wether these were wide open or even stopped down to 5.6.. anyway, not crazy sharp. I was actually expecting a bit more..
In the first photo focus was on the lady in the left and second on the lady in center. Straight out of camera, unaltered raw files to download and play around with...
Maybe I need to do some more test shots around the house.. perhaps on a tripod.
The light falloff at edges and corners, plus the focus zone, suggest an f/2 exposure. Compensating for that with the Lens Corrections panel in LR5.3, it looks like the plane of critical focus is about 1-2' closer than the woman seated on the bench, running slightly in front of the woman walking on the right. You can see how quickly the zone of focus drops off past the woman on the left ... normally you would expect that if she was the critical focus plane, there would be a bit more focus behind her than in front of her, but the reverse is true. However, there is still good detail in both of their clothes, and there's a little bit of the typical Summicron-R veiling 'glow' (coma, flare, whatever) from being wide open. You can see that in the test shots I provided by looking at the differences between the f/2, f/2.8 and f/4 1:1 clips.
In this one, the light falloff looks much more typical of f/2.8-f/4, and the ISO has bumped up to 250 in similar light as the previous supporting that idea too. Again the critical focus plane is slightly in front of the central figure of the woman; it drops off a bit too quickly behind her. If you examine the ground carefully, there is evidence of some camera movement in the critical plane of focus (look at the ground, you'll see a little side-to-side blur on what should be stationary pebbles). There's still good detail in her dress, in her face and hands, but its lacking the crisp pop of a dead-on focus and vibrationless camera.
Judging from these two photos, the lens seems to be performing as expected. I'd suggest focus practice and work on holding the camera more steadily. I've seen camera movement blur even at 1/1000 second, so don't think just because the exposure is made at 1/400 second you're guaranteed to be steady.
Godfrey: thanks for the analysis, exactly why I posted the raw files.. helps getting a better 2nd opinion on things.
For the first photo (focus, woman left) I'm a little surprised about bumming the focus. I was fraiming first, then moved the focus rectangle over the woman and used the magnification to focus. With focus and recompose that would have a more likely thing to happen.
Same also applies somewhat to the 2nd one, but maybe that's more due to the camera movement.
But I'm also still wondering about the adapter.. just thinking that since it has that 2-3mm play at the mount, I suppose it doesn't have to rotate much after focusing to screw it up.. and it is easily loose enough, that it could have turned..
1/400 and camera movement is also quite surprising. I wouldn't have expected that from myself, as I had perfectly good time to adjust the shot and stand still. She stopped to pose for me.. dissapointed in myself mostly with that.