Loxia 35mm

[cam]

Please take and post some images taken with your "M" and favorite "M" glass and also the same with the Sony and fe glass so that we also can understand how that "M" stuff is considered by you to be so much above the Sony stuff.

Cheers, Monty

It's very late here, so I'll be brief... It's not going to happen. I don't shoot brick walls. I shoot moments. And that can't be replicated on two cameras... Suffice to say, I've been shooting M's long enough to know what I can get out of them (for better or worse). My own personal opinion from experience.

I'm absolutely not dissing the Sony. Maybe I'd feel differently if the AA was stripped like on the A7R? Probably. But then I wouldn't have silence and high ISO, so the camera would be of no use to me.

 

[iiiNelson]

Please take and post some images taken with your "M" and favorite "M" glass and also the same with the Sony and fe glass so that we also can understand how that "M" stuff is considered by you to be so much above the Sony stuff.

Cheers, Monty

I'm not Cam but having owned both M (it was my primary system for 4 or 5 years) and being a current Sony FE user I can say the biggest difference is the availability of a wider range of great lenses (mostly in part of one system being 18 months old and the other being 100+ essentially) provided you can deal with manual/zone focusing exclusively.

Either does their intended job very well and either can make the "same" shot so you're asking someone to prove their subject preference.

I don't think anyone will argue that that the Sony is the more flexible system but I also don't think many will argue that the M is the more refined system; provided you're comfortable with being "stuck" between 12-135mm.

As for native Sony FE glass - so far the only lens I personally have loved and still own is the 55FE. I suspect I could like/love the 28FE, 16-35FE, 35 Distagon, 70-200FE, 90 Macro, and the 50 Loxia as well since the ZM50 Planar was my favorite 50mm lens on the M. I've owned and sold the 24-70FE and 35FE (they just didn't live up to my own personal expectations based off reviews, first hand account, and other lenses that I own/adapt.)

I freely admit (unapologetically I might add) my needs/desires may be a bit different than many (maybe even most) other FE owners that want/need smaller and slower glass. I want/need fast (f/2+) glass that's optically excellent with some character and pretty consistent color when needed. Truth be told if Pentax offered leaf shuttered lenses I'd probably sell everything except my A7R-FS and a handful of lenses (where maybe small lenses would matter to me more since I'd have an optical monster, physically and metaphorically, in the Pentax) towards a 645Z at this point.

 

[CharlesK]

I'm not Cam but having owned both M (it was my primary system for 4 or 5 years) and being a current Sony FE user I can say the biggest difference is the availability of a wider range of great lenses (mostly in part of one system being 18 months old and the other being 100+ essentially) provided you can deal with manual/zone focusing exclusively.

Either does their intended job very well and either can make the "same" shot so you're asking someone to prove their subject preference.

I don't think anyone will argue that that the Sony is the more flexible system but I also don't think many will argue that the M is the more refined system; provided you're comfortable with being "stuck" between 12-135mm.

As for native Sony FE glass - so far the only lens I personally have loved and still own is the 55FE. I suspect I could like/love the 28FE, 16-35FE, 35 Distagon, 70-200FE, 90 Macro, and the 50 Loxia as well since the ZM50 Planar was my favorite 50mm lens on the M. I've owned and sold the 24-70FE and 35FE (they just didn't live up to my own personal expectations based off reviews, first hand account, and other lenses that I own/adapt.)

I freely admit (unapologetically I might add) my needs/desires may be a bit different than many (maybe even most) other FE owners that want/need smaller and slower glass. I want/need fast (f/2+) glass that's optically excellent with some character and pretty consistent color when needed. Truth be told if Pentax offered leaf shuttered lenses I'd probably sell everything except my A7R-FS and a handful of lenses (where maybe small lenses would matter to me more since I'd have an optical monster, physically and metaphorically, in the Pentax) towards a 645Z at this point.

Likewise having had the M bodies now for 5 years M9, M9P, MM and M240 and wonderful set of M lenses, I loved the system. I have only recently sold my last M240 body about 6 months ago and I have not regretted. Most of M lenses are still with me and the Sony system is evolving quickly. It is not a question to which a better system, just what works for us and our artistic needs

Keeping with the thread the Loxia 35 and 50 are wonderful option with the A7 bodies, and I suspect they have been designed for the A7II and later bodies that will be coming out.

 

[ashwinrao1]

What a great debate. I actually went back and took a look at my photos from the M9, spanning 5 years....I do find that in some instances, particularly at base ISO, it's clear that the M9 has a special characteristic of IQ rendering...Further, the RF experience itself is quite inspiring. The A7 series expands the DR and ISO capabilities dramatically, and at times, the DR is so much that it's hard to coax pop that we are used to seeing from lower DR sensors....I struggle with this at times, but have many images taken the the A7s and Leica lenses that experienced viewers believe are coming from an M9...all of that said, the Loxia's have their own characteristic signature and are known to render a certain type of image.

You all have me thinking hard about what gear I will take on my next trip overseas to Iceland and beyond...A7s and Loxias, or M kit with M9p and Monochrom..the choice is not clear cut...


And Jack, you are right...the 35 Lox does occasionally produce a busy bokeh...the Leica 35's are far smoother, particularly the 'cron...

 

[ashwinrao1]

And agreed with above..there's no such thing yet as an M killer. Leica is yet to be matched for feel of camera, pride of ownership, or performance of lenses...the sensors, within their defined limits, also hard to top....and the Monochrom is truly unbeatable, in my opinion...

 

[ashwinrao1]

Tre, you makes some great points... the Loxia 50 is a 50 planar re-do, so I think you'd love it. The thing I love about loxias is their build (they feel like M lens-quality builds), the way they implement focus, and their smaller size...to me, fit the A7 series haptics better than the 90 macro, for example...huge lens, or the 35 distagon, which I love (IQ wise, from what I see) but is too big (volume wise...have heard it's not heavy)

 

[ashwinrao1]

Hi Cam, THe AA can be stripped from the A7s...Kolarivision does this....I am tempted. Charles has had a mod done for his A7R, and I am toying with the idea for my A7s, though I am not sure how loxia performance may be affected and worry a bit about this...

 

[ashwinrao1]

Cam, great to hear from you!!!

You know, I felt the same way about the loxias (redundant to my M's, as both are manual focus), but then I tried them out....and they had to be in my kit. I immediately sold my 35 and 55 FE lenses, to get the loxias, and zero regrets...

All of that said, I still love my M9P and adore the MM...they do make the heart and soul sing!

 

[ashwinrao1]

And keep in mind, all that the M9 would not have been able to make the first shot that I posted...the A7s barely blinks at ISO 12800...which is bonkers....

 

[ashwinrao1]

First off, love the image!

But, is it just me, or is the background bokeh looking little "nervous" here?

Hi Jack..yes...actually reminds me of older 35's in this regard...not always a bad thing, as it adds definition to the OOF...that being said, not always a good thing either

 

[cam]

Hi there back, Ashwin!

Hi Cam, THe AA can be stripped from the A7s...Kolarivision does this....I am tempted. Charles has had a mod done for his A7R, and I am toying with the idea for my A7s, though I am not sure how loxia performance may be affected and worry a bit about this...

Yes. I've thought about this. Seriously. But I'm not sure if it will play nice with FE lenses either, which gives me pause... Then, again, it's my one big bugbear with the RX1 (I don't have the RX1R) -- it's like I can see that veil and it drives me mad! Too many years of shooting without AA, I guess.

Speaking of which, how does the 35 Loxia compare with the glass on the RX1R, in your opinion? Is it close? The RX1 made me fall back in love with 35mm, both because of the character of the lens and the fact that I now could get close enough.

Cam, great to hear from you!!!

You know, I felt the same way about the loxias (redundant to my M's, as both are manual focus), but then I tried them out....and they had to be in my kit. I immediately sold my 35 and 55 FE lenses, to get the loxias, and zero regrets...

All of that said, I still love my M9P and adore the MM...they do make the heart and soul sing!

I've missed you even if you are such an evil influence on me I take what you say seriously, so I'll probably do a Lens Rental next time I'm in town. (I actually do shoot the RX1 manually most of the time.)

But I got the A7S so I could learn auto-focus, pfffft!

And this:

And keep in mind, all that the M9 would not have been able to make the first shot that I posted...the A7s barely blinks at ISO 12800...which is bonkers....

It is insane! And it's spoiled me such that when I go back to the Ms, I sometimes get taken up short, lol.

You all have me thinking hard about what gear I will take on my next trip overseas to Iceland and beyond...A7s and Loxias, or M kit with M9p and Monochrom..the choice is not clear cut...

Seriously consider it... The last trip I took both (not the Loxias, obviously) and the MM stayed in the bag. It was a conscious choice -- I needed to see if I could be content with just the Sony. I was.

I missed the act of shooting with a rangefinder, not just the cameras and the glass glass, but there was something nice about not having to think so hard -- I just let myself have fun. And the fact that there really wasn't a cap on the ISO and the silence itself that allowed me to play in many situations where I just wouldn't have tried with the M.

Not only did I want a light* kit I could travel with but, also, an inexpensive kit. Well, relatively inexpensive... The Sony with lenses cost less than one piece of Leica glass in many cases. That's very freeing.

* I picked up a used Mitakon, too, because I still like to shoot in ridiculously low light, sometimes, and knew that... Negates some of the weight savings, but the Noctilux was always one of my favourite travel lenses.


On that note, okay... You've all convinced me. I'll give the Loxias a try to see if it might be part (aside from the intact AA) of what I'm missing on the Sony. Sigh, Ashwin, you've never been very good for my pocketbook!

 

[Paratom]

I have had the Loxia 35mm for some time now. Regarding the rendering (color/bokeh/transition from sharp to background) I like the lens a lot. I also like the handling and the size/speed ratio is near perfect for the A7II IMO.
Still I find out that sometimes one is faster/a little more accurate (when shooting moving subjects like kids) when having AF.
I feel when using the Loxia 35 the images I get with the A7II look better than with most FE lenses I have. Smoother, more natural, more like what I get from the Leica M body and lenses.

For me the A7II is technically a very good camera (system), I dont even miss any more lenses because the ones they offer fit my needs,

BUT I dont enjoy shooting it as much as I enjoy shooting the M for example.
Why? I have not found out yet. One factor is EVF still make me feel disconnected from the subject. Another issue might be that a camera with face detection and autoeverything it might be too passive and simple to take an image (I know I COULD switch everything too manual, but I dont), another thing might be the mass of buttons and functions gives me the feeling that this is more a computer with loads of software than a simpe straight forward "tool" which I have fully under control (I have the 7II under control as well but some think...why are there so many buttons I dont use, did I miss anything? Do I have all settings right?)
I also dont like the short product cycle.
So I am somewhere lost at the moment and I believe a) lenses and b) user interface are important factors today when choosing a camera (system).

 

[Vivek]

One factor is EVF still make me feel disconnected from the subject.

I am decisively lost on this. Is this like the Fandler magic that may or may not exist?

I am disconnected from the current Leica because they are boutique selling blood suckers. $7K for a normal lens? :wtf:

 

[iiiNelson]

One thing that was invaluable to my FE transition from the M was forcing myself to using the A7/A7R for a month or two and consequently it's what I did while forcing myself to learn Capture One. The menus will become second nature and you will get a lot more comfortable with the Sony quirks as opposed to the Leica quirks.

Truth is the M makes so much more sense mostly because of familiarity and the reduction of available options in contrast to the Sony.

 

[RiversPhoto]

Currently on my first vacation in 15 years without an M system. Total equipment includes A7 and A7s with Loxia 35, 50 and the 24-70 zoom for all stills and additionally a Canon 200mm FD for video. I think the Loxia lenses "make" this system work for me as I visualize and shoot in a similar fashion to working with my Leica M system. I don't want the camera to get in the way of my seeing, and the ease of use of the Loxia lenses keeps it simple for my feeble mind. I would add a 21 or 25mm Loxia and be done.

 

[Jack]

I think with time one can get over the feeling of "disconnect" from the Sony EVF -- I know I did. If you've shot Leica M's, it takes some getting used to as they do offer a better connection than even a regular slr reflex view. But the reality is that for my old eyes, the focus peaking makes manual focus once again easy even for an old guy with stig issues -- that was not so on the M RF --- unfortunately --- and why I ended up selling off the M system

But that said, now the Mitakon on the Sony is about the closest thing to an M feel I have used since the M. It isn't "the same as," but definitely in the same ballpark now that I mostly am not even aware the focus peaking is peaking --- if you use it for a bit, that sentence will make sense and you'll understand what I mean...

BUT! It doesn't alter the fact I'd like to have a few more good AF prime solutions for the little Sony body!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Coming from a optical finder for many years I got the hang of EVF pretty quickly. Now I don't even realize it anymore. On the other hand some find it difficult to get used too. With focus peaking and the zoom feature manual focusing is really a breeze for me. I left Leica back with ownership at least with the M8 and I don't see myself ever going back to RF style. End of day for real work I found it way to limiting. I'm talking Pro use here it got in my way far to often and I wound up selling it all. I went MF and to a certain degree it was also limiting. But I did like the files so you dealt with it. With Sony and the A7 series I hit a few walks here and there but nothing I could not figure out quickly to get work done. I really went for several reasons from Nikon to Sony and it was for manual focus as I find it easier with the Sony. Nikon has nice AF but I only really need that with certain gigs and now half the time with the Sonys I'm on manual focus anyway and a arear button ready to go for AF in a split second if needed. It really comes down to knowing your gear and what it can really do for you. Leica has too much of a long lens limitation for me. I need 200 and 300 and fast for some gigs.

 

[iiiNelson]

Coming from a optical finder for many years I got the hang of EVF pretty quickly. Now I don't even realize it anymore. On the other hand some find it difficult to get used too. With focus peaking and the zoom feature manual focusing is really a breeze for me. I left Leica back with ownership at least with the M8 and I don't see myself ever going back to RF style. End of day for real work I found it way to limiting. I'm talking Pro use here it got in my way far to often and I wound up selling it all. I went MF and to a certain degree it was also limiting. But I did like the files so you dealt with it. With Sony and the A7 series I hit a few walks here and there but nothing I could not figure out quickly to get work done. I really went for several reasons from Nikon to Sony and it was for manual focus as I find it easier with the Sony. Nikon has nice AF but I only really need that with certain gigs and now half the time with the Sonys I'm on manual focus anyway and a arear button ready to go for AF in a split second if needed. It really comes down to knowing your gear and what it can really do for you. Leica has too much of a long lens limitation for me. I need 200 and 300 and fast for some gigs.

Pretty much my experience and rationale for leaving Leica as it was too limiting for the 25% of the time that I need/use focal lengths longer than 90mm (although I would say between 21-90mm I haven't found an equal for lens quality in the 35mm realm.) My work around and backup to the M9 was popping my 90 Cron Pre-AA onto my NEX-5 so I sort of knew what I was getting into with shifting primarily to the FE system but it's not for everyone.

Truth be told the majority of us can do most of what we need to do with a half decent DSLR if forced to but having the choices we have is a good thing. If something doesn't work out for you move on to something that fits your needs a bit better. I'm pretty firmly in the Sony camp because I love the color, the flexibility of the FE mount, and the reasonable cost. If they don't produce what I want and am willing to wait for at this point then I'll revisit the "best available system for me" debate. I have zero loyalty until a check starts flowing into my account - and even then that's debatable because I have enough integrity that I won't lie about what I think... although I may omit my thoughts for the right price. LOL

Sony is somewhat of a polarizing company for many reasons. The FE system brings up seemingly strong feelings from both points of view. I think a lot of it has to do with hype, press, and the innovation that the cameras are/potentially can be. At the end of the day no one should have any issue with what you use and why. Use what you like and be happy.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Could not agree more. I have zero brand loyalty and I proved that more than once switching systems on a dime to find hopefully greenier pastures. I'm willing to wait on Sony for a little while longer. Im looking for the A7r replacement and if they take even what tech they have now I'm good to go.

 

[biglouis]

My feeling is that in ten years from now people will pick up cameras with optical viewfinders and find them 'interesting' rather like the digital versus film debate.

(Yes, film is organic and interesting but once you scan it and digitise it why not use a digital capture at source?).

I can almost hear the conversations. "Man, since I went optical I really feel I am connected with the subject - it is sooo kewl!" (But deep in my little black heart if I have a difficult lighting situation I'll pick up my cam with evf so I can adjust EV in live view).

If you really love optical then you cannot get better than a ground glass screen on a Hasselblad V. But frankly all other optical is in my experience significantly inferior to current EVFs and indeed I would not now buy a camera with an optical viewfinder.

Just my two cents.

LouisB