You may well be correct, but I think that matter is far from settled, and a single test will always be suspect.
What makes it especially difficult is that's it's possible to focus on the corners with the WATE or the SEM 21 for that matter, then your results skew.
Normally one can just hit the infinity stop, but that's not an option.
Really a proper test would contrast a central focus with the corner focus, where one can see the center weaken.
Today I tried the Leica MATE and WATE on Monochrom and A7RII bodies. Decided there's no significant difference in image quality, viewing @ 100%, when using them on either body. The only differences that mattered were (1) Sony, with live view, is so much easier to use for landscapes, compared to Leica external finders; and (2) it's nice to be able to balance the colors when making BW conversions. Anyone want a nice Monochrom?
Path, fence, and bough by Kirk Thompson, on Flickr
(MATE @ 35mm)
Last edited by thompsonkirk; 30th August 2015 at 09:32.
I'm really enjoying how my Zeiss Biogon M 2.8/21 lens renders with the AR7II. I use the Lightroom lens profile for 21mm Zeiss.
7 Member(s) liked this post
any one tried leica summarit 35mm F2.4 on A7rII yet? it wasnt the best on the original A7r, but it seems like sony has done some magic to the sensor so some of the wide angle lens are now ok. i found Vivek's post a little while ago through google, but perhaps A7rII is still too new back then. thanks.
Keep It Simple.
XQ2 / A7r / 15mm / 25mm / 28-35-50mm
EOS M3 / 18-35mm
So . . . my A7RII arrived early last week. I sent it off to Kolarvsion for "Thin Filter Legacy Lens Upgrade'; it arrived back on Friday.
The upgrade works amazingly well. I haven't done a systematic survey but the 21mm super-elmer is gorgeous corner to corner wide open, as is the 28mm Elmarit Asph. You really need to do this conversion if you shoot legacy Leica glass to realize the potential of this camera. Messes up resale value but this time I'm not reselling.
Highly recommended for Leica shooters.
Image stabilization still works fine. (With the Nocti image stabilization + good high ISO means you can enter untested realms of available light.) I haven't tried the "upgraded" A7RII with native Sony lenses to see that it still autofocuses correctly because I don't own any.
I haven't done a systematic survey but the 21mm super-elmer is gorgeous corner to corner wide open, as is the 28mm Elmarit Asph.
Can you share your experience with converted BW images from the Sony vs. the monochrom. I am sure that some examples would be appreciated by everyone as well.
I have a few similar questions.
I have been using a Leica MM with 21/1.4ASPH, 28/2ASPH, 35/1.4ASPH, 50/1.4ASPH, 75/2ASPH, 90/28 and have worked with each on the previous Sony A7R.
IMO and experience to date:
The only M lens that I found advantageous on the A7R compared to the MM was the 21/1.4ASPH mostly due to not needing a separate 21mm viewfinder with the Sony A7 cameras.
Beyond the smearing and color cast issues with many M lenses, other key disadvantages of the A7R with any M lens are: shutter shock, compressed RAW, and most importantly: lag between shooting and capture. In addition, even with a lot of practice, manual focusing using magnification or focus peaking is slow compared to the M's rangefinder plus, focus peaking is not as reliable as the M rangefinder when shooting lenses like the 50/1.4 wide open.
My question is whether the new A7R-II has solved the lag issue the A7R displayed. All the other new advantages of the A7R-II like IBIS mean nothing to me IF it cannot match the MM Rangefinder's instant capture of those "decisive moments".
My overtly skewed opinion:
Nothing matches a rangefinder for certain types of photography namely working with as few distractions as possible (the antithesis of the Sony complexity of operation and viewing), and for more instant capture (unless the A7R-II has completely solved this issue).
I'd say try before you buy.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
Thanks for sharing your deep experience with the Sony system. You raise several pratical considerations that had not crossed my mind. My chief (and really only) gripe with the M9 is the limited low light performance. I have not shot acceptably above 500-640, particularly in dynamic situations. The image stabilization and extended ISO capabilities of the Sony system solve that issue, at least on paper. I have no interest in buying into a new lens system. With the 35mm Zeiss ZM, 50mm Lux and Cron and 90mm Elmarit, I have never felt I could not get the image I wanted or could not reach by cropping. That being said the fact that the Sony accommodates a wide range of lenses via adapter (including some of my old Contax G and Nikon glass) was frosting on the cake. Perhaps this is what tempted you as well.
As I read more about the use of Leica glass on the Sony platform, the more concerns I have. Your experience with the focus system, which again seems brilliant on paper, is a major disincentive if it does not work as promised, or if, in the final analysis, the simple rangefinder is more efficient. None of that will be changed by a thinner sensor cover.
Marc, since you have the MM, I am curious to know if you have made BW conversions from the Sony. Again, my alternative to getting the a7rii is to pick up a used MM which is approaching the cost of the Sony body. Since the Leica is a BW device, I would not expect the Sony to acheive the same results. But if it is far off the mark, it would be yet another reason to implement my plan B. Plan C would be to wait for the new M (color) body. But, again, I have grown very fond of my M9. When it is good, it is very good. And it is, as you point out, the antithesis of the technical tour de force of the Sony - whose exponential complexity is only tolerable if it triggers increased enjoyment by the same factor.
Last edited by Deliberate1; 13th September 2015 at 07:34.
I'm open to the new A7R-II at least to give it a try to see if it really is more instantaneous capture (sorry if I don't take someone's word for it, as the definition of "immediate" can vary : -)
The handling/speed/operations of the MM is pretty much identical to the M9 so it'll be quite familiar to you. The difference is that the MM easily shoots to ISO-6400 and with a bit of care beyond that. BTW, my favorite lens on the MM is the M50/1.4 ASPH which, for some reason seems a match made in heaven. I had sold my 50/1.4 ASPH to get a 50/0.95, but am now moving back to the 50/1.4 ASPH.
FYI, here's an article comparing three Leica choices for B&W:
One comment that the reviewer mentions in his conclusions matches up with my experiences converting color images, especially CMOS color images, to B&W:
(The Leica MM) "still outputs amazingly sharp images with a great look. And even though a little more noise was creeping in starting around ISO 2500, the noise pattern of the M9M is a little more film-like than that of the M240 and has less image smearing."
I know that the term "Film Like" is always a lightening rod for debate, but it isn't for me. I see exactly what he is saying. For me the MM was a God sent since I always shot B&W film in analog Leica M cameras for decades except now I can shoot in light that was difficult or darn near impossible with film.
As far as "enjoyment" that is highly personal. I do NOT enjoy the Sony cameras. They get the job done for some work, but I have no affinity for them because they are overly complex and fiddly where the MM simply disappears with very little hubbub between me and the subject.
However, I tend to the spontaneous and intuitive type work, mostly people and "of the moment" images meaning a total focus on the content of an image over what it may look like with any given focal length, or color, or any array of buttons to press other than the shutter button. So a Leica M has always suited me more than other camera type. Like I said, very personal.
Try before you buy.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I am actively considering trading my Leica MM for a new A7rII plus glass. If anyone is interested, PM me.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Few test shots with Leica 35mm Summilux-M ASPH (Pre FLE)
6 Member(s) liked this post
These pictures look great. What are the f-stop settings of the last two pics, if you do not mind?
CV15 v3 at either f8 or f11 on A7r2. Performance is excellent. There appears to be a small amount of blur in leaves, but it was very windy (howling actually) and this was the cause. Shot on tripod. This lens is quite sharp on the A7r2. Depth of field is about forever by 5,6. There is no color shift on the edges. Biggest problem is vignetting from the lens itself, somewhat reduced stopping down. The lens itself is tiny. Compare this to the ZF.2 15.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Hiep (alias hiepphotog) and I compared infinity corner performance for a number of lenses on a Stock A7r2 and a Kolari modified A7r2.
In the A7r2.Kolari.mod the sensor cover glass was replaced with a thinner one that was also treated against moisture.
I am now waiting for the 3-rd generation modification that hopefully also includes anti-reflection coating additionally.
Our results are posted here Kolari Mod's Improvements: A Summary of Tests - FM Forums
starting at p.3 #3 · Kolari Mod's Improvements: A Summary of Tests
for the following M lenses.
ZEISS Distagon 2,8/15 ZM Lens seems better in the corner on the A7r2.Kolari.mod than on the M9 - but need to verify.
LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 1:4/16-18-21 APH. A7r2.Kolari.mod slightly improved over Stock A7r2 for all focal lengths.
LEICA ELMARIT-M 1'2.8/21 ASPH. E 55 Surprise. Lens seems fully usable WO on A7r2.Kolari.mod, slight residual field curvature remains though.
LEICA SUMMICRON-M 1:2/28 ASPH. E 46 Very sharp at f/8 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
LEICA ELMARIT-M 1:2.8 ASPH. E 39 Sharp at f/8 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
ZEISS Distagon 1,4/35 ZM Extremely sharp at f/5.6 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
LEICA SUMMILUX-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH. E 46 (non-FLE) Very sharp at f/8 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
LEICA SUMMICRON-M 1:2/35 ASPH. E 39 Very sharp at f/8 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
LEICA SUMMILUX-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. E 46 Very sharp at f/8 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
LEICA APO-SUMMICRON-M 1:2/50 ASPH. Best at f/5.6 to f/11 on A7r2.Kolari.mod, minimall (insignificant?) improvement over Stock A7r2.
LEICA SUMMICRON-M 1:2/50 E 39 Very sharp at f/5.6 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
Ernst Leitz GmbH Wetzlar Summicron f = 5 cm 1:2 (Rigid Summicron) Very sharp at f/8 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
LEICA ELMAR-M 1:2.8/50 E 39 (Collapsible) Very sharp at f/8 on A7r2.Kolari.mod. Stock A7r2 can't catch up.
LEITZ CANADA ELMAR 1:3.5/65 (Visoflex) Very soft - had CLA done, but wonder whether the lens was assembled correctly? I doubt it!
LEICA APO-SUMMICRON-M 1:2/75 ASPH. E 49 Best at f/5.6 to f/11 on A7r2.Kolari.mod, minimal (insignificant?) improvement over Stock A7r2.
LEITZ CANADA SUMMICRON 1:2/90 No discernable degradation of Stock A7r2 relative to Kolari modified A7r2
LEICA ELMARIT-M 1'2.8/90 E 46 No discernable degradation of Stock A7r2 relative to Kolari modified A7r2
LEITZ WETZLAR ELMARIT 1:2.8/90 No discernable degradation of Stock A7r2 relative to Kolari modified A7r2
LEITZ LENS MADE IN CANADA TELE-ELMARIT-M 1:2.8/90 No discernable degradation of Stock A7r2 relative to Kolari modified A7r2
LEITZ WETZLAR TELE-ELMAR 1:4/135 No discernable degradation of Stock A7r2 relative to Kolari modified A7r2
We also compared a number of FE lenses. Here are our conclusions Kolari Mod's Improvements: A Summary of Tests - FM Forums
starting at p.4 #17 · Kolari Mod's Improvements: A Summary of Tests
for the following FE lenses.
ZEISS SONY Carl Zeiss Sonnar FE 2,8/35 ZA 49/0,35m/1,15ft (Zony) Stock A7r2 extremely sharp at f/4, minimal (insignificant?) degradation for A7r2.Kolari.mod in far corner.
MITAKON ZHONGYI SPEEDMASTER 0.95/50MM M67 Version 2 Stock A7r2 sharp at f/8. A7r2.Kolari.mod slightly better?
ZEISS SONY Carl Zeiss Sonnar FE 1,8/55 ZA 49/0,50m/1,64ft (Zony) Stock A7r2 sharp at f/5.6. Slight degradation for A7r2.Kolari.mod in far corner.
SONY FE 2.8/90 MACRO G OSS 62/0.28m/0.92ft Stock A7r2 sharp at f/5.6. Minimal (insignificant?) degradation for A7r2.Kolari.mod in far corner.
We also compared these R lenses.
LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 1:2,8-4.5/28-90 ASPH. E67
LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 1:4/35-70 E60
LEICA SUMMILUX-R 1:1.4/80 E67
LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 1:4/80-200 E60
LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 1:4.2/105-280 E77
LEITZ APO-TELYT-R 3.4/180 E60
LEICA APO-TELYT-R 1:4/280
They should be usable just fine on either Stock A7r2 or Kolari modified A7r2.
Last edited by k-hawinkler; 20th November 2015 at 08:52.
With best regards, K-H.7 Member(s) thanked for this post3 Member(s) liked this post
An FYI/ I have the A7RII and a selection of 4 Leica M lenses. In particular I wanted to use my Leica 50 ASPH 1.4 on my Sony. I LOVE my M lenses and when I look over my M9 files on my previous M9 camera from a few years past the RAW's just have a "pop" that is noticeable....I have been testing my M 50 1.4 against my Sony 55 1.8 and Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 all on my Sony A7RII. The Otus wins on all testing but not by much, and it is huge and heavy on the Sony using an adaptor. I so wanted my M 50 lux lens to be superior in "look" over my Sony 55 1.8. I have been shooting different subject matter both on and off tripod. Sometimes the RAW uncompressed files are very very close in quality...sharpness, micro contrast, bokeh, etc etc. Unfortunately on some of the files, depending on angle of the shot, subject matter, etc. the M Leica files have smeared corners...not blurred, but smeared...not good at all. Bottom line, as painful as it is, I'm going to have to reconcile the fact that the cheaper Sony/Zeiss 1.8 is the lens to use. In wider apertures the sony has a tendency to have color fringing and in this respect my M Leica lens is superior. But most of the fringing can be corrected in Capture One Pro while the Leica M smearing cannot be corrected. So I'm going to have to stay with the Sony/Zeiss 55 over my beloved Leica M 50 lux ASPH lens(I no longer have my Leica camera)...eleanor (PS Leica M 50 lux ASPH file is on top)
Last edited by eleanorbrown; 13th January 2016 at 17:46.
http://www.eleanorbrown.com2 Member(s) thanked for this post
Your findings are consistent with those of others.
With best regards, K-H.1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I was very close to 'add to basket' with the Leica 50 Asph but decided to purchase an Otus. So glad I did..... yes its heavy but its on the money corner to corner and that's what really matters. I'm in the process of selling all of the 'Mint' 'Like New' Leica M lenses. Time to move on......
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
It's amazing that the Sony AF lenses out perform Leica's best because of digital sensor peculiarities. It's so hard for me to have the confidence in those lightweight plastic feeling AF lenses..... but I guess image quality is all that matters. I'm hoping that Zeiss will continue to make the best solution for the Sony but even the Loxia's have been getting mixed reviews. A big thanks to those of you who keep testing and reporting the results for us all.
I never understood the remark "lightweight plastic feeling".
Either a lens is built with stable and durable material or not.
Whether it's metal or plastic doesn't matter to me.
What was a surprise for me though is the degree of cover glass thickness influence on corner smearing.
With best regards, K-H.1 Member(s) thanked for this post1 Member(s) liked this post
Leica announced a few new wides, including a new 35mm f/2 ASPH. I am curious if this "new generation" with "improved performance profiles" would work any better on the Sony.
Steve a couple of days ago I was walking along our street with my dog on a leash and my A7RII with Batis 85 lens. I was using this lens without the hood (which I never do but so many have security cameras around here I didn't want to look like I had a long lens to spy or something)....Some folks don't trust photographers!! anyway my dog jumped right in front of my legs and I, with camera and lens smashed into the concrete.....hard!! I always will do anything to protect my equipment but this time my Batis slammed down hard on the street and took a lot of the hit. The camera had some damage (no EVF focusing) but surprisingly the Batis seemed to have no damage whatsoever except for a slight dent in the lens front plastic type material.... While I've sent both camera and lens to repair company to be checked and camera repaired I think the lens is fine. I was shocked because it was hit hard. So these Batis lenses may be more well made than they feel. They feel a bit lightweight compared to my M lenses I know. Just an fyi as I was surprised the Batis was not shattered!! eleanor
http://www.eleanorbrown.com1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I currently use three M mount lenses in my A7RII lens lineup, and yes I did cheap out on the adapters:
DSF1627 by Amin Sabet, on Flickr
The Voigtlander 15 III is fantastic on the stock A7II and A7RII. It definitely outperforms the Sony 16-35 at 16mm.
The Leica 35/1.4 asph II is very good on the stock A7II and A7RII. I don't have any complaints. It's better on an M but outperforms the Sony 35/1.4 across the frame in terms of sharpness on the Sony bodies.
The Leica 50/1.4 asph suffers a lot on the stock A7RII. I do love this lens and am thinking about doing the Kolari mod. For those who have done the Kolari mod, does it mess up focus accuracy with any of your autofocus lenses?
2 Member(s) liked this post
I sold my 50mm F1.4 two months ago; it was really an unexpected bad surprise and a deception that this lens wasn't working well on the A7r / r2.
Life is an ever changing journey
techartpro site for this adapter in the comments.
February 9, 2016 at 4:56 pm
What about A7s? It works with A7s?
February 9, 2016 at 9:20 pm
The adapter is optimized for Sony A7II and Sony A7R II only. It may not work as good with A7S.
February 10, 2016 at 7:13 am
Does that mean the adapter need phase-shift autofocus system?
February 10, 2016 at 8:41 am
The adapter only works with cameras which open the 3rd party PDAF (i.e. Sony A7ii and Sony A7Rii)
Craig Slingsby2 Member(s) liked this post
1 Member(s) thanked for this post1 Member(s) liked this post
I΄m new to the forum. So far I have been visiting this site sometimes and have found interesting information. I happen to own the Leica 50 APO. Very happy with this lens mounted on my beloved Leica MM.
My next project involves color files, so thinking about getting a second body for this purpose. I wonder how is the performance of the 50 APO mounted on the A7RII for close-up photography, let΄s say 0,7-2m distance to the subject, compare with the native 55 FE.
I have read the test member k-Hawinker has made with the 50 APO mounted in a stock and Kolari versions of A7RII. He states that the lens is best at 5.6-11 aperture. This is good because I intend to shoot with small apertures to gain DOF. My question is how would be the performance of the 50 APO at this apertures ( 5.6-11) compare with, let΄s say the 55FE at the same apertures for close-up shooting.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Does anyone have experience with the Zeiss ZM 2,8/28 on the A7r2?
I rented a ZM 2,8/25. While sharp enough to hurt you in the center, there was considerable light and sharpness falloff in the outer 1/8th of the frame. Not smearing, so maybe the prime culprit was field curvature.
I posted this in the Leica forum but probably more relevant here:
I just traded in my 28 Emarit for the new version, hoping it would work good enough with the a7rII. After a first test I am satisfied. Still smears at 2.8 and a bit at f/4, but f/5.6 is very usable and it is completely gone by f/8. That fits my landscape use just fine since I rarely need sharp corners wide open. So now I have two systems with one set of lenses (monochrom/a7rII).
davechewphotography.com2 Member(s) thanked for this post
With best regards, K-H.1 Member(s) thanked for this post