Sony lens choices, what I have and how I got there…

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I got my A7rII late August and have spent some time and money on lenses since that, here is what I wanted and what I got…

Analysis of needs/wants:

• General purpose lens like 24-105/4, perfectly sharp and no aberrations
• Wide angle zoom also f/4 very good
• Short telephoto, sharp at full aperture and no axial chromatic aberration
• Telephoto zoom, 70-400 mm, sharp at all focal length when stopped down to f/8
• Preferably Canon mount lenses as they can be used with a HCam/Mirex/Kipon T&S adapter

What I have now:

• Canon 24-105/4 as general purpose lens, decent but not truly great
• Canon 16-35/4 as wide angle zoom. Better than the other lenses I own
• Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII, this is my main T&S lens. Very useful, but my sample is not as sharp as my 16-35/4
• Sony 90/2.8G Macro, quite OK. Probably not as good as the Batis 85/1.9
• Sony 70-400/4-5.6G, this is an A-mount lens I have owned for a few years. Quiet OK.

Considerations for short telephoto lens:

What I wanted was really a highly corrected 85/2 lens. Foremost I wanted little axial chroma (the stuff that causes magenta/green fringing in out of focus areas). The Otus 85/1.4 would be perfect but it is large, heavy and expensive, being an f/1.4 lens. The Zeiss 135/2 APO was interesting, but I don't think 135 mm is my favourite focal length.

The Batis arrived and 85/1.9 was pretty perfect. I put an order on it, but also considered the Sony 90/2.8G.

After 2-3 months I still did not have a delivery date for the Batis, while the Sony 90/2.8G had some very positive reviews. So I cancelled the Batis and got the Sony. In afterthought I think the Batis would be sharper but the Sony 90/2.8G has full macro capability, a great bonus.

Considerations for general purpose lens:

This was a tough one. I have a Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA that does a decent service, but it is not great at all at the long end. Also, I wanted a Canon lens.

Alternatives were:

• Canon 24-70/2.8LII: Great lens but I cannot afford it right now, doesn't go beyond 70 mm. Also, I have seen two bad samples…
• Sigma 24-105/4 A: Not as good as the Canon lens, probably weak around 70 mm (?), 82 mm front diameter.
• Canon 24-70/4: Nice lens, but seems to have significant focus shift from f/4 (where I focus) to f/8 (where I shoot)
• Canon 24-105/4: Better than it's reputation. This is what I finally bought. Not as good as the 16-35/4 in the short and and far below the Sony 90/2.8G at the long end.
• Contax 35-135/4 3.3/4.5. A zoom lens for the Contax RTS system, very good at long end.

Consideration for a wide angle zoom lens:

This was easy - Canon 16-35/4L, no competition.

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I recently ordered a used Contax/Yashica 35-135/3.3-4.5 zoom, too. I have found that working with the Canon lenses on the HCam Master TSII is a bit cumbersome as you need a camera to stop down the lens. Also, the Canon 24-105/4L is not that great at the long end.

The MTF data for the Contax 35-135 is a mixed bag, lot of astigmatism (or lateral chroma) on the short end but very good curves at the long end.

Best regards
Erik

 

[jlm]

My walk around lens lately is the 90mm f2.8 Zeus contax G with the autofocus techart adapter. Very sharp and the autofocus works fine

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I got my Contax/Yashica 35-135/3.3-4.5 Vario-Sonnar and did some quick check shots from the balcony.

It is a very neat lens, very smooth in operation. Front ring rotates. Regarding sharpness it's similar to the Canon 24-105/4L, doesn't blow off your socks but quite good.

I mainly intend it for using tilts to extend depth of field. Have been shooting a lot of alpine flowers and really want focus to stretch from flowers to background. I would think this lens may do a good job on that.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I recently ordered a used Contax/Yashica 35-135/3.3-4.5 zoom, too. I have found that working with the Canon lenses on the HCam Master TSII is a bit cumbersome as you need a camera to stop down the lens. Also, the Canon 24-105/4L is not that great at the long end.

The MTF data for the Contax 35-135 is a mixed bag, lot of astigmatism (or lateral chroma) on the short end but very good curves at the long end.

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

First real world image using tilt on the Contax, around 60 mm and probably f/11 (may be f/16).

Full size image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/TS_Stuff/20160411-_DSC4931.jpg
DNG file: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/TS_Stuff/20160411-_DSC4931.dng

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I got my Contax/Yashica 35-135/3.3-4.5 Vario-Sonnar and did some quick check shots from the balcony.

It is a very neat lens, very smooth in operation. Front ring rotates. Regarding sharpness it's similar to the Canon 24-105/4L, doesn't blow off your socks but quite good.

I mainly intend it for using tilts to extend depth of field. Have been shooting a lot of alpine flowers and really want focus to stretch from flowers to background. I would think this lens may do a good job on that.

Best regards
Erik

 

[dchew]

Nice lens selection Erik. Mine is very different, and I think that variety of options is the real reason this camera system is so popular.

I wanted compact lenses, don't care about autofocus and in general migrate to primes. So:

• Batis 25: this is the most recent addition. I wish it wasn't so big, but at least the 67mm filter threads match what I already carry. I still wish there was a rangefinder option in the 24-28mm FL that worked well with this camera. At least the Batis is light.
• Sony FE 35 f/2.8: I tried the Loxia, and although I like the controls on the Loxia this 35 copy is actually sharper.
• Leica 50 f/2 apo asph: fantastic lens and very small. If I didn't also have the Monochrom I would probably just use the FE 55, but I prefer manual focus anyway.
• Leica apo 90 f/2: tiny and wonderful for an f/2 lens.
• Leica R apo 180 f/2.8: This is where the 67mm threads come in.

It is flexible but of course no zooms so not fast and too limiting for most people. A much more reasonable solution, at least cost-wise would be the Batis, FE 35 and 55, then the Sony or Canon 70-200 f/4. Also no macro and no tilt. Your selections are considerably more versatile.

I leave behind the 180 and 35 if I'm going light. Then the whole thing can fit in a chest pouch.

Dave