The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun With Sony Cameras

Status
Not open for further replies.

pegelli

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the NEX cameras....

Nice shots mazor, I've been thinking about pen-F lenses, but it would add another adapter in my bag. Still torn because they seem to perform lovely on a NEX.

Had some fun at a cooking class, taking my NEX6 along with the E30/3.5 macro

Teacher/cook


Appetizer


Main course


Desert


Hard at work
 

jonoslack

Active member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

The best mid range zoom ever made was the Leica 35-70 2.8 R. I had one cost almost 7k. The next Leica r 28-90 cost about the same. Leica S 30-90 cost 10k anything less than these every mid level zoom will be average or slightly above most will suck at the extreme wide end of it and also distort. These are far tougher lenses to design than the longer ones like a 70-200 since they always incorporate wider than 35mm which is a tougher design to build within a certain budget range. The Leica glass above is big , heavy, expensive but built with the best in class in mind. Nikon, Sony, Canon and others will not build a lens design that is anywhere near those qualities and expense, that's a given. You want a great 24mm than buy a prime no zoom will be better in overall performance. Maybe the best zoom around these days within reach is the Nikon 14-24 but even that has issues. We can't expect Sony to build a 24-70 that is anything like there 55 1.8 which technically is a much easier design to build within a certain budget range. Can you get a nice zoom sure but you will never get one in overall performance to match a prime. This has been my opinion for 38 years and it has not changed one bit. YMMV
HI There Guy
Added to which, wide angle zooms (like the Nikon 14-24, Leica 16-20, Panasonic 7-14) are, I understand, much easier to design, in fact, making them into zooms holds little disadvantages over relevant primes - so if you want a good 24mm either (as you say) get a prime - or else, get one of the grand wide angle zooms which are around.

So - Tim - When are you getting yours?

All the best
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

I had a visitor this afternoon - actually a pack of coyotes but only one came out of the bush for a clear shot. 70-400G, ISO 1600, hand held. Foggy because it was snowing hard and shot through heavy thermopane glass at an acute angle!

My like button doesn't work … but it allows me to say I LOVE this shot!

Maybe a touch of contrast adjustment?

-Marc
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

HI There Guy
Added to which, wide angle zooms (like the Nikon 14-24, Leica 16-20, Panasonic 7-14) are, I understand, much easier to design, in fact, making them into zooms holds little disadvantages over relevant primes - so if you want a good 24mm either (as you say) get a prime - or else, get one of the grand wide angle zooms which are around.

So - Tim - When are you getting yours?

All the best
I was due one about ten days ago but someone f@#%d up and I now expect it next week...
 

W.Utsch

Member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

Some more from the FE 24-70/4. These are shot from a terrace on a roof, it was (is) very windy today. Difficult to impossible to stand without moving. OSS was very welcome and good conditions to test.


Distortion correction in LR using the 24-70/2.8 A lens profile




No correction




Distortion correction in LR using the 24-70/2.8 A lens profile

 

Annna T

Active member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

The best mid range zoom ever made was the Leica 35-70 2.8 R. I had one cost almost 7k. The next Leica r 28-90 cost about the same. Leica S 30-90 cost 10k anything less than these every mid level zoom will be average or slightly above most will suck at the extreme wide end of it and also distort. These are far tougher lenses to design than the longer ones like a 70-200 since they always incorporate wider than 35mm which is a tougher design to build within a certain budget range. The Leica glass above is big , heavy, expensive but built with the best in class in mind. Nikon, Sony, Canon and others will not build a lens design that is anywhere near those qualities and expense, that's a given. You want a great 24mm than buy a prime no zoom will be better in overall performance. Maybe the best zoom around these days within reach is the Nikon 14-24 but even that has issues. We can't expect Sony to build a 24-70 that is anything like there 55 1.8 which technically is a much easier design to build within a certain budget range. Can you get a nice zoom sure but you will never get one in overall performance to match a prime. This has been my opinion for 38 years and it has not changed one bit. YMMV
I wonder whether the flange distance picked by Sony for the A7/7r isn't too short to produce good wide angle lenses on a FF ? I wonder why they kept the same mount as the Nex since the Nex lenses can't cover full frame anyway. They could have picked a flange just a little shorter than the RF film bodies (around 28mm), but if my memory serves me correctly, the MFT bodies have a flange distance of 19mm (but for a 4/3 sensor), while the Nex have an even smaller register of 17.5mm (?). I really wonder whether Sony didn't cast themselves in a dead end when they chose to use the same mount as the Nex for the Alphas.

Many wants smaller lighter bodies (aka a return to the body size of film times), but it doens't have to be as small as a compact.
 
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

Flange distance is not relevant, it could be also zero, with the sensor flush to the body.
What counts is the angle of incidence of the rays, which depends only on lens design.
(when you use an adapter with a retrofocus ultra wide lens, which has no problems on
the A7/7r) register is measured at the plane of the adapter.)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

I wonder whether the flange distance picked by Sony for the A7/7r isn't too short to produce good wide angle lenses on a FF ? I wonder why they kept the same mount as the Nex since the Nex lenses can't cover full frame anyway. They could have picked a flange just a little shorter than the RF film bodies (around 28mm), but if my memory serves me correctly, the MFT bodies have a flange distance of 19mm (but for a 4/3 sensor), while the Nex have an even smaller register of 17.5mm (?). I really wonder whether Sony didn't cast themselves in a dead end when they chose to use the same mount as the Nex for the Alphas.

Many wants smaller lighter bodies (aka a return to the body size of film times), but it doens't have to be as small as a compact.
A shorter register allows more flexibility in lens design, and also means that the A7/A7r can be compatible with existing lenses. Whether those lenses are the best choice for the sensor is irrelevant .. the fact that they're available for use is more important.

The shallow mount register is, if anything, a boon to creating ultra wide lenses that will perform well ... it takes away the limitations of having a deep register with mechanical interference problems (as in any SLR) and gives a lens designer freedom to lay out the optics to do the best job. You can always add depth in front of the mount register if needed for a lens design. You cannot remove depth if you need it to be shallower. The only real problem at this time is that there are only a few lenses available as yet, for lack of time to design, develop, and produce them. The system is very young...

What having such a shallow mount register does is remove one of the most significant constraints on lens design for the SLR: the deep register and mechanical interference posed by the swinging mirror. Now the lens designer can concentrate on the other constraint critical to producing the best lenses for a digital sensor: managing the ray trace to corners and edges to make them as close to orthogonal to the sensor plane as possible. This is why fixed-lens digital camera lens elements approach so close to the sensor plane: the rear elements are making minute corrections to the ray trace so that they land on the sensor dead-on to orthogonal, right to the corners.

You don't often see that kind of lens design in interchangeable lens cameras because there are too many ways that the lens can be mishandled when exchanging that can cause damage to lens, sensor, or shutter.

G
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

A shorter register allows more flexibility in lens design, and also means that the A7/A7r can be compatible with existing lenses. Whether those lenses are the best choice for the sensor is irrelevant .. the fact that they're available for use is more important.

The shallow mount register is, if anything, a boon to creating ultra wide lenses that will perform well ... it takes away the limitations of having a deep register with mechanical interference problems (as in any SLR) and gives a lens designer freedom to lay out the optics to do the best job. You can always add depth in front of the mount register if needed for a lens design. You cannot remove depth if you need it to be shallower. The only real problem at this time is that there are only a few lenses available as yet, for lack of time to design, develop, and produce them. The system is very young...

What having such a shallow mount register does is remove one of the most significant constraints on lens design for the SLR: the deep register and mechanical interference posed by the swinging mirror. Now the lens designer can concentrate on the other constraint critical to producing the best lenses for a digital sensor: managing the ray trace to corners and edges to make them as close to orthogonal to the sensor plane as possible. This is why fixed-lens digital camera lens elements approach so close to the sensor plane: the rear elements are making minute corrections to the ray trace so that they land on the sensor dead-on to orthogonal, right to the corners.

You don't often see that kind of lens design in interchangeable lens cameras because there are too many ways that the lens can be mishandled when exchanging that can cause damage to lens, sensor, or shutter.

G
Hi Godfrey,
well, I'm not convinced: especially as this supposedly native zoom lens (24-70) is so "badly" behaving. I just don't get it.
Even my Pentax 16-50/2.8 seems better ... :rolleyes:
Let's stick to our R-glass, right ?
:)

Kind regards
 

nostatic

New member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

You'd only get part of the image as it is APS-C. Plus that lens had a lot of QC issues. The 50-135/2.8 however seems consistent and the copy I had was razor sharp.

The Pentax Limited primes however (31/1.8, 43/1.9 and 77/1.8) would probably be pretty spectacular on a A7(r).
 

Jeff Kott

New member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

Of course I understand that you'd only get part of the image on a FF sensor. The point I was trying to make is that the larger format and higher pixel density places greater demands on the lens, so it makes no sense to compare the 24-70 emount to an APS-C lens.

Similarly, my Nikon 17-55 was spectacular on my 10 MP Nikon D200. But this has nothing to do with the performance of the 24-70 on a FF 36 MP sensor.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

Hi Godfrey,
well, I'm not convinced: especially as this supposedly native zoom lens (24-70) is so "badly" behaving. I just don't get it.
Even my Pentax 16-50/2.8 seems better ...
Let's stick to our R-glass, right ?
I wasn't all that thrilled with that lens either .. Although I can't say that I've ever really been thrilled by any mid-range zoom lens. They're just too compromised in design.

Sticking to the R and Nikkor lenses I've got now. Maybe one or two of my M lenses too, depending on how well they perform.

G
 

Annna T

Active member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

A shorter register allows more flexibility in lens design, and also means that the A7/A7r can be compatible with existing lenses. Whether those lenses are the best choice for the sensor is irrelevant .. the fact that they're available for use is more important.

The shallow mount register is, if anything, a boon to creating ultra wide lenses that will perform well ... it takes away the limitations of having a deep register with mechanical interference problems (as in any SLR) and gives a lens designer freedom to lay out the optics to do the best job. You can always add depth in front of the mount register if needed for a lens design. You cannot remove depth if you need it to be shallower. The only real problem at this time is that there are only a few lenses available as yet, for lack of time to design, develop, and produce them. The system is very young...

What having such a shallow mount register does is remove one of the most significant constraints on lens design for the SLR: the deep register and mechanical interference posed by the swinging mirror. Now the lens designer can concentrate on the other constraint critical to producing the best lenses for a digital sensor: managing the ray trace to corners and edges to make them as close to orthogonal to the sensor plane as possible. This is why fixed-lens digital camera lens elements approach so close to the sensor plane: the rear elements are making minute corrections to the ray trace so that they land on the sensor dead-on to orthogonal, right to the corners.

You don't often see that kind of lens design in interchangeable lens cameras because there are too many ways that the lens can be mishandled when exchanging that can cause damage to lens, sensor, or shutter.

G

1) I'm not speaking of SLR like registers, which are most located between 44-48mm. I spoke explicitly of picking a flange distance a little lower than the film rangefinders (aka something lower than the Leica Ms or the PenF mounts which need only 28mm). But instead of 17.5mm Sony could have taken a flange of say 25mm and a wider mount : this would have eased the question of the light rays falling too steep at the corners.

2) With a 25mm flange you can still keep the flexibility to adapt most lenses; you may even get more flexibility, if wide angle legacy RF lenses performs better than is the case now.

3) Sony/Zeiss may not have so much flexibility for the design of new lenses if they want to keep the main advantage of the A7/A7r : aka smaller size and lower weight. A slightly deeper flange distance would have eased correction of retrofocus lenses too.

4) Yes, the system is new, I'm waiting to see what they will produce in the wide angle department with curiosity. The 35mm has very good reputation. Let's see what they will achieve in the 21-24-28mm range.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

How do you think you're Pentax 16-50/2.8 would do on a FF 36 MP sensor?
Hi Jeff,

I'm sure it will stink on a FF 36MP, but then I'm talking about its distortion not its resolving capabilities.
And its a APS-C design, but on my K5 IIs (1.5x) it's pretty neat.

Kind regards.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the A7/7R

1) I'm not speaking of SLR like registers, which are most located between 44-48mm. I spoke explicitly of picking a flange distance a little lower than the film rangefinders (aka something lower than the Leica Ms or the PenF mounts which need only 28mm). But instead of 17.5mm Sony could have taken a flange of say 25mm and a wider mount : this would have eased the question of the light rays falling too steep at the corners.

2) With a 25mm flange you can still keep the flexibility to adapt most lenses; you may even get more flexibility, if wide angle legacy RF lenses performs better than is the case now.

3) Sony/Zeiss may not have so much flexibility for the design of new lenses if they want to keep the main advantage of the A7/A7r : aka smaller size and lower weight. A slightly deeper flange distance would have eased correction of retrofocus lenses too.

4) Yes, the system is new, I'm waiting to see what they will produce in the wide angle department with curiosity. The 35mm has very good reputation. Let's see what they will achieve in the 21-24-28mm range.
1- To allow clean adaptation of an M-mount lens, 2-3mm difference in mount register is not enough IMO. 10mm is good.

FourThirds*SLR was designed with the ideal relationship in flange diameter to sensor diagonal in mind for an f/1.4 lens. Micro-FourThirds preserved that relationship—going to a shorter mount register allowed the flange diameter to shrink, maintaining the same section presentation to the sensor. Sony's E-mount on APS-C format was larger than needed, causing the lenses to be larger than needed. For FF format, the same mount is a smaller diameter than ideal, which complicates ideal lens design somewhat. A deeper register would need an even bigger diameter mounting flange for the oblong 2:3 format.

2- There would be ZERO difference in the performance of older RF lenses if you made the camera's mount register deeper ... the lens still needs to sit at the ~28mm distance from the sensor, whether you set that with a deeper body or a tube. The incident angle of light rays to the sensor has to do with the optical design, not the mount register, for an existing lens designed for an existing mount register.

3- Same as above. Existing lenses designed for an even deeper mount register get no benefit at all from having a deeper mount register. New lenses get a lot of benefit from having a shallower mount register to work with.

Hopefully they'll come up with some nice new lenses for the A7/A7r. Not that it matters much to me - I have 24 to 180 mm lenses all of which I've proven work just beautifully on the A7 now. Really don't need anything else, although a 16-19mm might be fun.

I guess at some point I'll have to test them on the A7r.

G
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top