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!

A7RII with Leica M lenses

uhoh7

New member
Has anyone tried the Voigtländer Ultron 21mm f1.8 yet? I like pictures taken with it on the A7R, but there’s a bit of vignetting going on. The A7R II seems to be better in regards to the vignetting (at least that’s what I’ve read in a few instances).
This lens may be usable on the A7r2, as it's not bad on the previous models. The trouble is the edges fail as you open the aperture. With some shots this is really no problem, but others..... Then too, the lens makers go to huge trouble to get these lenses working well and it's a shame to see them muted. It was the best RF 21 for the A7x, that's for sure.

Now, the CV 15 v3 seems genuinely very good for the Sonys. The Batis 25 must be the best in that range, but I still have not seen any really good landscape samples to judge it by.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Has anyone tried the Voigtländer Ultron 21mm f1.8 yet? I like pictures taken with it on the A7R, but there’s a bit of vignetting going on. The A7R II seems to be better in regards to the vignetting (at least that’s what I’ve read in a few instances).
The 21/1.8 vignettes on the M9 too. It's not a Sony issue but lens design. I don't find it to be horrible and in general the lens works well on FE bodies. It's never been a landscape lens though as it's optimized for maximum resolution at close to medium distances.
 

Viramati

Member
Has anyone tried the Voigtländer Ultron 21mm f1.8 yet? I like pictures taken with it on the A7R, but there’s a bit of vignetting going on. The A7R II seems to be better in regards to the vignetting (at least that’s what I’ve read in a few instances).
Yes I did but have just sold it to get the CV 15/4.5 vIII. I found it to be very good on centre at F4 on but the edges were really pretty soft at anything under F4 and as I have the 16-35 I found that it is better across the frame at f4. By f8 it is good across the frame and viewing 1:1 comparisons with the 16-35 showed a tad more micro-detail in the centre. It is though a fairly big and heavy lens and with the voigtlander close-focus-adapter weighed more than the FE16-35
 
The Voigtlander VM-E Close Focus Adapter for VM-Mount Lens to Sony E-Mount Camera also has the ability to lock infinity point.
I missed this post. I wouldn't call the CV has an infinity lock since it depends on the tolerance of the particular adapter. Some CV might be a little too short and so your lens's infinity mark might overshoot. With the Hawk's, you can leave the lock on while fine-tuning for that exact infinity to match up with your lens (by loosen two small screws). This is important for lens with floating elements. It has been shown to degrade the IQ quite significantly when you dial the focus ring back a little to get the exact infinity.
 
Checking out the Bokeh King

I just did some tests for color vignetting and corner smearing with the 35 Summicron type 4, using CV version 2 adapter (the one that covers the whole frame properly):

Color VIGNETTING is reduced: In converted DNGs with no processing, color vignetting is off by a max of 6 units of RGB scale at F2; 3 units by f8. (6/255 = 2.4%; 3 = 1.2 – pretty good for a 35-year-old.)

Color SMEARING is as follows:

f2, corners smeared
f2.8, ditto
f4, some smearing, but IMO the lens becomes usable for street/non-tech without cropping
f5.6, slight smearing
f8, 'smearless' :)

Kirk
 
And the 24mm 2.8 Elmarit

No, this isn't the 1.4 or the 3.4, it's the previous aspherical version that shouldn't have been dropped from the lineup. It's neither as big as the former, nor as 'clinical' as the latter (though some may prefer that). I checked it against an early 25 Distagon, and my copy of the Elmarit is better in both center and corner resolution, until you get to the farthest corners (more about that below).

IMO it's going to be fine on A7RII for BW landscape photography, shooting at f11. Not a Batis, but not useless. I wouldn't use large apertures, nor would I expect colors to remain constant in the corners. Color vignetting is problematic at all apertures and tends toward green, which is why I'll be using it for BW only. For color, I'll continue using the Distagon while I think about a Batis (I tend to like older lenses).

Overall, the sweet spot for resolution with this lens is about f6.3, but f11 seems to be optimal for the A7RII sensor. There's a small loss to diffraction at f11 and a larger loss at f16 (which is probably why there's no f22 setting). But corner smearing is the problem to watch for. IMO corner sharpness is unacceptable at f5.6, but probably passable for street and non-technical work at f8. Definitely usable at f11. The corners are just as good at f16, if you need extreme DOF; but at 16 you lose center sharpness to diffraction.

Kirk

PS: Again, CV v2 adapter.
 
Last edited:

Paul David

Member
I have been using WATE since A7r. Corners are further improved with the A7rii. I also have a the Sony FE 16-35. Sharpness is neck to neck, but I tends to like the rendering more on the WATE.
I'm very interested in comparing the WATE to the FE 16-35. One of the key attributes is contrast, which gives the perception of sharpness. It would be great to see a comparison of those two lenses!

Paul
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I'm very interested in comparing the WATE to the FE 16-35. One of the key attributes is contrast, which gives the perception of sharpness. It would be great to see a comparison of those two lenses!

Paul
Someone already did here. In short the WATE has more microcontrast and pixel level sharpness. The 16-35 isn't too far behind it but is 1/4 the price, has a more useful range, and is native.
 

uhoh7

New member
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.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
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.
I no longer own any M lenses since fully investing in Sony FE with great native lens options. It's sort of a none issue for me at this point. End of the day pixel peeping and testing has it's uses but the overall "look" of a lens is far more important than pixel level sharpness as a determination in lens choice.
 

Viramati

Member
Just got my 50 summilux asph back from being serviced and have to say from initial couple of shots it is looking very good
 
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?

Kirk

Path, fence, and bough by Kirk Thompson, on Flickr

(MATE @ 35mm)
 
Last edited:

Paul David

Member
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?

Kirk

Path, fence, and bough by Kirk Thompson, on Flickr

(MATE @ 35mm)
Do you have a Zeiss/Sony 16-35mm to compare to the WATE with the A7rii? Would be nice to see.

And beautiful image!

Paul
 

thomed

New member
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.
 

Attachments

UHDR

New member
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.:D
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
You're welcome :). It is the Kolari thin sensor filter mod:

Sony A7 Series Thin Filter Legacy Lens Upgrade - Kolari Vision

Ilija, the owner, has successfully modded the A7II. So the A7RII might not be too far off. He just bought the A7RII from me to see if the mod will be the same as the A7II.

Jim Kasson did several tests with the modded A7II:
Kolari thin-stack mod on a7II vs M240 — Leica WATE at 21mm | The Last Word

I have also done several tests showing the difference between stock A7S and modded A7S with the following lenses: ZM 15, Contax G 21, G 28, Cron 28, G 45, Lux 50 ASPH, Cron 50 APO, G 90. If you are interested in the results of any of these lenses, let me know.
I owned the A7R briefly but sold it because of the smearing issue.

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.
 
Top