Some lenses I can help with

[seb]

I inherited last year a few lenses of my stepfather. But I had some respect to adapt them for a while (except with the Contax 85, that I'm using since spring). Today I cleaned the glass and tried the Leica M adapter the first time.

 

And I made a group pic too!

(the 28-70 kit lens is in holidays with a good friend and my A7 body and the 28/2 is making the photo)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[seb]

So if you have any questions or need some comparisons of some lenses, just ask I'll try my best to answer.

 

Cams: A7RII and A7

 

Sony FE Lenses: 55/1.8 // 16-35/4 // 90/2.8 Macro // 28/2 // 28-70-kitlens

Contax Lenses: 50/1.4 // 85/1.4 // 135/2.8 // 200/4 // Tamron 17/3.5

Leica M Lenses: Super-Angulon 21/4 // Summaron 35/2.8 // Summicron 50/2

[christians86]

How is the Sony FE 55mm f1,8 on A7R2...some are complaining about poor quality of the pictures when they are combined? It sort of makes me wonder if I should buy it. 

Same goes for 16-35 - its that or simply buying a used Nikon 14-24 which is cheaper. 

[JimmyD]

I have the A7R2 and the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and it is a fantastic combo; no issues at all.  Simply as good as it gets.

[seb]

I'll bought the 55/1.8 with my A7 and I think 90% of my pictures in the first year where with this lens. The A7RII I'll have since the beginning of August and there is no issue with the 55/1.8 at all. Only the 90/2.8 is slightly sharper, but that's nothing new because it's the sharpest lens beside the two otus lenses. The good thing about the 55/1.8 is the perfect performance on the whole f-stop range from the center to the corners. And all that combined with great bokeh and stunnish colors. It's simply a no brainer!

Here an handheld example. the top is slightly out of focus because I didn't get the right angle. But that's ok. I made the pic for a documentation not to print big.

(full res on flickr)

_DSC2549

by seflick, auf Flickr

 

the 16-35 was my 2nd lens with the A7 and I like it really much. It performs on the A7RII the same way it does on the A7. No differences. This lens is quite special because it performs the best at 16 and falls down to 35. At 16/4 there is nothing that can compete with exept maybe the voigtländer 15/4.5 III. So you have a native zoom with a good performance from 16 to about 30, that is like a prime at 16.

Here is a (heavily overprocessed) example of it (sorry, I don't have a good one for pixel peep on flickr at the moment):

Abendhimmel

by seflick, auf Flickr

 

I like to use lenses on their fastest f-stop. And both lenses (as any Sony FE lenses I have) fullfill that perfectly. The Tamron 17/3.5 (from my list) for example is a nice lens but it's nothing at 3.5. To get all out of it, you have to use it from 5.6. The same with the Contax 50/1.4, where you have to wait until 2.2.

[seb]

Here a pic I made today with the Leica Summaron 35/2.8 (at f8):

 

sherbstelt by seflick, auf Flickr

[addicted2light]

Hi, I'd be quite interested in how the Super-Angulon 21/4 will perform on the A7r II or on the A7.

 

I guess poorly (given the simmetrical optical scheme), but should it be otherwise it would be perfect to complete my "pocketable" Leica setup (I currently use a 15 Voigtlander mk I, really sharp even at the borders on the A7r mk I but way too wide for my tastes).

 

Thanks in advance!

[seb]

I can make some pics over the weekend and post them here. You are interested in something special? My A7 is in holidays with a good friend. but I can compare the super-angulon with the 16-35/4 on 21/4.

no people pics, I'm not any in the net to protect privacy.

[addicted2light]

I can make some pics over the weekend and post them here. You are interested in something special? My A7 is in holidays with a good friend. but I can compare the super-angulon with the 16-35/4 on 21/4.

no people pics, I'm not any in the net to protect privacy.

 

Thanks, a lot! Yes, against the 16-35 it would be awesome. And don't worry about people pics, I'm mostly a landscape shooter so no people for me either, at most cows, horses and hares

 

Obviously the offer goes both ways, so if you're interested in how anything I use performs on an A7r camera just let me know. You can find the list of my legacy lenses here:

 

http://www.addicted2light.com/gear-list/

[seb]

Well, I made a short test at home. Maybe that is enough for you.

 

 

I'll tried to get the same angle but missed the lens length is shorter with the leica lens. So the pic isnt exact the same.

focus point was the dali book.

 

RAWs into C1. No process, no sharpness or other stuff. Export to JPG

 

Here they are, f4 and f8 with each lense: https://www.flickr.com/gp/91288446@N06/P678oW

 

What I think:

On f4 both are sharp in the center. But the super-angulon gehts smeary very fast toward the corners. The 16-35 stays sharp.

On f8 it's the same result. But the super-angulon performs less worse towards the corners.

The colors and contrast on the 16-35/4 are perfect on the whole pic. no vignetting. The super-angulon looks slightly magenta in the center and quite green in the corners. And has vignetting. the contrast is flatter.

[addicted2light]

Well, I made a short test at home. Maybe that is enough for you.

 

 

I'll tried to get the same angle but missed the lens length is shorter with the leica lens. So the pic isnt exact the same.

focus point was the dali book.

 

RAWs into C1. No process, no sharpness or other stuff. Export to JPG

 

Here they are, f4 and f8 with each lense: https://www.flickr.com/gp/91288446@N06/P678oW

 

What I think:

On f4 both are sharp in the center. But the super-angulon gehts smeary very fast toward the corners. The 16-35 stays sharp.

On f8 it's the same result. But the super-angulon performs less worse towards the corners.

The colors and contrast on the 16-35/4 are perfect on the whole pic. no vignetting. The super-angulon looks slightly magenta in the center and quite green in the corners. And has vignetting. the contrast is flatter.

 

The Super-Angulon performs almost as bad as I feared...what a pity. Well, I guess then I'll have to cave in and get the 16-35 eventually!

 

Again, thanks a lot!

[seb]

I see it the same. But with this lens size for a wide angle on a full frame sensor with 42mp? I didn't expect more. I want a nice, compact 21 for me aswell. but I think, I will wait until Zeiss (Loxia 21/2.8 on the 12th oct), Voigtländer (just atm new on SAR: announcement today) and Sony (roadmap for 6 lenses for 2016) show us there new lenses. At the end of this year we will know much more and the 16-35 fits well until then!

[addicted2light]

If you can live with 28mm (maybe stitching to go wider) the Minolta M-Rokkor 28/2.8 (and probably the Leica Elmartit 2nd version, that if I'm not mistaken is more or less the same optical scheme) performs wonderfully in real scenes on the A7r. It is hand-down my best 28mm, and it is freakishly tiny!

 

For me to go the Sony or Zeiss route they'll need to put an optical stabilizer in a small-ish or extremely good bunch of lenses (at the very least 21 - 28 - 35/50 - fast 85/90). From the full rez files I've seen around the only stabilized lens that beats or at least equals my own glass (especially the Zeiss Contax) is the 16-35 (and the 90, that renders beautifully but I don't shoot macro so I can't really justify lugging that around).

 

The 24-70 is meeeh at best (for landscape use), if not downright awful (depending on the particular sample); the 28-70, not surprisingly, is even worse. And I don't need a 70-200 (that, btw, from samples I've seen around looks much much worse than my Contax Vario-Sonnar 100-300...), I much prefer carrying a longer lens (100-300, 100-400) or a separate kit with 85/90 and a 300mm.

 

You're right, I can't wait for Sony to announce a bit of (hopefully) G glass...

[seb]

You have an awesome list of lenses. I'm in a big hurry because I'm going to holidays on monday and have a lot to do till then. But I wanted to check the summaron 35/2.8 the same way with the 16-35/4.

 

Well it's not a secret, that the 16-35 isn't the best at 35. But I'm pleased aswell what the summaron shows also on the lowest f-stop 2.8. Same procedure and link as last time. Except the focus point is on Scheideggers book "Spuren einer Freundschaft".

https://flic.kr/s/aHskincXQa

 

What do you mean?

[addicted2light]

As a landscape lens, I think the 16-35 wins hand down for its better uniformity across the frame.

 

But the Summaron still holds its own, you're right. And for street photography, journalism etc., basically any situation in which the subject will be more likely around the central portion of the image, the Summaron is still sharper (!) than the 16-35.

 

BTW, if I remember correctly, this was intentional. Classic (pre-Apo days) Leica M lenses were designed with photojournalism in mind, so they were extremely sharp in the center, but weaker at the borders. While the R series was targeting landscape and/or generalist shooters, so it was designed intentionally with less performance peaks but more uniformity in the rendering across the field.

 

Have a good holiday!

[seb]

BTW, if I remember correctly, this was intentional. Classic (pre-Apo days) Leica M lenses were designed with photojournalism in mind, so they were extremely sharp in the center, but weaker at the borders. While the R series was targeting landscape and/or generalist shooters, so it was designed intentionally with less performance peaks but more uniformity in the rendering across the field.

 

Have a good holiday!

 

Thanks for the interesting info and your greetings!

 

I'll have to look at your list after my holidays. I think I could find one or another pearl.

 

I finished my test with the other lenses.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskincXQa

It has additional daylight in these pictures, so the colors are a little different to the others. But as all are Zeiss glass, who cares. I can expect similarities here.

 

I compared the summicron 50/2 with the 55/1.8 and from the contax glass the Planar 85/1.4, Sonnar 135/2.8 and Tele-Tesar 200/4) I just made some shots on different f-stops.

 

The summicron 50/2 performs really well. But has one of the best lenses as a competitor. And this competitor is an AF lens with good size and weight. The focus ring of the summicron is really too strong, but that can be an issue of my copy and its age.

The 85/1.4 is good from 2.8. At 1.4 it's nothing for big prints, but I like character of the lens. The direct competitor the 90/2.8 macro is the clear winner (no fotos on the link), because the only advantage of the contax is f1.4 and I'm not a fan of the result there.

The 135/2.8 is very nice but not a sony 135/1.4. as I don't have something in this range, I will use it as my "tele" until someone will bring a FE 135 prime.

The 200/4 is garbage. The 135 on 200% crop performs better than the 200 on 100%. No matter if it's on f4 or f8.

 

So I'll take to my holidays: 16-35/4, 55/1.8, 90/2.8 and add the Leica Summicron 35/2.8 and the Contax Sonnar 135/2.8 to the list.