Great to see the images thread so busy and full of inspiring images
Sony A7R and Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8 - the official release of LR 5.3 now also has a lens correction profile for the Zeiss FE 35mm which works well in correcting distortion and vignetting.
jojomon11 wrote:
I would have to agree Charles, but the CA with the A7 is very prevalent when shooting WO compared to the M240, although the CA struggles with it also, only lesser
+1 on CA, it seems way more than D700 for the same lens. especially fast glass.
jojomon11 wrote:
I would have to agree Charles, but the CA with the A7 is very prevalent when shooting WO compared to the M240, although the CA struggles with it also, only lesser
+1 on CA, it seems way more than D700 for the same lens. especially fast glass.
MRosth, nice idea in bridge picture - is the sky with stars "organic" or did you photoshop it?
I got Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. with expectation to get some special effects like swirly bokeh. I'm little disappointed; it seems this lens is very good 35mm lens without anything odd. So this might be good option for someone who wants to save money - based on ~100 frames shoot lens for example has better CA-behaviour than Zeiss ZE/ZF 2/35, so for 150-200EUR this lens definetly brings great valye.
For me this really doesn't provide anything new as I have Zeiss ZE 2/35 and 1.4/35, and FE35 is also OK (with some limitations, like bokeh in complex environments).
I'm not sure what Canon did "wrong" on EF lenses; it seems rendering of FD lenses is strong with quite nice characteristics. For me EF lenses have always been just boring or bad looking. The environmental things (removing lead from glass) or something? Or AF-requiring to design acceptable DOF longer in expense of peak contrast/microcontrast? Most likely if EF lenses would have FD lens "look" I most likely would be happily shooting Canon and have never tried Zeiss, Leica, Voigtländer, etc.
I hope my samples provide some light if somebody is trying to figure out small and cheap 35mm f/2 lens. Images not processed otherwise except white balance and took exposure down 0.3-0.6 stops (I was experimenting with A7 autoexposure and it was very very good, but all the time overexposing 1/3 stop, which I didn't know at the time of shooting these)
Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. @ f/2, ISO 800 - nice structural bokeh, not boring gaussian blur, me likes...
Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. @ f/2, ISO 100 - no CA wide open even corners
Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. @ f/5.6, ISO 100 - high sharpness and no CA for landscape use
Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. @ f/2, ISO 100 - not as much "kick" as Zeiss lenses, but would take nicely local contrast enhancement (USM 15%, 40px to fullsize image)
Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. @ f/2, ISO 100 - Close up with f/2 and below f/5.6, I find bokeh good on both, but area inside DOF improves in close-ups when closing down to f/5.6 quite a lot (no floating elements etc. so close-up at f/2 can't be expected to be great)
Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. @ f/5.6, ISO 100 - see above
Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. @ f/2, ISO 100 - bokeh with structure and "texture", should have shoot this f/2.8 to make bokeh slightly more "calm"
If people have Contax G 45 and G 90 samples in full frame, I would not mind viewing them...
For stopped down shooting below f/4, this is really a bargain. Costs nothing and is very small and light, especially since the adapter is shorter than usual for SLR lenses.
Wide open, not so much fun anymore except for the middle of the frame.
How much bigger than the Minolta 2/40 is it? How would you rate them against each other?
ulrikft2 wrote:
I have both those (and the a7r), anything particular you want to see?
Bokeh and drawing characteristics outside NEX-crop. There are plenty of G45 and G90 crop images on Flickr etc. Also would like to understand focus "feeling" since ring is so close to camera body AND instead turning helicoil one is turning skrew what is normally driven by AF.
Any other info is very much appreciated as well. I promise I will read every word you write at least 10 times
My evil plan is to build two kits: one with no compromise to image quality and other lightweight. Normally I don't mind shooting Zeiss 2/135, Zeiss 1.4/35, Otus wide (if they make 1.4/28, I'm definetly getting that one) etc. but sometimes it would be great just to have 2xA7 with few lightweight lenses. For the lightweight kit G45 and G90 would be great choices, just if they are really ok with full frame - just need some wide angle to go with them.
'what Canon did "wrong" on EF lenses; it seems rendering of FD lenses is strong with quite nice characteristics. For me EF lenses have always been just boring or bad looking.'
I think they went one way for whatever set of reasons...but I have to agree, and we see very few EF images thus far shot on a7(r) - people do rave about the later TS lenses and the teles are certainly sharp.
The FD series are in for a serious revival for alt users. There must be some 'not so good' ones, but I haven't seen images from one yet. The Sony rumours guy was raving about the 55mm f1.2, had a quote from Puts saying it was better than the Nocti-whatever Leica made back then. Interesting times. thanks for posting.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Bokeh and drawing characteristics outside NEX-crop. There are plenty of G45 and G90 crop images on Flickr etc. Also would like to understand focus "feeling" since ring is so close to camera body AND instead turning helicoil one is turning skrew what is normally driven by AF.
Any other info is very much appreciated as well. I promise I will read every word you write at least 10 times
My evil plan is to build two kits: one with no compromise to image quality and other lightweight. Normally I don't mind shooting Zeiss 2/135, Zeiss 1.4/35, Otus wide (if they make 1.4/28, I'm definetly getting that one) etc. but sometimes it would be great just to have 2xA7 with few lightweight lenses. For the lightweight kit G45 and G90 would be great choices, just if they are really ok with full frame - just need some wide angle to go with them.
On the manual focus: it is choppy and annoying. I'm currently in the process of figuring out how to convert both of them to ordinary focus lenses. Sebboh has done so with one of his contax-g lenses and it is my plan to convert both when i figure out which donor lenses I want to use.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Any other info is very much appreciated as well. I promise I will read every word you write at least 10 times
My evil plan is to build two kits: one with no compromise to image quality and other lightweight. ...
Samuli
That is exactly what I have been trying to avoid but I am increasingly playing with the thought. I have had two kits for some years now. Small excellent lenses with the NEX 5N and a range of superb CY/ZE's for the Canon 5D2. I was hoping to pick the cherries from both sides and get to one system but it does not seem possible. And in retrospect, the NEX5N lenses are generally slower than the FF counterparts so it may have been a unrealistic plan anyway..
- - -
EDIT: BTW I have the G45 and havent tested it yet, you may just have gotten me a reason
