Which full frame Sony best for these Legacy wides I've got

[mark_amos]

<p>I followed the build-up and introduction of the Sony A7/7r, and I read many of the reviews at the time as they came out. I am a 5n user that has been happy except that I'd like to use my legacy full frame fast wides full frame as long as there are no serious vignetting or color shifting issues. I think I read somebody saying that the super low light specialist 7s is fine with those lenses now, but I take that with a grain of salt, but I'm not spending that kind of money anyway.<br>

It has been my understanding generally that the retrofocus wides like my Nikon 20 2.8 with adapater will probably be fine with the full frame A7/r/s. The trickiest area are the symmetrical super wide Leica mount lenses including the Voigtlander 21 f4 and 25 f4. The very fact that I mention these is going to sidetrack my answers I guess, but I'm just trying to share that I've heard these are tricky on full frame so far. Yes?<br>

Frankly, my interest is in which full frame "affordable" (Sony) camera is best for using at full frame my Voigtlander 15 4.5, Voigtlander Ultron 28 1.9, and Leica 35 cron f2 aspherical without any compelling need for post processing? Thank you.<br>

As an aside to complicate things further, I am curious as to whether the A6000 indeed gives a good crop sensor result with these lenses at 24 mp that is better than some of the possible compromised results with the NEX7. I mean I already get 16 mp and good crop sensor results with my 5n and these lenses, but would an A6000 give me crop sensor 24 mp better results with these lenses than an NEX 7 was getting?</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>None?<br>

Sorry from the reviews I am reading - I have the 15mm f4. 5 too... the Sonys don't make M mount stuff shine, at least not to gain any edge over Leicas' fewer MPs across the majority of the image. I'd google tests & example shots with Sonys of any lens you own - yes SLR wides too - and probably buy a few rolls of film instead or save up for Sony's Zeiss glass. </p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks Jochen. Well maybe I can lower the bar a little; if we put aside the 15 VC for a bit, do any of you feel that there is compelling evidence that a Sony A7 24 mp does well with the 28 1.9 ultron and 35 aspherical cron? I have read about tests with those specifically in the past months with mixed opinions as far as I recall, but I have not tried the full on survey of all the many most current tests. As I'm sure you all realize and have experienced, I just don't see the reason to pay even the discounted $900 for the Sony/Zeiss 24 1.8 for AF and close focusing when I already have these two fast wide performers. I mean I could apply the 900 to the $1500 A7 body instead. So, any conclusions for only my two not-quite-so-wide Legacies?</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>http://www.dirkahlgrim.com/wordpress/?p=1637 (takes scrolling) "You may be wondering what happened to my photos taken with the 35mm Summicron lens. I took a few and when I came back and processed them I first thought that I had screwed up the focus. So I sorted them out. Later I realized that it seems to be the lens/camera combination that just doesn’t work. Images are overall soft and just outside the center area start to be awful. Here I will show a few just taken with the Leica m240 and the Sony A7R. .... (pictures)..."Test & comments conclusion seems: "No RF glass below 75mm for Sonys".</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks for the link Jochen. I have to say however that I had already read that the 7 did better than the 7r even though the 7r was supposed to have off set lenses, which apparently address something other than working with "my" lenses. I have just wondered if there was a concensus about the "plain" 7.<br>

I realize nobody is asking my opinion, but I would like to see a full frame camera more similar to the 5n (small) form factor that takes the expensive EVF I already have for my typical shooting and with a PC flash connection. When I really want a flash, I'm fine to use manual or thyristor flash. Especially with digital for goodness sakes to do a few pretests: what a luxury: no polaroid back needed.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Steve Huff has reviewed the Sony A7<strong>S</strong>, and he loves using it with the Voigtlander 15mm lens mounted to it.<br>

<a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/06/23/having-a-blast-with-the-sony-a7s/">"<strong>Having a blast with the Sony A7s"</strong></a> <<< Click</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I don't understand viewfinder makers like Zeiss or the various EVF's. - Is it really that hard to figure out that folks willing to burn 300 Euro on a 21mm finder might pay 360 or more for one serving as a hotshoe to PC socket adapter on the side? - Others have to build an entire camera to earn those $$. And yes it is sad that the camera industry lets us down and does not offer PC sockets where they are needed or would be handy. - Huff's utterings about the A7s read tempting to me so far, but yes its not a serious amateur's main camera for doing landscapes by day</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I agree that the capabilities of the A7s are amazing, and frankly super high iso performance and better video work well for all my "casual" interior family and neighborhood shooting and my daughters various programs and the street-ish things I do too, but $2500 just doesn't work. It could be a little sour grapes, but I actually think the 5n really was just what I needed when it came out almost 3 years ago, and it still has a very usable feature set that is essentially unsurpassed for its size and performance combination with Legacy lenses.<br>

Did anybody notice my part asking about whether the A6000 actually might work well with the wides and offer the 24 mp too? That would offer excellent AF tracking too, which my 5n lacks, but having that with one fast AF zoom would be very useful if the performance with the Legacy lenses was excellent even if cropped. (I actually have learned to love the articulating EVF. For a few months, I disliked its awkward projection from the top of the camera, but now I hardly see how I was happy constrained to the non-movable classic viewfinders on SLRs and rangefinders both.)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I use a 35mm cron ASPH on an A7 - while there is no magenta color cast, there is smearing in the corners even when the lens is stopped down. I am still evaluating if there is anything that I can do with that combo - but one thing is certain, utility is going to be limited.<br>

Voigtlander 21/4 on A7 - no matter which corrective pathway I tried, I can't get consistent results (unlike on the NEX 6 where correction was relatively easy). Holding onto the lens for now until I have given it a try on the A6000. <br>

Ultron 21/1.8 - works fine on the A7.<br>

Ultron 28/1.9 - don't know.</p>

<p>FWIW, I tried the Zeiss 24/1.8 on a NEX 6 and was impressed. Didn't keep it because I traded the NEX 6 for an A7 the day after I received the (used) Zeiss (which I promptly returned).</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Can anyone say how much smearing or other image degradation with wide angles on the Sony full frame bodies is due to the lack of microprisms to correct light ray impingement before the sensor and how much is due to the precision of manufacture of the third party lens adapters? Some suggest there is no problem with adapters and longer lenses, but could it be that any misalignment of the adapter is less important at longer focal lengths? If it is the sensor of the Sony that is the problem, or the lack of microprisms in front of the sensor, why should the same problem not occur with Sony wide angle optics? Are these (or will these be, as there aren't many to date) designed for more on axis light ray distribution between lens and sensor? What does Sony say (other than buy a Sony lens)? Is the problem simply that of non retrofocus optics? In such case, would the R mount Leica enthusiast and other SLR/DSLR lens owners be in a better position to make use of the Sony full frame digitals than the Leica M/LTM, Zeiss-Ikon or Voigtlander rangefinder camera and wide angle lens owners?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>@Arthur - I believe the corner smearing issue is mostly caused by the combination of non-retrofocus lenses and the thick glass Sony uses in front of the A7/A7R sensor (about three times as thick as that in an M9, for example). AFAIK, the A7R has slanted microprisms but generally seems to do worse than the A7 which doesn't have them. Thick cover glass, on the other hand, will spread light from a point source coming in at a shallow angle over a few pixels - hence the smearing in the corners. Symmetrical lens designs seem to be the most affected as well as lenses that have a short exit pupil to sensor distance; in both cases, light will hit the corners of the sensor at a shallow angle. Leica deals with this with a combination of slanted microprisms, thin cover glass and software correction; something Sony could do if they wanted to.</p>

<p>Now, having just had a look at Steve Huff's images taken with the A7S and a Heliar 15mm that don't have color cast issues but seem to show a hint of corner smearing, it appears that Sony found a way to deal with the color cast (or is it simply an effect of the larger sensor sites? Software correction?). </p>

<p>Adapter tolerances could certainly play a role - but why is the issue then mostly observed with M-mount lenses but not with other (SLR) legacy glass? Also, wouldn't adapter issues mostly affect one side of the image more than the other? Also, some people seem to be happy to get some no-name $15 adapter to mount their $3K+ glass on an A7/A7R - seems to me that's saving at the wrong spot (akin to mounting a cheap UV filter upfront). I just received a cheap L-plate for my A7 - and almost needless to say that the tolerances on the dove-tails are way off: too loose on the bottom rail (my lever clamp can't clamp down) and too wide on the side rail (can't even get it into the lever clamp but barely manage to get it into a screw clamp). If those cheap L-plates can't be manufactured within tolerance, then I don't want to know how poorly cheap lens adapters will fare. Even those costing $30-$80 seem to have issues: I had one that didn't accept one of my M-mount lenses at all! Another had such a weak locking pin that I could easily turn a lens past it. I ended up with $180 Voigtlander adapters which seem to be doing fine and provide the same feel when mounting lens as if one were mounting it on an M camera directly.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>would the R mount Leica enthusiast and other SLR/DSLR lens owners be in a better position to make use of the Sony full frame digitals than the Leica M/LTM, Zeiss-Ikon or Voigtlander rangefinder camera and wide angle lens owners?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly the case - don't know of any report of issues with SLR lenses on A7/A7R. Except size and associated handling issues of course ;-) If I still had Leica R glass then the A7R would appeal to me a lot more than Leica's "R-solution" in form of the M (and that's not on price alone). I have adapters to mount Nikon glass to the A7 - but the size of the lens/adapter combo turns me off from making much use of them. They come in handy though because they allow the A7 to be used as backup for a Nikon DSLR.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>Leica deals with this with a combination of slanted microprisms, thin cover glass and software correction; something Sony could do if they wanted to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dieter, thanks for your comments on the sensor cover glass and related causes of the smearing, as well as the ability of cheap adapters to provide proper alignment. I doubt if Sony will correct the situation to accept traditional or non Sony mount optics. Their main intention I imagine will be to sell their own lenses or the dedicated Zeiss lenses that have been designed for digital sensors. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

Mark, it's a given that the A7r is

useless with RF lenses (I have seen

the proof). It seems that the same can

be said of the A7:

 

"Results on the a7 are for the most part

disappointing."

 

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?

p=224

 

I have not yet looked at the sample

images on that site.

 

My conclusion: keep it simple and

avoid RF lenses on the A7 series

bodies.

 

Two oddball possibilities asides from

the A6000: Leica M8 and Leica T. The

M8 is proven to deliver good results but

it has no live-view. The T is interesting

but has a fixed LCD, unlike the Sony.

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks Karim and Dieter too, and Arthur too.<br>

Karim, I do find it interesting that you say that the conclusion is that I could best keep it simple by avoiding RF lenses on the A7 series bodies. Perhaps that should be my last word on the 7 series then because that means it doesn't answer my desires much at all.<br>

I believe I have already found one really extraordinary answer to my photographic question/needs. That is the Sony 5n, which though cropped, allows me to use all of my Leica and Nikon lenses without reservation. All of my carefully selected Nikon and Leica lenses work flawlessly on that body but with the crop factor. I mean VC 15, 28, Nikon 20, Leica 35, 40, 50, 90, Nikon 85 1.4, 105 2.5, 200 f4 and 75-250 f3.5 zoom. That is a lot of capability. I'm trying to figure out if there is a full frame body that can duplicate what my 5n is doing, but at full frame with these lenses, and I guess the answer is "no." I have no interest in buying another lens system. Having said that, I would consider a micro lens for slide copying and one really good fast 2.8 general purpose zoom AF lens, but if it is quite expensive then forget it. Thanks everybody. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

Mark, one more point: I have just read

Steve Huff's review of the A7s which

Gus linked to. He believes that the

problems encountered with rangefinder

lenses are not apparent, compared

with the A7 and A7r. I'm going to pay

strict attention to further tests.

[aplumpton]

<p>I can understand the difficulty expressed by Mark in regard to finding a full frame digital camera of sufficient resolution (16MP or more) that will accept so-called legacy optics (without investing in a pricey Leica M240). While it is reasonable to assume that the edge smearing with wide angle RF lenses on the A7r (and A7?) is indeed real, the thoroughness of many lens reviews on the Internet, and more detailed comparisons and measurements, often takes second place to subjective opinions or critiques. Not many can provide MTF or other measurements that are found together with hands on experience in the reviews of Erwin Putts and some of the better European journals of photography. Sadly, most of these more detailed and informative reviews are related to the same brand (OEM) optics on the manufacturer's digital camera body, less often of third party lenses. Qualitative rather than quantitative judgements often leave questions and comparing of results on a 72 or100 dpi computer monitor is not always that instructive.</p>

<p>The Nex 5 and 7 may be good lower price bodies for legacy optics if the crop factor is not too important (As if you have Leica or Cosina 12, 15 or 21mm optics or very wide angle Zeiss or other glass), whereas the new Sony A7s, if it provides full frame compatability with, say, Leica and Cosina very wide angle optics, is a sort of niche camera with super high ISO performance but more limited (12MP) resolution. An full frame high MP camera at a more reasonable price than the Leica, for legacy optics, and especially for landscape or architectural use or large print size, is apparently still on the horizon.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks Arthur. That is very well summed up. Like many of us, I analyze the situation because I can't quite nail why it is I can't just be content with what I have. My kingdom for a horse. I think the issue is that with all my options, some even enhanced like great normal and telephoto options because those lenses are made "longer" by the crop, I almost always prefer to shoot with the 35 mm focal length. I am fine with 22.5 f4.5 from my VC 15. That is already special purpose wide for me. I have the sigma 30 equivalent to 45, and it is a fine companion, but it just isn't wide enough often for my frequent use inside the low lit home. I think this is another thread, but I sum up about this. I just can't see paying $900 for the Zeiss 24 1.8 without an aperture ring. It isn't a matter of principle; I honestly find my manual lenses easier to work with than the sigma/fly by wire focus and no aperture. My VC 28 Ultron at 42 is very close, and I'm fairly happy with that. I guess I just need to enjoy having a fantastic 52 with my Leica 35 cron asph and a very handy compact 75 with my 50 cron.<br>

I have exhaustively looked at the Zeiss ZM 21 2.8, 25 2.8, and Leica 24 2.8, but they are quite expensive for 2.8 speed, and the 21 is rather large. Yes, picky, picky.</p>