Other lens use on A7R (II)

[sami_palta1]

<p>Going to buy a A7R II (or just A7R). <br /> Already have an Eos 6D with many EOS and other lenses.</p>

<p>Using all these lenses with A7R with full specs and ease of use possible or should I need to buy some new lenses specially made for Sony E mount?</p>

<p>I know I can use my already have lenses with a converter, this converter cause any loss or makes it a pain to use with ?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>If it were me and if I could afford it, I'd get the A7R II, get one of the adapters listed in the article on the link below and try out my EOS and other lenses. Then, if I felt they did not meet my needs, I'd buy native FE mount lenses. </p>

<p>http://briansmith.com/canon-ef-to-sony-e-mount-smart-adapter-compatibility-guide/</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The A7Rii has 5-axis in-body image stabilization and an electronic first shutter (i.e., vibration free) compared to the A7. That makes all the difference in the world.</p>

<p>For about $300, you can get an adapter for Canon lenses to the Sony E-mount which give full featured control of aperture and auto-focusing. Ultimately, native lenses prove to give better performance, usually in a smaller package, but your current lenses, auto or manual, will be easy to use.</p>

<p>The converter is simply a piece of metal and plastic between the lens and the body. There is no optical loss, and in the case of Canon, no loss of functionality.</p>

[charlie_webster1]

<p>All the Sony A7 cameras have a thicker than Canikon and way thicker than Leica filter stack over the sensors. That's why the best performance is nearly always with native lenses. But the Natives suffer from QC issues, some more than others. The good copies are quite good, if over-priced. <br>

However the Sonys can be easily modified to perform better with non-native lenses. It's about 400USD, for a thin-filter mod from Kolari. Some Leica wides like the SEM 18 are very good then. Others are much improved but not as good as the M240, because it has no filter stack at all. The IR cut is in the normally clear coverglass over the sensor. <br>

There are some new methods being done in Taiwan which actually remove the cover glass, and use one thin IR cut with really impressive performance using RF lenses on the A7rii. That is a far superior camera to the original A7r, for many reasons. <br>

Now you can take a plain used A7 and do the thin filter and you have a very nice camera for 1000USD. <br>

Of course the natives will not do as well on the mod cameras, but the M and Canikon glass is very good. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The thick cover glass causes problems related to the angle of incidence as the light from the lens reaches the corners. This angle is greater as the exit pupil of the lens gets closer to the sensor. You get loss of resolution in the corners, accompanied by smearing in a circular pattern.</p>

<p>DSLR lenses have a long back focus distance to clear the reflex mirror, which reduces the angle of incidence. However these lenses were designed for lower resolution sensors, typically less than 20 MP, especially at low f/stop settings. Rangefinder lenses are designed to be shorter, without the negative lens elements needed in DSLR lenses. Leica lenses, in particular, perform very well when wide open (but they're hard to focus accurately with a rangefinder).</p>

<p>Lenses designed for use on the Sony A7 account for the cover glass as an "extra element". They are also designed for high resolution sensors, particularly the new "G-Master" lenses. The difference is significant. You pay more for the top line Sony lenses, but you get more. There are many bargains too, some of them very good performers.</p>

<p>The thick cover glass is there for physical protection, but also to remove infrared light. Without this filter, colors are distorted under incandescent light, even daylight. Blacks tend to be brown or maroon. The Leica M8 digital had a 0.8 mm filter, and suffered from IR sensitivity to the point that Leica began providing hot mirror filters. The M8 increased this thickness to 1.5 mm, solving the IR problem, but reducing corner resolution. Leica M9 firmware reduces some of these effects, especially color shift and vignetting. The Sony has a 2 mm filter, and lenses to match.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>I believe that many people who have a bunch of other lenses buy mirrorless bodies with the intent of using the "legacy" lenses with an adaptor. When I got my first Fuji I was quite excited about using my excellent Nikon glass with it. However, for many, the use of an adaptor, even one with electronic pass through ultimately proves to be more trouble than it's worth except for special lenses and circumstances. While your current lenses will certainly get you going, I predict you'll eventually sell off your EOS lenses for native mount Sony lenses if you stay with the Sony system. I might, and often am, wrong but I've spoken to a fair number of people who've been down the same road. Good luck and have fun. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I think Eric Brody is right and certainly I decided against buying a Sony A7 because of uncertainty over whether I could realise the potential of all my Canon L zooms via an adapter and because there didn't seem to be a great argument to go down that route when it led to weight/size reduction only on a body and not on lenses (whether I used my Canons or completely and at vast cost bought into Sony lenses that are no smaller/lighter than my Canons).</p>

<p> No matter what the difficulty in achieving it, I think that without a generation of smaller, lighter, lenses, Sony have as yet done only half the job. One wonders whether their initial vision for the A7 range is being achieved by where they currently are? </p>

<p>I would not be tempted to the expensive migration to an entire Sony mirrorless system because of an improvement in image quality. I'm pretty satisfied with what I've got from that perspective and though it's always nice to have better its not actually an urgent need for me. What I do want as I get older is notably less size and weight without dropping quality or functionality, and not just from shaving a pound or two off a body, but ideally right across the system down to enabling a smaller, lighter bag. </p>

[charlie_webster1]

 

 

<p><strong>"Lenses designed for use on the Sony A7 account for the cover glass as an "extra element". They are also designed for high resolution sensors, particularly the new "G-Master" lenses. The difference is significant. You pay more for the top line Sony lenses, but you get more. There are many bargains too, some of them very good performers."</strong></p>

<p>Hi Edward, What bargins? As far as getting more, the QC issues are serious with many lenses. The GM 2470 is quite good. The GM70200 is apparently not at the technical level of the Canikons. 1635 is good if you have a good copy. The other two slower zooms are not good. The 90 macro has terrible QC, as does the 35/1.4. The 55/1.8 is only average QC, the 35/2.8 less than average, though a good copy of either is a good lens. 24/2 is pretty good, like the 21 and the 18. Most are bigger than they need to be. </p>

<p><strong>"The thick cover glass is there for physical protection, but also to remove infrared light. Without this filter, colors are distorted under incandescent light, even daylight. Blacks tend to be brown or maroon. The Leica M8 digital had a 0.8 mm filter, and suffered from IR sensitivity to the point that Leica began providing hot mirror filters. The M8 increased this thickness to 1.5 mm, solving the IR problem, but reducing corner resolution. Leica M9 firmware reduces some of these effects, especially color shift and vignetting. The Sony has a 2 mm filter, and lenses to match."</strong></p>

<p>You are bit off here, no offense. Sony and Canikon use a clear coverglass glued to the sensor around .7mm. Over that goes a filter stack usually with more than one sheet, which in Sony's case is about 1.9mm, and in Canikon 1.1mm or 1.2mm D810 and 5D. That's where the IR cut goes with those cameras and the piezo shaker, AA filter etc. So the actual thickness of the Sony glass is + 2.5mm when all is counted. </p>

<p>Leica takes a different route. They use no filter stack at all. Instead the original M8 used .5mm of schott S8612 IR cut glued directly to the sensor and nothing else. That was not enough. So with the M9 S8612 was used again at .8mm. That was perfect, and no absorbtive IR cut is better in the visible spectrum. However, that high performance comes at the price of environmental vulnerability. Corrosion in high humidity. So the new M9 sensors are using BG55, which has about 10% less transmission, but is very resistent to humidity. </p>

<p>The Kolari A7x thin filter mod currently available leaves the clear coverglass, and replaces the 1.9mm stack with a .7mm IR cut. Canikon lenses perform at full potential. However with M lenses it's still a bit thick, so M wides are case by case compared to M240. SEM 18 performs the same, but quite a few others are not as good, though compared to stock A7x they are way better. </p>

<p>Some of the latest mods deal with the coverglass itself, and Kolari is looking at a further thinning of the IR cut with new glass types. </p>

<p>The BSI sensor on the A7r2 is arguably the best in the world, and with the right glass thickness Canikon glass will perform superbly, as well as Leica. The idea some lenses can't handle the 42mp and look poor is controversial, and not born out on the ground:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1465802/0?keyword=42mp#13843844<br>

In addition Leica M will autofocus quite well with the techart pro adapter on the A7r2. Few pros use just one body. So the Sony has great potential as a jack of all trades 2nd body to Leica M or Canikon, if properly modified. </p>

<p>More on the mods:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1465200/0?keyword=thin#13839278<br>

Note: A7 and A7ii are really helped alot by the Kolari, as the AA filter goes as well. </p>

<p>Anyway the Sony lens ecosystem is not everyone's cup of tea. Many lenses should be checked for de-centering. The latest models are a bit better. The MF focus by wire is not nice, and again they are big. The claim they are so much more technical to work with the 42mp sensor is only true in a few cases, and even those lenses can be easily equalled by Leica primes. The GM 2470 if better than Canikon fast zooms it's by a hair:<br>

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/<br>

So a thin-filter using Canikon 2470 2.8 will not be a sacrifice on the sensor. Perhaps the natives will AF better. I starting shooting the A7 bodies in the late fall of 2013, and today I shoot Leica M9 and A7.mod (Kolari)<br>

<img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3777/12628185733_ec9b4b61da_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

I will soon get a A7r2 and do a more aggressive mod. All the best, hope this is helpful. Charlie.

 

 

 

 

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Two comments:</p>

<p> 1. At a recent event, the pro was shooting the A7R-II with the AF adapter and Canon glass. Excellent results.</p>

<p> 2. My own tests with an A7-II show no problems with SLR lenses, including good Nikon 20mm and 18-35mm lenses. Specifically shots with the A7-II were just as good as images from Nikon D600. I do understand the cover glass can create problems with RF wides.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Hi Edward, What bargins?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

[bargains?] Sony has several prime lenses under $600 which have very good performance. These include the 35/2.8, 28/2 and the new 50/2.8 Macro. Under $1000 (MRP), there is the 55/1.8k and a couple others, including the Loxia 50/2. In addition, there are several "kit" lenses for $300 or less. If you want less plastic and better performance, there are many choices, culminating in the top-end G-Master lenses.<br>

<br>

The point is that you have choices, depending on your needs and budget.<br>

<br>

I bought my first Sony, an A7ii after using a Leica M9 for most of a year. While I was pleased with the image quality, camera shake was a problem, and focusing with a 90 mm lens was difficult. The Leica was my backup for a while, using Leica lenses on both. When I bought an A7Rii, the A7ii became my backup and the M9 was put in reserve. It's best for a backup camera to have essentially the same operation and capabilities as the main camera. Of course, Sony lenses won't work on the Leica, and carrying two sets of lenses is a pain in the back (and other places).<br>

<br>

The effect of infrared on image quality cannot be understated, if present. Leica's experience with the M8 haunted their sales and reputation for years. The M9 is a compromise between IR mitigation and compatibility with RF lenses. I can't speak to Sony's design decisions, but IR sensitivity is never a problem under any kind of light. With a practical limit of ISO 400 for the M9 (it gets ugly at higher settings), available light indoors is not something one does, at least for money. The Sony produces useable results at ISO 25,600.</p>

<p>Having the Kolari modification is a serious step, which I would not consider for a working camera. I'm not dropping the frame and installing hydraulics on my family vehicle either.<br>

<br>

</p>

[charlie_webster1]

<p>Hi Sebastian,<br /> Certainly there are many claims SLR lenses are fine on A7x. Few are based on careful testing. Basically the only reliable way I found is to just do a true infinity shot with distant details across the frame. For example:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1490/24794231171_723ab1b981_z.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Not perfect, but far superior to 90% of "test" shots I see from general users. I think one reason to suspect A7x performance with SLR is to look at the Sony Natives. They MUST have extra glass in the path to hit their marks. So a real test of how a Canon lens will work would be to add that on the optical bench and compare.</p>

<p>The never ending search by my friends for satisfaction with non-natives on A7x tells me Sony's sensor stack is still telling a bit. Not that many are loving the Canikon lenses on the Sony after a year or so of constant use.</p>

<p>That said it's interesting even today that for landscape the ZM 35/1.4 is considered by a number of very serious users, like Fred Miranda, to be the best 35 you can put on the camera. Yet it would almost certainly be better without the extra "glass in the path" i.e. thick filter stack.</p>

<p>On the other hand the thin-filter A7 is very happy with the 28 cron:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5278/29984957442_cef52e797f_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> I defy anyone to beat this with any lens at 28mm on the stock A7x.</p>

<p>@Edward<br /> Even the mediocre 28/2 is 450USD. The 35/2.8 is near 600USD. There is one 50 and one kit zoom in the bargin range I found, but I'd be happy to hear of more good lenses under 400USD.</p>

<p>Even more important is the high variance of many of the Sony lenses. This is documented at Lensrentals. So not only must a demanding user pay a high price, he must test his lens on receipt to see if it's a good copy. Ming tried no less than 5 55/1.8 lenses, before he loved one. The 35/2.8 is often seen de-centered. Some Canikon lenses suffer from this problem as well, but overall the variance is less as are the prices for Canikon lenses.</p>

<p>The GM 2470 is a refreshing exception, but it's $2200 vs $1750 and tests show if it's better that's by "a hair". It's also bigger and heavier than the Canon! But the Sony r2 sensor is fantastic, no one can deny, if you can realise it's potential with such a lens.</p>

<p>But a Kolari A7rii or newer mod will certainly beat that zoom and any native at 28mm, 35mm and probably many other FLs. No need to carry two lens sets, just take the best and use on r2.mod or M. They are nice and small as well. They can AF just fine with techart pro. And they offer a feature which saves many headaches: infinity stop. For technical landscape work the sony lenses must be manually focused at infinty. Not pleasant. But the best adapters allow the user to set for infinity when using M.</p>

<p>Replacing Sony's filter stack is not rocket science. If you want your "car" running great at the track you would certainly consider a number of mods at this "level". For a "family car" the camera is wide use today is the iPhone. It's good enough. But even owning a M lens implies you are not interested in "family" performance. But certainly you are not alone in being reluctant to have the A7 modded to a no-compromise non-native shooter. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not a simple path if you are looking to get the best from your camera, as the many stories of people trying and discarding the A7 system show.</p>

<p>In fact many of my friends are now shooting the XT-2 out of frustration with Sonys lens and cost issues. But I'm happy with my choices, which give loyalty to the lens, not the body. <br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5448/30539406252_6485e95985_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 75 Summilux which the r2 does not care for, on A7.mod at 5.6 where it equals the 90AA.<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5505/30588598581_2f1df69171_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> and the 1937 Zeiss Sonnar 5cm f/1.5 without much compromise on A7.mod. For me, Edward it's the glass, first and last, which inspires. But I respect your personal choices, and in the end that's what we make. However, it's only a choice if you know the alternatives, which is why I show another path.<br /> Best to all,<br /> Charlie</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I seem to have a lot of 35 mm lenses of the A7Rii and Leica variety, including a Zeiss ZM 35/2.8. The ZM 2.8 is rated with better resolution than the f/2 version, but with a little more distortion. The following example shows the far upper right at pixel=pixel resolution.</p>

<p>In order to present each lens in its best situation, Sony glass was used on a Sony A7Rii and Leica glass on a Leica M9. The Sony image was down sampled to the Leica resolution - 18 MP.</p>

<p>In my experience, which goes well beyond this example, the Zeiss Loxia is slightly sharper overall than the ZM, especially in the corners, and the Sony GM 24-70/2.8 is indistinguishable. The ZM has significant smearing in the corners when used on the Sony. Mechanically, the Loxia is far superior to the ZM, and has the benefit of electronic integration with the Sony. The Leica Summaron 35/2.8 has served me well for over 50 years, but is clearly dated in comparison. That the Summaron is smooth and tight after five decades without intervening service is a testament to Leica design and construction.</p>

<p>Rendering by the Leica is much different than the Sony, like Reala v Provia. That's for another thread at another time.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18248599-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="582" /></p>

[charlie_webster1]

<p>Hi Edward,<br /> In Diglloyd's Guide to Leica he says the zm35/2 outperforms the zm35/2.8 on the M240. He also says the Zeiss 35/2 outperforms the 35/1.4 Leica on the M240. You have to pay to see the detail.<br /> <a href="http://diglloyd.com/topics/topic-ZeissM-35f2.html" target="_blank">http://diglloyd.com/topics/topic-ZeissM-35f2.html</a><br /><strong><a href="http://diglloyd.com/index-leica.html#ZeissZM35f2Biogon" target="_blank">Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon</a> </strong><br /><br /><br /> Many love the Biogon-C, great lens. But the Biogon T has less distortion than any 35, and is great even past F11, so it's preferred for landscape and architecture, while the C is better on the street. It's funny, in the Zeiss MTFs, direct comparison is impossible because the apertures are different. The Loxia IS a Biogon-T, formula identical, simply tweaked for the filter stack on the Sonys, without the nice small Cosina M lens body. Many considered the direct transplant of the Biogon-T formula lazy. <br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5685/31090893246_bfcfd5238b.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Here is a recent discussion by a number of Loxia users. <br /> <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1446320/0">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1446320/0</a><br /> What do they say? Nice at f/8 for landscape. F2 is not worth the money for the performance. Most found another 35, either the Sony 35/2.8 or the ZM35/1.4<br /> I'm not sure if your test shots are corner crops or full frames, but if full frames, again you need a longer view to see anything. True infinity equidistant details center to edge. This technique has evolved since fall of 2013 and the testing of many many RF lenses, by myself and many others. So many claims about performance of M have been shown inaccurate on the A7 cameras. People do not understand you can't just snap a bookshelf or nice little tree at a few meters and make many judgments. Too many variables, and the worst Sony "smearing" is at infinity, when the rear element is closest to the sensor. <br /> The ZM35/2 is a film lens and famously nice on the M9. On the Kolari A7 it is quite usable, though not as good as M240:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1592/25447089491_8c5df0e1b6_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> above WO below F/8<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5836/21444229633_df06359784_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Almost certainly the ZM35/2 on the latest A7rii.mods will beat the Loxia on the stock r2. Won't be too long before I can verify that myself :)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Lloyd takes many things into consideration in his reviews, which I respect. However from MTF data published by Zeiss and from independent reviews, the f/2.8 version is clearly sharper. The f/2 version has virtually no linear distortion, which is a plus if you are mapping a subdivision from the air or copying flat artwork. The following examples are pixel=pixel crops taken with the respective lenses. MTF data can be found in the footnotes provided below.</p>

<p>The ZM 1.4/35 is a superior lens in all respects. It is also heavy, bulky and expensive by comparison. Steve Huff is much impressed with this lens, and has published many examples.</p>

<p>A7Rii + ZM 35/2.8 @ f/5.6<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18330318-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

<p>A7Rii + Zeiss Loia 35/2 @ f/5.6<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18330317-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" />.Overview<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18330321-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p>Zeiss ZM 2/35: https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_zm/biogon2_35mm_zm_e.pdf</p>

<p>Zeiss ZM 2.8/35: https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_zm/cbiogon_28_35_zm.pdf</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Very nice photography. Charlie. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>Rich tones and beautiful landscapes...the differences between these lenses are minimal but the talent of the photographer..... </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A digital sensor will produce excellent color without an adequate IR filter -- as long as you like brown, maybe with a touch of magenta. The effect can be reduced in post, but not without other compromises. This was a problem with a Nikon D2H, which I overcame using an hot mirror filter.</p>

[charlie_webster1]

<p>@ Allen, TY so much for kind words. I need all the help I can get so I try to use best lens and body I can carry :)<br /> UWA I like the ZM18, which becomes usable on A7 with a thin-filter mod:<br /> <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8682/16459872108_f7b6bc2f74_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Before the mod was possible, I abandoned the A7 because it could not shoot this lens well, and bought a M9 in January 2014. One of my first shots with it on the M9:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3747/11864725336_5f328f4e66_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Coded as pre-asph 21/2.8 the ZM18/4 is incredible on the M9. Zeiss is not bothering to have Cosina make it for them anymore :(<br>

<br /> @ Edward: Zeiss MTFs for 35/2 and 2.8 lenses are not at the same apertures, you realize this? How can you say the Biogon C is the stronger? They are not directly compared by Zeiss. Nothing is clear at all, unless you have some other charts? On purpose I suspect. Do you realize your Loxia is a Biogon-T with slight adjustments for the Sony Filter stack? Is your Biogon C also sharper than your Loxia? Of course the Loxia will win on the r2 on the edges, but you could look at the centers at F/8. May well be better.</p>

<p>You own a ZM35/1.4? Steve Huff gave up technical reviews long ago. He takes very nice pictures, but seldom anything which can be used to judge outright performance across the frame. Personally, I would think the Distagon will win at F/2 against the Biogon T, where, like the Loxia, it's weak At F/4 on a M240 and from then on, I doubt it, but I may well be wrong. I agree on the size, though it can't be bigger than the Loxia. Might weigh more. But I agree ZM35/1.4 is fantastic. On a M9 or 240, the Biogon-T is very hard to beat at F/8. Many have studied the results and compared it.</p>

<p>I have near 10 35 primes. I use most 35/1.2 CV and ZM35/2, but I have been craving a FLE. On the A7 thin filter the CV 35/1.2 is extremely strong. Here at 5.6:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5665/30784372135_fe5f7e837b_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> But the real reason I own it, is that it can take the M9 into any light:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1675/24733795309_3ece360dcb_c.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> If anyone thinks the CV 35/1.2 is "soft wide open" this should dispel that notion. It's problem as you guys certainly know: it's big, it's heavy. <br /> Regarding IR cut, Edward, do you think there is IR issue with M9 or M240 vs A7 series? The Kolari thin-filter is a thicker IR cut than either. I don't think it's a problem, but I am doing research now to figure out the best choice for a a7rii mod. <br /> This company is giving schott a run for the money<br /> http://stcoptics.com/en/uv-ir-cut-filter-595610615625635nm/<br /> Of course the filters shown are external, but I would have the glass inserted internally, possibly at .85mm with coverglass and filter stack both stripped. I'm shooting the RX1r2 also, which is alot of fun, and probably the strongest 35fl, all things considered, money can buy. <br /> <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/443/31631819941_9e8c980a21_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> What's funny is, despite much study and practice, my focus hit rates, including with superspeed are higher on M9 than A7 MF or RX1r2 AF. :)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>No, I do not own the ZM 35/1.4, nor the FE 35/1.4. I can only comment on what others have observed. Nor am I in the market for ZM lenses. Short of bastardizing the A7Rii, there is no way their performance on that camera is worthy of further consideration. The examples I've provided support my conclusions.</p>

<p>I have selected these examples specifically to show where the lenses are weak. Do you really think showing the entire image, compressed to 700 pixels or less in width, presents any challenge to lens quality? We all like pretty pictures, but that has little to do with lens quality at this scale.</p>

<p>It's hard to believe you can focus more accurately with a tiny rangefinder window than with a 5x/12x magnified view in the A7 finder? Magnification may be inconvenient at times, but is far more accurate than even edge enhancement for focusing. It is one of the features that prompted me to set the M9 aside.</p>

<p>What you are "selling", Charles, is a case for drastic modification of a capable camera in order to use legacy lenses, along with some romantic idea of days bygone.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I think I agree with one point, that Sony A7 series is not meant to be a universal system accepting all legacy optics. Originally Sony had a very limited series of lenses at the start, but that, and their collaboration with Zeiss, is changing that situation. Not many camera producers are providing one form only that accepts all lenses, why should Sony? </p>

<p>If Canikon were serious about accepting legacy optics, their cameras would likely be made to be fully compatible with them. </p>

<h2 > </h2>

[charlie_webster1]

<p>I'm not "selling" anything, LOL, I'm showing how the A7 performance on "other lens" use can be improved, since that's the subject of the thread. You guys don't want to know?</p>

<p>@Arthur, while the engineers did not make legacy lens use a consideration in design of the filter stack, just the opposite, the marketing of the cameras in 2013 Q4 certainly did. At the time they had only 4 lenses, 2 primes and 2 zooms. "Don't worry, you can use your other lenses" That was a constant refrain from Sony representatives. The Nex-5 had been made famous by it's wide adoption for legacy lens use.</p>

<p>In fact Sony choose a much thick filter stack than Canon or Nikon in 5D or D810, which make the cameras less friendly to "other lens" than they Canikon. Aside from their misleading marketing at the start, you are right, it's their choice. But once I own the camera it's my choice, and quite a few users don't know there is a choice. And that choice is evolving now.</p>

<p>I know for me, I would not be using the A7 much without it. I use it all the time, because it is so improved with the "other" lenses I love. I would not buy a A7r2 without modifying it. But I'm not telling anyone they must do the same. I'm explaining the options, and why for me, a mod is the way to go.</p>

<p>I fully understand most will not modify the camera. Knowing the possibilities hurts them, how? On the other hand a few that may be frustrated, will see there is a way to address the "smearing", fundamentally, which happens when you put some of the best lenses ever made on the Sony A7x. They might appreciate my post more than you :)</p>

<p>@Edward Regarding RF focus vs EVF. Having shot hundreds of thousands of frames with A7 and NEX before, and over 100K with M9, I report my results: M9 is more accurate at all speeds, except with 135 APO than A7. It's faster and I get no headaches. It has infinity stop and that eliminates need to focus at all for many landscapes. A clear bright, noiseless optical view is much easier on my eyes. The Sony must either use peaking, which pollutes the whole view if turned up to the degree it's somewhat reliable, or Magnification, which is like tieing your shoes with 200mm glasses. Now, the A7r2 EVF is better than my A7 EVF. I make no claims about that one. :)<br /> M9 with 135/2.8 WO:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5497/30988000865_1ed7911890_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5807/30871432492_76532084f6_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Below A7.kolari with 75 Lux at 1.8:<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5707/30871675842_6aa404d6a3_c.jpg" alt="" /><br /> At this recent event the M9 well out-performed the A7 for focus in these very tight DOFs. Why? You should know a very slight camera movement will effect critical focus at 75mm F/1.8. So when you push the Mag button and move the Mag box it can move the body around slightly. That's also so much slower, than the nice simple RF patch. Many might not believe this, and I can't blame them because, I thought the EVF would be more reliable when I bought the M9. It took about a month of steady shooting to get used to it. Since there are plenty of people who think you can't focus a fast lens critically with RF only, I don't claim this is true for everybody. It's true for me, pushing 60 and wearing glasses :)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Charlie, I should explain where I am coming from. Before buying the A7RII I shot film and digital Leica, presently the M9. Exchanging the M9 for an M240 was not an option for me because the M240 is 24 MP (not much of an increase vis-a-vis the M9 which I like), is very expensive and has no tiltable monitor which is an advantage for me that is provided by the A7. Yes, I cannot use my 21 and 35 mm Leica optics at their best on the A7RII, but a 50mm f2 manual Loxia and a 16-35mm Vario-Tessar (Zeiss designed, Cosina produced) was not very expensive and I shoot Leica 50mm and up using Metabone adapters on the A7.</p>

<p>So, I cannot afford the latest M or a 50mm APO Summicron. I prepared an exhibition of some 50 B&W and color images this past summer and had prints made up to 18 x 24 inches with the A7 and the aforementioned two optics, with some other images wet darkroom or digital from MF (6x9 Fuji) and Leica M9 negatives or files. The hosts of the two month exhibition as well as some clients were quite pleased with the quality of the prints. The prints could have been even better of course, but they were still a cut above most images I see printed by serious amateurs.</p>

<p>I am not trying to say that you guys are "gilding the lily" in terms of ultimate resolution, but perhaps we should be less worried about small differences at considerable cost differential. This can become a bit like the mania of former years when "The Absoute Sound" extolled often subtle differences in the quality of recorded sound.</p>

<p>Modifying an A7RII is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned, as long as one is conscious of the fact, like the case for unmodified A7 users with say a 35 mm ASPH Summicron as in my case, that only certain optics will be advantaged, and not others.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not "selling" anything, LOL, I'm showing how the A7 performance on "other lens" use can be improved, since that's the subject of the thread. You guys don't want to know?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not selling? Your entire premise for using legacy lenses is based on modifying A7 cameras. In doing so, they cannot be used effectively with FE compliant lenses.</p>

<p>Focus and recompose is a valid procedure in lieu of changing the position of the focus spot. For a 50 mm lens at f/2 and a distance of 2 meters, the maximum change in focal plane (i.e., an extreme corner) will be (just) within the dept of focus. At longer distances, the shift in focal plane can be ignored.</p>

<p>If you wear glasses, the 35 mm frame is just barely visible in an M9, and the 28 mm frame cannot be seen without moving your eye around in the viewfinder. At 0.68x magnification, the effective baseline for the M9 rangefinder is so short as to render it virtually useless for 90 mm at f/2, and barely adequate at 50 mm. As good as the Leica rangefinder is, it does not produce miracles. I've been using Leicas for over 50 years, including my M9P, so I have some basis for comparison. Until the M9, I was never concerned about camera shake either, and don't recall using a tripod (nor an Hasselblad WITHOUT a tripod). Things are always good until you get the facts. The biggest fish are the ones that get away ;)</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Not selling? Your entire premise for using legacy lenses is based on modifying A7 cameras. In doing so, they cannot be used effectively with FE compliant lenses". Edward.</p>

<p>Not sure about that Edward. And you can get a feel for quality even at 700dpi.</p>

<p>But I will say Charlie has posted some very HIGH quality photos, among the best, if not the best, on this forum. Hope he continues posting and does not disappear into the sunset like some folks do.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A photo from a A7II.</p>

<p>I've only played around with this camera just a little having a stomach bug over xmas/new year. My initial finding, and that might change, the photos lack vibrancy and are somewhat dull despite my efforts in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Perhaps Im too used to Fuji strong bright colours.</p><div></div>

[charlie_webster1]

<p><strong>"Not selling? Your entire premise for using legacy lenses is based on modifying A7 cameras. In doing so, they cannot be used effectively with FE compliant lenses."</strong><br /> <br /> I'm really sorry you feel the need to take such a nasty tone, Edward. Did you read my first post?<br /> It ended with:<br /> "Of course the natives will not do as well on the mod cameras, but the M and Canikon glass is very good."<br /> <br /> So first, I'm trying to lure anyone into anything, trick them out of native performance, do you get that?<br /> <br /> You, obviously are "selling" Sony glass, but I don't hear you making any similar warnings about the issues which have disappointed many who have taken that route. The latest being the poor performance of the 2600 70200GM. <br /> <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/">https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/</a><br /> I could go on and on about the QC issues and prices of the Sony natives, as my friends have tried every one and reported on the them, and Lensrentals has documented the poor QC on many different models.</p>

<p>I've also been very clear: some do have average QC, and a few like the 2470GM "good" QC, and performance. If you do get a good 35/2.8 or 55/1.8, they are good lenses. The Slower zooms are sub-par, including the 2470 F/4 Zeiss. The 1635 is quite good, but you must check a lens right away as plenty have been decentered.</p>

<p>The sony lenses in general are as big or bigger than Canikon equivalents and more expensive. A few exceptions, but not many. Some very good photographers have given up the sony system out of frustration for these reasons. Many others have stuck with it and spent the extra time to check their lenses and find good copies. Many others really don't care, and trust their luck.</p>

<p>Basically most are under the impression that there is no alternative for peak performance from the A7rii, except native glass, with a few exceptions, like the Otus.</p>

<p>My contention is: that is no longer the case. There is an alternative. You don't have to buy any Sony lenses at all. You can shoot M glass extremely well. You can Autofocus M glass. And you can shoot all other brands cleaner than a stock A7rii, if you care to have one of the latest mods done.</p>

<p>I am not trying to convince anyone to do it. I am making people aware that it is possible. You are attacking my personal motives, which I find offensive. I know my motive is to share information, no matter your smear, which implies I have a financial motive. In fact I have paid for all my own mods, and will almost certainly pay to have the next done. Your motive for attacking me? Righteous defense of a huge corporation? All sony or no sony? Peeing contest? "Selling" whatever Sony puts up for sale?</p>

<p>But I should not get so riled up as you can't help yourself, and there are plenty others with exactly them same attitude about whatever camera system they are hitched to. They will defend every aspect and attack any critique. And "bashing" other systems is equally commonplace often the same people.</p>

<p>I don't care about brands at all. I care about great lenses and small strong bodies to shoot them. If it takes a sensor mod to get there, at less than the cost of a single lens, that's fine with me. I know some other people feel the same way.</p>

<p>For those who want to stick to the native lenses mostly, I sincerely wish them all the best, and I fully understand and respect their choice. I would hope they might also respect my different choice. :)</p>

<p>@Allen TY for kind words. With A7ii I advise update your firmware and shoot uncompressed RAW, then choose some varied camera profiles in LR. The A7ii is the same sensor in the A7, and it has wide color options in post, as I hope you can see in my shots above. LR has really all the option you need to make a fuji look or any you like. :)</p>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5452/30015837501_691d928b50_c.jpg" alt="" /><br>

28 Summicron on Kolari A7</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>@Charles:<br>

The reason to modify the sensor is to achieve corner sharpness with legacy lenses. Are the corners sharp? There's no way to tell from the images you have posted. How do these lenses render OOF highlights, behind and in front of the plane of focus? Is there any vignetting or color shifting away from the center?</p>

<p>@Allen:<br>

In my brief stay in Oxford, England, I was fascinated by the buildings directly abutted the river. That would be something to explore.</p>

<p>The Sony A7Rii (and A7II) renders color more like Provia, whereas a Leica M9 is more like Velvia. I think it is more accurate that way, but accuracy is not necessarily the end goal. Unlike Velvia, neither camera takes on a magenta cast under cloudy skies, which is really hard to remove. If there is color, the Sony will capture it, just not slap you in the face with contrast and saturation. You can use Curves to achieve about any look you desire.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18230050-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"@Allen:<br /> In my brief stay in Oxford, England, I was fascinated by the buildings directly abutted the river"</p>

<p>An English eccentric thing like follies...moss covered walls, rotting bricks and severe damp. But they look nice.</p>

 

<cite>www.hawkstonepark<strong>follies</strong>.co.uk</cite>

<p>An English garden (a7ii) which is another example....</p><div></div>

[ray .]

I'm figuring out whether to use the 35mm Loxia on A7Rii for that focal length or keep my M240 for the 35 (as well as 28) (Summicrons). The 50mm Summicron does quite well on the A7Rii. Not sure if I want to go to the trouble of testing a 50 Voigtlander apo-lanthar to compare. Though full communication lens to camera body would be nice, it's not necessary.

 

I think I'm finding the best way to use a Metabones adapter is keep the lens and adapter attached together when changing lenses. The lens/adapter unit can be stored with a Sony bottom lens cap attached.

[Allen Herbert]

Leica lenses work a lot better on Leica cameras .Sony lenses work a lot better on Sony cameras. Just the way it is: lenses are manufactured to give optical performance , for the cameras system they were designed for.

 

Not to say that other lenses do not give a optical pleasing look. But, in a technical sense, they will always be inferior to native lenses for the system.

[SCL]

Jeez this discussion really wavered well beyond the simple OP's inquiry. My 2 cents, as a user of many brands of legacy lenses, including Leica M lenses and the Sony A7Rii is that unless you are pixel peeping, reliant on the technically sharpest results across the full frame to support you and your family, or making enormous exhibition size enlargements, the body and non-native lenses works darn well - except at extreme focal lengths. It being digital, yes, it may require some post processing for certain circumstances and with certain lenses, but overall I've found it works well with most of my Nikon, Canon, Leica, Voigtlander, Olympus, Pentax, and Contax lenses. I recently purchased a used Techart adapter for the Leica M lenses, and with additional conversion adapters have used it with legacy Canon FD, Nikon, Voigtlander and Pentax lenses to achieve autofocus with those lenses, and with a little practice it works well in the range of 28-75mm...haven't yet experimented beyond that yet. So don't get caught up in overly garrulous technical pros and cons...focus on what your subjects/style might benefit from.

[Allen Herbert]

"many brands of legacy lenses, including Leica M lenses and the Sony A7Rii is that unless you are pixel peeping" SCL

 

Many folks look for technical excellence from their lenses. Otherwise why would they pay out the big bucks? A really goods lens will add a level of excellent to their photo and enhance it.

We all can use a bottle glass lens which works pretty well, but why? Pretty well for many folks jus does not cut in. Who wants a pretty well lens, when you have spent all that time and money to achieve the best possible results for your photography.

 

Of course bottom line it is all about the final. image .

[q.g._de_bakker]

Leica lenses work a lot better on Leica cameras .Sony lenses work a lot better on Sony cameras. Just the way it is: lenses are manufactured to give optical performance , for the cameras system they were designed for.

 

Not to say that other lenses do not give a optical pleasing look. But, in a technical sense, they will always be inferior to native lenses for the system.

Would you care to explain why you think that is?

Optical performance is light through air. Unless there is a special quality air assumes when it is between a Brand X lens on a Brand X camera, and not when it is between a Brand X lens on a Brand Y camera, any lens performs the way it does, no matter what it is projecting an image on.

Today, cameras have profiles built-in, that allow them to correct for faults in optical performance of the lenses that are put on them. And then, yes, a Brand X lens' performance when not matched to a Brand X camera will probably not be corrected in-camera. But it very well might be (probably is) when using a decent RAW-converter. And that then is no longer about how lenses work, but about how well you can correct their shortcomings.

The quality of the sensors may differ, yes. That means that a Brand X camera might be able to show the faults in performance of any given lens, that remain hidden when used with a lesser sensor.

So what of that all is what you mean when you say "just the way it is"?

Edited August 22, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[Allen Herbert]

"Optical performance is light through air" Q.G

 

Really what a revelation. Who would have thought.;))

 

"And then, yes, a Brand X lens' performance when not matched to a Brand X camera will probably not be corrected in-camera" Q.G.

 

Another revelation. Who would have thought.;))

 

"But it very well might be (probably is) when using a decent RAW-converter. And that then is no longer about how lenses work, but about how well you can correct their shortcomings" Q.G.

 

Really, my 1943 Agfa superior despite all my skills in Raw, just does not give me the same image quality say as a modern Sony lens-wish it did.

 

Real world for you Q.G, the majority of Sony folk will tell you, Leica lenses work well on a Sony, but not quite the same as a Leica. Do some research! and wide angle Leica lenses do not work at all.

[q.g._de_bakker]

So you are just talking "folk will tell you" nonsense.

Just the way it is.

[Allen Herbert]

Ask yourself this question. why do the majority of professional photographers use...

System lenses.