Other lens use on A7R (II)

[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.

[Allen Herbert]

You are just blurting. without any factual information.

[q.g._de_bakker]

You are just blurting. without any factual information.

Yes, that indeed is a good description of what you are doing.

Just the way it is.

 

A lens that performs well does so no matter on what camera it is.

Did you use Leica film in Leica cameras, and Nikon film in Nikon cameras, etc., because if you mixed those, your lenses would not be able to show their best?

Your post is pure nonsense. You cannot explain why it would not be. Just the way it is.

Edited August 24, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[Allen Herbert]

"You are just blurting. without any factual information" Allen

 

"Yes, that indeed is a good description of what you are doing.

Q.G".

 

Long John Silver had a Parrot on his shoulder, methinks it might have been called called Q.G? ;))

 

"A lens that performs well does so no matter on what camera it is." Q.G

 

Another revelation along with ""Optical performance is light through air" Q.G

 

A system lens will generally perform better because lens and camera are designed to work together. "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.. Hey ho. Other factors involved, the manufacture will understand strengths and weakness of their system, and work to give optimal performance. Yes, you can correct the performance of a lens in RAW, but really better or equal to the manufactures lenses designed for the system?

 

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

system lenses, designed for the camera?" For them it is all about their living not about some web armchair warrior.

 

For me in the real world, I look at the photography, and to be honest I take little interest in what camera/lens they choose to use. However, I do like the character of some of these old time lenses which I use.

 

The banter all in good humour my friend please do take ill.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Allen, it is pure and utter nonsens that "lens and camera are designed to work together". The only things that are matched are mount and flange to focal plane distance. Performance is not, unless they think they may cut corners because in-camera corrections will hide that.

"Just the way it is". "In the real world".

 

"System lenses"? Because Nikon made lenses for Nikon mount, Canon for Canon mount, Minolta for Minolta mount, Leitz for Leica mount, etc. Have you tried putting a Nikon lens on a Olympus OM camera? That's why.

And there are plenty lenses made in versions to fit many different brands' mounts. Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, etc.

And what system lenses do professionals use on their Linhofs and Sinars, etc.?

Again, an uninformed nonsensical argument. "Just the way it is". "In the real world".

 

You apparently do not understand those "revelations". You should try sometime.

Lens performance does not depend on what camera you put it on.There is also no need to adjust for weaknesses in, of build on strengths of the camera through lens design.

Nonsense. Uninformed.

"Just the way it is". "In the real world".

[Supriyo]

Some Sony lenses designed for Sony APC cameras are pretty subpar, compared to equivalent ones from Sigma or Tamron. In fact, Sony made some really subpar lenses until it introduced it's G and GM lineups and now charge a premium for them. So much so that I decided to go for a Tamron as primary lens for my Sony mirrorless. I don't know what has synergy between camera and lens to do with optical performance. I thought, it's solely a lens property. Edited August 25, 2022 by Supriyo

[Allen Herbert]

"The only things that are matched are mount and flange to focal plane distance. Performance is not, unless they think they may cut corners because in-camera corrections will hide that".QG

 

Camera correction, you said it.

 

And there are plenty lenses made in versions to fit many different brands' mounts. Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, etc.

 

And with permission from the manufactures, they are given the tolerances, so those lenses can perform to the manufactures specifications.

 

"And what system lenses do professionals use on their Linhofs and Sinars, etc.?"Q.G

 

Are you kidding. Those were the days that come to mind.

 

"here is also no need to adjust for weaknesses in, of build on strengths of the camera through lens design" Q.G

 

Methinks you are lost in time of days past.. Model T Fords, Zeppelins, .come to mind. Manufactures really do adjust for weakness and build on strengths. Do you really think they just stick a lens on any old camera and hope for the best. Things move on my friend from Linhofs/Sinars we are now in the digital age..

 

Methinks you are lost in the past and only have a smattering of knowledge of today.

[Allen Herbert]

And with permission from the manufactures, they are given the tolerances, so those lenses can perform to the manufactures specifications. Synergy

 

Obviously, with those tolerances, third party lenses can perform equally as well as native lenses or better-birds of a feather.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Allen Herbert

[Supriyo]

I don't think, there are any 'secret' tolerances for achieving optimal (optical) performance, nothing that cannot be independently measured and calibrated. The only secrets are the computer codes required to talk between body and lens, for autofocus and aperture info, but these are unrelated to optical performance.

 

Some of my portraits are taken using a Nikon 50/1.8 lens mounted on a Sony NEX-3 using adapter and operated under manual focus. That lens came out in early 2000 when Sony was not even into mirrorless business. I was blown away by the sharpness and color contrast of that lens compare to the Sony lens that came with my camera.

[Allen Herbert]

Hmm, a cheap kit lens compared to a what is generally considered a excellent Nikon lens regardless of price.

 

Whos saying a poor lens will be become a masterpiece lens on system camera.

[q.g._de_bakker]

There indeed are no such secret tolerances. Allen, you really are talking nonsense. The optical performance of a lens does not change when you put it on another camera due to some mysterious, hermetic relation between like and like activated through some secret handshake.

[Allen Herbert]

Nonsense to believe a manufacturer would not pair a lens, to camera, to give optimal performance.

 

Nothing mysterious about it just common sense.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Allen Herbert

[q.g._de_bakker]

Nonsense to believe a manufacturer would not pair a lens, to camera, to give optimal performance.

 

Nothing mysterious about it just common sense.

No, it is not.

What characteristic of a camera would they tailor a lens' performance too?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Hmm, a cheap kit lens compared to a what is generally considered a excellent Nikon lens regardless of price.

 

Whos saying a poor lens will be become a masterpiece lens on system camera.

A good lens on another camera still is a good lens, Allen.

 

Another "just the way it is" bit of nonsense is that kit lenses would be poor. Especially in the days they were fixed focal length standard lenses, the cheap kit lenses were the best ones out if the entire range manufacturers could offer.

Another uninformed opinion of yours.

 

That doesn't mean, of course that they are all good. A bad lens by Sony, on a Sony camera, is easily outperformed by an excellent one made by someone else, used on that same Sony camera.

Could that happen, according to you, Allen?

[rodeo_joe1]

Lens telecentricity and sensor microlens arrays might have some significance here.

[Ed_Ingold]

The thick cover glass assembly on Sony sensors causes distortion and focus issues when used with lenses with a short back focus. I've tested Leica lenses from 28mm to 135mm on a variety of Sony MILC cameras. In general, 50mm lenses are marginal, with noticeable loss of sharpness toward the corners. Under 50 mm are nearly unusable, but 90 and above (no 75 to test) are very clean. Focus magnification (5x or 12x) in Sony cameras makes it possible to focus manual lenses very precisely.

 

System lenses by Sony and Zeiss are specifically designed to accommodate the thick cover glass. When LensRentals tests these lenses, they are obliged to insert a 2mm glass blank behind the lens.