Sony A7 ii and Loxia 50 mm as go everywhere combo

[ruslan]

<p>If I choose this combo over regular FF SLR and 50 mm AF lens.<br /> <br />1. Will I have more quality from this lens than I have with a cheap 50 mm lens stoppod to f2? (Nikon Df and 50/1.4 G)<br>

2. Will my eyes get tired and sick of looking into an electronic VF for prolonged periods of time <em>(especially when focus peaking is <strong>on</strong> all the time)</em> ? <br /><br />3. Is PJ shooting totally impossible with Sony and Loxia? <br />Please tell me about your actual and real experience. <br /><br /></p>

[Jochen_S]

<ol>

<li>IDK, haven't tried them. - Leica seems to beat Pentax though.</li>

<li>66% "no" - 34% "It depends." - If your eyes bitch about computer gaming or TV, you should be alerted.</li>

<li>Photo journalism existed through decades of manual focus. While it <em>is</em> great or nice to have almost perfect AF, it <em>feels</em> much better to be occupied with manual focusing than to wait for a sluggish AF to someday get it's thing done. If your directive is to miss nothing / nail everything instead of going somewhere for half a dozen keepers, to publish one of them, you might feel a bit pressed. </li>

</ol>

<p>My own experience is limited. - I have an<em> early</em> EVF camera (X-E1) and feel it is driving me crazy when I try to use it indoors at the dropped EVF refresh rate, especially with magnifier on for precision focusing. The optical lever simply gets too huge and the EVF lag adds a big share to the unpleasant experience. - I tried 50 & 85mm on that 1.5x crop sensor so far.<br>

With an A7 II you'll have IBIS to benefit from and AFAIK a bearably fast finder.</p>

[mostly sports]

<p>My actual and real experience is with an A7ii and adapters for some vintage Contax Zeiss lenses. I also have an extensive Olympus M43 kit, an Alpha 6300, and shoot a variety of sports, events, musicians, portraits, and so on. Not a lot of landscape, fashion or macro.<br>

While I have not used a Loxia, from all I've read it is a top performer and would be marginally better than the typical "nifty fifty." Of course "everything's great at f/8" so whether the extra cost of the Loxia would justify its slightly better performance is an open question. If you are shooting with a tripod, and making huge enlargements, you will see a difference. Otherwise, I would spend the thousand dollars (as I did) on a variety of focal lengths. My Carl Zeiss Contax 35/2.8, 50/1.7, and 85/28 came in at about the same cost for the whole set. Part of the charm of the Loxia is small size. Does that matter to you? I'd love to have the 21mm Loxia for exactly that reason. Meanwhile, the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 is about the same price as the Loxia, and gives you an autofocus option and superb performance.<br>

My eyes don't get tired with EVF.<br>

Almost every iconic image of 20th century photojournalism was taken with manual focus.</p><div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Sony A7Rii and Loxia 50/2 make a fine, compact combination. IMO, the Loxia 35/2 makes a better lens for general use, but I've used both as a single-lens kit. In addition to better image quality than any (including Leica) third party lenses on this camera, it is tightly integrated. Turning the focusing ring can automatically bring up the magnified image for precise focusing, especially at wide apertures.</p>

<p>Focus peaking is not as precise as focus magnification, and is somewhat distracting. However it doesn't affect composition like magnification. At smaller apertures, it's probably just as effective to focus without peaking. The electronic finder has better resolution than a ground glass for manual focusing, and maintains a nearly constant brightness level, even in very dim light.</p>

<p>The greatest detriment to PJ work is speed of operation. It is very responsive in single-shot mode, with a shutter lag of about 20 msec, comparable to a Leica M3. It is somewhat slower if you use the silent shutter option (it's totally silent). Using flash with TTL exposure is very slow, because the camera takes two images each time. DSLRs have the advantage of separate TTL sensors, so the operations can overlap.</p>

<p>Autofocus would be an advantage for PJ work. The 35/2.8 NS 55/1.8 are very good lenses, not much larger than the manual Loxia lenses. The 24-70/2.8 zoom lens would provided outstanding image quality, at the expense of size, weight (and cost).</p>

[ruslan]

<blockquote>

<p>Turning the focusing ring can automatically bring up the magnified image for precise focusing, especially at wide apertures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward, is this magnification comfortable when shooting portraits? I don't see entire face I see the eye or the nose. <br />But mechanical quality of the Zeiss tempts me. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>What Edward mainly said, except that if you do a lot of PJ and prefer a normal focal length the 55mm f1.8 AF lens might be a better choice than the Loxia, if mainly for the AF feature.</p>

<p>I have a Loxia 50mm on my Sony A7RII and am very happy with it, but like Leica M optics, you have to focus it which doesn't comply so easily with fast moving situations. I do only occasional PJ type photography, but I usually find that the images do not require the same high level of resolution that other subjects require. In such case I would look also at the new Sony 50 mm f1.8 AF lens, at a fraction of the price of the Sony Zeiss 55mm. Reviews of it should be available shortly.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I am using the A7R2 and Loxia 35/2 as my everyday camera. Insane capability in a small package.<br>

I have the 21/2.8 and will grab the 50mm soon. For me the perfect travel camera. <br>

</p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/152/30702719694_853e5173b3_c.jpg" alt="" /><br>

5000 ISO</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Auto-magnification temporarily blocks the whole field of view, which can be annoying or detrimental. It is of little use for a moving subject, but very helpful for portraits of a (relatively) stationary subject. You have two options to mitigate the inconvenience - release and re-press the shutter release, or set a brief timeout for the effect.</p>

<p>For me it's all or nothing - an indefinite timeout or not at all. When I use it, it is for the focus and recompose strategy, which I used for years with manual focusing (Leica M2/3) and with my auto-focus Nikons in single-servo mode. Even with autofocus lenses, it is the best way to get precise focusing with lenses of any length, from 16 mm to 200. If you want sharp eyelashes or eyes at wide apertures, or to disregard interfering elements, learn to deal with the inconvenience.</p>

<p>My Loxia lenses have suffered relative disuse for work-a-day photography, but I'm seriously considering adding the 21/2.8 and 85/2.4 to my collection for a compact and relatively lightweight travel kit. If you look hard, there are sharper lenses, but the Loxias are very good, from corner to corner. No legacy lens comes close when used on a Sony body.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"the Loxia 35/2 makes a better lens for general use, but I've used both as a single-lens kit. In addition to better image quality than any (including Leica) third party lenses on this camera".Edward.<br>

　<br>

Really.</p>

<p>Please everyone dont think Im totally and utterley biased towards Sony and Zeiss. Dispite my numerous posts expelling the virtues of these utterley wonderful supreme machines....reading Edward between the lines in super bold type.</p>

<p>Interesting to see some photos from this wonderful combination.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>a7 cams being so slow to auto focus manual is probably the best option.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Just a thought the first photo is out of focus and the second lacks clarity just mushy.</p>

<p>But thank you for having the courage to post.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Thank you for your incite, Allen. I have actually seen some or your better work. Most, however, tilt strongly to the left.</p>

<p>Leica lenses are soft in the corners when used on a Sony A7, due to the thick cover glass over the sensor. Lenses designed for the Sony take this into account and compensate nearly perfectly. Zeiss ZM sense fall in the same category. I know this from experience, not just internet surfing, and have posted numerous examples to this effect.</p>

<p>The Sony-Zeiss 35/1.4 is arguably the best 35 mm performer in this range, and the Sony G-Master 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 are at the top of their class, all at the cost of size, weight, and price.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Phil, I think the photo you posted is compelling, almost like a portrait from the 30's. I can't say a cello is folksy, but in this context it could pass. (It is also sharp, when viewed on a calibrated, iMac 5K Retina display.)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Whoops, it's a double-bass (the only viol in current use). Not quite a broomstick on a bucket, but definitely country-qualified.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Innuendos , Edward.</p>

<p>My photos tilt to the left and right I think I must have wonky eyes;) But then I think you need two wings to fly both left and right: you will flop on the ground with just a right wing.</p>

<p>"Leica lenses are soft in the corners when used on a Sony A7, due to the thick cover glass over the sensor "Edward.</p>

<p>Never really noticed that having tried out a A7ii with a 50mm Leica lens. However, I agree that the best results, in a technical sense, come from lenses matched to the camera.</p>

<p>My comments on the photos posted were of a technical nature not about content...read.</p>

<p>Do you really think a 2mm thick glass on any camera lends itself to sharpness? Software can only do so much even using the best of software All those pixels seem sort of wasted.</p>

<p>Ps I also use a Mac with retina display.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Just a thought</p>

<p>You can use the APC setting on the A7 to eliminate any soft corners or Vignetting from DX lenses. And you will still have loads of pixels to examine with your Sony magnifying tool.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>You can use the APC setting on the A7 to eliminate any soft corners or Vignetting from DX lenses. And you will still have loads of pixels to examine with your Sony magnifying tool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Splendid bit of critical thinking. Convert a 42 MP camera into 18 MP at a single stroke.<br /> <br /> Sony/Zeiss lenses account for the cover glass in the optical design. It's not a software thing at all. Corner smearing is pronounced with Leica 35 mm or shorter lenses, less so but still noticeable with a 50 mm lens.</p>

<p>The image of the musician is lacking only in squalor, not sharpness.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>You can use the APC setting on the A7 to eliminate any soft corners or Vignetting from DX lenses. And you will still have loads of pixels to examine with your Sony magnifying tool.Allen</p>

<p>Splendid bit of critical thinking. Convert a 42 MP camera into 18 MP at a single stroke. Edward.</p>

<p>I got up to counting 124 pixels then I got bored, all credit to you for counting so many pixels... you are my pixel counting marvel hero. Just a thought Edward you can make a very large enlargement with 18 MP full frame pixels...hey, not to cover the Empire State building...but hey ho.</p>

<p>Edward, many folks have bought into the Sony A7 system because they can use their third party (legacy lenses) because the signature of these lenses appeal to their eye. Sony understanding, unfortunately you do not: they have enabled a APC setting for these lenses.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>In the next few weeks I will have the opportunity to evaluate the ground breaking A7ii in real world photography.</p>

<p>For landscapes, still life, street etc. I will use a variety of lenses including Leica 28mm/50mm...and obviously, being me, will post photos .Lots of fun and enjoyment and hopefully a few interesting photos.</p>

<p>The truth will then be out there:))</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Sony/Zeiss lenses account for the cover glass in the optical design "Edward.</p>

<p>Never heard that terminology used before, Edward. Why the need and why the cover...and what is it covering.. Pray do tell.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Herbert - The number of pixels is proportional to the square of the cropping factor. The pixel factor for a 1.5x cropping factor is 2.25. Like Gauss found for summing geometric progressions, there is always a shortcut if you use a little algebra.</p>

<p>The cover glass over the sensor includes the infrared filter, anti-aliasing filter (if present) and basic physical protection. It is a constant for all models of Sony A7 cameras, consequently can be calculated in the optical design of dedicated lenses. The same lenses fare poorly when tested alone. Lensrentals found it necessary to insert a 2 mm thick filter in their test rig. It is approximately 2 mm thick in the Sony A7, 1.5 mm in the Leica M9 and about 0.8 mm in the Leica M8, which was subject to excessive infrared sensitivity.</p>

<p>The A7ii is a very good camera, but hardly state of the art. For that, you would use an A7Rii. It has a respectable 24 MP sensor, but includes an anti-aliasing filter, placing it on a par with the Leica M9, 18 MP, in terms of sharpness. In practice the A7ii is much sharper than the Leica (I have both) because the focusing is much more precise than using a rangefinder, and the lens fills the entire field of view regardless of focal length. The footprint and weight is about the same. I hope you enjoy the experience.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Herbert - I bought into the Sony system, starting with an A7ii, precisely to take advantage of my existing Leica and Nikon lenses, using relatively inexpensive adapters. I gradually replaced them with lenses designed specifically for the Sony, for better image quality and integration, and of course, a few zoom lenses, which are somehow absent in the Leica M retinue.</p>

<p>In this respect, I have departed from the original virtue of the A7 as a compact, lightweight system. It evolved into a system which replaced my Nikon gear for a working kit, instead of a Leica kit with benefits. Loxia lenses are very much in keeping with applications for which one would use a Leica M. Everything seems to come around.</p>