mark_amos

<p>I will continue here about the Nikon 20 just because it is hard to separate the evaluation of the lens from the evaluation of compatibility to digital sensors. Since we all know that adapting other lenses to these A7 bodies is one of notable benefits, it is worthwhile to really know which is which, and even now I'm not sure of the answer, so I will conclude my input on the topic. I appreciate what you are saying about your 20 2.8 AF Dieter. I need to go test my 20 more at smaller apertures on my 5n to figure out when I'm okay with it for sure because even though I was happy with it on film, I couldn't really pixel peep like I can and do now, and maybe my prior happiness with the lens is evidence that I shouldn't peep now. Bjorn Rorslett at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html gave the 20 AIS a 4.5 of 5 used on D200 and D2x, and Ken Rockwell praises it for Nikon FX here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/20f28ais.htm. Both mentioned the benefit of stopping down, but I wouldn't think you could rate a lens so highly if you have to stop it down so much (f8? - I hope not), but I don't know. I realize that a lens has seldom if ever gotten in my way as the excuse for a bad picture. The topic remains for some of us I suppose because we have significant investment in lenses there were "proven" on film. I don't like selling gear, but my resources for new acquisitions are limited. Stay or go? This is particularly difficult because I like aperture rings and non-fly-by-wire focus rings with actual distance scale. Loxia is a/the great solution...., but only if you are committed fully to E mount. So to steer myself back to the topic specifically, if I didn't have other lenses, my choice for a new A7II would be the Loxia 35.</p>

<p>@Dieter, I have the 35 asph cron but not an A7, so what you have said is very useful and enlightening to me. As usual, we read all we can and try to put a puzzle together to help us know what to expect and not be disappointed with a new purchase. I might write a separate thread on the following, but I recently bought the $199 Sigma 19 to use on my Sony 5n after a couple years of consideration. I asked for opinions in a thread I posted back then, and I got some good input, but I was on the fence. I've been using a Nikon 20 2.8 AIS with an adapter. I know the Nikon 20 is a very fine lens from quite a bit of film use, and on the 5n, the center of the Nikon 20 might be a tiny tiny bit sharper...maybe, but maybe not..., but at f2.8 moving outward the inexpensive Sigma becomes better, and when really pixel peeping, it is clear that even on the crop sensor 5n with a retrofocus Nikon 20, I clearly see what I can only assume is smearing on the edges with the 20. Either that, or it just isn't as good as the cheap Sigma.<br> What I will say next could be the fodder for much further discussion, but here it is: If Sony's full frame cameras are not going to work well with my VC 28 1.9 Ultron, nor 35 cron aspherical and not even my 20 2.8 AIS (haven't tested myself on an A7) such that I would need to buy all new wide-normal angle lenses for an A7 then I might actually stick with APS and enjoy having very small telephoto lenses (50 cron makes for tiny 75 f2 etc..)<br> BTW, I get the impression that my Leica 40 cron-C might work as well on an A7 as the Nokton 40 1.4 you say you've been using?</p>

<p>I enjoy Huff's reviews. I read his entire review of the A7II. As you say, it is very informative. I am confident that it is a great camera. I'm only responding further because you asked specifically about 35 mm lenses, and I'm interested in that subject. While writing this, I looked at the article again with what Dieter said in mind, and what I find is that perhaps when Huff says, "From my experience, anything less than 28mm will bring in some color distortions with the A7, A7r and yes, A7II" he is addressing only color shift and leaving the door open for the smearing being present with the 35s. He isn't denying it; he just isn't bringing attention to it and is implying that he is okay with the results with the 35 lenses regardless of smearing. </p>

<p>I just read the Huff article. I hadn't seen that yet. I like the A7II a lot. It is fantastic. I just note that in the article he shoots a 50 noctilux and one shot with a 50 2.8 and also the unusual Voigtlander 40 2.8. He shows one shot with the Zeiss M 25 2.8 and says it is perfectly acceptable to him but not perfect. He is also clear to make the point that the A7II is still not the best choice for 28mm and wider Leica lenses, but he doesn't test any Leica 35 nor the Zeiss Biogon either. I am glad that he shows the one 25 2.8 shot, but I can't tell much from that. I would say that if a person doesn't have one of these Leica or Zeiss ZM 35s, then it is indeed a non-issue; just get the 35 2.8 ZA and be done or the Loxia 35. BUT, if you do have one of the 35s I've mentioned, I'm still not sure one should expect edge quality on par with the full fine reputation and cost of those lenses. I'm just trying to find out for myself still.</p>

<p>I believe I have read that the Leica 35 M mount cron aspherical performance is notably compromised on the A7. I thought the same goes for the Zeiss/Cosina 35 biogon M? I'm chiming in because I have the M mount 35 cron aspherical, and if I thought it was going to be fine, I would probably be seriously targeting a reduced price a7 now that the a7II is out. I realize this is a bit subjective as an issue. By that I mean that even if a very close examination can reveal the "smearing" effect on the image edges, it may or may not be toooooo bad?<br> I also have the Leica 40 cron-C, and I think that is supposed to be okay on the a7 and is extremely close to 35 and similar in design to the pre-aspherical 35s. Does anybody want to offer the latest word on that?</p>

<p>Thanks for the comment Edward. I agree that the first level zoom is usually sufficient, and when using manual focus lenses, I was very pleased when I discovered the capability of pressing the shutter half way to return to full view. But by the way, when using an AF lens in DMF mode, if you zoom once to make sure you have focus, you can't use the half-press trick because that automatically refocuses the lens with AF, messing up your fine tuning you just did with magnification. The times I need the second level zoom are when using a wide angle lens in which first level zoom in medium light doesn't well show very fine detail in your subject or when the light is very low with any lens at which time even though the EVF boosts the gain, it adds grain, and I really need the higher magnification to differentiate which final focus ring position is really sharpest. In that situation, looking at a face 12' away, you can't really see face details anyway; you have to study the "grain" carefully.<br> Anyway, I just wonder if it is possible to achieve that second level zoom with an AF lens with contacts. I don't think you can get that even with the lens in MF mode.</p>

<p>I have an NEX 5n and have been using it for about 2 1/2 years and am just finally getting around to asking this question. When I'm using my "legacy" manual focus lenses, I use the magnification feature which allows a 2 step (2 button presses) magnification. When using a Sony or Sigma lens in DMF or even in "manual focus", when you move the lens focus ring, it automatically zooms in to help you focus, but it seems to only zoom to the first zoom position and not the closer/tighter zoom available on 2 button presses with a fully manual focus zoom lens. It seems that the fact that the Sony/Sigma lenses have electronic contacts affects what the menu will offer and ironically you don't get an option for the closer magnification that makes focusing easier in typical night time low light indoor candid pictures. Does anybody know otherwise?</p>

<p>I continue resisting an a7 because I get good use from my 5n, but when shooting video of my daughter on stage with my Nikon 200 f4, 75-150 3.5 zoom, 105 2.5, or 85 1.4, focus isn't a problem, but it is very difficult to near impossible to hold it steady without a tripod, which makes everything too bulky. At the longer end, the video can be unwatchable. I guess that would be solved now, and I don't have to wait for a fast Sony lens of comparable quality and good value, which I don't even thinks exists yet unless it is A mount requiring the adapter. If the price of the new a7II is starting at $1600 and will presumably come down some, doesn't that make it an incredible value? Imagine how much they would charge for a fast telephoto prime equal to the 105 2.5 in quality. And you get stabilization with all your other lenses too for night shots on the fly. Wow. Now the only last thing they need to do is make the sensor work a little better with those symmetrical wides The 7s is great, but 12 MP is a little low. How about a Nikon D4s type sensor in an A7x for full frame 16 mp? That would be the ticket.</p>

<p>I'll have to examine those sites at least to understand better what is out there especially since you have made it more available to me. I guess what I was after was a lens I could put on my camera to get the range I need with image stabilization while being able to continue on at least for the present taking videos with the 5n the way I have been doing without needing a software learning curve. Thanks again for your input Joe. This is what it is I suppose.</p>

<p>Joe, thanks again. I answered yesterday, but for some user(me) or other error, that message didn't post. I don't shoot raw format. I don't use Photoshop or light room. I might try that one day, but I don't intend to start now. My wife is actually an accomplished professional graphic designer, but I'm not. I take a lot of fantastic pictures of my daughter, and usually the out-of-camera jpegs are awesome owing to the Sony 5n sensor, my skill, my lenses, and her innate beauty, but I need to improve on the video aspects, and that is why I'm thinking of that Sony 18-105 lens. I have no experience doing post processing. I was just hoping that Sony offers an easy to download driver/firmware update for my camera with the lens I mentioned that would let me have the best of what Sony intended in an enthusiast/advanced amateur camera lens combination with that very versatile 18-105 lens at least for video purposes.</p>

<p>I thank you Joe for addressing my question. I am somewhat familiar with the concept of loading a driver for something like a printer, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of firmware updates loaded to my camera (via usb I assume). Although I could probably manage it, I've just never done it. The idea that IDC is "an opaque box" that demands full trust is a concern to me. Actually, I'm not positive that you mean what I think you do, and I don't understand what IDC is. I realize that if no more firmware updates for 5n were offered before the lens was introduced, then I may be out of luck for an update, but frankly I'm not sure of anything definitively on this topic at all. I guess my hope would be that somebody could say that update v1.02 that I have that was loaded at Sony when making warranty repairs somehow or another already offers the Sony correction for jpegs for the 18-105 or the 16-70 either one. I'm not sure when the lenses were very first introduced, whether Sony anticipated this and might have loaded the correction on v1.02 pre-release of the lenses or anything else?</p>

<p>I have been considering the Sony 18-105 G f4 OSS e mount lens to use on my NEX 5n (with EVF). My primary motivation has been for video use. I have many legacy lens options equivalent to a medium longish telephoto lens like this would be, but when taking video of my young daughter's various school performances on stage, the results are often far too jittery. I tried this lens out in a store, and it seemed like at least a "nice" very versatile lens. In fact, I don't think Sony offers much alternative in a longish equiv. telephoto even this fast (f4) for this price range ($600). The 55-210 isn't fast enough or versatile enough for me and simply didn't have a good feel IMO. (I assume this 18-105 lens is supposed to accomplish precisely what I'm seeking: video and possible versatile alternative for stills too occasionally.)Once at home I thought to look at the shots I took for the bad distortion the lens is said to exhibit in any imagery not corrected in-camera by software (such as RAW mainly). It didn't look too bad really, but I didn't take many pictures.<br> <br /> My question is which version of the firmware update for the 5n will have the necessary distortion correction of jpegs and video with this lens? I sent my camera to Sony perhaps a year and a half ago to correct the way the coating was coming off the LED screen edges. They addressed that and also loaded firmware v 1.02. Is that all I need? I think there may be a 5n 1.03, but I'm not sure, and I'd rather not upload anything onto my camera if it isn't necessary. Anybody know for sure?<br> <br /> A second question is whether it is possible that the way the distortion correction software works is that it can correct it for any upcoming lens already because the software has a way of analyzing the image itself regardless of the lens? I tend to doubt that, but I'm asking.<br> <br /> Related to that is a third question: I don't think my 5n can benefit from phase detection compatibility anyway because it doesn't have that, so does that mean I don't need, and Sony probably won't offer any further updates for the 5n anyway. This question is broader than my other questions. I mean do I already have with 1.02 what I need if I get the 16-70 lens or the FE full frame 24-70 for that matter? (I've considered the full frame as useful and good in case I ever buy a full frame Sony. I'm not likely to go with either of these lenses now anyway since they are a lot more money than the 18-105.)<br> <br /> Thanks!</p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>