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>

<p>The 28 Elmarit v3 is a famous lens on the M8. Not sure which version you have. The CV 21/4 should actually be pretty good, for not much money also, but not sure what VF you would need. </p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8749/16903987027_30e942ba13_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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.

<p>Hi Guys,<br /> I think on a Stock A7x the Loxia and the other natives at around that FL will be the best across the frame at wide aperture, for sure. Not only are the lenses tuned for more "glass in the path", but the in camera processors knows them and helps. On the other hand, with my Kolari A7 the v4 cron will almost certainly beat them all. And more so with a newer mod on a A7r2.<br> <br /> Edward, I take your point on the Loxia. Arthur, oh yes, that's the point of the Kolari mod. Better RF wide performance.<br> <br /> Roger has been working with Sony to get the right "glass in the path" on the optical bench so we can see really get a true comparison of Sony natives with the Otus and the APO, etc. The new zeiss 50/1.4 E-mount is really good:<br /> <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/07/sony-fe-planar-t-50mm-f1-4-za-mtf-and-variance-testing/">https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/07/sony-fe-planar-t-50mm-f1-4-za-mtf-and-variance-testing/</a><br /> But it's huge and expensive.<br> <br /> For a complete analysis of mod possibilities on the A7r2:<br /> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1465200/0?keyword=thin#13839278<br /> Anyway, my point is: never judge a non-native lens overall by how it works on a Sony A7x But, you can certainly see how the thick sony filter stack likes it. And, the Leica 50 APO is the sharpest 50, at least at infinity. Those who tell the OP, sharpness doesn't matter or is silly, of course they have points about how various lenses render in certain situations. I think we all have more than one 50, right?<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7718/17141329131_d18cf3f273.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8646/16397027781_89027151c6.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Sometimes I wish I had only one, LOL<br /> And the 50 APO or 50 LUX asph I would certainly prefer to any Sony or Zeiss lens. Even if I have to mod my A7r2 to use it :)<br /> The techart pro adapter means these can auto focus quite well also, on the Sony bodies:<br /> <a href="https://youtu.be/pOgpf09y44M">https://youtu.be/pOgpf09y44M</a></p> <p> </p>

<p>OMG sorry I did not realize the 10 min limit on editing. Yikes!<br />Mods please help! delete any all you wish.<br> My accidental 3 shots are with v4 and M9 but it's good on a modded Kolari A7 too :)<br> <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/685/22469315387_9170ea29d9.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>Testing lenses on any Sony A7 camera only tells you which one is best with it's very thick filter stack over the otherwise fine sensors (A7r not so fine, r2 great), not the actual potential of the lens. Without a thin filter mod it is a terrible lens testing platform. The v4 Cron is still great and the APO kills everything at F2 :)<br /> Lensrentals new optical bench:<br /> <img src="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/05/f22.jpg" alt="" width="931" height="330" />So yes the OP is well informed, the Leica 50 APO is the sharpest 50 in the world today, outside of the military. <br /> And the 50 Lux ASPH is no slouch:<br /> <img src="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/open2.jpg" alt="" width="893" height="330" /><br> Full article:<br> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7/<br> What the test does not show: Puts found the old v4 50 cron was sharper than the 50 Lux f/2 closeup. Like most lens curves these are at infinity. <br> <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/435/31852699581_d261e96593_c.jpg" alt="" /><br> <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/435/31852699581_d261e96593_c.jpg" alt="" /><br> <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/435/31852699581_d261e96593_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<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>

<p>Looks good Doug :)<br> The Nikkor 500/4P is another option for use on adapted bodies and is down to around 1500 or less :)<br> <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/629/23518491350_6cdb7b05af_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>latest is they will announce a new digital camera shortly......<br> or that's the chatter today.</p>

<p>I feel the opposite and when it comes to the glass itself, there is no question: newer is better. The 50s Leitz had soft coatings and so many are now flawed.<br> As to the build, again my newer lenses are better built and feel better in use. <br> That said I had to have both 28 cron and SEM 21 front groups tightened LOL, but they have been good ever since. My 83 75 Lux is pretty solid, but the 90/2.5 has a better build. The older ones seem simpler, but copy variation in the 50s was huge, compared to today. <br> With exceptions, I'm sure. <br> I have many M, LTM and contax lenses from 1936 till 2011. I love the old ones and often shoot them. But for pure performance the latest Leica lenses are hard to beat, and the build is far ahead of cosina/zeiss.</p>