part time pronikon, canon, Sony, leica digital
Leica 21mm f3.4 on a Sony A7r.
naththo: SLRGear got bad copy of that lens. DxO got good copy. Now that mean the quality control is bad there in Sony. Something is fishy.
I bought one and it is perfect.
Just Ed: It seems the best thing the a7 and a7r have going for them is the sensor. The rest of the package from Sony seems quite lacking in terms of implementation.
The aSony isn't going to make me change from Nikon or Canon.
For pre G lensed any simple adapter will do. For G lenses the metabones Nikon-g adapter is needed. There is no auto focus for either. For Canon lenses there is the metabons canon type three adapter which gives you full auto focus and IS functions. Better ISO performance and getting rid of the terrible menu of the nx7 plus the full frame sensor are the big improvements. The focus seems to be right on. I sold my nx7 after getting an a7 and have also aquired an a7r. Haven't used my Canon or Nikon bodies since getting the Sonys and my Leica M8 is now a paper weight.
munro harrap: I was put off Olympus and Fuji's little machines for the same reason as the NEX sony equivalent s- the lenses. If you bother to look at downloadable samples you can see why everyone is trading theirs in. (Look at the LCE and Park cameras sites) These zoom lenses need enormous correction at wide-angle. This correction destroys the border resolution, and my concern for full-frame mirrorless is that the same will apply for wide-angle lenses. AS there is no mirror these lenses are cheaper and easier to design and make (yes Leitz!), but as mentioned here, they are being underdesigned to maximise profits and photographers suffer as a result. You are not paying less, for the new Sony A7 lenses you are overpayingl. On paper the tests pass muster, just (see Photozone.de or the Optix Pro site), but notably the squished mashed appearance of the photographs themselves (the only thing that counts) escapes tests, but not our eyes.Or can I not see for the tears?
Munro please don't buy one, I would have to sell mine if you did.
Max Savin: Sigma f1.4 for Nikon: 23.46 oz (1.466 pounds)
A7r camera: 14.36 oz35mm Sony FE f2.8: 4.23 oz.
Backpacking 20-30 miles on rough trails and overland. Which would you carry?
Is that written somewhere in stone? I'm 75 and sold my super telephotos 5 years ago because of wt. Have not used my 1DSMK3 in the field for 2 years. So to me wt. matters.
"very close to sigma 35 f1.4"
Sigma f1.4 for Nikon: 23.46 oz (1.466 pounds)
Eric Peltzer: I would be VERY interested in a A7 or A7R with superb fast primes - I don't own a zoom - and I could justify the cost of a $1000 lens or two. Also 35mm is my favorite angle of view. I'm pretty much exactly Sony's target market. However. The main point of buying an FF camera over an APS-C to me is to have extremely shallow DOF on call, even at wider angles. An equivalent consideration with superb sharpness.
So the fact that this is a 2.8 and not a 2.0 or 1.8 is just a big letdown. I get that this a very compact lens, still, if I want a compact travel lens it seems a less expensive pancake makes more sense.
My setup now is an NEX5n with usually a Nikkor 28mm f2 on an adapter. This gives some shallow DOF, but only middling sharpness. I've been shopping for a superb fast prime, ideally a 24mm for the NEX. You could buy Sony's own Zeiss 24mm f1.8 and get similar DOF while saving $2k not buying a new body.
Sony took this 98 yards down the field and punted just short of the goal line.
As soon as the A7-A7r became available I dumped my NX7. Lenses that worked poorly on it (zeiss biogon 35 f2.8 and my nikor 28 f2 ai) work perfectly on my new bodies. With useable ISO to at least 3200 a fast lens is irrelevant.
jonikon: I have been into photography long enough to remember when serious 35mm primes were expected to be f2.0. Making a sharp 35mm f2.8 prime is cheap and easy. Too bad Sony took the low road and made this consumer grade lens a full stop slower than the excellent Minolta 35mm f2.0 legacy lens of yesteryear, and adds insult to injury by pricing it like a pro f2.0 lens. I just don't see how Sony's new FE mount camera system will be successful without a full set of pro quality FE lenses, and in terms of maximum aperture, this lens does not qualify as such.
don't try to confuse with actual, hands on experience. I tried and it doesn't seem to work. I'm enjoying mine (A7r-35 f2.8) too.
munro harrap: Very uneven resolution, at the borders scarcely ever lifting above 1500lpm- This is LESS than an 8MP sensor. OK, at f5.6 in the middle its OK, but as the sensor resolves 4000lpm, and this is an f2.8 lens it is a disappointing one. Compare to Samyang 35/f1.4...We buy wides to get more in at closer distances and to grasp situations. Now, I don't know about you, but if I had to display prints from an A7R I would be very unhappy to with this lens, since only the central area will be sharp until at least F8. Not only that, but the step down into mush at wider apertures outside the central area renders it useless as a wide-angle prime. It is under-designed- it should be equally sharp allover at this stage in optical history- it is a 78rpm in the age of Blu-ray, and there are many sharper consumer f3.5-4.5-5.6 zooms at a fraction of the price.And check the Sigma 35mm f1.4
If you have to carry it all day or on a 15-20 mile treak over rough terrain it sure does.
Max Savin: In the age of excellent high ISO performance the need for fast lenses is diminished. As a landscape photographer 90% of my pictures are shot at f8-11, ISO 2-400 at 250-320sec. Light wt., small size, excellent construction and above all superb files are what it's about. And did I mention that I can use my large collection of Leica-M mount, Canon and Nikon lenses on this body? You can sit at home and compare resolution charts all day, and complain about the price while I am out shooting pictures today with A7 and A7r, 35 and 55.
Changed my mind and took the 55, and my 35 summicron asph and 24 elmarit asph.. So cheap doesn't factor in.
In the age of excellent high ISO performance the need for fast lenses is diminished. As a landscape photographer 90% of my pictures are shot at f8-11, ISO 2-400 at 250-320sec. Light wt., small size, excellent construction and above all superb files are what it's about. And did I mention that I can use my large collection of Leica-M mount, Canon and Nikon lenses on this body? You can sit at home and compare resolution charts all day, and complain about the price while I am out shooting pictures today with A7 and A7r, 35 and 55.
photogeek: Should have been f/1.8 at least. If Nikon can do it for $200, I'm sure Zeiss should be able to do it for $400. $700 for an f/2.8 lens with vignetting and less than ideal sharpness is ridiculous, no matter how you slice it.
the tiny Canon 40mm f2.8 requires a heavy, $400 Metabones adapter to work on a Sony a7(r). Why would you use a 35mm lens to do isolation studies? I would think that a fast 85-135 would be a proper lens for that. Also no one here has discussed the Leica 35mm Summilux which only costs $6000? As a landscape photographer I have found the Sony 3 FE to be a perfect lens for my work on both A7 and A7r. I chose it over my 35mm f2.8 biogon-m, f1.4 Canon, and 35 leica 35 summicron asph.
Hwirt: Excellent lens that is ideally suited to the compact A7/A7r, not cheap but as usual you get what you pay for.
then get a Leica summilux?
yabokkie: compare it with Canon 40/2.8 and take into account the difference between the bodies (A7R vs 1Ds3), it looks that 40/2.8 could be a better lens (would appreciate any new test be done on a popular body first, or lower resolution A7, for easier comparison).
The Metabones adapter costs $400 and weighs about as much as the Sony 35 FE. Size wise the combination of adapter and 40mm lens is heavier and bigger.
JackM: f/2.0 would have made it a home run.
A triple is rarer and just as useful when iso 3200 yields very good results.
I have compared this lens on both A7 and A7r and for actual picture taking it is at least as good as my Leica 35 Summicron and Zeiss 35 F2.8 Biogon M mount. Both of them are much more expensive than the Sony. Do any of you people actually take pictures or do you just study line resolution charts?
I just came back from shoot with my A7r with a Leica 21mm Super Elmar lens. Yesterday I was fooling around with a Canon 70-200 F4 L IS/Metabones 3. Today a Nikon 105 f2.5 AI. Spectacular! I note that every negative comment comes from someone who does not own one, will never own one and haven't even seen or held one. By the way, the shutter noise on this camera is way less than the noise from my 1DSmk3 or D800. And best of all so is the weight. Picture quality superb! So stop whinning
Heliconius: A moment of silence for SLR...
I have not seen it either.
km25: Now if only the A7R had the A7 focusing and it's sutter. The camera is too small vs lens. It is the same sensor as the D800E. If you are backpacking or need a small camera, ok. But why not just get the D800E. It does not work with any of the RF lens wider then 35mm. The advantage of owning the A7R vs D800E is what? A few hundred dollars and size. Handling vs MP. The 82 and gold is just for 36MP, not a great camera, a good sensor.
I am using Leica 21, 24 and 28 mm elmars on my A7 without any problems. color shift cleans up nicely with photoshop.