Leica M mount lenses on A7?

[sootyvrs]

I moved to M43 some years back from 5D using mainly L primes 35,85,135 and the reason for moving was that I ended up not taking my camera out with me (mostly travel photography) due to bulk and weight...

I've been mostly happy with the IQ compromise but recently have reviewed some images from FF days and jeez, I see a marked difference (rendering, Contrast, DOF, Bokeh etc..) to my current images!

I've toyed with the idea of the A7 since launch but could not get past the fact that there were limited lens choices and the main bug bear, FF lenses are huge (relative to M43) but wondered if I could getaway withthe Sony 35/2.8 and maybe one longer prime (no native ones so far) but even so physics say that the long lens would be big and heavy so would I be back to square one of not taking the camera out?

Although I would be happy carrying around (just) something of A7/35 2.8 size, I'm unsure if 35/2.8 would provide the magic that my Canon 35/1.4L being 2 stops slower and unable to match it's shallow DOF (Sonys recent 35/1.4 is just too large for what I'm looking for)

I have been reading that many have moved to use other third party glass using adapters on the A7 system and the Leica M rangefinder lenses may fit the bill (being small and relatively light)..

I've no experience with rangefinders but have no problems switching to manual focus if the focus peaking work as well as I've read...

I enjoy using 35mm FOV so wanting advice on which glass can provide that magic "pop" I had my my 35L... I assume Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 is such a special lens albeit very pricey and I've read that Zeiss also have comparable quality but a little cheaper?

I may later add a wider lens Voightlander 21mm Ultron and a longer lens around 70 or 90mm and that would be possibly do me.

Would love to hear if there are any problems using these lenses on the A7 system (distortion, CA, colour fringing issues etc..)

I have had a look on ebay at used Leica Summilux glass and a little confused with differeing prices of the lenses.. I can only assume that there have been changes to the glass over the years e.g. ASPH, Coded etc... but will they all work successfully on the A7

Any advice welcome to help me decide if this system is worth investing in..

 

[Lightshow]

If you can handle MF, you have a huge list of lenses to choose from, the new M mount Zeiss 35/1.4 looks quite good.

 

[addieleman]

Be aware that not all super-duper Leica lenses perform equally well on the A7 as they do on Leica cameras: the so-called "sensor stack", i.e. the glass on the sensor, is critical to lens performance, especially on wide-angle non-retrofocus lenses like the Leica M ones.

See Ron Scheffler's test results , I guess there are tons of similar tests on the internet.

 

[Mordi]

I moved to M43 some years back from 5D using mainly L primes 35,85,135 and the reason for moving was that I ended up not taking my camera out with me (mostly travel photography) due to bulk and weight...

I've been mostly happy with the IQ compromise but recently have reviewed some images from FF days and jeez, I see a marked difference (rendering, Contrast, DOF, Bokeh etc..) to my current images!

I've toyed with the idea of the A7 since launch but could not get past the fact that there were limited lens choices and the main bug bear, FF lenses are huge (relative to M43) but wondered if I could getaway withthe Sony 35/2.8 and maybe one longer prime (no native ones so far) but even so physics say that the long lens would be big and heavy so would I be back to square one of not taking the camera out?

Although I would be happy carrying around (just) something of A7/35 2.8 size, I'm unsure if 35/2.8 would provide the magic that my Canon 35/1.4L being 2 stops slower and unable to match it's shallow DOF (Sonys recent 35/1.4 is just too large for what I'm looking for)

I have been reading that many have moved to use other third party glass using adapters on the A7 system and the Leica M rangefinder lenses may fit the bill (being small and relatively light)..

I've no experience with rangefinders but have no problems switching to manual focus if the focus peaking work as well as I've read...

I enjoy using 35mm FOV so wanting advice on which glass can provide that magic "pop" I had my my 35L... I assume Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 is such a special lens albeit very pricey and I've read that Zeiss also have comparable quality but a little cheaper?

I may later add a wider lens Voightlander 21mm Ultron and a longer lens around 70 or 90mm and that would be possibly do me.

Would love to hear if there are any problems using these lenses on the A7 system (distortion, CA, colour fringing issues etc..)

I have had a look on ebay at used Leica Summilux glass and a little confused with differeing prices of the lenses.. I can only assume that there have been changes to the glass over the years e.g. ASPH, Coded etc... but will they all work successfully on the A7

Any advice welcome to help me decide if this system is worth investing in..

I have owned the 35mm f1.4 Summilux-m, 50mm f2 Summilux-M and the 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit M since the early 1980s when I shot an M4P. All are great on the A7, except that the Summilux suffers the same issues (a light/soft fog) at f1.4 as in film - that is mostly gone by f2 and completely gone by f2.8.

Having said that, 30 years later, collectors have driven the prices of the Summilux and Summicron unreasonably high. Recently I purchased a Sony FE 35mm f2.8 for an AF walk around alternative to the kit zoom - and it is so close to the Summilux in images that it would be crazy to spend 5x for a mint used Summilux.

If you want super wide I would suggest the new Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Heliar III. It is mind blowing on the A7.

You will not regret buying an A7. It is enormous bang for your buck. You can spend more for the A7mII but if you have good handholding skills, you likely won't see a great difference.

 

[Mordi]

I moved to M43 some years back from 5D using mainly L primes 35,85,135 and the reason for moving was that I ended up not taking my camera out with me (mostly travel photography) due to bulk and weight...

I've been mostly happy with the IQ compromise but recently have reviewed some images from FF days and jeez, I see a marked difference (rendering, Contrast, DOF, Bokeh etc..) to my current images!

I've toyed with the idea of the A7 since launch but could not get past the fact that there were limited lens choices and the main bug bear, FF lenses are huge (relative to M43) but wondered if I could getaway withthe Sony 35/2.8 and maybe one longer prime (no native ones so far) but even so physics say that the long lens would be big and heavy so would I be back to square one of not taking the camera out?

Although I would be happy carrying around (just) something of A7/35 2.8 size, I'm unsure if 35/2.8 would provide the magic that my Canon 35/1.4L being 2 stops slower and unable to match it's shallow DOF (Sonys recent 35/1.4 is just too large for what I'm looking for)

I have been reading that many have moved to use other third party glass using adapters on the A7 system and the Leica M rangefinder lenses may fit the bill (being small and relatively light)..

I've no experience with rangefinders but have no problems switching to manual focus if the focus peaking work as well as I've read...

I enjoy using 35mm FOV so wanting advice on which glass can provide that magic "pop" I had my my 35L... I assume Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 is such a special lens albeit very pricey and I've read that Zeiss also have comparable quality but a little cheaper?

I may later add a wider lens Voightlander 21mm Ultron and a longer lens around 70 or 90mm and that would be possibly do me.

Would love to hear if there are any problems using these lenses on the A7 system (distortion, CA, colour fringing issues etc..)

I have had a look on ebay at used Leica Summilux glass and a little confused with differeing prices of the lenses.. I can only assume that there have been changes to the glass over the years e.g. ASPH, Coded etc... but will they all work successfully on the A7

Any advice welcome to help me decide if this system is worth investing in..

I have owned the 35mm f1.4 Summilux-m, 50mm f2 Summilux-M and the 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit M since the early 1980s when I shot an M4P. All are great on the A7, except that the Summilux suffers the same issues (a light/soft fog) at f1.4 as in film - that is mostly gone by f2 and completely gone by f2.8.

Having said that, 30 years later, collectors have driven the prices of the Summilux and Summicron unreasonably high. Recently I purchased a Sony FE 35mm f2.8 for an AF walk around alternative to the kit zoom - and it is so close to the Summilux in images that it would be crazy to spend 5x for a mint used Summilux.

If you want super wide I would suggest the new Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Heliar III. It is mind blowing on the A7.

You will not regret buying an A7. It is enormous bang for your buck. You can spend more for the A7mII but if you have good handholding skills, you likely won't see a great difference.

Correction: 50mm f2 SUMMICRON-M, not "Summilux"

 

[Gary H]

I think that the Loxia 35mm f/2.0 would be a good compromise between size and speed. My Canon 35mm f/1.4L is reasonably balanced on my A7 when I use the vertical grip and it is still a smaller package than when mounted on a 1D. I'm weighing some of the same choices.

I have many rangefinder lenses and they have the advantage of being small, but the FE lenses are a safer bet when going wide. The new Zeiss 35mm ZM f/1.4 appears to best the Canon in the center, but will be slightly worse than the ZA version in the corners. This is a fast top quality lens in a small package, but it is expensive. The corners do look better than what I get with my ZM Biogons in 35 mm.

So, Loxia best overall compromise. The Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM lens mounted on a Voightlander close focus helical adapter would be the smallest high quality 35mm at the $2k price point.

 

[iullian]

Yeah... another Leica M to A7 topic. I am sure there is at least a dozen of such topics on this subforum only.

And you are not right: there is Sony G 90/2.8 (native), at least 3 Samyangs (85/1.4, 100 macro and 135/2) and upcoming Zeiss 85/1.8 already covering long(er) focal lengths - only to mention native lenses.

There are also 7 native options for 35 mm (16-35, 24-70, 28-75 for zooms and 35/1.4 Zeiss, 35/2 Loxia and 35/2.8 Zeiss primes) and the superb Samyang 35/1.4. There might be also others directly on E Mount. I wonder what else is needed to cover 35 mm focal length.

If you enjoy pure manual focus lenses... the best performers for other systems (35 mm focal length) are almost (if not better) as good on A7.

Leica 35 mm - the better ones will be more then acceptable for A7 also.

Zeiss ZM 35 mm - I am using the biogon 35/2 and I don't see any faults. There might be others who looks ONLY in the corners of ALL of their photos and might be bothered. I am not one of them. It has F2 and I use it indoor only for this aperture. For beyond F2, I have the native FE 35/2.8.

Voigtlander M 35 mm - I used the 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 - they all delivered. Not perfection, but way over any zooms.

Samyang 35 mm - simply superb. Huge, unballanced to the A7, but it delivers IQ. I cannot see how the new Zeiss 35/1.4 can deliver extra. Probably for billboards prints, but sure not for normal prints or 4K (even 5K) screens.

There might be lens defects, but as a general rule... the 35 mm is the lowest focal length where Leica M lenses still deliver. For wider, I used the second Voigtlander 15/4.5 and the Skopar 21/4. They are clearly worse and something more adequate is needed (still acceptable, but not better then point of shoot lenses). But even here are a lot of substitute (in fact all DSLR wides that are good on their native systems are good on A7 also). Not to mention the native 16-35, the 28/2 with its dedicated extends.

Have a great day.

 

[sootyvrs]

I have owned the 35mm f1.4 Summilux-m, 50mm f2 Summilux-M and the 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit M since the early 1980s when I shot an M4P. All are great on the A7, except that the Summilux suffers the same issues (a light/soft fog) at f1.4 as in film - that is mostly gone by f2 and completely gone by f2.8.

Having said that, 30 years later, collectors have driven the prices of the Summilux and Summicron unreasonably high. Recently I purchased a Sony FE 35mm f2.8 for an AF walk around alternative to the kit zoom - and it is so close to the Summilux in images that it would be crazy to spend 5x for a mint used Summilux.

If you want super wide I would suggest the new Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Heliar III. It is mind blowing on the A7.

You will not regret buying an A7. It is enormous bang for your buck. You can spend more for the A7mII but if you have good handholding skills, you likely won't see a great difference.

Interesting you mention about how good the Sony FE 35/2.8 is in comparison to your Summilux and how f/1.4 is not really usable wide open... Could this be to do with it being an old model e.g. non ASPH?

I have no doubt from all the reviews that the Sony FE 35/2.8 performs excellent but my reservations are more to do with it being only f/2.8

I've not considered Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Heliar III only because I've read that wide M mount lenses do not work well with A7 due to colour shift in corners. Do you not have this problem with this lens? This would be ideal as it's only around 200g

My preference (so far) is to get the A7S as I don't see the moderate megapixel count a problem (never had problems with Canon 5D classic 12mp) and high ISO performance opens creative opportunities that were just not possible before and would rather have high shutter speeds than in body IS... plus the A7II is heavier (similar to A7S inc. 35/2.8 for example)

 

[JeffGo]

The new CV15 III is (re)designed for the Sony sensors. The FE1635z is really quite good at 16-28, not as good at 35 especially compared to the FE35.

 

[JimKasson]

The things to watch out for with M-mount lenses on the a7x are corner color casts and smearing. The color casts are caused by pixel/CFA crosstalk, and get worse as the resolution gets higher. The smearing is a function of the sensor stack thickness on the a7x not being what the M-mount lenses were designed for, which is zero.

Here are some specific results for the a7S.

• Leica 16-18-21mm f/4 Tri Elmar ASPH — works fine at 16mm; also at 21mm.
• Leica 18mm f/3.4 Super-Elmar ASPH — works fine
• Leica 24mm f/3.8 Elmar ASPH — works fine. A tiny bit of “Italian flag” casting
• Leica 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit ASPH — a bad fit.Really soft corners at wide openings.
• Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon ZM — works well, but corners could be less smeared.
• Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH — not good. Blurry corners at wide apertures.
• Leica 50mm f/2 Summicrom ASPH -- not tested by me, but I've examined some raw files in which it performed very well.
• Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron — fine. I didn’t do an exhaustive test on this lens since it worked so well on the a7R.
• Leica 135mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt– fine. I didn’t do an exhaustive test on this lens since it worked so well on the a7R.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

 

[Viramati]

from the M mount lenses I have the CV35/1.2 and CV21/1.8 both perform well on the A7. 28 summicron asph is awful, 50 summilux asph also smears badly. WATE performs well, CV12/5.6 is just okay. 90 elmarit-M and apo-telyt 135 both are superb. Apo-telyt is a joy to use with IBIS on the A7II

 

[Lightshow]

I have owned the 35mm f1.4 Summilux-m, 50mm f2 Summilux-M and the 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit M since the early 1980s when I shot an M4P. All are great on the A7, except that the Summilux suffers the same issues (a light/soft fog) at f1.4 as in film - that is mostly gone by f2 and completely gone by f2.8.

Having said that, 30 years later, collectors have driven the prices of the Summilux and Summicron unreasonably high. Recently I purchased a Sony FE 35mm f2.8 for an AF walk around alternative to the kit zoom - and it is so close to the Summilux in images that it would be crazy to spend 5x for a mint used Summilux.

If you want super wide I would suggest the new Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Heliar III. It is mind blowing on the A7.

You will not regret buying an A7. It is enormous bang for your buck. You can spend more for the A7mII but if you have good handholding skills, you likely won't see a great difference.

Interesting you mention about how good the Sony FE 35/2.8 is in comparison to your Summilux and how f/1.4 is not really usable wide open... Could this be to do with it being an old model e.g. non ASPH?

I have no doubt from all the reviews that the Sony FE 35/2.8 performs excellent but my reservations are more to do with it being only f/2.8

I've not considered Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Heliar III only because I've read that wide M mount lenses do not work well with A7 due to colour shift in corners. Do you not have this problem with this lens? This would be ideal as it's only around 200g

My first outings with it on my A7r were great.

Flickr Search

www.flickr.com

My preference (so far) is to get the A7S as I don't see the moderate megapixel count a problem (never had problems with Canon 5D classic 12mp) and high ISO performance opens creative opportunities that were just not possible before and would rather have high shutter speeds than in body IS... plus the A7II is heavier (similar to A7S inc. 35/2.8 for example)

 

[JimKasson]

Apo-telyt is a joy to use with IBIS on the A7II

I'll second that. So is the Zeiss 85/4 Tele-Tessar ZM. So is the 180 Apo-Telyt-R (though that's not an M-mount lens).

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

 

[Alpha Photo]

Most people were really excited when the A7 first came out and then really disappointed when they realized the Leica M lenses didn't work "as advertised". They do work quite a bit better on A7s though, if you can live with 12MP (but 12 super clean and sharp mega pixels it is!).

I suggest to invest in Sony system only, if you are happy with the native lens offerings.

As for Canon 35/1.4 magic - you can get even more magic with the new Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 but at same size. Cannot change the laws of physics (yet).

 

[sootyvrs]

Most people were really excited when the A7 first came out and then really disappointed when they realized the Leica M lenses didn't work "as advertised". They do work quite a bit better on A7s though, if you can live with 12MP (but 12 super clean and sharp mega pixels it is!).

I suggest to invest in Sony system only, if you are happy with the native lens offerings.

As for Canon 35/1.4 magic - you can get even more magic with the new Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 but at same size. Cannot change the laws of physics (yet).

The A7S would be my choice if I decide to invest in this system.... The Sony FE35/1.4 is just to big for what I want from this system although I'm sure it's a fantastic lens.

Thanks for all the replies so far and from my reading so far is that although the Leica M mount lenses work on the A7, some well, some not so well, I guess it's that question whether some of the lenses already mentioned produce results that have that "specialness" on the A7x system or are they merely "OK".

Obviously I'd hate to invest in expensive Leica/Zeiss/Voightlander etc... M mount glass if indeed if they have compromises in image quality due to certain technical compatibility with the Sony A7x system.

If I can't getaway with small/light in the system without IQ compromises, then I will probably stick with M43 but I have seen some great images posted on the net with M mount lenses on the A7x but sometimes difficult to know how much post processing has been done to make them look the way they do?

 

[hiepphotog]

Most people were really excited when the A7 first came out and then really disappointed when they realized the Leica M lenses didn't work "as advertised". They do work quite a bit better on A7s though, if you can live with 12MP (but 12 super clean and sharp mega pixels it is!).

I suggest to invest in Sony system only, if you are happy with the native lens offerings.

As for Canon 35/1.4 magic - you can get even more magic with the new Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 but at same size. Cannot change the laws of physics (yet).

The A7S would be my choice if I decide to invest in this system.... The Sony FE35/1.4 is just to big for what I want from this system although I'm sure it's a fantastic lens.

Thanks for all the replies so far and from my reading so far is that although the Leica M mount lenses work on the A7, some well, some not so well, I guess it's that question whether some of the lenses already mentioned produce results that have that "specialness" on the A7x system or are they merely "OK".

Obviously I'd hate to invest in expensive Leica/Zeiss/Voightlander etc... M mount glass if indeed if they have compromises in image quality due to certain technical compatibility with the Sony A7x system.

If I can't getaway with small/light in the system without IQ compromises, then I will probably stick with M43 but I have seen some great images posted on the net with M mount lenses on the A7x but sometimes difficult to know how much post processing has been done to make them look the way they do?

If you don't see yourself using the native lenses at all, I would like to suggest the Kolari sensor mod (thinner filter stack). I'm surprised that none here brought it up. I had my A7s converted, and it's one of the best decisions I have made in photography . From my own test, Leica M lenses would perform just as good (if not a big better) than on the M240 in term of smearing. In term of color cast and vignette, it's way ahead. Without this mod, the smearing of the A7s is practically the same as the other 3 A7 (one told you otherwise definitely didn't test thoroughly enough).

You can check out this thread on FM:

Sony Forum - Photography - FM Forums

Explore Sony Forum photography discussions. Share your photos, discuss gear and techniques, and buy or sell equipment in our marketplace.

www.fredmiranda.com

I have posted a bunch of full-res tests. What I have tested so far and results:

ZM 15: I can confidently use this WO now, the result is better than the Samyang 14 and ZF/ZE 15 at WO.

Biogon G 21: One of the hardest lenses on digital sensor. Full sharpness (no smearing) at f/11, usable at WO

Biogon G 28: similar as the G 21, a little less smeared

Leica Elmar 24: perfect sharpness at WO, no smear whatsoever. Native performance

Leica Lux 50 ASPH: back to its native performance

Planar G 45: sharper corners at WO now. Misconception that sensor thickness would not affect any lens at 35 or above, not true. This lens was designed for film, and it shows.

Planar G 90: sharper corners but to a lesser extent.

Now the added bonus, even SLR lenses (legacy designed for film) see significant improvements in term of corner sharpness, and it lessens Purple fringing.

One might question about the impact on native lenses:

Roger Cicala (lensrental) tested the FE 55 and FE 35: no real world impact

I tested the FE 55: similar conclusion.

 

[Mordi]

Yeah... another Leica M to A7 topic. I am sure there is at least a dozen of such topics on this subforum only.

And you are not right: there is Sony G 90/2.8 (native), at least 3 Samyangs (85/1.4, 100 macro and 135/2) and upcoming Zeiss 85/1.8 already covering long(er) focal lengths - only to mention native lenses.

Don't know who you think you're replying to, but here is what I posted:

I have owned the 35mm f1.4 Summilux-m, 50mm f2 Summicron-M and the 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit M since the early 1980s when I shot an M4P. All are great on the A7, except that the Summilux suffers the same issues (a light/soft fog) at f1.4 as in film - that is mostly gone by f2 and completely gone by f2.8.

Having said that, 30 years later, collectors have driven the prices of the Summilux and Summicron unreasonably high. Recently I purchased a Sony FE 35mm f2.8 for an AF walk around alternative to the kit zoom - and it is so close to the Summilux in images that it would be crazy to spend 5x for a mint used Summilux.

If you want super wide I would suggest the new Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Heliar III. It is mind blowing on the A7.

You will not regret buying an A7. It is enormous bang for your buck. You can spend more for the A7mII but if you have good handholding skills, you likely won't see a great difference.

There are also 7 native options for 35 mm (16-35, 24-70, 28-75 for zooms and 35/1.4 Zeiss, 35/2 Loxia and 35/2.8 Zeiss primes) and the superb Samyang 35/1.4. There might be also others directly on E Mount. I wonder what else is needed to cover 35 mm focal length.

If you enjoy pure manual focus lenses... the best performers for other systems (35 mm focal length) are almost (if not better) as good on A7.

Leica 35 mm - the better ones will be more then acceptable for A7 also.

Zeiss ZM 35 mm - I am using the biogon 35/2 and I don't see any faults. There might be others who looks ONLY in the corners of ALL of their photos and might be bothered. I am not one of them. It has F2 and I use it indoor only for this aperture. For beyond F2, I have the native FE 35/2.8.

Voigtlander M 35 mm - I used the 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 - they all delivered. Not perfection, but way over any zooms.

Samyang 35 mm - simply superb. Huge, unballanced to the A7, but it delivers IQ. I cannot see how the new Zeiss 35/1.4 can deliver extra. Probably for billboards prints, but sure not for normal prints or 4K (even 5K) screens.

There might be lens defects, but as a general rule... the 35 mm is the lowest focal length where Leica M lenses still deliver. For wider, I used the second Voigtlander 15/4.5 and the Skopar 21/4. They are clearly worse and something more adequate is needed (still acceptable, but not better then point of shoot lenses). But even here are a lot of substitute (in fact all DSLR wides that are good on their native systems are good on A7 also). Not to mention the native 16-35, the 28/2 with its dedicated extends.

Have a great day.

The OP simply asked whether or not M mounts work well on the A7. Period.

I have experience with 3 common ones. Period. I saw no evidence you have any personal experience with Leica M mounts on the A7.

He didn't ask for a litany of lenses that work on the A7 - just M mounts.

You knock the Voigtlander 15mm Series II. I referenced the Series III, which has been proven to correct the issues with the Series II.

 

[Alpha Photo]

A7s or A7ii with Zeiss 35/2.8 lens would make a very small Leica-like run-around package!

I hope Sony comes out with more QUALITY "slow" lenses.

 

[sootyvrs]

If you don't see yourself using the native lenses at all, I would like to suggest the Kolari sensor mod (thinner filter stack). I'm surprised that none here brought it up. I had my A7s converted, and it's one of the best decisions I have made in photography . From my own test, Leica M lenses would perform just as good (if not a big better) than on the M240 in term of smearing. In term of color cast and vignette, it's way ahead. Without this mod, the smearing of the A7s is practically the same as the other 3 A7 (one told you otherwise definitely didn't test thoroughly enough).

You can check out this thread on FM:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474?b=2

I have posted a bunch of full-res tests. What I have tested so far and results:

ZM 15: I can confidently use this WO now, the result is better than the Samyang 14 and ZF/ZE 15 at WO.

Biogon G 21: One of the hardest lenses on digital sensor. Full sharpness (no smearing) at f/11, usable at WO

Biogon G 28: similar as the G 21, a little less smeared

Leica Elmar 24: perfect sharpness at WO, no smear whatsoever. Native performance

Leica Lux 50 ASPH: back to its native performance

Planar G 45: sharper corners at WO now. Misconception that sensor thickness would not affect any lens at 35 or above, not true. This lens was designed for film, and it shows.

Planar G 90: sharper corners but to a lesser extent.

Now the added bonus, even SLR lenses (legacy designed for film) see significant improvements in term of corner sharpness, and it lessens Purple fringing.

One might question about the impact on native lenses:

Roger Cicala (lensrental) tested the FE 55 and FE 35: no real world impact

I tested the FE 55: similar conclusion.

 

[Alpha Photo]

Plus results are not all that "earth-shattering", from what I have read.

There are some REALLY NICE native lenses available now for the A7 series. If none fits your bill, then it really is not the right camera for you, as tempting as that Leica glass may be.