Compatilbility list of legacy glass on A7/A7r/s?

Does such a thing exist? Without going through the scores of threads and images (yes, I've already done a lot of this) I'm wondering if anyone is aware of a chart or something that shows how well legacy options work on the Alpha series..

I'm looking for a 35, 50, 90 set (like the Contax G primes) to work on the A7 and I'm hoping for sharpness, good IQ.

Are the Contax G lenses that good?

Or is it the Canon FD lenses or Rokkors? Or Minolta?

If the Zeiss ZE lenses are the only way to go to insure quality (AF is not a concern for me), then I'll do it, but I was really hoping not to buy into Sony glass because it's my first foray into the system.

Thanks!

The rule seems to be that any lens designed for a 35mm SLR or a larger film format will work, and rangefinder lenses of 35mm focal length or longer will work.

Wider angle rangefinder lenses are liable to corner problems, especially on the A7r.

If you now want a complete database of quality tests on every lens ever made, I think you are out of luck. And different users like the image style of different lenses: a lens that suits you may not suit somebody else.

I hate to ask: how good are your images? Do you absolutely need world class lenses? Are you just so flush in cash that you think you do? Never mind, I apologize to ask so pointedly.

Otherwise, keep on reading and dreaming; of excellent pics, compositions, views, light etc. These three make images good, not Zeiss glass all by itself.

Gear lust is the opposite of image quality, a detriment to joy in photography. Deadening the spirit, the art, the excitement of seeing and taking images.

To each his/her own, so be warned that materialism, gear lust etc kill the soul. And end happiness of one's discovery of the world.

Ha, well, that's quite a question, but I also agree with your logic trail on that...It's easy to mix gear up with potential/talent.

I get paid to take photos? A lot of money? Ha, no, definitely not. But, that said, the price of an A7 body isn't exactly much in the scheme of modern camera bodies and the glass I'm looking at isn't either...So, all together, do I think I'm worth a $2000 setup, glass and body? Yes, definitely..Do I need a Leica M240 to be "creative"? No, certainly not.

I've had a Fuji setup for a while, and though I've loved it, I'm doing more and more video and the idea of having two systems doesn't sit with me. The A7 is certainly good-enough for video so it makes sense. The only hurdle for me is I don't really want to buy into the Sony system too much lens-wise, hence the thread here.

uhligfd said:

I hate to ask: how good are your images? Do you absolutely need world class lenses? Are you just so flush in cash that you think you do? Never mind, I apologize to ask so pointedly.

Click to expand...

How is this related to OP's question about a compatibility chart for legacy glass?

uhligfd said:

Otherwise, keep on reading and dreaming; of excellent pics, compositions, views, light etc. These three make images good, not Zeiss glass all by itself.

Click to expand...

Is looking into CZ glass some kind of implication that the person has lost track of what goes into making a good photo? OP also asked about Minolta and Canon lenses. Does that also mean he's prioritizing brand names over the craft?

uhligfd said:

Gear lust is the opposite of image quality, a detriment to joy in photography. Deadening the spirit, the art, the excitement of seeing and taking images.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's go back to cave painting and maybe someday we'll earn the right to use pinhole cameras without fear of judgment from those sanctimonious purists we all aspire to.

uhligfd said:

To each his/her own, so be warned that materialism, gear lust etc kill the soul. And end happiness of one's discovery of the world.

Click to expand...

So asking about legacy glass in general is 'gear lust' that is 'killing the soul' with abject materialism. Noted. Yet I can't help but note that here you are, talking digital camera equipment in a gear-centric forum on the internet. See any irony, there?

Anyway... Yeah.

So, how about that FF chart for legacy glass? I wouldn't mind seeing one compiled. I wonder if we could get some folks to collaborate, or something. Not just for CZ but for all lenses, including the cheapie swap meet finds that are more likely to win the approval of those zen Buddhist spiritually tuned photographers among us with finely diminished materialism and elevated artistic sense.

crashwins said:

The only hurdle for me is I don't really want to buy into the Sony system too much lens-wise, hence the thread here.

Click to expand...

same here... outside of the fe55 and maybe that new fe 70-200mm f4, full-frame native emount lenses have too many compromises for the $$ involved.

you have the a7, which appears to be easier on glass than the a7r; have you mounted any legacy slr glass to it yet? do you have any adapters?

This isn't a compatibility list, but for Minolta SR (MC/MD) lenses here is a nice chart of what's out there:


I've had good luck with the MD Rokkor lenses on my a7.

I recently started building my A7 setup, basically got the EF to A mount adapter (LA-EA4) and now I'm open to several choices from Sigma, Minolta and Sony.

All of the slr lenses will perform fine on the A7/R/S as stated above. Most range finder lenses work, with the exception of some very wide lenses. The A7 does the best with many legacy lenses, probably due to the lower resolution or AA filter. You can't go wrong with the major camera brands slr lenses. The newer ones will possibly have better coatings. Cheap adapters are available for most lenses.

crashwins said:

Does such a thing exist? Without going through the scores of threads and images (yes, I've already done a lot of this) I'm wondering if anyone is aware of a chart or something that shows how well legacy options work on the Alpha series..

I'm looking for a 35, 50, 90 set (like the Contax G primes) to work on the A7 and I'm hoping for sharpness, good IQ.

Click to expand...

Those 3 work fine. Wider Contax G primes produce some vignetting on full frame.

crashwins said:

Are the Contax G lenses that good?

Click to expand...

The Metabones adapter adds to the price but the combination is still good value for the lens quality.

crashwins said:

Or is it the Canon FD lenses or Rokkors? Or Minolta?

Click to expand...

They all work fine. The quality varies though.

crashwins said:

If the Zeiss ZE lenses are the only way to go to insure quality (AF is not a concern for me), then I'll do it, but I was really hoping not to buy into Sony glass because it's my first foray into the system.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

crashwins said:

Does such a thing exist? Without going through the scores of threads and images (yes, I've already done a lot of this) I'm wondering if anyone is aware of a chart or something that shows how well legacy options work on the Alpha series..

I'm looking for a 35, 50, 90 set (like the Contax G primes) to work on the A7 and I'm hoping for sharpness, good IQ.

Are the Contax G lenses that good?

Or is it the Canon FD lenses or Rokkors? Or Minolta?

If the Zeiss ZE lenses are the only way to go to insure quality (AF is not a concern for me), then I'll do it, but I was really hoping not to buy into Sony glass because it's my first foray into the system.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Here is a quick summary for you after my extensive search on the best WA and UWA for the A7 series.

Generally, DSLR/SLR lenses work fine on the A7 series. However, due to adapter and ray angle issue (very minor with expensive one), even the UWA DSLR lenses would not perform as well as they would on a native platform (again very minor: more smear and CA with the TSE 17, more CA with the 12-24).

For those tiny rangefinder (RF) (either M/L39 or Contax G mount), anything longer than a 35 is typically safe (main exception is the Lux 50 ASPH). Below 35 is more complicated:

With A7/R: safest bets are the ZM 15 (strong color cast with similar smearing as the native Typ 240), Leica WATE, the CV 21/1.8 and Lux 21 and 24 (not as good as the WATE result). Some seem to think the WATE performs even better on the A7R than on the native platform. A7 does produce some cyan cast in corners with the WATE.

With A7s: definitely much better at vignette and color cast control (though going from magenta to cyan), a lot more usable with some lenses (need more tests), notably the ZM 35/2, Elmar 18 and 24 ASPH (not as good as the ZM result). However, generally, the smearing characteristic is still the same as in A7/r. Typically, less vignette and color cast does make the A7s more enjoyable to use than the other two cameras (see Steve Huff and Ashwins Rao review).

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeissaholic/

uhligfd said:

I hate to ask: how good are your images? Do you absolutely need world class lenses? Are you just so flush in cash that you think you do? Never mind, I apologize to ask so pointedly.

Otherwise, keep on reading and dreaming; of excellent pics, compositions, views, light etc. These three make images good, not Zeiss glass all by itself.

Gear lust is the opposite of image quality, a detriment to joy in photography. Deadening the spirit, the art, the excitement of seeing and taking images.

To each his/her own, so be warned that materialism, gear lust etc kill the soul. And end happiness of one's discovery of the world.

Click to expand...

The Passive-Aggressive equipment police has arrived.

Carl Zeiss advise to stay clear of any rangefinder (symmetric) lenses of 35mm or less, of course many users love their lenses and will post process them to arrive at an acceptable outcome, despite huge light fall-off etc. Some such lenses have massive beam angles of 45 degrees! See pages 11-12 here:


All SLR/DSLR lenses are fine - what many users see as smear is the limit of the lens's performance envelope being reached = low contrast caused by aberrations. The better WAs are fabulous on the a7r - e.g. the 21mm Zeiss Distagon (beam angle of 19 degrees) and Canon TSE 17/24mm. Fred Miranda is one of many Canon lens users with an a7r, he does not even mention smearing in his review, which includes several TSE 17mm images:


All the lenses you mention are fine, crashwin, except the 35mm perhaps - choose according to taste and budget. The ZE range is rather heavy duty, being intended for DSLR usage - the otherwise very nice 35/2 weighs more than my Contax 35-70mm f3.4 zoom. At ~50mm the best choice is the FE55 - you cannot get this performance level in an appropriately sized normal lens small lens for less than $7000 (Leica's new APO Asph Summicron 50/2).

The Contax G 90mm may be a little overrated - most short telephotos are excellent, I suggest you look into a manual focus lens - many Contax SLR and Leica M and R will fit that bill, Nikon's 105/2.5 AIS, etc. WAs are problematic until Sony or Zeiss do the job properly, provided they constrain the bulk and weight.

hiepphotog said:

Generally, DSLR/SLR lenses work fine on the A7 series. However, due to adapter and ray angle issue (very minor with expensive one), even the UWA DSLR lenses would not perform as well as they would on a native platform (again very minor: more smear and CA with the TSE 17, more CA with the 12-24).

Click to expand...

You'll be happy to know problems using the TSE 17 with the a7r were a result of internal reflections from the Metabones MK3 adapter. The MK4 adapter corrected this, as does a modified MK3 adapter.

Fred Miranda recounts his experience with this setup in this article.

To the OP, search for "contax g on a7". You'll find numerous resources, often with images. One of the better resources for lens ideas is this 420 page (and growing) thread of images shot with various lenses on the a7(r/s).

Huge Thanks to everyone contributing to this thread! Completely explained where I needed to direct my thinking. Seems to me the way to go is to grab one native lens (probably the 55) and play with adapted lenses outside of that FL because they could be a little more questionable. Also, thanks for the link to FM's image thread - makes a lot of sense to look there!