Leica M mount lenses on A7?

Alpha Photo said:

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.

Click to expand...

sootyvrs said:

hiepphotog said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mordi said:

sootyvrs said:

hiepphotog said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jerry Pruce said:

Thanks for your reply. Anything over 35mm is to long in my studio for shooting my larger paintings. I can't get back far enough.

Click to expand...

sootyvrs said:

Mordi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

hiepphotog said:

Mordi said:

sootyvrs said:

hiepphotog said:

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.

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

Click to expand...

Interesting reading on the sensor stack modification but not sure if i would be happy to spend all that cash on a A7S body to risk modifying it to void any warranty etc...

Click to expand...

It's not necessary. Lots of people are shooting Leica lenses on the A7 without such warranty/resale killing surgery.

Check out https://www.flickr.com/groups/2409510@N20/ and https://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_a7/

Are you a better photographer than the majority of those there?

Send me a PM and I will send you a link to some of my images, or even put the RAW in a dropbox for you to play with.

I know where you are coming from: I bought into the NEX and A7 to use my Leica M lenses again. They are terrific. Don't be dissuaded by those trying to squeeze out the last bit of performance from lenses you don't own and aren't likely to own.

Click to expand...

This is just plain ignorance. It's not about trying to squeeze that last bit of performance out. To me, camera comes and goes, but lens would stay as my legacy. I would definitely pass on to my kids; I'm sure my A7s would not last long enough till then. I do develop some attachment to my tools. If you really want to go the M-mount way, this makes the most sense to really get the full potential of the optics. Why waste money, especially on those Leica lenses, to just make do at f/8. And I might not be better than the majority of those photographers in the thread, but I believe I can do the same of what they are doing in there.

There is a reason to go Leica: the best combination of small size and light weight w/ world class IQ. Find me something that can rival the like of SEM 21, Elmar 24, SEM 18, ZM 15. heck even the Lux 50 ASPH is head and shoulder above most 50s (yes, Sigma is about the same, while Otus is better) while being much smaller and lighter. And no, stopping down to f/8 would not equate all lenses.

However, at this point, unless you have already purchased substantial amount of M-mount lenses, the like of Batis, Loxia, and Sony Zeiss presents the best value around. Both the Batis 25/2 and 85/1.8 are phenomenal, especially looking at the MTF.

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

Click to expand...