What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

Started Jan 21, 2014 | Discussions
LTZ470
LTZ470 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,926
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

quezra wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

radissimo wrote:

quezra wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

A7r needs native lens quickly, folks are losing interest...I even tried the Sigma 70-300 with the LA-EA4 adapter and it focuses (and hunts) so much slower than the EM1 100-300 it is ridiculous...also shot to shot is not even a competition...IQ is better with EM1 100-300 due to the fact it is fast enough to get the shot when the A7R can't...

Love the idea, the innovation, and the camera, but losing interest fast...no AF lens = loser for me and many others....kudos to all you good folks that love MF...

Waiting on a UW and the 24-70 to materialise...

Isn't that the beautiful thing about competition and choice? You need a mature system to satisfy you, so what the heck are you sticking your nose around in a brand new system and whining about? Sell your camera, come back in 6 months time, or don't... (we wouldn't care, not sure how much Sony would either). What would you have expected an innovative camera company to do? Increase their risk of failure, debts, and chance of letting crap go unchecked by stretching all their resources into launching a full-fledged system on day 1? This is a 2-month-old system and it's not yet February or March when the Zeiss lenses were slated to launch. If waiting a max of 4-8 weeks more is really so significant that you are ready to shelve all the other benefits you claim to appreciate, then really the problem isn't the system, it's you. I mean, you have so many other cameras able to shoot the exact same shots you currently lament aren't possible on the A7, so why aren't you shooting with those? Talk about ridiculous sense of entitlement.

well written!!!

+100

Sad, but true A7 series still lacking in many areas especially UI, AF, FPS, Shutter Noise, Shutter Shock, and then of course lens...

Folks are still losing interest rapidly no matter how bad you fanbois wish it wasn't...did I mention they were lacking lens?

Problem is still in your mirrors...

Well you keep coming back, so it can't be losing that much interest

Lol...so true...you got me there!...was hoping the 24-70 was already shipping!

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 6,192
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!
6

You have to admire Sony for producing a camera that can post threads on the user forum though it is a bit scary.

Can the non r version do this?

SonyA7r wrote:

Why would the reviewer used cheap Vivitar lens? DP doesn't even review this lens. This review is a blatant bashing of Sony which is against the forum rules!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6018399843/using-third-party-lenses-on-the-sony-a7-a7r

darklamp Senior Member • Posts: 3,567
LOL (nt)

No text.

tom Senior Member • Posts: 2,724
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!
1

I found his article very useful.  Since there are so few native FF lenses, some people choosing to spend the money on this camera will have the idea that they will be able to use it with their favorite old FF manual lenses.

That's why I bought a used NEX 7 (no intention of buying native AF lenses for it.)

The issues he mentions are the same ones I have with using the NEX.  For some applications, I wish the magnified view was easier to use, and that I didn't have to play with the peaking menu so often, but I've usually focused my MF cameras with a matt screen, so its not too bad.  I wish the VF was larger though or could fit the Sony VF magnifier that I use with my A-mount OVF cameras (why Sony can't make things like that compatible, I still don't understand). I also find the cramped buttons make it more difficult to hold the camera so I can make setting changes while holding the camera to my eye.  The way it is enhances my tendency for camera shake (that I don't have with my MF and AF cameras.)

He didn't complain about the image quality from the camera, but the ergonomics - which is something that Sony doesn't seem to prioritize compared with the gee-wiz stuff such as "smallest"...

Did I learn anything new, no, because I have a NEX that I use with my fun lenses.  Would someone who has no experience with Sony products, but has a bunch of old lenses that they want to use - I think so.  It is then up to them to decide if the ergonomic issues will be too much of a pain, or if they have to try before they buy.

I did find it humorous when he (and some commenters) said that all Sony has to do is issue a couple of firmware fixes and appeared confident that would do so.

Tom

lenshoarder Contributing Member • Posts: 609
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

SonyA7r wrote:

Why would the reviewer used cheap Vivitar lens? DP doesn't even review this lens. This review is a blatant bashing of Sony which is against the forum rules!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6018399843/using-third-party-lenses-on-the-sony-a7-a7r

What's wrong with Vivitar lenses? They made some good lenses. Being cheap too is a big plus. Cheap and good.

pako
pako Senior Member • Posts: 1,844
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!
1

dprnik wrote:

SonyA7r wrote:
.............which is against the forum rules!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6018399843/using-third-party-lenses-on-the-sony-a7-a7r

But it is not in the forum.

-- hide signature --

Pako Dominguez
-----------------------
www.phototeka.net

 pako's gear list:pako's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha a7R Sony Alpha a7S II Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +18 more
pako
pako Senior Member • Posts: 1,844
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

radissimo wrote:
3) main complain seems to be re: magnif. button placement, but half of the community knows that magnified view is best assigned to centre button AEL// AF/MF

Not in my experience. I prefer to use it on C1

In other hand, the "review" is quite poor...

-- hide signature --

Pako Dominguez
-----------------------
www.phototeka.net

 pako's gear list:pako's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha a7R Sony Alpha a7S II Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +18 more
Murx Regular Member • Posts: 194
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!
2

SonyA7r wrote:

Why would the reviewer used cheap Vivitar lens? DP doesn't even review this lens. This review is a blatant bashing of Sony which is against the forum rules!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6018399843/using-third-party-lenses-on-the-sony-a7-a7r

Well - no -- it's not a bashing . its just the title which is wrong .. that article should read

"crap in -- crap out: how crap MF lenses work out on a modern digital FF sensor."

Taking into consideration A7 Image threads like the one Fred Miranda, where ~90% of *wow* images have been shot with quality MF legacy lenses, this is a rather sad article.

And to anyone who has been using MF lenses on the Sony NEX series over the last years it would seem that the author has absolutely no idea about what he is talking here.

davect01
davect01 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,827
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

While not the best review out there, it is simply his opinions.

If you are pleased with your camera, don't worry about what some anonymous reviewer has posted.

-- hide signature --

Novice photobug. Former 3 and F3 owner. Current proud 6 owner.
http://davesnex-3photos.blogspot.com/

James Sherman
James Sherman Senior Member • Posts: 2,480
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

Well, to be accurate, Vivitar never actually made a lens.  They were all "ghost built", sometimes very well - sometimes not so much.  I have a Vivitar 28mm f/2 that's quite nice and was well made by Kiron.  I also have seen pure pop bottles sold as Vivitar lenses.

 James Sherman's gear list:James Sherman's gear list
Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro +1 more
hyenadog Contributing Member • Posts: 823
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

sounds pretty reasonable review to me .. if you trawl through the forums you will find the same issues raised again and again in relation to the NEX with manual lenses, no surprise Sony hasnt dealt with them in its FF mirrorless.

1.if you try the fuji quasi split screen focusing, this is excellent for use with manual lenses far better than focus peeking ... with brightish short tele lenses (>50mm) I find it extremely difficult on the NEX to get accurate focus (small DOF) on moving or snap shots with just focus peeking .. i tend to use magnification and prefocus as the only real way to get a reasonable chance of in focus shots

2. anyone using manual lenses >50mm on the NEX shouts for Sony to allow users to set a manual shutter speed, its a real pain in the ass when using manual short tele lenses as the sony logic defaults to 1/60 sec before iso'ing up far to slow to avoid camera shake or motion blur

3. buggering around with everything on manual including focus might be o.k. for tripod mounted macro/lanscape shots but for anything that moves it makes it very difficult to even have a change of a sharp focus shots with bright lenses.

moving to FF with virtually no native AF FF lenses and the expected increase in camera shake risk  it's pretty shocking that Sony havnt even put in the new FF  firmware a user settable min shutter speed - hopefully Sony will one day do a firmware update for NEX/FF which will be a big boon for all tele manual lens users.

If I were starting from scratch looking to get in to FF personally I wouldnt get the A7 because i still have doubts over the AF speed, eventual availability of OIS/AF bright tele lenses and all the annoying "bugs" always in a V1 product.  If however I just shot static scenes (macro/landscape/portrait) then I would probably take a punt on the A7 as its well priced, compact and i wouldnt really need AF/OIS native lenses.

Astrophotographer 10 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,866
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

Well said.

Anyone interested in legacy len performance on A7/r should look at the Fred Miranda thread for it.

There are so many exceptional images. Its very impressive. I think its also a good way to evaluate quickly which legacy lenses are particularly suited to this camera - skill of the photographer who posted the image aside.. Certain lenses seem to routinely shine through in the images posted.

I don't recall Vivtar being one of those!

Greg

 Astrophotographer 10's gear list:Astrophotographer 10's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Sony Alpha a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 +1 more
Astrophotographer 10 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,866
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

The easiest strategy is to shoot in shutter priority mode and set it to around 1/250th of a sec. Then set the aperture to the DOF effect you want to create and the balancing exposure factor is the ISO where you simply rotate the rear wheel. This is all able to be done whilst looking through the EVF.

I find the opposite to this review. Manual focus is easier with a faster lens. It get a little harder to use focus peaking when a lens is stopped down more.

Greg.

 Astrophotographer 10's gear list:Astrophotographer 10's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Sony Alpha a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 +1 more
cxsparc
cxsparc Veteran Member • Posts: 3,424
Re: Typical of this forum

DT200, you really are trying, eben for a forum troll.

For one thing, the neweset AF lenses have focsu-by-wire which is a major pain, for older AF lenses the MF throw is very short, so you have to use minute movements, second point is that mechanical resistance is low so it easily moves out of focus involuntarily and last point is you - as usually - have no idea what you are talking about:

E.g. Minolta AF 50 1.7 has much inferior coatings compared to FDn50/1.4. I have several pictures where you see massive ghosting of bright object with the Minolta, same scene nothing with the Canon inspite of it being half a stop faster.

You must be leading a happy life if you find it rewarding to behave like you do.

-- hide signature --
 cxsparc's gear list:cxsparc's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS +3 more
SQLGuy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,540
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

SQLGuy wrote:

By the way, being a low light, high ISO shot, this loses some detail to noise and noise reduction. However, focus peaking was still useful, as it was for other low light shots done with this lens, wide open, and the A7.

This evening I can take a low ISO shot wide open to give you a better idea of how much sharpness is available from this old lens at max aperture.

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

Here's a shot from the same lens, wide open, but at base ISO. It's still hand-held, but I was resting on the counter and focused pretty carefully on the center of the label. There's probably still a bit of misfocus, though... DOF is very thin here. (SOOC at whatever quality you get from RAW+JPG)

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Nikon D200 Sony Alpha a7 II Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX-5T +8 more
SQLGuy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,540
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

P.S. "same lens" here is a Canon 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical at F1.2. This is to challenge a previous statement that such lenses were not sharp enough wide open to be used at full aperture, and that such wide apertures were only to assist in low light focusing prior to stopping down and taking the shot.

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Nikon D200 Sony Alpha a7 II Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX-5T +8 more
ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 5,386
On the "best" lens choices, old and new
4

DT200 wrote:

ProfHankD wrote:

...there are plenty of situations where one of my old manuals is a way better answer than any autofocus lens.

Which of YOUR old manual focus lenses is "WAY BETTER" than ANY autofocus lens? Which situations are you talking about?

Your tone is pretty obnoxious, but let's ignore that and give you a serious, detailed, answer. After all, I'm a Professor, and you just invited me to teach.

Let's start with the basics. Over the past five years, I've personally collected more than 130 lenses primarily for my computational photography research. I've made a lot of technical measurements on them, especially OOF PSF (out-of-focus point spread functions), which I've been publishing on. The latest is a paper at IS&T SPIE Electronic Imaging that I'll be presenting Feb. 4, 2014. I feel pretty safe saying I know a bit about old lenses.

Let's start with some general observations about old and new lenses:

  1. Lens coatings have steadily gotten better over time. This improves microcontrast and, most importantly, allows way more elements before contrast dies. Typically, 1970s coatings with 5-6 elements can barely match the contrast of modern lenses with 10 elements. Then again, modern lenses tend to have more elements. Does higher contrast mean the lens is better? Traditionally, yes. However, film and eyes are log sensitive, but sensors in digital cameras are linear, so lower contrast actually can be fixed with little ill effect and an effective (minor) improvement in dynamic range! In short, we'll say modern lenses do better in this respect.
  2. Computer design of lenses is now common, and it certainly helps solve complex optical problems. Extreme retrofocus wides and zooms are the primary beneficiaries. Simpler optical problems, like normal and moderate telephoto lenses, have such good simple solutions that they are hard to improve upon -- and haven't changed much for a lot longer than I've been on this Earth. New lenses can solve optical problems old ones couldn't, but often get beaten by old designs on easy problems. Modern design accounts for manufacturing tolerance ranges, often yielding lenses that are easier to build at the expense of sacrificing some IQ, while older lens designs often counted on more expensive, individual, adjustments.
  3. Most modern autofocus lenses have measurable decentering while most old manual lenses don't. The need to reduce friction and moving mass for wimpy focus motors is the primary cause, and it's pretty unavoidable physics. Incidentally, this also means that old manual lenses often have much higher resolution than modern lenses, although with low contrast -- whereas autofocus lenses often don't resolve much finer as you drop the MTF contrast threshold because resolution is limited by mechanical misalignment. Overall, non-autofocus lenses tend to win big, even if they were made half a century ago.
  4. Old lenses used to employ various heavy metals to make glass that allowed simple, small, designs to be well corrected. These unfortunately trace-radioactive additives are no longer allowed to be used in making new lenses. There are other additives, but cheap (typically molded) aspherical elements appear to have become the primary tool for correcting lens aberrations. Unfortunately, aspheric elements emphasize decentering, and the molded ones also have minor surface imperfections that show up clearly in OOF PSFs. This is honestly not a big win for either old or new lenses.
  5. Old lenses cost less and hence, giving similar optical performance, win big on price/performance.

So, for example, expecting an old 17mm Vivitar ultrawide to do really well is kinda nuts. On the other hand, I've got about 20 "fast 50s" that are beaten by or beat modern versions depending on which metrics you weight most. I've also got some short telephotos that would be hard to beat with modern lenses costing more than 40X as much. 40X. That's a pretty obvious price/performance difference. It also means I can afford to have specialty lenses that I could never afford as new lenses.  

The "best in class" (by APS-C IQ) lenses I have are a mix of old and new:

  • Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 S.S.C.
  • Minolta MC W Rokkor Si 28mm f/2.5
  • Auto Mamiya/Sekor 55mm f/1.4
  • Samyang / Opteka 85mm f/1.4 Aspherical IF
  • Tamron SP 52B 90mm f/2.5
  • Spiratone 135mm f/1.8 (especially on a Lens Turbo)
  • Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM (my most expensive & "touchy" lens)
  • Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC (I should update my list, because 8-16 easily took this crown)
  • Vivitar Series 1 Q-DOS 70-210mm f/2.8-4.0 (great, but terrible in Q-DOS mode)

Keep in mind I'm talking about my copies and "best" is an ill-defined weighted mix of various metrics (resolution, contrast, bokeh, color, aberrations, etc.) -- so don't think I'm telling you to run out and get the above lenses in particular, because your mileage will vary.

Note that only 2 of those are AF lenses, and both have AF issues -- in fact, I always use the 8-16mm in manual focus mode. AF is easily fooled because DoF makes everything almost in focus, but manually I can nail it.

With peaking for manual lenses, I find that I'm consistently able to focus on precisely what I care about faster than using AF lenses. I'll admit that it is a pain to manually focus really fast for an extended shooting period -- it also requires practice to quickly interpolate the precise focus depth within a peaked region. With eye to an EVF (or OVF), it's too darn slow to tell the AF where I want to focus. Note also that my focus choice is often about positioning DoF, which means I often prefer composing at the taking aperture with an EVF that shows DoF (and peaking helps this!) -- the natural mode for use of manual lenses, and literally not possible with PDAF.

In addition to the above stand outs, there are lots of old manual lenses that are excellent -- my S-M-C Takumar 35mm f/2, Canon FL 55mm f/1.2, Minolta MD Macro Rokkor-X 100mm f/4, etc. There are even some excellent old AF lenses like the Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 "beercan" (although that's really better on the A7 than on an APS-C sensor).

I'm not saying old lenses are the best for everything. There are more than a few times (e.g., shooting one-handed on a family outing in a theme park) when the kit zoom is honestly darn appealing... and IQ of the kit zooms is actually decent stopped down.

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 950 Olympus C-2020 Zoom Olympus Stylus 1030 SW Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Canon PowerShot G1 +27 more
captura Forum Pro • Posts: 23,897
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

SonyA7r wrote:

Why would the reviewer used cheap Vivitar lens? DP doesn't even review this lens. This review is a blatant bashing of Sony which is against the forum rules!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6018399843/using-third-party-lenses-on-the-sony-a7-a7r

Why did you start this discussion with such a wrong statement. This Vivitar is regarded as an excellent lens. It specs out very well considering how wide it is, and it's built solid as a rock! Or do you believe that Vivitars are somehow not as good as Canon FD lenses, perhaps? Not always the case, especially with Vivitar Series 1 lenses.

Your first statement being in error, jeopardizes this entire thread.

Please Google:

"Lens Review Pentax Forum Vivitar 17mm F3.5 MC Wide-Angle"

captura Forum Pro • Posts: 23,897
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

Astrophotographer 10 wrote:

Well said.

Anyone interested in legacy len performance on A7/r should look at the Fred Miranda thread for it.

There are so many exceptional images. Its very impressive. I think its also a good way to evaluate quickly which legacy lenses are particularly suited to this camera - skill of the photographer who posted the image aside.. Certain lenses seem to routinely shine through in the images posted.

I don't recall Vivtar being one of those!

Greg

Good lens. Too many lies on this forum.

Here's the Pentax Forum's review of this Vivitar lens, but you need to google it because DPR won't accept their URL's !!??

Vivitar 17mm F3.5 MC Wide-Angle Pentax Forum review.

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,617
Re: What a bias A7/r review using third party lens!

SonyA7r wrote:

Why would the reviewer used cheap Vivitar lens? DP doesn't even review this lens. This review is a blatant bashing of Sony which is against the forum rules!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6018399843/using-third-party-lenses-on-the-sony-a7-a7r

Here now, it's not as gloomy as all that. I think the reviewer was only using what he/she had on hand. I found it most helpful in it's tips on how to use the lenses and the settings to look out for. The ability to reach back and breathe new life into anything - even an old Vivitar - is exactly what this camera is all about.

And BTW - he used a very credible mish-mash of lenses, something which I see as quite close to reality.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads