Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Mirrorless and Lensless  (Read 4369 times)

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 501
Mirrorless and Lensless
« on: January 09, 2016, 02:55:15 am »

Almost all my friends who bought A7RII or A7II are using non-native lenses. In fact, the reason they bought A7XX was they want to use the existing lenses. Everyone of them are using either Canon or Contax. I am almost one of them, except it's my wife who wants to use our almost obsolete Contax Zeiss.

There are numerous auto capable lens adapters to fit A7XX, the ones I know are either for Canon or Contax (G or N), recently a similar capable Nikon adapter is also  available. I have considered to get a Sony 24-70mm f4 as a back-up (ironically), but after compared with Contax N 24-85mm, I decided to forget it. The strength of 24-85 is eaily visible, and the price difference is compelling.

I found it is very interesting, while Sony still does not have a good set of lenses yet, it does not matter at all. There are tones of good, if not better, lenses any way.

Now I realize a lot of people bought the camera not because it's mirroless, but because it's lensless.
 

 
Logged

adriantyler

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2016, 09:56:38 am »

i use mine with the 15mm voightlander, 17mm canon tse, 40mm voighlander pancake, 55 sony and leica 90mm macro elmar. if i need a big zoom or tele i usually just borrow one off my dealer.

for my personal work i love using these manual focus lenses again, checking focus, looking at the f stop numbers, it has given something back to me, something i'd lost with the transition to digital through high end af ca/nikon stuff, the enjoyment of the process of making pictures!

a cure for "digital boredom!"
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2016, 02:28:44 pm »

I'm not holding my breath on a Contaflex-to-FE lens adapter—though I suppose one could be made—but otherwise if I own it I can use it on these Sony bodies. Fun! I wouldn't knock the native lenses either. The 24–70mm is merely decent (for a zoom of its focal length range) but the 35/2.8, 55/1.8 and Zeiss Batis 25/2 & 85/1.8 are all very good to excellent. The lineup does need filling out, though, for the sake of folks who aren't into non-native options.

-Dave-
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2016, 04:58:34 am »

For sure using adapted lenses is one of the strengths of the Alpha 7 platform, but... there are plenty of excellent native lenses up to 200mm: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 35, 55, even the 28 f2 is very good and not expensive. And then there is the Zeiss glass of course.

As for the 24-70, I have never used it, but I think it's "bad" rep is ill founded, just look at the work done by Ira Block with it:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/favorite-photographers/ira-block-interview-unsual-advice-from-nat-geo-pro

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2016, 10:11:38 am »

As for the 24-70, I have never used it, but I think it's "bad" rep is ill founded, just look at the work done by Ira Block with it:
Totally agree with this.  The origin of it is that when the lens was released, the only thing to compare it to in native FE mount was the Sony-Zeiss 35 and 55mm primes and that's what the comparisons were made against.  It was also done before Adobe had lens correction profiles for LR/ACR.  Compared to the two excellent primes, it wasn't quite as good at overlapping apertures.  Should it surprise anyone that a 55 f/1.8 is better at f/4 than 24-70 f/4 is?  No it shouldn't but the internet being a giant blowhard amplification system, the lens got lambasted because it wasn't as good as what it was being compared against.  Reviews that compared the lens to the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G and the Canon 24-70 f/4 were much more favorable as the lens is in the same general class of performance as those zooms in most regards.  The one area where the lens really falls flat on it's face is in linear distortion if no lens correction is applied.  It goes from severe pincushion on one end to severe barrel distortion on the other.  And when these reviews were done, there was no correction in ACR/LR so unless you went in and created a manual lens profile (which I did) the lens really suffered relative to the others in that regard.  But to make a long story short, the lens got unfairly plastered by doing comparisons to very good primes, not similar lenses from other manufacturers and then the internet amplification effect took over.

As a point of comparison, the 16-35 f/4 which is considered to be a good lens is really not any better (or worse) than the 24-70 but since it came out much later and had lens correction in Adobe software before the lens actually shipped got much better reviews.  But if you compare the 16-35 at 21mm to a Zeiss Distagon 21 f/2.8 shot at f/4 the 21mm blows it away (I've done the comparison) in the corners - really not too different from what a Sony Zeiss 55 f/1.8 does to the 24-70.  Again, this should not be surprising but since there was no native FE lens to compare it to in the midrange of the zoom when the 16-35 came out, that comparison didn't get made by reviewers in a huge hurry to be the first out of the gate with reviews.  Even the very economical Sony 28mm f/2 is better than the 16-35 f/4 when both shot at f/4 - again, not surprising...

The 24-70 is a generally good zoom lens with too much linear distortion but that is corrected by in camera software if shooting JPG and by all of the RAW processors if shooting RAW.  Expecting it to be better than primes that are 2 or more stops faster and then stopped down to get the same aperture is an unfair comparison.

Back to the OPs comments. I started out with mostly adapting my Nikon lenses but as more stuff has come out I am doing that less and less.  I now have the Batis 25, Loxia 35, Loxia 50, Sony 70-200G, Sony Zeiss 16-35, and Sony Zeiss 24-70.  I have the Loxia 21 on order and plan to buy the Voigtlander 12mm when it ships.  At that point the only thing I will use an adapter on is my FF Fisheye, 15mm f/2.8, and 150mm Macro.  A lot of people started out with an all or mostly adapter based lens strategy on the a7 series but many are slowly migrating to not using adapter as good lenses become available.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 10:32:05 am by E.J. Peiker »
Logged

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2016, 06:39:26 pm »

There are numerous auto capable lens adapters to fit A7XX, the ones I know are either for Canon or Contax (G or N),....

Does anyone know of an adapter for Contax/Zeiss lenses with the Yashica/Contax mount?  Obviously not "auto capable".
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2016, 04:05:32 am »

Does anyone know of an adapter for Contax/Zeiss lenses with the Yashica/Contax mount?  Obviously not "auto capable".

Check the Novoflex range, I think they have one.

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2016, 04:39:23 pm »

Check the Novoflex range, I think they have one.

Yep, that's the one I have. Works fine, as do their other adapters. Some folks are using Leitax Y/C-to-Sony mount converters…but practically you need one per lens.

-Dave-
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2016, 05:04:52 pm »

[quote author=EinstStein link=topic=107186.msg882383#msg882383 date=1452326115

Now I realize a lot of people bought the camera not because it's mirroless, but because it's lensless.
 
[/quote]

I think you're coming to a realization of why so many people are fans of the M4/3 format of mirrorless.  Choose the body of your liking and then have the freedom to choose from a wide range of lenses, not all from the manufacturer of your body.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

jemadsen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2016, 12:07:24 pm »

The problem with adapters is that many buy into Mirrorless due to small size and low weight.

Adaptors work against this. They also cost money, but many will save more by re-using existing inventory or buying cheap second-hand.

Of course mounting a TS / PCE lens, thats bulky in itself, is no problem.  Likewise with bigger zooms and telelenses.

Regards
Johannes Elkjaer Madsen
« Last Edit: February 02, 2016, 03:32:07 pm by jemadsen »
Logged
Regards
Johannes Elkjaer Madsen

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2016, 07:41:30 pm »

Darn! I thought that someone was going to be showing off pinhole photos taken with mirrorless camera.....  :D
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2016, 02:07:04 am »

The problem with adapters is that many buy into Mirrorless due to small size and low weight.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we should have a poll  ;)

I bought into mirrorless as a "digital back" for a bagful of old Leica and Olympus lenses.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2016, 03:51:41 pm »

I got into mirrorless due to EVFs and lens adapters. The reduced size & weight relative to SLRs is a benefit but only up to a point. Some of the cameras are, for me, too small & light.

-Dave-
Logged

westfreeman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
    • West Freeman Photography
Re: Mirrorless and Lensless
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2016, 12:06:30 am »

E.J. Peiker:
Would love to hear more about your experience with the Zeiss Loxia 35mm and the Loxia 50mm and I too want to see how that 21mm is going to be when you get it also.
I'm using a mix of lenses right now. Do have the Sony 28mm and the Batis  25mm, which is wonderful.  I'm sure all of us are looking for more native lenses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up