Alternative WA lenses for Sony A7r

[Kenneth Sky]

Although Sony has announced a WA zoom for the FE mount, there still is no prime WA wider than the Zeiss 35. However, there are 2 Zeiss alternatives in the Sony lineup not discussed in Ketleman's article. The A-mount Zeiss 24mm f/2.0 with the LA-EA4 adapter is not significantly disproportional when the vertical grip is attached. It provides excellent central quality and the corners have minimal vignetting and distortion. But the real surprise is the SEL Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 which has been fused to my NEX 7 for the past year. It provides full FF coverage with mild (correctable) corner vignetting. The centre is very good to excellent and the corners are good. So for us Sony fanboys, when we hear the oft-repeated criticism that Sony created the FE mount with too few lens alternatives, we wonder why wasn't this echoed when Leica introduced the T-mount?

[RJA4000]

? I own the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 too but vignetting is strong.
The image is basically a circle in full frame mode...

As a UWA, I do use Canon FD lenses a lot on A7R and am really happy with Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L.
I tried the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L (I) too.
Both are very good, good enough for my use.
The newer EF is less prone to flare and has generally better contrast. But the 20-35mm is much smaller/lighter.
I also own the FD 20mm f/2.8 but I actually prefer the 20-35.
I have the Sony 10-18 OSS too but it's hard to use in FF mode since only a few mm are not 'cropped' - and it's far less performant if used in crop mode of course.
I'm not sure if the stabilizer is of any use at those focal length anyway...

For 24mm, I've done tests with Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II (one of my favorite Canon EF lenses) but it's too big and heavy for serious outdoor use with the A7R.
I tried the Canon FD 24mm f/2.0 and f/2.8. Both perform similarly, excellent in the center - making them good photojournalism lenses - and lesser in the corner.
The 20-35, if less sharp in the center, is more consistent.

For 28mm, the Canon FD 28mm f/2.0 is a great lens.
A little less good than Canon FD 35mm f/2.0, which is frankly amazing.
The last one being almost on a par with the Sony-Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8, in my opinion.

As for tele lenses, some Canon FD are also amazing : my favorite being the 85mm f/1.2L. What a lens !
Almost 1/2 the weight and size of the EF version (II) - my second favorite EF lens. And 1/3 the price.
The 100mm f/2.0 is also excellent. The 85mm 1.8 is good too and same size than the Sony Zeiss FE 55mm 1/8.

Then, if you need a tele-zoom, I'm in love with the Canon FD 80-200 f/4.0L (with fluorite element).
A little bit long in size though. But light, real apochromatic and with excellent contrast.

Why so much about Canon FD ?
Because I own them, they are small and good, and using them in manual focus mode is a pleasure (much more pleasant than the Canon EF or even the Sony lenses).
Except for ultra wide angle, where focus peaking is hardly usable.
But then, you'll probably pre-set the distance manually and, given then depth of field, wouldn't worry much about it.

[RJA4000]

To follow-up with this, for longer lenses, I'm also very happy with the excellent Canon EF 400mm f/5.6, even with 1.4x.
But this makes more sense with a Nex 7/(A6000 ?), to use the higher pixel density.
I don't have enough usage of long lens to justify a more expensive-wider aperture lens.

Of course, the Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 is an amazing lens.
Did I say that ?

Raoul

[Jim Kasson]

But the real surprise is the SEL Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 which has been fused to my NEX 7 for the past year. It provides full FF coverage with mild (correctable) corner vignetting.

My testing of this combination showed the edge of entire image circle, except for the top and bottom (with the camera in landscape orientation). http://blog.kasson.com/?p=3951

The Leica WATE works very well on the a7R. But it's expensive.

So does the Zeiss 21mm Distagon ZF.2. But it's big.

In general, I found that any WA that works well on a FF Nikon works fine on the a7R.

Jim

[RJA4000]

My testing of this combination showed the edge of entire image circle, except for the top and bottom (with the camera in landscape orientation). http://blog.kasson.com/?p=3951

The Leica WATE works very well on the a7R. But it's expensive.

So does the Zeiss 21mm Distagon ZF.2. But it's big.

In general, I found that any WA that works well on a FF Nikon works fine on the a7R.

Jim

That's what I see too with the 24mm.

About the FD lenses quality, I'm sure they are not up to the 2 Jim lists here, on a pure IQ point of view.

But they are good enough for my own use (max print width is 42cm on Epson 4800) when stopped down.
After all, I've done quite a few full-width prints from a Canon 1D2 - 8Mpixels- camera and I've been happy with the result.
FD lenses I listed, when used with the A7R, give anyway better result than what I could get from the 1D2.
(Just to make sure we understand each-other.)
And, of course, prices are light years away from both the Zeiss and the Leica !

Some UWA lenses to mount on A7R
From left to right :
- Sony-Zeiss SEL 24mm f/1.8
- Sony SEL 10-18 f/4.0 OSS
- Canon FD 20mm f/2.8 SSC on Novoflex adapter
- Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L on Novoflex adapter
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L (I) on King adapter (with AF support)

Snapshot with Canon FD 20-35L and A7R


Raoul

http://photo.net/photos/Raoul.Jasselette

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1292170

[RJA4000]

Hi

I just did some comparison shots with the Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS, the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II and... the Canon FD 28mm f/2.0 (at least 30 years old).
Still for comparison, I also did some with the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA.
I shot the 2 zooms with the A7R and with the 1DX too.

Results:
The zooms resolve more details with A7R than with 1DX in the center. (Of course)

When you look at the extreme corners at 16mm (and in general), there is some "fuzzyness" on the A7R that you don't have on the 1DX...
But when you downsample the A7R images to the same resolution than the 1DX' (with Photoshop "best for reduction"), the level of details in the corners is almost identical... and you still have more details near the center from the A7R.

Overall, the 24-70 is better than the 16-35 at every similar focal length.

The Zony 55mm "kills" the 24-70 at 55mm, especially in the corners. Truely impressive !

And last but not least : the old Canon FD is better than the 16-35 at 28mm!

When compared to the 24-70 (on the A7R), the old FD is less sharp or contrasty in the center and much less in the corners... up to f/4
where they are almost equal (the FD being better in the edges but worse in the corners).
From f/5.6 or f/8.0, the old FD 28mm is a little bit better than the 24-70 II, even in the corners.
Not too bad for a 30 years old lens that costs around 150€ on ebay ;-)

Be careful: We speak of 100% pixelpeeping here !

Conclusion : None of those lenses is bad. (All are actually rather very good.)

The 24-70 is extraordinary for a zoom (from wide open).
The 55mm is just unbelievable.
The old FD 28mm is excellent when stopped down (with somehow yellowish colors)
and is about the same size, with the adapter, than the 55mm.
The 16-35mm f/4.0L IS is all but ridiculous... and goes all the way to 16mm !

Funny, isn't it ?

Have a good day

Raoul

[Telecaster]

And last but not least : the old Canon FD is better than the 16-35 at 28mm!

From f/5.6 or f/8.0, the old FD 28mm is a little bit better than the 24-70 II, even in the corners.
Not too bad for a 30 years old lens that costs around 150€ on ebay ;-)

My tiny Pentax 28/2.8—late M series using the A series optical formula—is the best 28mm I own on the A7r. I'll take it over the Y/C mount Zeiss 28/2.8 or either of the Nikon 28s I own. At f/8 it's very consistent across the frame and is just as good at f/11. The Pentax 31/1.8 is even better at wider apertures but of course not quite as wide in coverage...and is also a larger lens. I should also note that I've owned three different samples of the Pentax 28 over the years, and this one is a cut above the other two.

-Dave-

[RJA4000]

More about this...

I tested a few of my lenses with the A7R in the same conditions than yesterday.

Here are the candidates :
Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L, Canon FD 28-85mm f/4.0, Canon FD 80-200mm f/4.0L, Canon FD 20mm f/2.8 SSC, Canon FD 24mm f/2.0, Canon FD 24mm f/2.8, Canon FD 35mm f/2.0, Canon FD 50mm f/1.4, Canon FD 85mm f/1.2L, Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 , Canon FD 100mm f/2.0, Canon FD 135mm f/2.0
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L (first version), Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (first version),
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L (first version).
 

Now, I just checked some pictures @20mm f/8.0.

So, if you follow me, the candidates are Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0L IS, Canon FD 20mm f/2.8 SSC, Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L.
(As in the previous post, you can see some of those here)

Results :
The very best is the new 16-35 4L IS. That's good news for me.
Second is the Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L with the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L being very close.
The most impressive with the new zoom is the complete lack of Chromatic abberation... and the improved contrast.
To be honest, it's much more impressive on the 1DX, where it is simply perfect.

But the Old -and relatively small- Canon FD zoom is very very good at those settings.
In fact it is better in the edges and corners than the older 16-35 but it is less sharp in the center...
Remember that 20mm is its widest FL...
I love it.

I come to love the new 16-35mm too...

More to come...
(And if I find half a day to spend on it, I'll post cropped pictures... Promised.)

Raoul

[RJA4000]

Come on...

@24mm f/8.0
The Canon EF 24mm f/14L II and Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II come to a draw.
The 1.4 has more CA. But somehow more sharpness from place to place...
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0L IS comes close, as a good outsider.
The other are less good.
Far from bad, though.

@16m f/8.0,
Well, 2 contenders only.
The newer 16-35mm is somehow better.
It is better for sure. The question is how much better.
Difficult to judge from different lighting.
The older has more CA. (The newest has almost none)
And, yes, I can see some sharpness improvement.
Not night and day though.

Not sure if it was worth the cash if there was no IS...
But, well, IS there is.
And although it is useless with the A7R, it is usefull with the 1DX.

@28mm f/8.0
Let's call it a draw :
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II
Canon FD 28mm f/2.0

Then the Canon EF 24-105L. Yep, the "cheap" one.
Then the old Canon EF 16-35L (which, by the way, wasn't cheap at all !).


@35mm f/8.0
Canon FD 35mm f/2.0 is THE clear winner. No photo-finish here !
It is really of Zeiss-like quality.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is "Clear second"
Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L nominated "Best of the rest" (by head and shoulders)
Don't want to sort the remaining 4...

@50-55mm f/5.6,
well, without surprise, the Fixed FL perform better here.
So,
1st, without stress, the Sony-Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA.
UFO !!! (Unidentified Fotographing Object)
Just in another league!
2nd,... well.. wait a minute.
Yes, the older Canon (new)FD 50mm f/1.4 is better.
But the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 comes close.
Then you have the remaining 3. They look weak in comparison.

@70mm f/4.0
3 contenders
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II comes as best
Much more CA but sharper and more contrasty
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS comes close. No CA to speak of.
A bit less sharp though (remember this is the version I).
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS comes 3rd. Not bad. Middle CA.

@85mm f/4.0
The Canon FD 80-200mm f/4.0L is better.
Not by much.
Then in non-clear order, come all the fixed-length primes :
Canon FD 85mm f/1.2L, Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II (depending if you look rather in the center or in the angles)
Canon FD 85mm f/1.8
NB: The 70-200 was not tested at 85mm.

@100mm f/4.0
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon FD 100mm f/2.0
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Order changes depending where you look in the frame (at that length, it is possibly because the focus is not accurate enough)

@135mm f/4.0
The best is the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS
Followed by the 1986 Canon FD 80-200 f/4.0L
And then the Canon FD 135mm f/2.0 (which has a huge amount of CA on Out-Of-Focus-In-bright-Contrast area).

And then, @200mm f/2.8,
the winner is the fixed Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L, but I knew that already.
The (old) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is better when stopped down at 200mm.
...

[rainer_v]

i like these:
leica wate 16-21,
canon 17ts-e,
canon fd24, canon 24 ts-e,
 zeiss fe 35mm, contax 35pc,
contax g 45mm,
olympus om 50mm 1,2
zeiss fe 55mm,
 contax 85/2,8,
contax 135 2,8

[RJA4000]

i like these:
leica wate 16-21,
canon 17ts-e,
canon fd24, canon 24 ts-e,
 zeiss fe 35mm, contax 35pc,
contax g 45mm,
olympus om 50mm 1,2
zeiss fe 55mm,
 contax 85/2,8,
contax 135 2,8

Hi !
The TS are both on my "whish list".
How do they compare ?
Other than the angle, of course.

[RJA4000]

Travel kit with A7R (ie light kit) :

1. Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L (or Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0L IS if you accept the weight/size - remember the AF and IS don't work)
2. Canon FD 28mm f/2.0 (or Canon FD 35mm f/2.0)
3. Sony-Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA (this is THE beast)
4. Canon FD 85mm f/1.2L (this is the light and portrait king)
5. Canon FD 80-200mm f/4.0L (or Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 )

I'd rather go for the FD only (+ Sony-Zeiss) kit, since you need just one adapter and they are smaller/lighter.
You can buy ALL those lenses for 2500€ (including the 1000€ Sony-Zeiss one new).

My 'light' A7R setup.
(The Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is just for reference)

And then, you'll rock !

Raoul

PS: Although all this is true on a pure IQ point of view, I have to say, by all honesty, that manually focusing the 80-200mm zoom while hand-holding it can be tricky.
It is possible but it is NOT fast.
So if you plan to need some speed with a long lens, either buy another camera (like the 1Dx ;-) ) or use a 135mm f/2.0 instead.
Anyway, manual focus is fast only when you are able to predict where the subject will be in focus (like for "line running" sports or Car races).
Otherwise, it is (much) slower. More accurate but slower.
But for travel -and landscapes- this is usually not an issue.

[Paul Roark]

I must say that I was very disappointed that my A7r has microlenses on its sensor that do not allow for good symmetrical wide angles.  As a frame of reference, I use my M9, where I favored the Biogon 35mm and 21mm compact wide angles. With the Sony, the 35mm Zeiss for the camera is so good, and I do so much with that lens, that wider range is not as critical.  No super wide can compete with the stitched pans made with the Zony 35mm -- when the stitching works.  Also, I have to admit that the superwides on my M9 have so much vignetting, that I can understand the optics people leaning toward some retrofocus compromise just for that issue alone.

However, I do miss not having a good wider angle lens.  So, at least until there is a Sony-Zeiss solution, I wanted to see if any of my optics worked well enough to bother with.  Since I have the 18mm Zeiss ZM Distagon, and some have said it works OK on the a7r, that became the focus of my efforts and comparisons.  I didn't use it much on the M9 because the 21mm Biogon was sharper for B&W. 

Again using my M9 and ZM 21mm Biogon as a frame of reference, which I found be to a worthwhile lens to carry, could the 18mm ZM on the Sony match what I'd previously thought were usable image files?  What I found is basically that the 18mm ZM on the Sony, when cropped to a 21mm framing, could exceed the quality of the 21mm Biogon on the M9 at all apertures except f4.  One trick that I've made reference to before on this forum is that with the Sony I use a Voigtlander VM-E adapter that allows me to, in effect, set the infinity stop that is optimized for each f-stop.  (There is focus shift and curvature that adds to the problem of edge sharpness.)  I have the adapter calibrated so that I can pre-set it and then use the infinitiy stop of the lens accurately, which is particularly important for my dual focus shots.  This makes a noticeable difference in the lens performance.

At any rate, I've posted a couple images for those interested.

http://www.paulroark.com/18mm%20Zeiss%20ZM%20on%20Sony.jpg  shows the cropping of the 21mm coverage relative to the 18mm frame.  The cloudy sky also shows the extent of color that color shooters face.

http://www.paulroark.com/Sony18ZM-f11-M9-21-edge.JPG  shows the edges of the frames, where the Sony image (top) is cropped to the 21mm equivalent.  The bottom half of the image is the M9 with 21mm Biogon edge -- and some serious color & vignetting issues.  (Note that while color was not, in an of itself, an issue for B&W, the underexposure of the frame and increased noise were issues.)  The 21mm C-Biogon was considered a very sharp optic, but frankly, compared to the edge sharpness that the Sony shows with the 35mm Zeiss lens made for it, only the Leica 24mm Elmar on the M9 is close. 

(On the longer end, the Leica 75mm f/2.8 is outstanding on the Sony.)


FWIW,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com