Hi,
What I have seen, the Sonnars are very sharp, on level with the lenses I have for the Sony.
With the Planars, I would say that the Planar 100/3.5 is very sharp across the field at long distances.
The Planar 80/2.8 is very sharp at the center, but the field curves quite a bit of the center. Now, that is often a good thing.
The Distagons I have are a bit like the Planars.
I have shot some shifted shot with the Distagon 40/4 and found that lateral chromatic aberration (red/gree fringes on in focus areas off center) is significant and hard to correct. My tilted shots with the Planar 120/4 were OK. (These were shot on the Flexbody)
Chris Barret seems be very happy with his lenses on the A7r. Resolution on the A7rII is only 8% higher than on the A7r so I would say that if they are OK on the A7r they will be OK on the A7rII.
My plan is to buy a Canon 24/3.5 TSE for TS and add some Hartblei/Mirex stuff later.
As a side note, I planned initially to buy a Hartblei HCam B1, but that would be very significant outlay and I felt that MFD is to expensive for me in the long run. So, now I am leaning towards the A7r.
Best regards
Erik
I'm looking forward seeing that combo in action as well. Just not sure Hasselblad old lenses could resolve such small pixel pitch, whats your opinion on this?