WA for my A7r - conundrum

[Asher Kelman]

You are welcome, but why would you want to use a lens with an insufficient image circle (4/3 is just no fit for 36x24mm)?

for someone's limited purpose. For me, it's better to specify the lens for clarity. I do know that the Zuiko film camera lenses are legendary and I've seen superb results for landscapes, at (21mm) and portraits, (100mm) using the Canon 5D.

Michael,

Ben makes timeless images of the narrow stone alleys and spaces of the Old City, but he also uses lenses, especially Pentax Takamur lenses with character for people pictures. Ben's 28mm Pentax picture, as "art" is fine for me. I don't need any straight lines, constant illumination, flat plane of focus or even any focus, LOL!!

But he want's this for fine architecture. Now I get it! I'd frankly use a Canon 24mm or 17mm TS lens and have my students carry my gear. They're always delighted to give back! But Ben has moved away from Canon, saving weight and getting higher resolution. I can see that he needs superb optics for which the camera has further corrections possible within the lens correcting firmware. The Canon T/S lenses can be rented and anyway are MF on any system. Can one use DXO to correct Canon lenses on a Sony Camera?

Still, the new Sony WA 16-35 mm zoom lens is likely the best solution given it has to be mated to the A7R. If that's part of putting bread on the table, and I think it is, then it's worth sacrifices to get it. All the other suggestions are slower and less likely to be corrected or correctable completely in a professional workflow.

Asher

 

[Michael Nagel]

There is no such thing as a focal length for 36x24mm film/sensor size.
Focal length is an independent parameter and thus does not depend on the size of the sensor used.
The image circle however is important when you want to use the lens on a specific sensor to its full extent.
This is why your question about 4/3 raised eyebrows.

Equivalent focal length is just a crib for those who cannot think in angle of view (the majority).

Ben knows what he wants, so he will decide...

BTW (as you edited your post while I was posting - again):
I am aware of Bens work - why this urge to give me a lecture about his work?

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

There is no such thing as a focal length for 36x24mm film/sensor size.
Focal length is an independent parameter and thus does not depend on the size of the sensor used.
The image circle however is important when you want to use the lens on a specific sensor to its full extent.
This is why your question about 4/3 raised eyebrows.

Equivalent focal length is just a crib for those who cannot think in angle of view (the majority).

Of course, that's my complaint. Lenses might have the actual focal length on the front of the lens but referred to by their "equivalent focal length". Of course focal length does not change, LOL!!!

Ben knows what he wants, so he will decide...

Ben raised the question in a big way....

BTW (as you edited your post while I was posting - again):
I am aware of Bens work -

Other's are not! I direct my comments to promote more folk to explore his work. He's one photographer here who's work is important enough to me that I travelled to Jerusalem to meet him and shoot with him in some of his favorite locations. I have not seen a lot of responses from others to his work! So my praise is not accidental not frivolous. I seriously support him. I commend everyone to go to his work on Yemin Moshe here. It's really valuable to the forum for folk to give feedback when work is interesting and worthy!

Asher

 

[jake klein]

Nikkor 28mm f2.8 ais?

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I had looked into the Nikkor 24mm f2.8, can't remember why I chose not to look further at it.

Asher the picture of mine above is a 24mm, I've never really bonded with 28mm. I had a Takumar SMC 28mm but sold it. I'm sure the new owner is having far more fun than I did.

I see what you mean about the t/s, to be honest the canon t/s lenses are really the best choice for architecture but the price is very high and the adaptor expensive. There are two other new options for t/s on the sony. Hartblei have developed a t/s adaptor based on the mirex for the Sony A7/r which looks very interesting and is well priced. Using the canon base as a start you can adapt a huge amount of lenses onto it. The other option is one being developed here for a view camera type setup. Both solutions however do require lenses which have a larger and decent circle.

That's here the whole idea starts to break down somewhat. As an architectural system the A7 allows a huge amount of versatility, you can use a canon t/s lens on it or the Nikon 14-24mm or whatever with 36 megapixels sans AA filter. No other system is so versatile. However I didn't buy it for versatility, I bought it for huge IQ in a small, cheap and light package. Once you start putting a t/s lens or a 14-24mm on it, you've lost that advantage.

I don't do a lot of architecture but would like a lens for when the jobs do turn up. I also want a wide lens for aesthetic choices when shooting people or urban landscape. Most of all I'm looking for a small and light solution that can do both things. Investing in a t/s solution when I would probably need something else as well as a carry around is not really what I'm looking for.

 

[Jerome Marot]

An article about the subject here.

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Sony A7R teams up with Canon glass by Fred Miranda. http://www.fredmiranda.com/A7R-review/

 

[Asher Kelman]

An article about the subject here.

Jerome,

I first used the Tri-Elmar, (16mm-18mm-21mm), on the M8 and was so impressed by its sharpness and contrast as well as resistance to flare. unfortunately, it costs $5,450.00! That's almost twice that of the A7r camera! however, that lens will not use its value long after the body is yesterday's technology.

That article points out the issues in corners:

"Because most of the lenses that one might consider for the a7R are probably at least half-decent (otherwise, why would they still be in your collection?), testing comes down to looking for flaws. And any flaws will mostly likely appear on the edges and in the corners. Virtually all the lenses I tried on the a7R were remarkably sharp in the center. So, when looking for problems, I often use subject matter with fine detail in at least one corner."

But for art, the corners often need to be dumbed down in brightness, sharpness, contrast and resolution. so I don't get worked up too much about so-called "faults" as I find any degradation in the corners to be more like "character" than shortcomings. Where they cause practical issues is with architecture where distortions are not generally acceptable. Frankly, for that, I'd rather use Canon T/S lenses or a technical camera.

I hate the idea idea of having to carry around a bunch of adapters or to use heavy lenses on such a light body. It seems that if one is going to use a Nikon 14-25 lens, why not use it on a Nikon D800e have excellent AF too!

I have reservations about the viewfinder of the A7 and for professional use, if I needed the extra resolution, I'd get the Nikon just to hold the 14-24 lens. That way one can actually see through an optical viewfinder and get superb images.

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I don't agree that we will need t/s glass to get decent corners on a mirrorless FF camera or that otherwise we should give up and just accept the corners as character. There are several lenses that do give us quality, problem is that they are too big. However these are cameras that are barely 6 months old. I do not think that they won't happen, just that it may take some time and of course, figure on spending..

 

[Asher Kelman]

I don't agree that we will need t/s glass to get decent corners on a mirrorless FF camera or that otherwise we should give up and just accept the corners as character. There are several lenses that do give us quality, problem is that they are too big. However these are cameras that are barely 6 months old. I do not think that they won't happen, just that it may take some time and of course, figure on spending..

Ben,

I can imagine that with the iconic stone alleyways and buildings in the Old City, the corners do, indeed, matter, as you are showing architecture, albeit in your interpretive, artistic and historically respectful way that so distinguishes your pictures. But do you in fact worry about the corners in your work? I can understand if that's your decision as it's very reasonable.

Still, for sure in the Jerusalem Forrest, I cannot feel that the scene would be as demanding. In fact, I would find the "failings", especially vignetting, to be delightful natural renderings to remove the documentary aspect of the modern cameras capability of correcting everything too well for art and approaching documentary status.

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

It's for commercial work Asher. I have a 100 person group shot coming up and no room to back up, that kind of thing needs decent edge to edge rendition. Ditto architectural work. The shot you mention does have sharp corners, it was shot on a 50mm at f11. If it had soft corners I would not have been pleased. The vignetting is post, not the lens. I would like to choose my rendition, not be forced to it by the lack of an alternative.

 

[Asher Kelman]

It's for commercial work Asher. I have a 100 person group shot coming up and no room to back up, that kind of thing needs decent edge to edge rendition. Ditto architectural work. The shot you mention does have sharp corners, it was shot on a 50mm at f11. If it had soft corners I would not have been pleased. The vignetting is post, not the lens. I would like to choose my rendition, not be forced to it by the lack of an alternative.

But what about lenses with "character" like Petzvals?

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

If you want the look of a Petzval, you choose a petzval. If all you had was a Petzal and didn't want the look, you would be in trouble. That our UWA choices with sharp corners are few does not mean that we need have to embrace the 'look' whether we like it or not. Our choice of lens is making a specific visual statement. I want to choose what to say, not be forced into it.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Jerome,

I first used the Tri-Elmar, (16mm-18mm-21mm), on the M8 and was so impressed by its sharpness and contrast as well as resistance to flare. unfortunately, it costs $5,450.00! That's almost twice that of the A7r camera! however, that lens will not use its value long after the body is yesterday's technology.

That article points out the issues in corners:

"Because most of the lenses that one might consider for the a7R are probably at least half-decent (otherwise, why would they still be in your collection?), testing comes down to looking for flaws. And any flaws will mostly likely appear on the edges and in the corners. Virtually all the lenses I tried on the a7R were remarkably sharp in the center. So, when looking for problems, I often use subject matter with fine detail in at least one corner."

But for art, the corners often need to be dumbed down in brightness, sharpness, contrast and resolution. so I don't get worked up too much about so-called "faults" as I find any degradation in the corners to be more like "character" than shortcomings. Where they cause practical issues is with architecture where distortions are not generally acceptable. Frankly, for that, I'd rather use Canon T/S lenses or a technical camera.

I hate the idea idea of having to carry around a bunch of adapters or to use heavy lenses on such a light body. It seems that if one is going to use a Nikon 14-24 lens, why not use it on a Nikon D800e have excellent AF too!

I have reservations about the viewfinder of the A7 and for professional use, if I needed the extra resolution, I'd get the Nikon just to hold the 14-24 lens. That way one can actually see through an optical viewfinder and get superb images.

Asher

I am not sure what to make of this.

I wonder what pictures you want to take. Of course, we can discuss lenses and sharpness, but in the end we should not forget that lenses are tools to make pictures.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I am not sure what to make of this.

I wonder what pictures you want to take. Of course, we can discuss lenses and sharpness, but in the end we should not forget that lenses are tools to make pictures.

Simply that for my pleasure, landscape and street photography when treveling, if I was to get this fabulous small camera, I'd want to take advantage of the superb Tri-Elmar for wide angle and simplicity.

It would be a wonderful combo.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

Simply that for my pleasure, landscape and street photography when treveling, if I was to get this fabulous small camera, I'd want to take advantage of the superb Tri-Elmar for wide angle and simplicity.

It would be a wonderful combo.

It would work, but I think that you would get the same pictures with a DSLR and a 16-35 zoom. Possibly you would get better ones, because the DSLR has better ergonomics.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Which 16-35mm Jerome? I had the Canon 16-35LII and a guy I process weddings for has the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR. Neither of them are any good in the corners and the distortion on the Nikon is pretty bad, not got that great colour either. So with the Leica solution on an A7r for example, Asher would have a far superior image quality in a substantially lighter package. At a cost of course, a rather significant one.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Which 16-35mm Jerome?

Because it is the perfect range for street of landscape photography, which is the stated objective.

I had the Canon 16-35LII and a guy I process weddings for has the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR. Neither of them are any good in the corners

I tried the 16-35 f/4 VR on the D800 and you can download the result here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/7502335932/sizes/k/. I don't find the corners objectionable.

and the distortion on the Nikon is pretty bad

Possibly. That is rarely a problem for the stated objective.

not got that great colour either.

Possibly. I notice that all your street pictures are in black and white.

So with the Leica solution on an A7r for example, Asher would have a far superior image quality in a substantially lighter package. At a cost of course, a rather significant one.

The package would be more compact and about half the weight, that is true. OTOH, you'll need a spare battery, will have to use manual aperture, won't have AF and will only have limited focus help and will have an electronic viewfinder instead of the optical viewfinder of the Nikon. You won't have the very useful 24-35mm range either.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Jerome, the work I post here usually is my personal project work. I shoot commercial architecture and people photography as well though, albeit these days not as much as I used to. For that I need colour and distortion is a problem. For example I shot an engagement session today with my Super Tak 50mm, my previous one was B&W only due to the yellow staining of the elements, I bought a new one specifically not to have this limitation and recently it has been used for colour a lot.

In reference to your last points, the spare battery is tiny, manual aperture is a joy to be honest, lack of AF didn't bother me in what was a hectic and fast shoot today (real event/sports photography would be different of course) and coming from Canon 1 series and the 5D3, I'm loving the EVF. It really is that good. WYSIWYG exposure is sooooo nice when shooting under pressure!

I do agree with you about the range though. Note I didn't ask 'why a 16-35mm' as I believe you thought, I was just asking 'which'. Keep in mind also that I couldn't afford half a WATE at the moment, it was Asher who was suggesting it for his uses. I remember going for a shoot with Asher where he had a 24mm t/s bolted onto a 5DII. For a street shoot. Manual focus and double the size and weight. I don't think that the WATE on an A7/r would be a hindrance to that kind of shooter.

The Super Tak at f2.8 has ridiculously nice rendering, sharp as heck but in a pleasant way.

 

[Asher Kelman]

It would work, but I think that you would get the same pictures with a DSLR and a 16-35 zoom. Possibly you would get better ones, because the DSLR has better ergonomics.

Jerome,

No doubt that right now, not knowing the A7r beyond brief store testing, I couldn't match the fluidity and natural instinct possible with my Canon DSLR's. They are part of me. Still, I can imagine that the Leica lenses might very well have better rendering of contrast and details and could be substantially lighter.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

The Super Tak at f2.8 has ridiculously nice rendering, sharp as heck but in a pleasant way.

Sure, but what does that have to do with using a 16-35mm zoom versus the Leica Tri-Elmar? All what I am saying is that the Tri-Elmar / A7 combination has some disadvantages and that many users will be better served by a 16-35 zoom (which they may already have).

Besides, Sony will issue a 16-35 in E-mount soon and then we will have to go over the same argument.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Absolutely nothing. I was countering what you seemed to be hinting that because I show B&W here I would not care about colour by stating that colour is important to me and my work and by way of example showing a colour image from today and adding a small side note about it. When i made that comment about the colour of the Nikon 16-35mm it was based on processing thousands of images shot under every kind of lighting with that lens. I believe I was entitled to my opinion.

 

[Jerome Marot]

When i made that comment about the colour of the Nikon 16-35mm it was based on processing thousands of images shot under every kind of lighting with that lens. I believe I was entitled to my opinion.

Now that is interesting. What do you think is wrong with the 16-35 colour? Is it something you also see with other Nikon lenses?

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Nope, the 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lenses which the guy uses have gorgeous colour, I just seem to find a greenly yellow tint from the 16-35mm, similar in look to the sigma zooms I used to have a decade ago if you have experience with them. I know the 14-24 doesn't have this colour, that one is actually a rather cool lens in colour though I have limited experience with it.

 

[Jerome Marot]

I have some experience with Sigma lenses.

The 16-35 I tested did not appear to have a greenly yellow tint, it actually seemed very similar to the 14-24 as to colour. The 24-70 f/2.8 I tried indeed appeared to have pleasant colours.

Maybe that particular lens is different? Or maybe your friend uses a protective filter which is less neutral than it should be?

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

He doesn't use filters. It's not a heavy tint, just a colour from the lens. Like canon L lenses have a leaning towards red. Hey no doubt it's just me. We build ICC profiles for each lens in our repro studios so I'm no doubt over anal about this stuff.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Lenses do impact some (slight) colour changes which cannot be removed easily by a simple white balance operation. They may not even be removed by an ICC profile (I haven't tried) since they appear to be dependent on local contrast.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

It's not so much a tint perhaps as a way of accentuating colours, of making certain colours richer. With Canon L lenses it's the reds, the reds are more vibrant, better somehow. With zeiss lenses it's the blues and greens. You get an eye for it when you shoot a lot with a lens but specifically when shooting in the studio with multiple lenses. Even when you've equalised the WB, you can't the same colour from two different lenses even shot to shot in the studio when changing in between. Of course 'different' is relative. I find most Canon L lenses to have the same colour but when interchanging with non L primes whose colour palette is less rich, it's rather noticeable. In our main studio the difference between the Schneider 80mm LS lens (neutral and clinical) to the 120mm AF Macro (warm and rich) to the 55mm non LS (cool and harsh) is very apparent to my eye though we neutralise it using the custom ICC profiles made using a X-Rite Digital SG chart which gives a far more accurate profiles than the usual 24 patch chart. What is interesting is that these are all Mamiya lenses but with very different colour. I believe this reflects the different generations of lens design.

 

[Jerome Marot]

It's not so much a tint perhaps as a way of accentuating colours, of making certain colours richer. With Canon L lenses it's the reds, the reds are more vibrant, better somehow. With zeiss lenses it's the blues and greens. You get an eye for it when you shoot a lot with a lens but specifically when shooting in the studio with multiple lenses. Even when you've equalised the WB, you can't the same colour from two different lenses even shot to shot in the studio when changing in between. Of course 'different' is relative. I find most Canon L lenses to have the same colour but when interchanging with non L primes whose colour palette is less rich, it's rather noticeable. In our main studio the difference between the Schneider 80mm LS lens (neutral and clinical) to the 120mm AF Macro (warm and rich) to the 55mm non LS (cool and harsh) is very apparent to my eye though we neutralise it using the custom ICC profiles made using a X-Rite Digital SG chart which gives a far more accurate profiles than the usual 24 patch chart. What is interesting is that these are all Mamiya lenses but with very different colour. I believe this reflects the different generations of lens design.

I don't know if you heard about it, but classic Minolta lenses were designed to give the same colour rendition. This was a big selling point in Minolta advertisements in the 70s. Minolta said that their optical engineers would adjust the optical formulas and internal lens coatings so as to give uniform contrast and colour rendition across their lens range.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ben,

Where are you up to in your quest? An unpdate on your experience will be invaluable.

So, I got hooked. The A7r small size, high dynamic range and brilliant Zeiss FE lenses make this a great choice for work in one's immediate surroundings.

So now I've also interest in ultrawides! I love the look Zeiss glass gives. I have the 55mm 1.8 Sony FE lens as my core setup with AF. Also on the way is the Contax to Zeiss Metabones adapter for the Contax 18mm 4.0 and 28mm 2.0, both manual focus.

Asher