Philip Reeve posted all the test samples and final conclusion at SystemKameraForum.de. I kindly invite you kindly to visit the site. If you don’t speak German I got his permission to repost the results on SAR (translated by me):
Philip is extremely pleased by the lens performance on the A7r. Most lenses work extremely well on the Sony and here is the single evaluation of them:
Sigma 24/2.8: From f/11 you have very sharp corners..
Sigma 24/2.8 images |image detail overview | [shoplink 22453 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Carl Zeiss Biogon 2.8/28: A real disappointment. Massive Vignetting, Color Shift and Smearing on corners.
Carl Zeiss Biogon 2.8/28 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 9804 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Canon FD 35/2: The center is sharp wide open. At medium aperture corner sharpness is increases and shows decent results.
Canon FD 2/35 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22454 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Minolta MD 35/2.8: A real surprise! The Full Frame is sharp at f/2.8. Sharpness increases at f/8.0. Impressive for a lens that costs 15 Euro.
Minolta MD 2.8/35 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22455 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Carl Zeiss Planar 2/45: At f/5.6 the image is perfect.
Carl Zeiss Planar 2/45 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22456 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Carl Zeiss FE 55/1.8: One word: Wow! At f/1.8 very sharp in the center and in corners. At f/5.6 an astonishing performance.
Carl Zeiss FE 1.8/55 images | image detail overview | Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
Minolta MC 58/1.2: Wide open it shows a certain” character” (not sharp but has a certain flair). Center sharpness is ok from f/2.0. At f/8.0 also corners are sharp.
Minolta MC 58/1.2 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22457 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Samyang 85/1.4: Already good at f/1.4. But corners never are truly impressive even at medium apertures.
Samyang 85/1.4 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22458 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Minolta MC 100/2.5: The lens is 45 years old but shows a very decent result at f/2.5 aperture (even corners are ok!). You will get the best results at f/5.6 aperture.
Minolta MC 2.5/100 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22459 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Minolta MD 100/4: Very good results at f/4.0. Improves a tiny little bit at f/5.6. A very solid performance for a 80 Euro lens.
Minolta MD Macro 4/100 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22460 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Minolta MD 135/2.8: A disappointment. Corners are never sharp at any aperture.
Minolta MD 2.8/135 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22462 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Minolta MC 200/4: Sharp at all apertures.
Minolta MC 4/200 images | image detail overview | [shoplink 22463 ebay]lens auctions on ebay[/shoplink]
Again Thanks Philip and SystemKameraForum.de for posting such an interesting test!
83 Responses
Minolta MD 135/2.8,…4/4?
Jep. My copy might be a lemon though.
I have an MC 135mm F2.8 4/4 Rokkor and it is incredible sharp in my nex5n. That lens is awesome. I would expected the same or better in the A7/R
What about rear element distance from the sensor plane? Microlens optimization also implies that if the rear element is too far away from the sensor plane, image quality will degrade.
I am very happy I reordered this camera, I have so many Contax Zeiss, Nikon AiS, Olympus OM, Pentax m42, Minolta Rokkor MC/MD and MANY MANY MANY Russian lens gems to test!!
Do you have the minolta md 24mm 2.8 canon fd 24mm f2 konica 24mm 2.8 olympus om 24mm 2.8 or nikon 28mm 2.8 ais. I have about 2 of those but really want to see how the canon 24mm f2 performs. I would love for you to post your results.
Can anyone share links for adapters please. Are the the same as for NEX systems?
Here is a list in our Mirrorless Database:
http://db.systemkamera-forum.de/sony-nex/adapter
List is in German and points to Amazon Germany but should give a good overview over all Sony NEX Adapters.
Andreas
Thanks a lot for the adapter list :p…
I am new to most of this and have orderd ana7r… I would love to use some of the vintage Minolta glass. Do I need the sony a-mount adaptor or a different one for manual focus???
Thanks for your assist
You need an E-Mount adapter (or named Sony NEX).
Novoflex is expensive but I can recommend it, but Kipon and Leinox offer adapters too.
http://db.systemkamera-forum.de/sony-nex/adapter/bayonet/minolta-sr/system/sony-nex
Thanks I’ll check them out!!
Hmm, he reveals you have a preproduction copy of the camera, you sneaky b. 🙂
Of course everyone knows these analogue lenses aren’t any good and shouldn’t be used – let prices drop and I will increase my huge collection :-p
Looking forward to see test results of real famous lenses (the ones chosen are quite common), and not only these quite static images, but real world portraits for instance. I’d like to see a comparison between the new FE 55 and the very old, very common yet famous Helios 2/58. I might like the old one better…
He isn’t referring to the SAR admin but the admin of the German forum.
Correct!
I had a pre-production model of the Sony Alpha 7R for four days and invited Phillip to test his great collection of manual lenses.
Andreas
I really wish he picked something else to take a picture of. Maybe its just me but something about the silver lines bothers my eyes. I can hardly look at it without feeling funny.
As might be expected, the corner issues are primarily about the back focal length of the lens as that, along with the aperture size used, is what dictates the angle of incidence at the sensor extremes.
Any retrofocal wide angle design (which, of course, includes all SLR designs) will have relatively long back focal lengths. The downside, of course, is that any retrofocal lens will necessarily be longer. Also, some people confuse this issue with the short register distance of the E-mount. This has nothing to do with it as its the lens design that dictates the back focal length, not the lens mount register distance. The short register distance merely enables the mounting of lenses with short back focal lengths.
Optimising a sensor design to allow for angle of incidence issues, if taken to extremes, is likely to impair performance on lenses with relatively long back focal lengths.
One thing to bear in mind when comparing the performance of a given wide angle rangefinder lens on FF vs APS-C or MFT format is to allow for the difference in FoV. For instance, if you are looking at the performance of a 28mm lens on FF the correct comparison is with 19mm on APS-C or 14mm on MFT.
You should therefore expect a 35mm rangefinder lens on an APS-C to have similar corner performance (all other things considered) to a 50mm lens of comparable design on FF. Note, in comparing FoV it’s slightly more complex than that given the difference in aspect ratio between FF/APS-C and native MFT.
This is why LEAF digital back don’t use microlens. So they work GREAT with older non digital lenses. ISO suffers but In a studio setting its not an issue.
Awesome tests and short reviews. Would be fantastic to see them done tested with Sony A7 as well.
The 35mm Minolta is also brilliant on a Lens Turbo! Really enjoying it, but should be even better directly on full frame.
The general descriptions of sharpness seem consistent with the samples.
What is not mentioned and is important is color shift/ fringing in the corners.
This appears most significant in the corners of the longest focal lengths and less so at shorter focal lengths.
I would expect this due to the optimazation/offset for shorter flange distance.
What surprises me some is that on the 200mm the effect is less than i expected ( better image quality )
Considering that the offset gapless microlems might also work for a mount but possibly a little less offset would be optimum.
I would be interrested to see how this sensor performs for macro and very long focal lengths…as this is where i would most expect performance issues.
One question to SAR readers: I notice that almost all these lenses need to be stopped down to have (decent) sharpness across the frame. What if I need fast lenses to be used in dim existing light? I know we can push ISO up, but I wonder what’s the point in having wide apertures when you can’t use them efficiently.
I’m not trolling around, just trying to understand.
I usually work with m43 gear btw, I know the crop factor, sensor size difference and bla bla, and just yesterday I got my on a 150mm f2.0: I know it’s apple & oranges, but that bunch of glass is outstanding..
Marco, If something works for you, stick with and do not worry about how another format or system works or does not. Yes, you are trolling.
I don’t think that you can call that trolling. Showing interest in another camera system is OK. There are people such as me who own several camera systems or might be interested in other systems. What’s wrong with that?
Hendrick, I asked politely for an explanation. Trolling is saying that you are a fanboy, or that this Sony sucks. Indeed I don’t care about fanboyism and I can’t tell that these cameras suck because I haven’t tried them. In case I don’t like them, it will be my opinion and I won’t write it here, trolling and bashing those who like it.
Thanks for the constructive part of your reply though.
I’m not bound to any system, and Sony 7 seems interesting to me.
The fact is that you are not a newbie to photography. Otherwise you would not be seeking out a 300/2 (equiv) to shoot with a swell camera with IBIS.
If you are a phoblo type dude, then it is a different matter. 😉
300/4 equivalent… use the Internet to learn before using it to spread wrong information
What’s a “phoblo” Hendrick? O_o Never heard that word before.
I met two great photographers, Lelli & Masotti, that’s how I knew about that lens: I often shoot in theaters and that’s something I’d like to do with this new Sony powerhouses, but I think I will use them most for my personal pleasure.
The question is if I, personally, will find the use of these cameras a joy, and I’ll know it only once I have tried them.
Of course they will fulfill someone else’s needs! 😉
Geno, Educate yourself properly. Hint: Exposure times.
Do you really think _I_ am wrong? 😀 Seriously, just look at what I do and ask yourself if I could possibly get something wrong.
Learn about equivalence and light before you embarrass yourself more… I’m not going to waste a single breath to explain any of it because it’s explained everywhere. Also learn to use a search engine like Google.
@genotype You are not wrong, but he isn’t either.
Yes, the focal length will be 300mm equivalent and the field of view will be 300mm, and the total amount of light hitting the smaller sensor is halved. Smells a lot like 300/4 to me.
@Vlad: “equivalent” and “equals” are different things. So yeah, Hendrick is wrong and you’re a bit wrong too to think he’s even partially correct 😉
@Shawn: The FT/mFT area is a quarter of FF and hence the 2 stop difference. APS-C is half the area of FF, so it’s a 1 stop difference.
@genotype You are going into semantics and I am not sure it serves your argument. He is talking about equivalent exposure (or brightness, if you wish) and you are talking about equivalent image.
Vlad, Well said. Geno, part of being an educator is to be able to read and understand before opening one’s mouth.
Well, most of those above are actually dirt cheap lenses and two of the relatively expensive ones are for rangefinder cameras. And all of them (except the FE Zeiss) are old film designs. You are comparing them to a 2500USD modern lens, that’s beyond apples and oranges 🙂 There are older lenses that should perform much better than that, such as Contax, for example.
Thanks Vlad: Perhaps I should have left the 150mm out of the comment, since I didn’t want to compare it to the legacy lenses tested in the article.
I named it because it would be a perfect piece of gear for my work (quite expensive and heavy though), and AFAIK there’s nothing similar around.
I can’t wait to try a Sony a7 for myself: only then I’ll know if it works for my use.
Yep, replacing that 150mm would be impossible. There are some lenses like the 300mm F2.8 ApoTessar from Contax and another in the R Leica line, I think it was 280mm, but good luck with the price and/or weight. There are cheaper options like the 250mm F4 Leica R or the 300mm Contax, of course, but I am not sure how good the IQ is. I am more into wide angles.
If you need an Olympus 2/150 you can get a Canon or Nikon 135 dslr + 4/300 VR for roughly the same weight as E-M1 + 2/150 and half the price. Don’t even think of going 300mm without proper af and vr, you’ll go bananas.
The Contax G45 rides again!
Now where is that G35/2 I loved so much?
Marco. It looks like this test revealed the characteristics of the lenses rather than the camera. At 36megapixels, and a full 35mm sized sensor…you will see every flaw of a lens. Wide open, the aberrations and lens flaws are usually at their worst.
The Zeiss Biogon looks bad on digital Leica cameras as well and is more of an indication of the lens design (I.e. the biogon style optic) which makes the light hitting the edge and corners of the sensor very steeply angled. This makes the light beam do funny things and spread a single point over many pixels and exhibit color shift and smearing.
In short… Don’t use biogon or biogon-style optics at wide angles, and at the pixel level, be prepared to see every design flaw in old lenses (and new ones!)
Thanks for the advice Bart! I think that if I jump into one of these cameras and I’m looking for some new legacy lens, first I have to try it.
If you need sharpness across the frame in low light, use a tripod. Nothing works better.
Cornersharpness is impotant only some motifs e.g. for landscapes.
For most applications it doesn’t matter e.g. for portraits.
The sharpness in the center is fine from wide open usually.
Phillip
For panoramic photography (landscape included) during stitching, corner sharpness is necessary for me.
fast lenses not only allow you do shoot darker but they allow you see through the lens better for focusing and composition. (not as big a deal if you allow your viewer to compensate but that one big reason as well as shooting for shallow DOF and in dark situations.
It really depends on what you are shooting. Sharpness across the frame is not always a necessity. If you shooting people it does not matter all that much and if your subject is in the center then it matters even less. If your using apsc or micro with a FF lens then most of the edge softness gets cropped out so in my use I find fast lenses to be useful. I don’t think any lens fast or slow has the best image wide open so its a trade off for getting the image. A decent image from a wide open lens is better than no image at all and sometimes its the content of the image that matters more than the absolute quality.
@Waine Summers usually I take portraits and shoot artists at concerts in theaters (mostly Jazz) for work, but I love taking landscapes, macros and “street” on my spare time: I’m lucky to live between mountains and Venice, so it’s easy to find some good subject.
That’s why I want to understand how I would use this Sony: for work? Hardly possible, at least because of its louder shutter sound (it bother artistsn the stage). For passion? I need to try it first, and decide after I’ve seen what I can do with a Voigty 50mm T1.4 I own.
I have never had such a conflict about buying a camera or a lens before. 🙂
I confess not to have read all your answers, but my answer would be that if you’re using a fast lens, then sharpness is rarely your priority particularly at the edges and in the corners, where the fact that most fast vignette is often a bonus.
Atmosphere, drawing style and bokeh all list above sharpness for me when choosing a lens – I’ve been thoroughly enjoying an old Rokkor 50mm f1.2 with a speed booster on my NEX-5N and looking forward to using it on a proper fullframe with the A7.
I can’t remember the last time I took a shot with that lens and cared what the corners looked like in the slightest 🙂
Those lenses are from the era and the price point of the “f/8 and be there” rule so no surprise there. A modern kit zoom may beat some of those primes.
And many a modern zoom will be embarrassed by those primes. My own little tests with old Rokkor’s and Zuiko’s on my G1 gave some very surprising results with the old lenses doing very well against modern zooms.
Is the Sigma an old MF lens thats A Mount?
Minolta SR (md, mc) mount.
The af version is the same optically afaik
I don’t really know those lenses. It would be cool to see a lens on a native camera compared against the a7. That would probably be more useful. So, if the corners are sharp on native, but soft on a7 then you could say it is some non-compatibility issue, if they are soft on both, it is just the lens and the a7 functionality is fine.
That native camera would be a film one.
That does involve a lot of extra effort. Maybe it can only easily be done with canon and Nikon.
That guy is really strict. Samyang 85mm seems perfect to me. In any case, for my portrait use I don’t care about the corners and will get the 7 anyway, not 7r 🙂
I am a landscape shooter so cornersharpness is quite important for me.
My comments reflect that, if I was mainly into portraits they would be quite different (and I wouldn’t bother shooting controlled tests).
Phillip
I’ve seen a lot of your work on FM, and I think your pics are quite magnificent. It’s like they always have your special signature on them.
Kudos!
I would be interested by macro capabilities at 35-60mm on the 7r.
0.5 would already be excellent for my use.
What route should I take?
I want to see some wide-angle lenses! Anything wider than 24mm. Pretty please! 20mm? 18mm? 16mm? Wide-angle is where quality is really tested.
3D kraft has shown how the expensive tri elmar does on the A7R. 🙂
If the contax zeiss g2 28mm is failing (arguably the BEST 28mm lens EVER made for film) Then wider (film) lenses regardless of who they are from will do worse.
It’s time to test Sony/Minolta AF primes on LA-EA3. Not best for MF, of course, but designed with the color in mind.
Agree. Minolta AF 2.0/35 and 2.0/100 would be interesting, given that both are among the best lenses ever made. Leave me on a desert island with those two and a decent FF body and I’ll be perfectly happy, as least as they prove to be good on an A7r.
I’m surprised by the FE 55/1.8 conclusion.
That lens looks to have a decentering problem. It’s soft down the left side.
Shot at 1.8 narrow field of view, blur up front, thanks
I understand there would be blur in the foreground due to shallow DOF, but what about the venetian blind? Some shots show clear softness on the blind down the left-hand side only.
Basically, SLR lenses work and rangefinder lenses don’t. Who would have thought that crazy light angles don’t work on digital? ;0)
you must have missed something.
Like what? A few SLR lenses which never work even on DSLRs?
‘SLR lenses work and rangefinder lenses don’t.’
not true – depends on the focal length.
There were different lens formulas with the Minolta MD lenses. The earlier lenses that say “Rokkor” on the front were not as advanced as far as lens coatings, sharpness, and weight. The model that says “Minolta MD” had a far superior design optically and my sample is sharp as can be. Here are some samples of the Minolta MD 135mm f/2.8: (The image of the monkey was shot through safety glass)
http://flic.kr/p/eV55oV
http://flic.kr/p/eVgxVE
http://flic.kr/p/eV5aET
http://flic.kr/p/eVgwbS
http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html
Neat, thanks for the link. Here’s one more website for those interested in Minolta:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/
Another link for Konica lenses.
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaStart.html
Still waiting for someone to test Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon.
So based off the preliminary lens test, a rangefinder lens shorter than 35mm is hit or miss (mostly miss) and a SLR lens (at all focal lengths) works with little issue. I would love to see a test with Konica Hexanon 35mm f2.8 and the “pancake” Konica Haxanon 40mm f1.8 on the A7.
Must be 1.5 times sharper (at the center) than on the crop. Less CA at the edge, not sure about the corners.
C/Y:
http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/carl-zeiss-lenses-swhorizontalmenu-172
As a user of both adapted and native lenses on MFT cameras and a potential buyer of this camera for my vintage FF lenses this article is great. One thing not mentioned about the performance of the FE 55/1.8 lens is that it is most likely using a “digital correction” profile in the camera (since these are JPG images) and to me it looks like a lot of sharpening is being applied to the corner of the pictures especially at wide apertures. Obviously the vintage lenses do not benefit from this corrections and the RAW images most likely would not show such a big advantage for the new lens.
thx very much for posting these pics!
there could be a problem with the sigma 24/2.8 image detail overview link, it shows crops labeled as f1.4 and f2.0:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/birnenbaumgarten/10541094665/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Hi
Can someone tell me how you use grey card with manual lens on A7R? There is no manual metering mode and I hate that!!! Hope than Sony will release update soon 🙁
can someone share hes settings? After X-Pro1 I’m feeling lost