The Sony A7Rii

2»

Comments

  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member


    How does the Leica glass perform on a modern camera compared to Nikon glass?
    Fast Leica lenses (Summiluxes at F1.4 and Summicrons at F2) ( I have 35,50,75, and 90mm) are designed and optimized to be used wide open, which nikon glass in those sizes are not. At F1.4 or F2 the Leica is clearly better, particularly at the edges, by F2.8 it is hard to tell, and at F4 they are indistinguishable. Leica designs in those FL's are simpler, and have a 'look' which I think is micro contrast, but with PP variations it is hard to be certain.

    The closest equivalent to a 50 asph Summilux would be a Zeiss Otus, also MF, equally expensive and 3 X the size / weight.

    The Leica WATE (16-18-21) at F4 is easily as sharp as the Nikon 14-24 / 2.8 at F4 and is 1/2 the size and weight.

    The modern high ISO sensor, and body based VR of the Sony a7II has given these lenses a new lease on life. They are all of course MF.

    Currently the WATE is almost welded to my Sony and used for city / architecturals.

    Nikon super teles however are simply the best, and as good as any commercial lenses in the world.

    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    @haroldp: You hear a lot about the short flange to sensor distance of the Leica M glass causing problems with the corners. You dont seem to have that problem with the Sony A7?
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @henrik1963

    It is rear element to sensor distance that is the issue.

    It is generally not an issue with lenses of 35mm FL or greater, most 28's are also no problem.

    Both of Leica's Tri-Elmars work perfectly.

    It can be a problem with some lenses, the 12mm Voigtlander needs a lot of PP help but adobe has good profiles. Ditto with the Zeiss 21mm 2.8.

    The Sony A7II sensor seems better at this than my Leica M9. I have not used the Leica M240 (also 24mp) and can't compare them.

    The WATE (16-18-21 f4) is in a special class because it is a modern (post digital) design, and is telecentric with a long(er) rear element to sensor distance (in fact it is a zoom) and is magic on the Sony.

    Newer Sony designs using BSI, almost eliminate microlenses which may greatly help this problem by flattening the sensor.

    In general, I use 28 - 90mm lenses on my M9 since I prefer RF view and focusing, and the VF has screens for them. I will use the fast lenses occasionally on the Sony for high ISO and VR.

    Wider lenses on the M9 need auxiliary viewfinders which I detest, which is why the Sony a7II and WATE are my current go to wide angle platform.

    Regards .... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    @haroldp: Thank you for the information. The Sony A7II could end up giving me a bad case of NAS - or should I say SAS - add a Leica lens it would be SLAS :-)
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    I wish this thread would go away....LOL....as my VECEAS is itching...as in E. Leitz

    (very expensive camera equipment acquisition syndrome)
    Msmoto, mod
Sign In or Register to comment.