Lens experience with Sony Nex-5 and Nex-7

[Woody Campbell]

Could you please share your experiences with lenses on these cameras?

Sony E mounts? Sony A mounts? Leica M mounts? Others? Pros and cons of the lenses you've tried?

Thanks.

[hot]

I am using 28 lenses with NEX5 and/or NEX7 - from 8mm to 500mm.
All work okay, E-mount, Canon, KonicaAR, Samyang, cctv ... adapters from $8 - $30

[Vivek]

All on NEX-7. I ditched the NEX-5 a while ago.

Sony E-mount:

16/2.8 Dog.

24/1.8 Gem

30/3.5 Macro fabulous!

C-mount

Fujinon-TV 50/1.2 (same one that was also made in LTM).

Fujinon-TV 75/1.8

Olympus pen F:

See: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/altern...s-olympus.html



LTM/M mount:

Canon 50/0.95

I don't use anything else in these mounts.

In principle, I could use a few hundred other lenses from various systems/mounts. I post some examples from time to time.

[Hosermage]

my experiences of NEX5 with:

SEL18200 - the only E-mount lens I use. It's big, but not heavy, so I carry it in case I'm too lazy for MF or need the wide/zoom versatility. IQ is good, AF speed acceptable. Great for video since that's what it was meant for.

ZM 50 C-Sonnar - love the wide open look, but the 1.5 crop factor makes it harder to use as the default lens.

'Cron 50 DR - Sold this after I got the ZM Sonnar, but before that, it was my goto lens because I can get close focus without the hawk helicoid M adapter.

VC 35/1.2 - This is what I end up shooting with most of the time, in door, low light. Creamy bokeh and excellent sharpness.

[Michiel Schierbeek]

I use mostly Contax Zeiss lenses, also the fantastic zooms.
All work well and look made to fit.

Michiel

[Paratom]

I like using Sony Nex lenses on the Nex.
24/1.8 whenever the light is dim, othrwise the Kit lens when its long enough, and the 18-200 for video or when I need more reach.
I am looking forward to add the 50/1.8 Sony.
I have adapters for Leica M (I used the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 Leica asph lenses) and R but find R lenses too big and I just prefer AF over focuspeaking whenever its possible.
I think the 24 is my favorite. Greta lens IMO.

[Woody Campbell]

I've got a full range of current (and a few interesting legacy) Leica M lenses. They all work sensationally (the CV 16 and 12 are a little wonky in terms of color shifts but if you have C1 or cornerfix they're fine). The WATE is a dream on the wide end.

Maybe the Leica lenses are all I need - I probably don't need to explore c mounts or contax g mounts (I shot a g for years and the lenses are terrific and probably a bargain).

I'm finding that accurately focusing the longs (perhaps starting at 35mm or 50mm) requires opening up to max f stop and stopping down to shoot, which slows me down. I hope that I'll get better with practice.

I've got the Sony Zeiss 24 and I like a it lot optically and from a form factor standpoint. I got it hoping that it might be usefull at events or other situations were shooting speed counts, but in low light it hunts like the devil - all the way from close focus to infinity. Might as well stick to my 24mm lux.

Has anyone compared the Tamaron super zoom to the Sony?

[alphaman]

Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek

I use mostly Contax Zeiss lenses...
All work well and look made to fit.

Michiel

My experience too, I use the 35/2 and 90/2.8. The cheap Contax to NEX adapters seem to be ok from my experience, so no need to splash out!

I have also used a variety of Minolta and Sony A lenses using the Sony adapter (second version) and also with great success. The NEX combined with the Zeiss 135/1.8 looks mad but works very well for available light work, in my case theater photography.

[contrelamontre]

Originally Posted by Woody Campbell

(...)

I've got the Sony Zeiss 24 and I like a it lot optically and from a form factor standpoint. I got it hoping that it might be usefull at events or other situations were shooting speed counts, but in low light it hunts like the devil - all the way from close focus to infinity. Might as well stick to my 24mm lux.

Woody: Maybe you'll get a bit better results with AF on the 24mm Sony/Zeiss if you want to check the advice I gave t_streng in a thread he opened a few days ago:

"Re: NEX focus in dimn light

Simply disable the focus assist light in dimn light. Sounds absurd, I know, but if you do so, the AF area remains small (and AF doesn't hunt as much, particularly if you try to find contrasty objekts at oder nearby your desired focuspoint). Works for me ...

And when AF locks, you can override with MF for fine tuning, if there is need for it."

Sorry for the selfquotation - hope that works for you as it does for me...

[Hosermage]

Originally Posted by Woody Campbell

Has anyone compared the Tamaron super zoom to the Sony?

I've read in a few threads that the Tamaron gives blurry images if you use it for the in-camera panoramic shot. I suspect the OSS of the Sony zoom helps out a lot.

[jonoslack]

Hmmm
Sony:
16mm (I think it's fine as long as it's stopped down a bit - bad copy Vivek?)
18-55 kit (better than it should be)
18-200 (good - but I sometimes have trouble focusing in poor light)-quite big, but as hosermage says, not heavy - the lens fits in my barbour jacket pocket with the body sticking out for quick access!
24 Zeiss 1.8 (fab)

Leica M (with the helicoid adapter)
WATE - +1 to Woody - it's grate
24 'lux Excellent - but It isn't enough better than the Zeiss to make me use it (keep it with the M9)
28 'cron Excellent - focuses remarkably close
35 summarit - lovely and very small
35 'lux Excellent
50 'lux Excellent
50 nocti Excellent
75 'cron Excellent
90 elmarit Excellent
in all cases the helicoid adapter makes for fun close focusing.

Leica R:
18-200 f4 (okay - but only a short trial before adding a Sony A mount)
sorry not 18-200 - 70-210 - thank you Bart!
28-90 - Really good - and nice to handle as well
21-35 - soso results - boring range - don't bother
180 f2.8 APO Excellent

I don't have a Sony A adapter yet - so I haven't tried the A mount lenses, but I guess I'll get there!

[Quentin_Bargate]

Originally Posted by Hosermage

I've read in a few threads that the Tamaron gives blurry images if you use it for the in-camera panoramic shot. I suspect the OSS of the Sony zoom helps out a lot.

I have read that too, although the Tamron also has very effective stabilisation, so that cannot be the reason. However, as I would never use the in-camera pano facility, it makes no difference to me. I rate the Tamron 18-200mm very, very highly - and it comes in black too

[sflxn]

Jono, do you have a picture of what those Leica 'lux (luxury) lenses look like on the NEX-7? I just got the Zeiss 24mm and it's a lot smaller than it looks on the web.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by sflxn

Jono, do you have a picture of what those Leica 'lux (luxury) lenses look like on the NEX-7? I just got the Zeiss 24mm and it's a lot smaller than it looks on the web.

luxury eh I guess that's it - it's the function of lots of years collecting them and many painful CC bills!
As you say, they're quite small - which would you like to see?

[sflxn]

I'd like to see the 35 and 50. Sometimes, they look huge on the web without being on a camera.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by sflxn

I'd like to see the 35 and 50. Sometimes, they look huge on the web without being on a camera.

Hi there - in haste and trying to kill two birds with one stone:

Here is the NEX7 with the Leica 50 f1.4 Asph:

shot at ISO 1600 f2 with the Leica 75 'cron

Here is the Leica M9 with the 35 lux

shot at ISO 1600 f2 with the Leica 50 'lux

I hope this helps

all the best

[monza]

Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek

I use mostly Contax Zeiss lenses, also the fantastic zooms.
All work well and look made to fit.

Michiel

Yes. I use the 28/2, the 50/1.4, 60/2.8 Makro Planar. I have 85/2.8 and 100/2 and 100/3.5 but haven't tried them yet as I don't often need telephotos.

The NEX came along at just the right time as I was contemplating converting the Contax lenses to Sony alpha. Much easier/cheaper to just get an adapter and NEX them.

Also use M lenses with the helical Hawk adapter. Gives SLR-like close focus with RF lenses...45/2 Contax G Planar adapted to M, and 35/2 Summicron v1.

[douglasf13]

I use the CV 15/4.5, ZM 35/2, ZM 50/1.5 and Contax G90 on the NEX-5N.

The CV 15 needs a little CornerFix for purple corners, but the resolution is good. The ZM 35/2 is the best 35mm rangefinder lens that I've tried. Both of these lenses have resolution issues in the corners of my old NEX-5, and I've seen evidence that the same happens on the NEX-7. If you're going to shoot a lot of rangefinder lenses at 35mm and wider, it's hit or miss on the NEX-7.

The ZM 50/1.5 is a great portrait lens, and it sharpens up nicely when stopped down. The Contax G 90 is fantastic.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I use the CV 15/4.5, ZM 35/2, ZM 50/1.5 and Contax G90 on the NEX-5N.

The CV 15 needs a little CornerFix for purple corners, but the resolution is good. The ZM 35/2 is the best 35mm rangefinder lens that I've tried. Both of these lenses have resolution issues in the corners of my old NEX-5, and I've seen evidence that the same happens on the NEX-7. If you're going to shoot a lot of rangefinder lenses at 35mm and wider, it's hit or miss on the NEX-7.

The ZM 50/1.5 is a great portrait lens, and it sharpens up nicely when stopped down. The Contax G 90 is fantastic.

Hi Douglas
quite agree about the ZM 50/1.5 and the Contax G 90 . . . but I don't think WA is hit or miss on the NEX7 I think the parameters are pretty clear - it's okay on more modern and tele centric lenses (like the WATE, 21 'lux, 24 'lux) less good on more traditional symmetrical designs

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Hi Douglas
quite agree about the ZM 50/1.5 and the Contax G 90 . . . but I don't think WA is hit or miss on the NEX7 I think the parameters are pretty clear - it's okay on more modern and tele centric lenses (like the WATE, 21 'lux, 24 'lux) less good on more traditional symmetrical designs

Hi, Jono. I'm not totally convinced. I'm not saying that several of the Leica wides aren't good on the 7, but they may still be better on the 5N at the edges. I was blown away how much sharper my ZM 35/2 was at the edges compared to all of my other 35mm lenses on the NEX-5, and then the corner sharpness improved even more on the 5N (this lens has been shown to have issues on the 7, despite being the most telecentric of the ZM "Biogon" designs.) I noticed on the NEX-7 thread that even Bob's 35 Lux shows some purple shift at the edges on his 7, and I've seen comparisons of the 18 Super Elmar between the 5N and 7, so it's all a little dodgy.

Overall, at 35mm and wider, and say some Leicas and the CV 35/1.2 are safe, when it comes to M lenses on the NEX-7, but the jury is still out on a lot of lenses, because a lot of users don't have their hands on the 7, yet.

[Vivek]

This is Sony's new "roadmap":

Sony Announces Expansion of E-mount Lens Including 5 New Lens Types « SONY make.believe

I hope the others will NOT be dogs like the 16/2.8.

Jono, None of the lenses I have (just 1 sample each, bought randomly) for the m4/3rds show anything this bad. Even the Olympus 17/2.8 lens.

I think it is just a bad design. It is a 5/5 Heliar design and is similar to the Olympus 17/2.8 (m4/3rds), Samsung 30/2 (NX) and the old Olympus pen F pancake 38/2.8 (a decent lens). It just does not work for the 16mm, IMO.

[alphaman]

Originally Posted by Vivek

This is Sony's new "roadmap":

Sony Announces Expansion of E-mount Lens Including 5 New Lens Types « SONY make.believe

I hope the others will be dogs like the 16/2.8...

I imagine you meant "I hope the others will not be dogs like the 16/2.8..."

That said, I don't relate to your experience of the 16/2.8. My copy seems perfectly ok, particularly at f8. I don't think it is as good as it could be, but it is a very cheap lens and I'm taking that into consideration. I imagine Sony will replace it with a Zeiss version in time. The problem is that (IMO) Sony hadn't realised just how popular the NEX system would become and the first lenses (16/2.8 and 15-55) were made on a budget. Perhaps if they had a Tardis, they would go back in time and revisit their decisions - but then the NEX system would have been more expensive!

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Originally Posted by alphaman

My experience too, I use the 35/2 and 90/2.8. The cheap Contax to NEX adapters seem to be ok from my experience, so no need to splash out!

I have also used a variety of Minolta and Sony A lenses using the Sony adapter (second version) and also with great success. The NEX combined with the Zeiss 135/1.8 looks mad but works very well for available light work, in my case theater photography.

Sorry alphaman, but I don't use Contax G lenses but the Contax MM and AE dslr lenses. I decided to go that way because the wider ones don't have the color casting issues like my Zeiss 25 ZM and VC 15/4.5. And less hassle with different adapters.(I use those on the Ricoh GXR, a dream!)
You can see some of those in the Fun with NEX thread.

I have now the whole range from 18mm to 100mm
Still a few gaps but I have to behave myself.
And three zooms including the supurb Vario-Sonnar 100-300.
Can't wait to work with it for landscapes etc in France.

Michiel

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Vivek

Jono, None of the lenses I have (just 1 sample each, bought randomly) for the m4/3rds show anything this bad. Even the Olympus 17/2.8 lens.

I think it is just a bad design. It is a 5/5 Heliar design and is similar to the Olympus 17/2.8 (m4/3rds), Samsung 30/2 (NX) and the old Olympus pen F pancake 38/2.8 (a decent lens). It just does not work for the 16mm, IMO.

Originally Posted by alphaman

I imagine you meant "I hope the others will not be dogs like the 16/2.8..."

That said, I don't relate to your experience of the 16/2.8. My copy seems perfectly ok, particularly at f8. I don't think it is as good as it could be, but it is a very cheap lens and I'm taking that into consideration. I imagine Sony will replace it with a Zeiss version in time. The problem is that (IMO) Sony hadn't realised just how popular the NEX system would become and the first lenses (16/2.8 and 15-55) were made on a budget. Perhaps if they had a Tardis, they would go back in time and revisit their decisions - but then the NEX system would have been more expensive!

+1 . . . except I imagine you mean 18-55!

Yes Vivek - my 16mm is useable at all apertures - but improves up to f8. Of course, it's not fantastic (why should it be at that price), but I can only assume you have a bad copy?

I also think that the cheap kit lens (18-55) is much better than one has a right to expect.

Funny about lenses though - I found several of the Pentax lenses (including the 15 limited) to be dreadful - in fact, that 15mm limited, despite being 4 times the cost of the Sony was certainly softer in the corners than my copy of the Sony.

Sample variation or not?

The lens map looks interesting - the G zoom is what I'm really interested in, but at least it looks like they're active.

all the best

[Vivek]

May be it is the price factor.

The 24/1.8, despite its over-sized hood (I use a generic, low profile 49mm metal hood), is fabulous. The CA issue is there but is tolerable.

I suspect the fast apertured standard prime will be another Zeiss. Possibly another E-Sonnar.

The pancake mentioned is most likely another Heliar design (like the Samsung 30/2).

Yes, it is good to see them at least responding to the criticism that it is more of an "interchangeable camera system" rather than an "interchangeable lens system".

[turbines]

Has anyone heard of any rumours regarding other third party lenses in E mount?

************************************************** ****************

With my Nex5n I currently use

Contax G 28mm, 45mm, 90mm all with dedicated Metabones adapters

Minolta AF 50mm f2.8 Macro

Minolta AF 35-70 f4 sharp & cheap but the range is not ideal

Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6-28 in Alpha mount. Sharp but a real handful and range not ideal for cropped sensor.

Yashica ML 24mm f2.8
.
Fujinon TV 75mm f1.8

After some bad experiences with cheap adapters I have settled pretty much on Rayquals with integrel tripod mounts. The tripod mount allows use of some of my heavier lenses on the Nex that otherwise I wouldn't attempt to mount.

[CoDaQue]

Early days here and not much time to test and shoot!

Kit 18-55: I agree, it is above average for a kit lens.
Minolta MD 50 1.7: best 5 eur I ever spent! wonderful smooth portraits at 1.7 (not too sharp).
Minolta MD 28 2.8: wicked sharp wide open. Still need to test it for landscape. for 45 eur can't complain.
Minolta MD 135 3.5: not so sharp wide open. Focus very impractical. But for 45 eur I also can't complain.

Voiglander Heliar 15 4.5 M: Seems very sharp, but I only have used it at small apertures.

Voiglander Nokton MC 40 1.4 M: Heaven and hell. Sometimes smooth beatiful transitions in color and focus plane, sometimes busy bokeh, CAs. I need to master it!

Now what would you put on your bag for a trip to Istambul next week?

WBR!

[jthurs]

Which camera are you shooting with the 5 or the 7?

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Hmmm
Sony:
16mm (I think it's fine as long as it's stopped down a bit - bad copy Vivek?)
18-55 kit (better than it should be)
18-200 (good - but I sometimes have trouble focusing in poor light)-quite big, but as hosermage says, not heavy - the lens fits in my barbour jacket pocket with the body sticking out for quick access!
24 Zeiss 1.8 (fab)

Leica M (with the helicoid adapter)
WATE - +1 to Woody - it's grate
24 'lux Excellent - but It isn't enough better than the Zeiss to make me use it (keep it with the M9)
28 'cron Excellent - focuses remarkably close
35 summarit - lovely and very small
35 'lux Excellent
50 'lux Excellent
50 nocti Excellent
75 'cron Excellent
90 elmarit Excellent
in all cases the helicoid adapter makes for fun close focusing.

Leica R:
18-200 f4 (okay - but only a short trial before adding a Sony A mount)
sorry not 18-200 - 70-210 - thank you Bart!
28-90 - Really good - and nice to handle as well
21-35 - soso results - boring range - don't bother
180 f2.8 APO Excellent

I don't have a Sony A adapter yet - so I haven't tried the A mount lenses, but I guess I'll get there!

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by jthurs

Which camera are you shooting with the 5 or the 7?

Hi There
With the 7 - I did shoot with the 5n before.

[yatlee]

I've been looking for a "better" wide angle lens for the NEX-7 without breaking the bank. I wanted the lens to be compact, with minimal barrel distortion and, if possible, no/minimal amount of color cast. I think I've finally found one!

Carl Zeiss ZM 18mm F4.0

IMG_1524 by yatlee, on Flickr

[yatlee]

Before and after LLC (Lens Cast Correction)

Before

00855 1 by yatlee, on Flickr

After

00855 by yatlee, on Flickr

This is more than acceptable to me.

[etrigan63]

Originally Posted by yatlee

I've been looking for a "better" wide angle lens for the NEX-7 without breaking the bank. I wanted the lens to be compact, with minimal barrel distortion and, if possible, no/minimal amount of color cast. I think I've finally found one!

Carl Zeiss ZM 18mm F4.0

IMG_1524 by yatlee, on Flickr

The trick is finding a ZM 18mm f/4 at a good price! Me want!

[philber]

On my NEX 5:
Contax G 28, 45, 90
Zeiss ZM 18
Leica R 60 Makro, 35-70 f:3.5
Declined to buy: ZA 24 f!1.8
Sold as unusable: Contax G 21
On order: Zeiss ZM 35 f:2.0, Leica 24 Elmar f:3.8

On my NEX 7, the ZM 18 shifts horribly, and the G 28 also, but less so. The suitability of the Elmar 24, as and when it arrives, is in question. ZM 35 should be OK, but only stopped down. Am trying out the ZA 24 again, in case it is better optimized for 7 than for 5N (odd chance).

If I get a really good 24mm solution on the 7, it will be "bye-bye 5N", with the acquisition of another WA, such as Sigma 19mm e-mount, or Leica R 19mm.

[JimBuchanan]

As I had mentioned over on the NEX 7 thread, I am disappointed in the wide lens behaviour on the NEX 7. My ZM25 is usable, but has color shift in the corners... I may go for a SLR 28mm lens.

I still need an effective 24-28mm lens solution. So, 2 comments on the ZM here. Philber, your ZM18 "shifts horribly", but does the resolution hold out in the corners? I was hoping to buy that $1000+ lens with a little more confidence.

[Christopher Campbell]

Hello all,

First post here. I'm an artist (painter, photographer), and also a part-time pro (mostly architectural photography with Canon and Arca-Swiss systems). I've just taken delivery of an NEX-5N (for my Dad, so that I can build him some Adobe DNG profiles), and have an NEX-7 on order (Adorama says late March, as I'm no. 158 on the waiting list). I've ordered the Zeiss 24/1.8 as a basic lens, and am now thinking about other lenses, so this is a very interesting and useful thread. I've used plenty of Zeiss glass on Hasselblads, but have never owned or even used any of the ZM mount lenses. Now I see that experienced users such as Michiel Schierbeek are using the C/Y mount Zeiss lenses (had to look that abbreviation up!), and that looks like a good route, both optically and financially. Would anyone like to comment further on their Zeiss C/Y experience, and give any advice on recommendations for high-quality adapters for the NEX e-mount? At the moment I'm contemplating relatively compact Zeiss C/Y lenses such as the 35/2.8 Distagon, the 50/1.7 Planar and the 85/2.8 Sonnar. Thanks very much.

[alphaman]

Originally Posted by philber

On my NEX 5:
...
Sold as unusable: Contax G 21 ...

When you say "unusable", could you elaborate please? I'm quite interested in this lens and have heard adverse comments from digital users, but don't know of any details.

Are there any samples posted online that would illustrate the unusable nature of this optic?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Originally Posted by Christopher Campbell

Hello all,

First post here. I'm an artist (painter, photographer), and also a part-time pro (mostly architectural photography with Canon and Arca-Swiss systems). I've just taken delivery of an NEX-5N (for my Dad, so that I can build him some Adobe DNG profiles), and have an NEX-7 on order (Adorama says late March, as I'm no. 158 on the waiting list). I've ordered the Zeiss 24/1.8 as a basic lens, and am now thinking about other lenses, so this is a very interesting and useful thread. I've used plenty of Zeiss glass on Hasselblads, but have never owned or even used any of the ZM mount lenses. Now I see that experienced users such as Michiel Schierbeek are using the C/Y mount Zeiss lenses (had to look that abbreviation up!), and that looks like a good route, both optically and financially. Would anyone like to comment further on their Zeiss C/Y experience, and give any advice on recommendations for high-quality adapters for the NEX e-mount? At the moment I'm contemplating relatively compact Zeiss C/Y lenses such as the 35/2.8 Distagon, the 50/1.7 Planar and the 85/2.8 Sonnar. Thanks very much.

Hi Christopher,

I seem to be quiet lonely with the Contax Zeiss route for the NEX-7. I don't regret it. The C/Y Distagon 18mm works fine. The only gap I have with Zeiss lenses is between 18 an 28mm, just because the fantastic 21 mm prices are sky high. The Contax zooms are a little big on the NEX, but they are lovely lenses. ( They are small compared to Canon EF equivalents.)
But I have several alternatives for that gap; the 20/2.8 Minolta MD and the 20 Canon FD (A little better in my opinion). 24mm I have in Olympus, Canon FD and Minolta MD. All these work well on the NEX.

Most of the Contax Zeiss lenses are simply supurb. Also the more common ones like 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7 or 1.4. The only one I am not interested in is the 135/2.8. And if you have the 100-300 zoom you don't need anything else in that range. That lens is just as sharp as the Zeiss primes in that range, only a little slower.

For zooms you could also look for the Minolta MD 35-70/3.5. Look out because ther are two versions, the other one is 35-70/3.5-4.?
It is actually a Leica design.

The wider zoom I am opting for will remain a secret for a while till I have it

Kind regards, Michiel

[etrigan63]

Michiel,
I have been looking into the C/Y Distagon 18mm myself, but am having a hard time locating them. How would you recommend I search for them and where?

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Originally Posted by etrigan63

Michiel,
I have been looking into the C/Y Distagon 18mm myself, but am having a hard time locating them. How would you recommend I search for them and where?

Carlos, I send you a PM

Michiel

[monza]

Michiel, you aren't alone on the C/Y front, although I don't have a 7 yet.

I have used the 35/2.8, 50/1.7, and the 85/2.8...as I posted earlier in the thread, I have settled on 28/2, 50/1.4, and the 60/2.8 Makro Planar C. I also have the 85/2.8 (about the same size as a 50/1.7) and 100/3.5. Decided to sell the 100/2..too big and heavy...and will soon do a shootout between the 85 and the 100/3.5, and pick one.

I'll post some size comparisons shortly. I use a Fotodiox C/Y adapter which works well.

[monza]

Excuse the fact that they are all upside down. I don't have enough rear lens caps at the moment...

Left to right: 28/2 'Hollywood', 50/1.7, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 60/2.8, 100/3.5. This was shot with the 18-55.

Here's a pic of the 18-55 next to the 50/1.7 on the Fotodiox for size comparo.

[waardij]

if you want to go really wide, there is always the sigma 8-16, here at 8mm. The lens is a bit big, not very sexy, but has good manual focus and performs great on a nex-7.

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Originally Posted by monza

Michiel, you aren't alone on the C/Y front, although I don't have a 7 yet.

I have used the 35/2.8, 50/1.7, and the 85/2.8...as I posted earlier in the thread, I have settled on 28/2, 50/1.4, and the 60/2.8 Makro Planar C. I also have the 85/2.8 (about the same size as a 50/1.7) and 100/3.5. Decided to sell the 100/2..too big and heavy...and will soon do a shootout between the 85 and the 100/3.5, and pick one.

I'll post some size comparisons shortly. I use a Fotodiox C/Y adapter which works well.

Monza, the 100/2 is a stellar lens, one of the best in the whole line.
Is is not much bigger then the 28/2. (If I were you I would sell the 100/3.5, if you have to. It is very good and small but the 100/2 does everything a little better.)
I bought the 28/2.8, much smaller and very good IMO.
I have got 12 C/Y lenses now, 3 zooms included.
I would never be able to choose between the 85/2.8 and 100/3.5.
I like them both.
There are 3 on my wishlist but I am in no hurry the 21/2.8, 60/2.8 Macro and the 85/1.4
BTW Your Macro-Planar S 60/2.8 does not go to 1:1, right?
Can you tell me more about the difference?

Looking forward to your comparisons!


Michiel

[Christopher Campbell]

Hi Michiel & Monza,

The flexibility of the NEX to accept virtually any lens is obviously a huge boon to those of us with large prior collections, but it also makes things complicated! In reviewing some of these threads, I've come to realize that there are essentially three groups of roughly equivalent high-quality lenses just from Zeiss: the current ZM rangefinder lenses (quite compact, fairly expensive, not so easy to find used), the C/Y Contax lenses you prefer (only available used, but in an extremely wide variety), and the Contax G series (fewer models, but also reasonably priced). I was at first debating which series might be best, but then realize that I already own 11 Canon primes (15–400mm), so perhaps the best plan for me is to purchase the Conurus EF to Sony NEX lens adapter that will be shipping next month. Even though it's $399 USD, it will suddenly make all that glass usable, even if some of it is rather oversized.

I tried out my new Zeiss 24/1.8 ZA lens today, with somewhat surprising results on an NEX-5N. In the center of the field and stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, compared to the Sony 18-55 kit lens at the same aperture, the two are barely distinguishable (not sure whether that's a strike against the prime, or for the zoom — maybe both). With both lenses opened up to f/4 at 24mm and comparing the extreme corners, the Zeiss is significantly better. As others have reported, both have substantial LaCA, but this cleans up quite well in Lightroom. By the way, I noticed today that the beta of Lightroom 4 has done away with the individual Red/Cyan and Blue/Yellow sliders in the Lens Correction panel of Lightroom 3. Instead there is a simple checkbox for removing chromatic aberration that engages a very sophisticated algorithm that is extremely effective. I also experimented with the various focus modes on the NEX-5N and rapidly came to understand why fine manual focus lenses are so popular with this group — when was focusing a lens ever so fraught?!

[Perrew]

Philber, may I ask what was the reason for not going with the Sony Zeiss 24/1.8?
Tks P

Originally Posted by philber

On my NEX 5:
Contax G 28, 45, 90
Zeiss ZM 18
Leica R 60 Makro, 35-70 f:3.5
Declined to buy: ZA 24 f!1.8
Sold as unusable: Contax G 21
On order: Zeiss ZM 35 f:2.0, Leica 24 Elmar f:3.8

On my NEX 7, the ZM 18 shifts horribly, and the G 28 also, but less so. The suitability of the Elmar 24, as and when it arrives, is in question. ZM 35 should be OK, but only stopped down. Am trying out the ZA 24 again, in case it is better optimized for 7 than for 5N (odd chance).

If I get a really good 24mm solution on the 7, it will be "bye-bye 5N", with the acquisition of another WA, such as Sigma 19mm e-mount, or Leica R 19mm.

[Christopher Campbell]

Last night I wrote a reply to Michiel and monza's recent posts, and previewed and posted it without receiving any error message or noticing any problem. After posting, I saw the standard message about it not appearing until approved by the moderator. Now, nearly 24 hours later, I'm wondering if it is going to appear? Since I'm new to this forum I don't yet have a good feel for the routine delay due to moderating. Thanks.

[monza]

Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek

Monza, the 100/2 is a stellar lens, one of the best in the whole line.
Is is not much bigger then the 28/2. (If I were you I would sell the 100/3.5, if you have to. It is very good and small but the 100/2 does everything a little better.)
I bought the 28/2.8, much smaller and very good IMO.
I have got 12 C/Y lenses now, 3 zooms included.
I would never be able to choose between the 85/2.8 and 100/3.5.
I like them both.
There are 3 on my wishlist but I am in no hurry the 21/2.8, 60/2.8 Macro and the 85/1.4
BTW Your Macro-Planar S 60/2.8 does not go to 1:1, right?
Can you tell me more about the difference?

Looking forward to your comparisons!

Yes I agree, the 100/2 is stellar. But it is actually substantially larger/heavier than the 28/2. I'm thinking of swapping the 28 for a 25 but really like that fast f/2.

In the past I also had the 35-70, sweet lens, but annoying push-pull.

The Makro Planar C is a 1:2. As you can see, it's small, weight 270g, 55mm filters. The 60/2.8 Makro Planar that goes to 1:1 is 570g, and uses 67mm filters - quite a bit bigger.

Here are the spec sheets:

http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cy/Ma...2.8_60mm_e.pdf

http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cy/Ma...8_60mm_C_e.pdf

[Show Performance]

Robert,

Remind yourself to never invite me over. You may find your collection a little light afterwards...

Wish I never sold the 85 2.8

Originally Posted by monza

Excuse the fact that they are all upside down. I don't have enough rear lens caps at the moment...

Left to right: 28/2 'Hollywood', 50/1.7, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 60/2.8, 100/3.5. This was shot with the 18-55.

Here's a pic of the 18-55 next to the 50/1.7 on the Fotodiox for size comparo.

[monza]

Originally Posted by Christopher Campbell

Last night I wrote a reply to Michiel and monza's recent posts, and previewed and posted it without receiving any error message or noticing any problem. After posting, I saw the standard message about it not appearing until approved by the moderator. Now, nearly 24 hours later, I'm wondering if it is going to appear? Since I'm new to this forum I don't yet have a good feel for the routine delay due to moderating. Thanks.

It appeared in my email notification...did you then delete the post?

[Jorgen Udvang]

Originally Posted by monza

Excuse the fact that they are all upside down. I don't have enough rear lens caps at the moment...

Left to right: 28/2 'Hollywood', 50/1.7, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 60/2.8, 100/3.5. This was shot with the 18-55.

Monza, that's one of the coolest line-ups I've seen ever