The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable - Line: 895 - File: showthread.php PHP 7.2.24-0ubuntu0.18.04.8 (Linux)
File Line Function
/showthread.php 895 errorHandler->error




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT
#1
Hi Klaus,



Thanks for this review. I'm looking in to M mount lenses to use on my Sony Nex.



I found an interesting result and a comment in the [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/469-zeiss_zm_50_2_43?start=1"]ZM 50/2 review[/url] and wish you could explain it a bit more...



First the vignetting characteristic of this lens is very very good at 0.38 stops at f/2. For example the Panasonic Leica Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 is [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/490-leica_45_28?start=1"]1.22 stops wide open[/url]. And the ZM 50/2's review also confirms this by saying:



Quote:As a full format lens it has an easy play on micro-4/3 cameras when it comes to vignetting. Even at f/2 it's nothing to worry about in real world situations.





What I'm puzzled by is the comment you made regarding the lens' wide-open corner resolution figures:



Quote:The Zeiss lens delivers an impressive quality from f/2.8 onwards but it struggles a bit at f/2. It has no problems at max. aperture on the Leica M8 but it seems as if it's not aligned to the LiveMOS (4/3) sensor characteristics.



After seeing mFT and Sony Nex E-mount cameras with significantly closer flange distances than the M mount, I'm very strongly inclined to think that this offset micro-lens tech of Leica is marketing hype and a hack job to deal with the outdated sensors they put in to their digital M bodies.



I can't see, at least for the FourThirds area, how an M mount lens will have difficulties in getting light to hit the sensor than than any other mFT lens. I think the (low) vignetting characteristics confirm this.



Plus I don't think LiveMOS can be blamed here because it's still just a Bayer pattern system with supposed improvements in sensor fill-factor, read-out and built-in NR.



So my question is... does this mean the ZM 50/2 is actually a "bad" lens in the corners when it's wide open? Could it have been something else that was not accounted for in the review like the field-curvature? I've heard lenses like the Noctilux suffer quite a lot from this.



Hope to hear your thoughts on this <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />



Thanks!



GTW
  


Messages In This Thread
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by genotypewriter - 08-10-2010, 03:27 PM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by Klaus - 08-10-2010, 04:19 PM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by wim - 08-10-2010, 08:45 PM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by genotypewriter - 08-11-2010, 01:28 AM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by wim - 08-11-2010, 08:16 AM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by genotypewriter - 08-11-2010, 02:54 PM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by wim - 08-11-2010, 03:50 PM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by genotypewriter - 08-16-2010, 03:56 PM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by wim - 08-16-2010, 08:51 PM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by genotypewriter - 08-19-2010, 04:07 AM
Zeiss ZM 50 f/2 on mFT - by wim - 08-19-2010, 08:52 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)