New to Leica but changing to a Sony A7*

[LostBoyNZ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi! As the title says, I'm completely new to Leica, but I'm seriously thinking about switching from Canon to Sony. Currently I have:

 

Canon 5D Mark II

Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II

Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro

Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED IF AS UMC

 

And I really enjoy taking landscape photography, plus some street, portrait, and astrophotography. And at wildlife parks / zoos, some animals. But generally no action, sports or other fast moving subjects. I think manual focus with focus peaking should work well for what I do.

 

I tend to like post processing in Lightroom as much as taking the photos, and seeing what I can create. But it does mean I'm a bit of a pixel peeper. I get the occasional 1m wide canvas done, but generally do smaller canvas / prints.

 

So in my experience so far I've found I can change a little colour and contrast anyways, but with things like micro sharpness and overall sharpness, I'd prefer to have too much than too little. I know I can take some away if needed.

 

The main reason I'm thinking about changing is size and weight. I'm very happy with my current lenses (very sharp, especially for zooms), except they're huge and heavy. Sony's f/4 lenses are not all that different in those regards to Canon's f/4 lenses, but the Leica primes seem incredibly small and light.

 

I was wondering if people might be able to recommend some good ideas on getting started with Leica lenses? There's so many different types, names, ages etc. Any tips at all would be hugely appreciated, and I look forward to joining in some topics here Thanks for reading!

[LocalHero1953]

I suggest you do some research on Leica lenses on the A7: the wide angle non- telecentric designs apparently do not work well, because the A7 does not compensate for the angle of incidence of the light on the sensor. Leica sensors have micro lenses for this purpose. I can't tell you more, I haven't tried it myself.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LostBoyNZ]

Thanks! This gives me a good starting off point

[Guest DrPix]

Hi! As the title says, I'm completely new to Leica, but I'm seriously thinking about switching from Canon to Sony. Currently I have:

 

Canon 5D Mark II

Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II

Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro

Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED IF AS UMC

 

And I really enjoy taking landscape photography, plus some street, portrait, and astrophotography. And at wildlife parks / zoos, some animals. But generally no action, sports or other fast moving subjects. I think manual focus with focus peaking should work well for what I do.

 

I tend to like post processing in Lightroom as much as taking the photos, and seeing what I can create. But it does mean I'm a bit of a pixel peeper. I get the occasional 1m wide canvas done, but generally do smaller canvas / prints.

 

So in my experience so far I've found I can change a little colour and contrast anyways, but with things like micro sharpness and overall sharpness, I'd prefer to have too much than too little. I know I can take some away if needed.

 

The main reason I'm thinking about changing is size and weight. I'm very happy with my current lenses (very sharp, especially for zooms), except they're huge and heavy. Sony's f/4 lenses are not all that different in those regards to Canon's f/4 lenses, but the Leica primes seem incredibly small and light.

 

I was wondering if people might be able to recommend some good ideas on getting started with Leica lenses? There's so many different types, names, ages etc. Any tips at all would be hugely appreciated, and I look forward to joining in some topics here Thanks for reading!

 

Some very impressive equipment. Why switching at all?

Leica is one and only, totally different, experience. I´ve had and tried almost all top Canon and Sony gear and always "came back" to Leica.

I found it virtually impossible to "re-create" Leica´s "magic" even with most advanced tweaking. If you want to go for M-type shooting, i.e with manual rangefinder it can either "make you" or "brake you" - mentally:). I could NOT adapt to this type of shooting. My suggestion, if you can´t afford S-system (few can...), is to try the fabulous, not fully (yet!) appreciated X Vario system! IQ it delivers (especially with DNG files and LR development) is what Leica is ALL ABOUT! All 3 X-models have this "something special", once you get hooked you´re "done":)

Happy hunting

[LostBoyNZ]

Thanks! The 5D Mark II is my first DSLR (big upgrade from the old Canon S3 IS) and it's still going strong after nearly 6 years. But I really need to try and travel lighter, and the A7r appeals to me in that regard.

 

Basically if I can get the same image quality or better out of gear with a lot less weight, it'll make it all more enjoyable and easier on the back too. But I still haven't decided for sure about switching It's a big and very long lasting choice, haha.

 

By the way, I love the photos of your site! They also all have fantastic colours and a great dynamic range.

 

I'm not ready to jump all in to Leica, but seeing Trey Ratcliff using them on his Sony, along with Sony lenses, it seems he's got the balance of quality and size / weight I'm also after. Of course his budget is also a lot higher than mine, haha.

 

It's interesting to see his take on the Leica Lens Buying Guide too: Leica Lens Buying Guide | Stuck in Customs

 

And half of this video:

[LostBoyNZ]

Just to explain that a bit better, since the mirrorless cameras were introduced I was interested at the idea, then when the A7r was announced, a bit more interested again. Likewise with the A7s too.

 

But then when I found out the lenses are similar weight and size to equivalent Canon lenses, I was a bit disappointed but figured lenses with those specs / image quality must just weigh that much.

 

Then recently when I came across the idea that Leica lenses give great quality but are smaller and lighter (well, most) it has me interested again.

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For some time I have used Canon EOS gear.

Those lenses are larger than Leica/Voigtländer ones. But they are lighter, more plastic used.

 

Colours are primarily made by the camera. So compare Sony and Leica cameras in this respect.

Leica lenses seem to behave very good on the Sony A series at 35mm and above. Under 35mm it depends.

The 35mm of Sony seems to be very good and with this lens you would have autofocus.

Jan

[TomB_tx]

As an old film photographer with a large stock of manual focus lenses (hate autofocus), primarily Leica M, Leica R (SLR) and Pentax-M, I moved to the Leica M9 as it took all my old Leica M lenses and let me use it exactly like a film camera. However, neither Leica or Pentax had a (full-frame) digital SLR to use my old lenses. So I got a Sony A7 (body only) with adapters for both, and find it is an excellent solution. Very easy to manual focus with all focusing aids turned off (just judging sharpness in the VF).

I've always used the Leica M (rangefinder) bodies with 21 through 90 mm lenses, and think they are at their best with 28-75mm. For longer, macro, and very wide (20-24) I've preferred SLRs. The Leica R lenses are great on the A7, but feel large to handle on the small body. My favorites on the Sony are the older Pentax-M lenses, as their small size handles well on it. The Pentax 20mm isn't as good a lens as the 21s available for Leica M, but it works well on the A7 while the Leica M wides tend to have edge problems.

While the auto-diaphragms don't work with these lenses on the Sony, the way I work that isn't a problem, as I can focus well even stopped to moderate apertures. In most dim light my old eyes can focus the Sony EFV even better than my Leica M9 RF, which I've always thought was best in those conditions.

However, I'm not hyper critical of pixel-level examination, and don't do pro work. I'm just a retired old guy that enjoys the process of using manual focus cameras - still mainly film. The A7 was a great solution for me.

[Duane Pandorf]

....

 

I was wondering if people might be able to recommend some good ideas on getting started with Leica lenses? There's so many different types, names, ages etc. Any tips at all would be hugely appreciated, and I look forward to joining in some topics here Thanks for reading!

 

I would suggest looking through this thread (digital-forum) for other forum members experience with using Leica lenses on the A7 series camera.

 

The big obstacle to the A7 series IMO is that it has a long way to becoming a complete system until they've developed the different native focal lengths that cover what other camera systems already offer. I think its why you're already looking at using the excellent Leica lenses instead of what Sony has to offer. Which is very limited.

 

Then once you've gone down this road using adapters to make the A7 body "work" for your type of photography who says Sony won't change its lens mounting system again.

 

You're defeating the excellent sensor in the Sony camera buy having to use an adapted lens to make photographs. Too many stories on the need to stop down a Leica lens to ensure corner to corner sharpness or to avoid the purple color cast along the edges.

 

I feel you'd be wasting your money on very good glass if you can't use the lens at all aperture settings, especially wide open. I feel that brings out the true character/quality that Leica designs. Most all modern lenses stopped down to f/8.0 perform very well so why bother spending the extra funds if you can't use the Leica lenses to their full potential?

 

You may also want to read what Roger Cicala has had to say about using adapted lenses: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses

 

His first sentence begins: "A year or two ago, I wrote a blog post where I basically showed lenses shot on adapters on other cameras aren’t acceptable for testing."

[Jennifer]

I have a Sony A7R sitting in a box along with three dedicated Zeiss lenses. None have seen the light of day since I bought the M. At least partly psychological no doubt, but for me using the Leica is an altogether different and far more satisfying experience.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I use both Leica and Sony extensively. And my shooting partner shoots Canon and has added an A7r to his kit for landscapes. So I am able to compare them directly.

 

The Canon 24-70II has no real equal, currently. So you'll either shoot primes in that range or keep the Canon and use a metabones adaptor.

 

In native lenses the range is limited but overall the choices are very good optically. The 35mm and 55mm Sony FE primes are stunning. I have a Leica 50mm Summilux and the FE55mm is better on the A7r. The 70-200 F4 Sony is also excellent. Not quite as good as the Canon 2.8 IS II wide open but better than the f4LIS and really good stooped down a stop. The FE 24-70f4 is a bit weak in the corners wide open at 24-28mm but really good after that and very good stopped down at all lengths. Not as good as the Canon mk2 but probably as good or a little better than the mk1 version. Plus the Sony has IS.

 

Now to Leica lenses. I have tested the following on my A7r and A7 bodies. The W.A.T.E. (wide angle tri-elmar), 21mm Elmarit, 21mm, CV Nokton f1.8, 24mm Elmarit ASPH, 35mm Summilux ASPH, CV 35mm f1.2II, 50mm Summilux, CV 50mm f1.5M, 75mm Summarit, CV 75mm Helliar, 90mm Summilux and the 135 APO telyt.

 

Everything from the 75's up are fine. The 90mm Summarit and 135APO are favourites and stunning on the Sony (and Leicas).

 

I didn't like the 50mm Summilux at all on the Sony but it's my favourite lens on my Leicas. Even the cheaper 50mm Cosina is better but both are well eclipsed by the native Sony 55mm 1.8.

 

Wider than that there's only one Leica lens that I think is really really good on the Sony. That's the W.A.T.E. That's better than the Canon 16-35II on the Sony. No corrections are needed in normal use. Expensive though tiny.

 

The CV 21mm and 35mm worked quite well on the Sony A7r. Some correction for colour shading (Italian flag effect) using the flat field Lightroom plug in is needed but the corners are decent wide open and very good stopped down. These lenses are on the larger side of rangefinder lenses though and quite heavy. Personally I would use a metabones adaptor and Canon/Nikon primes or a Sony LEA4 and Sony alpha primes as they are cheaper and lighter and better performing, even though they're bigger.

 

All the Leica prime lenses I have from 50mm and wider don't perform well on the A7r. They are stunning on the Leica bodies but the sensor in the A7r (and A7) doesn't play nice with them. Lots of Italian flag and mushy smeared corners at most apertures.

 

The new Leica macro looks very good but is 1:2 not 1:1, so I chose to use a (much larger and heavier) Zeiss ZF (Nikon mount) 100mm f2 Makro Plannar and tubes because I also use it as a fast portrait lens on both my Sony and Leica cameras.

 

My Sony kit is now as follows.

 

A7r and A7 bodies.

W.A.T.E.

FE24-70 f4 (this is the one I may replace when a great 24-28mm appears. Also considering the Sony alpha 24mm as I already have the adaptor to FE).

FE 70-200 f4

FE 35mm 2.8

FE 55mm 2.8

Ziess ZF 100mm f2 Makro Plannar and a set of extension tubes.

Sony alpha fisheye and LEA4 adaptor.

 

To reduce size/weight I sometimes drop the 70-200 and take the 135mm Leica APO. But that still means I'm adapting a maximum of two Leica lenses to my Sony kit. If you're going Sony the majority of your kit will be the FE lenses. If I were you I'd get the A7r 55mm and 70-200 FE lenses. Keep your 24-70LIS2 and use a metabones adaptor and if you can afford it a W.A.T.E.

 

Gordon

[LostBoyNZ]

Wow, thank you for all the replies!

 

A few people warning that the wider lenses aren't so great is very interesting to know. I know the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 is great for astrophotography and there's an E mount version, so I think I'll end up using that plus see what the Sony 16-35mm f/4 FE is like when it comes out. And maybe the 24-70 II with a metabones until something equal comes out.

 

It's great to know the 35mm and 55mm Sony FE primes are such high quality though. At 120g and 281g the weight is fantastic too. I think my next Canon lens was likely to be something like the 85mm f/1.2 II or III if that was announced in the next year. I know the Sony primes aren't f/1.2 but it weighs over 1kg and it sounds like the Sony's are just as sharp.

 

I'll have a look into the 90mm Summilux, 135 APO telyt and the Pentax-M 20mm too, plus I'll have a very good look into that digital-forum and about adapters.

 

Jennifer, if you still haven't used the A7r + lenses later this year I might have to make you an offer

 

The W.A.T.E I'd seen come up when I was looking around online recently, and sounded perfect in terms of image quality / size / weight. Very expensive indeed, but worth saving for by the sound of it.

 

Can I just check Gordon, when you listed the lenses you have, are the FE 35mm & 55mm 2.8 versions, or the 1.8? So far I'd only seen 1.8.

 

Your plan at the end there sounds pretty good to me so far.

[Coriana6jp]

My A7r is my backup to my M240 right now. I have had pretty good luck the the M lenses that I am using even the wide angles.

 

A quick run down, the CV12/5.6 Heliar II works very well sharp into the corners at f8 It does have some vignetting as some purple color shift, but Lightrooms Flatfield plug in solved those problems.

 

The 21mm Leica ASPH Elmarit f/2.8 works very well when stopped down. The corners are quite sharp at f/8. I did a pretty intensive comparison to Carl Zeiss 21mm Distagon ZE using a metabones III adapter on the 7r. At f/2.8 the Zeiss wins in the corners by a fair amount but by f/5.6 and f/8 it was a virtual draw on a 20x24 print. The zeiss may have a slight edge here but it was close that it was hard to see any difference.

 

The CV35 1.2 also works well. Slightly soft at 1.2 on both the M and the 7r, but by f/2 sharp across the frame and bitingly so by f/8. I did a quick comparison to my Zeiss 35/1.4 ZE Distagon on the 7r, the distagon had a slight edge in microcontrast and wide open sharpness but by f/2.8 the difference was minor and then it vanished after that.

 

The CV50 Nokton VM works great on both cameras, slightly sharper on the M240 wide open. What surprised me about this lens, was I tested it against the Zeiss Macro Planar 50mm F/2 it was sharper across the frame from f/4 and stayed sharper. The 50MP got very mushy at f/8. I just ordered a 50mm Summilux ASPH, so I am looking forward to redoing this test.

 

The 90mm Summicron ASPH great on both cameras. No issues at all, sharp across the frame. Maybe slightly better color from the M240 due to the profiles I am using. Was much sharper than the Zeiss 85mm 1.4 Distagon ZE which I tested it against at all apertures.

 

At this point all the heavy Zeiss lenses and Canon full frames are gone, sold for the m240.

 

The downside was the A7 files required more post processing than M240 especially with the wide angles to deal with the color shift. I choose M lenses that were said to work well on the A7. Also, I use the A7 mostly for landscapes with a tripod, so I almost never shoot wide open with it. If I were shooting wide open then I would look at other WA lenses than M mount, except for the WATE (which is on my list) from 35mm and other longer focal lengths no problems even wide open.

 

The m240 is the better camera all the way around. The sony can be use for many things, but it gets alot less use than the M.

 

Hope it helps.

 

Ryan

[LostBoyNZ]

That helps very much, thank you! It's great to hear from someone whose gone through all those tests. Reviews are nice, but comparisons are great

 

With the Canon I'd reached the point where I felt happy enough with my zooms that I was only going to look at primes that had a faster aperture (85mm f/1.2 for example) so it was interesting to hear how those did at f/1.2 / 2 / 2.8 yeah.

 

The 90mm Summicron ASPH for example is over 3x more expensive than the Zeiss 85mm 1.4 but "much sharper" makes it sound worth saving for.

[jedi996sps]

I have a Sony A7R sitting in a box along with three dedicated Zeiss lenses. None have seen the light of day since I bought the M. At least partly psychological no doubt, but for me using the Leica is an altogether different and far more satisfying experience.

 

I have a Sony A7r which is permanently attached to a 75mm summicron, the results from which (to me) are excellent and enough for me to keep the Sony, even after purchasing the M. The M i use mostly with a 50mm summilux or 28mm elmarit.

 

The Sony, gives me the choice of auto focus if i wish to go down that road. I have not as yet.

[alan.y]

The latest A7S appears to work better generally (but not in all cases) with wide RF lenses. There's an ongoing thread here on the A7S: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/341794-any-sony-a7s-shooters-house.html

 

If you have any interest in videography, then the A7S is better than all the Leicas and other Sony's. The Sony's also have less noise at high ISO, especially the A7S, which I find useable up to 25600.

 

Another advantage of the Sony bodies is that you can conveniently use a close-focus adapter for your M lenses. The 0.7m (or 0.5m in the case of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 and 21/1.8) MFD struck me when I started to use wide RF lenses after SLR lenses.

[CheshireCat]

A few comments:

 

- Keep your Canon body and at least the 70-200 for a while. Sell them only after you have used your new Sony gear a lot and you are totally sure you can do without. I cannot.

 

- If you want high pixel count and critically sharp, you may want to wait for the next version of the A7R as the current one has no electronic first curtain.

 

- Consider Zeiss native E-mount lenses before Leica adapted lenses. The 55/1.8 is great (and has AF). No need for Leica 50-ish lenses (unless you want Noctilux rendering). https://www.flickr.com/groups/sel55f18z

Edited August 23, 2014 by CheshireCat

[SiOnara]

I find I'm getting usable files from 80000 ISO on the A7s. They are grainy but really look like a high speed film. Very organic. Beautiful.

[LostBoyNZ]

Thanks! Yeah I might go slowly into all this. Start off with something like the 55mm f1/.8 or 35mm f/2.8 and give manual focusing a go as well as auto focus. And just start seeing how it goes and take it from there.

 

I love the extra dynamic range the A7 series seem to have over the 5D Mark II. Such clean shadow detail, no noise banding.

 

haha the A7s vs A7r is a whole different decision to make. I'd love to use the A7s for astrophotography, and maybe I'll wait for the 2nd edition of the A7r. But I'll have a good look around online and think about what photos I really want to use them for

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[harvey999999]

I have a Canon 5D3 with various L lens and they certainly give an accurate representation of what is in front of me. But for IQ they can't compete with my M9 with a Leica 50mm Summilux lens…there's something about the way that particular lens renders colours and tones that blows me away every time - it's a film-like quality, it makes you want to create rather than just reproduce. I'm told the 35mm Summilux lens has similar qualities. Pity about the prices of course!

Edited August 25, 2014 by harvey999999