Jump to content

AlanYWM

Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AlanYWM

  1. On 6/11/2021 at 5:50 PM, snooper said:

    No wonder why users of other forums such as dpreview are bashing Leica gear and users in any occasion... A lens gets his value from what you do with it, not from whatever number is printed...  This world is crazy 😩

    The problem is two fold. Firstly, you have Leica lenses selling at a premium compared to similar Japanese or China made lenses. Secondly, you have Leica fans making exaggerated claims about Leica performances. We need to find a middle ground.

  2. I have tried manual focusing on both the Lumix S Pro 70-200mm f4 and 50mm f1.4 and they both focus without much difficulty with the S1R. With the SL 24-90mm and SL 50mm f1.4 Summilux attached to S1R, due to focus by wire, manual focusing is not as easy as with the Lumix lenses. I found the EVF not reactive enough as I manually turn the focusing ring of the SL lenses.

  3. Recently, I had the opportunity to compare the Lumix 50mm f1.4 and the SL 50mm f1.4 Summilux over 2 days. Both lenses were attached to the Lumix S1R and where necessary, a tripod was used to minimise user error. I also chose electronic shutter over mechanical shutter to minimise any vibrations.

    Out of the various subjects taken with both lenses, I did find the Lumix lens to be more prone to “vibration” blur. This effect is, however, not evident in every photo and is something that I would not consider as detrimental to the final image. I reckon most folks will not even notice this or complain about it.

    Other than this phenomenon, I would rate the Lumix lens about equal to the Leica lens both in terms of sharpness and colour rendition. In other words, they are both excellent performers.

    What may interest some folks here is that during the tests, I found the AF with the Lumix lens was noticeably faster than the Leica lens. Another point to take note of is manual focusing was easier on the Lumix 50mm f1.4 than on the Leica lens. The Push/Pull mechanism to switch between AF & MF on the Lumix lens made manual focusing easier and more precise. With the Leica SL 50mm, due to focus by wire, the EVF was not reactive enough for quick and precise focusing. There is no AF On/Off switch on the Leica lens. Hopefully, the slower AF will be addressed in the SL2. We just have to wait and hope for the best.

    I would rate both lenses as very well built but I would give Leica a slight edge here. To be honest, I believe both lenses will probably suffer serious damages if drop from a height of 1m.

    Obviously, of the two lenses, the Lumix lens is cheaper by a good margin. Whether you want to admit or not, price does play a part in the buying decision for many people.

    Please note that these are only two individual lenses tested and the test results may vary slightly with different lenses.

  4. 4 hours ago, frame-it said:

    https://www.sigma-global.com/en/download/lenses/firmware/

    https://www.sigma-global.com/en/download/lenses/sigma-optimization-pro/

    and the MC-21:

    Lens data is pre-loaded
    Running the data pre-loaded in the MC-21 for each lens by the special control program, autofocus and aperture control have been optimized. Regarding lenses to be released in the future, data for operating these lenses via the MC-21 will be stored in the lens. It means no firmware updates of the MC-21 will be required to use those new lenses. In addition, the MC-21 also supports correction functions of camera such as peripheral illumination, chromatic aberration of magnification, and distortion.

    This is only applicable for new lenses. Firmware upgrades may still be forthcoming for existing lenses to improve AF and other functionalities like lens IS. At least that is what I am hoping 😀

  5. Some bad news. I tested the MC-21 with the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro and it did not work at all. The aperture seems to be stuck at f99 😞 With the Canon 100mm Macro L IS, it seemed to work - AF and aperture control - but it underexposes by at least 1 stop when using flash in manual mode. Switching over to the Novoflex adapter, both lenses worked fine, even with flash. I think the firmware needs updating on the Sigma MC-21.

  6. 13 hours ago, jrp said:

    The Zeiss 35mm f1.4 certainly has a bit more vignetting than the Summilux.  I don't know why.

    I have yet to compare them side by side but I am not too worried of the Zeiss lens because by f2.8, vignetting is almost negligible. Both are very good performers. The Zeiss lens offers so much more for the money.

  7. 5 hours ago, ron777 said:

    Would like to own the 90-280 but for the variety of imaging that I do it would be a seldom used extravagance . I actually thought that the  long end of the 24-90 was very good until I’d received the S Pro lens . But in their own right, without a side by side, they’re both very good. I was just surprised by the price/quality ratio of the Panasonic lens.

    Thanks for the honest feedback on this Panasonic zoom lens vs the Leica. Much appreciated.

  8. 8 hours ago, helged said:

    Did you check max frames per second when using MC-21? I ask since the electronic Novoflex adapter gives 3 fps on the SL (whereas any manual adapers, and native L-lenses, give 11 fps). 

    Afraid I did not test the frame rate. I would assume it should not be affected. I was more interested in the speed of the AF since the Novoflex adapter on the S1/R could not even perform AF with EF lenses.

  9. Had the chance to test out the new Sigma MC-21 adapter with the Canon 400mm f4 DO II. This adapter is meant for EF lenses to be used on L mount cameras.

    As far as AF is concerned, it works but without tracking. This means AF-C does not work. The lens will focus but AF will not track as you move the camera/lens. The S1/R will even prompt you to switch to AF-S. I felt the focusing is slower (when set to S mode) than the Sony A7r3 using the same lens with MC-11.

    In addition, I believe the lens IS is not activated with the MC-21 adapter. This is unlike the MC-11, which works quite well with IS on the lens.

    The above observation is limited to the Canon 400mm f4 DO II lens. I am not sure if AF will perform better with other EF lenses. I suspect firmware upgrades in the future will improve overall AF performance.

     

  10. 3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

    Please read what I wrote, which isn't how you have paraphrased it. Sadly, misreading of posts, deliberately or not, is how internet rows start.

    First, you start by questioning  if I have used the SL 24-90mm. Why the need to do that? Because you think I am wrong in my general assessment of zoom lenses, right? Otherwise why the question?

    Then you say you "rarely look at or need sharp corners. That said, the 24-90 doesn't perform badly in the corners..."  🙄

    Next time, read carefully what I have written before commenting. Like I said, power to you 😄

  11. 6 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

    Have you used the 24-90? Which primes have you compared it with?
    More generally, I find that in portraits I rarely look at or need sharp corners. That said, the 24-90 doesn't perform badly in the corners, in real world usage (though one can always find better).

    DoF is another matter. Although I don't often find myself limited by f/4 at 90mm in the SL's zoom, I admit I like to have f/2 in hand for when I want it - and so I have the SL Summicron 90.

    Of course. If you are convinced that the 24-90mm is equal in IQ to a good prime, power to you. But I am of another opinion 😊

×
×
  • Create New...