Tri-Elmar-M 4/28-35-50 on Sony A7

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

Novoflex NEX/LER.

Definitely not the adapter. 

[Ivar B]

We decided to meet to test it out for ourselves. I brought my SL with 24-90, and my friend had his Sony A7 and the TE 28-35-50. The TE was tested out on both bodies of course. We photographed a wall with some details from windows etc. to look for differences in sharpness. The test reveiled some quite interesting results I believe. The SL 24-90 appears to be better than the TE at 28-35-50, at least on the SL. However, the differences are not at all large and it is impressive that this tiny lens, using an old design, holds out so well against a modern lens. The difference was perhaps the greatest at 28mm at f4, but TE performance is still very good. The second interesting result is that the TE does very well indeed on the Sony A7. Very sharp at all focal lengths, and with good contrast. The owner of the Sony and the TE was pleasantly surprised to see that there are no issues at all. We also tried a slighly more challenging situatio with the sun shining directly as us over a rooftop, and here the SL 24-90 was vastly superior with much less flare. This may of course be due to the testing situation and that we did not manage to replicate conditions perfectly (although the tripod was firm in place) but it may appear that the SL 24-90 is better in this respect.

[helged]

1 minute ago, Ivar B said:

We decided to meet to test it out for ourselves. I brought my SL with 24-90, and my friend had his Sony A7 and the TE 28-35-50. The TE was tested out on both bodies of course. We photographed a wall with some details from windows etc. to look for differences in sharpness. The test reveiled some quite interesting results I believe. The SL 24-90 appears to be better than the TE at 28-35-50, at least on the SL. However, the differences are not at all large and it is impressive that this tiny lens, using an old design, holds out so well against a modern lens. The difference was perhaps the greatest at 28mm at f4, but TE performance is still very good. The second interesting result is that the TE does very well indeed on the Sony A7. Very sharp at all focal lengths, and with good contrast. The owner of the Sony and the TE was pleasantly surprised to see that there are no issues at all. We also tried a slighly more challenging situatio with the sun shining directly as us over a rooftop, and here the SL 24-90 was vastly superior with much less flare. This may of course be due to the testing situation and that we did not manage to replicate conditions perfectly (although the tripod was firm in place) but it may appear that the SL 24-90 is better in this respect.

+1. I guess I had two-and-a-half 'issues' with the MATE: (1) It's prone to flare and it shows loss of contrast against highlights (which can be used creatively, but can also be a pain); (2) the distortion/flatness is somewhat uneven across the image, making stitched panoramas somewhat tricky, and (2.5) it's f4 aperture (not a real problem, but a limitation). The sharpness was never a problem on the M9, M240 and SL-type of sensors I used the lens on, albeit not with the micro contrast seen in e.g. the newest 28mm Cron and 28mm Elmarit, or the 50APO-M. The most amazing aspect of the lens is its construction; with lens elements moving in 'all' directions when shifting focal lengths. I guess the lens must be among the most optic-mechanically complicated ever built... A pleasure to use on the M, I will say. But I prefer the extended reach of the SL24-90. But the SL is quite different from the M, obviously... 

 

[jansjo]

Thank you for addressing this theme, Ivar - and the testing we did comparing tri elmar MATE on SL vs Sony A7ii!