Here's a series of images taken with the CV15mm f/4.5 M LTM converted to M mount lens.
Fuji X-Pro 1 with Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 | picabroad.com
Hate to say it, but this is yet another photographer posting wide angle images with noticeable detail smearing away from the centre. The CV15 should perform far better than this even wide open, and clearly does perform miles better on the NEX-5N and GXR M Mount.
This story is reminding me of the trickle of first images taken with M glass on the NEX-7 which doesn't do nearly as well with the CV15 and many wide angle rangefinder lenses. Hope not, but fear so.
I see what you mean, but frankly I am not put off by that. Overall the images are more than passable. It will be interesting to see further examples with longer lenses. Perhaps I am just too accustomed to seeing loss of edge detail in wide angle shots.
The XP1 seems to handle the wide lenses w/o any cyan edges. But those photos look so blah. I suppose it might just be the subject and drewery sky. Photos that I am seeing from the native Fuji XF lenses seem to look nicer than the sample M ones from this particular Flickr photostream.
There was another photostream from some guy's website that I think was already linked to (in a different thread). His photos using a SLR Hyperprime 50/0.95 looked much better.
Here is one with a 12mm voigtlander. Looks good to me. Am I missing something?
Pro1_Volt_12mmF5.6_ISO3200_Tv30 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
EXCLUSIVE: SLR Magic Hyperprime 50mm 0.95 on Fuji XPro1 & Leica M9
This is the link you mentioned.
Yup. Close in focus of "problematic" wide angle lenses will tend to look better. The exit pupil of the lens is farther away from the sensor the closer in you focus. Some dispute this... they may be correct, but others don't. Certainly I see more problems with difficult lenses as they are focused towards the infinity stop. For an ultra wide angle lens, that's not very far out at all.
It could be a bigger factor in influencing our perceptions is that for nearby subjects depth of field is reduced at any given aperture, and this tends to mask some of the edge problems. You can see smearing in the image linked but it just doesn't matter as much.
Nah, just trying to understand these things myself. I may have learned a thing or two while living with the NEX-5N and a bunch of rangefinder lenses, while at the same time hoping the NEX-7 would treat RF lenses even better (no simple answer there), and then using the GXR which while it has its issues, treating the lenses well is not one of them. I'm not aware of a bad lens-camera matchup on the GXR which is saying something.
The X-Pro 1 with the new colour filter and no anti-alias filter on paper sounded like it could be wonderful with all manner of problematic M lenses but in the first look it seems that hope might have been a stop or two... too optimistic?
Anyway, if the NEX-7 experience means anything, the camera -- from a rangefinder lens user's perspective only -- should not be condemned outright even if some lenses don't work well. We'll probably find that some work really well in every situation, and a great many more will work perfectly well for certain photographers and the way they work. And some folks of course just won't care if they love using a camera for other reasons. Nothing wrong with that!