Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is Sony a viable pro platform?  (Read 22750 times)
tetsuo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2008, 05:03:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, for me, it is really not working.
When I bought the dSLR, I looked and considered changing from a Pentax system [having owned the Z1-p] into a Nikon system. But because I do mainly street photography, I realized that in order to get similar lens performance I would have to plunge quite some money for lenses that will not work as good as the old Takumars. Iīm not talking about autofocus, Iīm talking about not to have to do stop down metering.

All in all, I sticked with Pentax because I still can have a broad range of lenses. Even the shortage of long lenses is not such, as I can use 645 lenses with adapters which will keep the metering capability.

About the branding, I have to say that Iīm very skeptical about it. I donīt stay loyal to any brand.
I donīt think that Sony has a bad reputation. And seeing the broader picture, I think that Sony is a pretty good brand name to start with. They will capture all the people upgrading from point and shoots. Then get the snowball rolling yourself: higher enthusiasts will get more expensive stuff, and at some point it will grow bigger, and bigger. They are starting building up the customer base, not as Kodak tried, starting from the very top and having nothing in between [and not improving what they had].

Bottom line, for me, is that now there are four major SENSOR manufacturers that RETAIL their own dSLRīs [not counting Fujifilm]:

Canon
Panasonic
Sony

and guess who is the uninvited guest?

Samsung.

That is an astounding news for us the consumers. More choice and more competition meaning faster developments and better price wars.


PS:
As you may know, I just purchased brand new lenses [FA 43 Limited and FA 50]. And guess what? This nostalgia thing of "all the past was far better" turns out to be not so true. Modern technology has got quite a leap forward. This FA50 is quite superior to my old Takumar.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2008, 01:30:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

Me feeling is that the MTF curves by Sony are somewhat optimistic. Far to good to be true. Some have 10/20/40 lp/mm and some 10/30 lp/mm. I'm very much in doubt that any lens can reach an MTF of 90% at 30 lp/mm.

Erik

Quote
Sony's pro lenses are impressive, not only Zeiss branded ones:

http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30724

http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30725

http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24679

http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24688

They are second to none here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2008, 02:21:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Comparing MTF diagrams from different sources is a waste of time.

-- Olaf
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2008, 05:16:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't agree on that, as long as they are correctly presented. The 10, 20, 40 lp/mm tagential and sagittal figures are pretty accepted standard.

Best regards
Erik

Quote
Comparing MTF diagrams from different sources is a waste of time.

-- Olaf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2008, 05:27:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't agree on that, as long as they are correctly presented. The 10, 20, 40 lp/mm tagential and sagittal figures are pretty accepted standard.

The problem is that some manufacturers (such as Canon) display theoretical MTF curves based on the lens design, and not actual measured curves. Then there's the issue of what equipment is used to measure the curves. Unless all that is specified, comparing the MTF curves won't tell you much.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2008, 08:35:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The problem is that some manufacturers (such as Canon) display theoretical MTF curves based on the lens design, and not actual measured curves. Then there's the issue of what equipment is used to measure the curves. Unless all that is specified, comparing the MTF curves won't tell you much.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With all these issues such as the DR of cameras (sensors) and the resolution of lenses, we need an industry standard like the ISO standard to which Canon is now accurately adhering.

In this modern age, it's ridiculous there should be so much confusion about the 'real' performance of lenses, resulting in a situation where the fastidious consumer feels compelled  to test lenses before buying.
Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2008, 05:37:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Indeed. Still, the only way to be sure is to try them out: one sample at a time! I'm heartened by what I see from Sony thus far. At every level, though, it's a bootstrap situation: for instance, it's quite a challenge to get the best out of the RAW files, and Sony JPEGs are shoddy.

I've been spending a lot of time over the last week experimenting with just about every combination of post-production tools to get to a point where I'm confident that I can get everything out of the Sony sensor. The next step is to fettle a lens system that gives me equal confidence in getting everything to the sensor . . . then we'll see what the Sony Flagship can do.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 05:41:50 PM by MarkWelsh » Logged
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2008, 04:35:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[snip]
In this modern age, it's ridiculous there should be so much confusion about the 'real' performance of lenses, resulting in a situation where the fastidious consumer feels compelled  to test lenses before buying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That might be nice in lolipop wonderland, but it's not going to happen, I don't think, anytime during our stay on the planet.

It seems like a lot of folks, in this "immediate gratification" day and age where one can get cash out of an ATM, a meal from a drive through and shop online all within the time span of ten minutes (or less, depending on the # of brain cells functioning in your friendly local fast food workers noggin when he takes your order) want a simple "grade" or number that tells us, is perfect, and can thus be used as the "final answer" as to which lens (or camera system, etc) is better but in reality that can't happen.

In terms of lenses - MTF graphs have their use, but they really can't be compared between manufacturers, and then again they don't always tell us how a lens performs in that pesky thing called "the real world". Lenses are balancing acts - and there is more than just sharpness to the equation. A lot of people, particularly in the forums, seem to have sharpness as the only attribute of lens quality that matters, when there is actually quite a bit more. I don't personally believe any one lens design firm, whether it be Zeiss, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus etc has automatic and immediate superiority over the other brands in the same manner than Kenyan marathoners seem to kick everyone else's backsides in marathons - each firm has different objectives and philosophy, and I'm sure if you all went to each one of them and said "design me the sharpest lens and I don't care if it sucks at every other aspect of lens performance" they could end up with lenses that are actually rather similar. If you take a look at the Sony MTF's, you will see some family resemblance - like Nikon, they tend to like a contrasty lens, and they also seem to want to emphasize center sharpness over other aspects - at times you'll see more spread between the sagittal and tangential plots versus, say, Nikon for a similar lens, which may (or may not, being MTF is not a perfect indicator) indicate the Sony may have the very slightest edge in resolution here and there but maybe not do so well in bokeh or tonal transitions - there are tradeoffs in every design, and each company has their own philosophy how to do it, and most of us who are "into" lenses likely eventually has their own tastes somewhat aligned with what the manufacturer we have chosen's balance. (I'm, for instance, a Nikon lens fan - I do prefer Nikon glass in general over Canon and most of the Zeiss stuff, and there are others who likely feel the opposite, and we do so more more for the rendering differences as opposed to how the lenses test on a chart or how much sharpness they have.)

So there's really no way to test for that - and on top of that, lenses are often designed to task - certain things are "given up" to gain something else in an area that matches a task - so there's no really good way for a single "lens grade" to indicate that either, much to the dismay of the folks who can't handle the reality that subjective evaluation is neccessary for lens selection.

(we could go into tons of other factors - some lenses are better at distance, some better at closer range, some balanced - are you going to have 30 scores for a set of attributes in order for us to arrive at a conclusion? And then again, how are you going to test all of that?)

So at the end of the day, it's guys like Mark Welsh (on the canon centric side) and guys like Bjorn Rorslett (on the Nikon side) and personal evaulation that ultimately lets me know if a lens is going to cut it for what *I* do - no single MTF graph or brand zealot trumpeting some chart is going to tell me what I need to know.

--------------------

As far as the original thread goes, my contribution is thus (and I'm likely going to get some "heat" for this as here is where I get opinionated...)

* The way I see the industry, I currently only see two manufacturers dealing with the lens demands of FF bodies at the current time - Nikon and Sony. Witness the performance of the very latest Nikon zooms and the reviews on the Sony 24-70 and I think an argument can be made that while Canon took the FF route of making the camera bodies and sensors first, but perhaps leaving themselves a bit "short" in terms of ultimate lens quality for the highest resolving sensors, Nikon and Sony are taking the opposite approach - introducing very high performance lenses first and then the bodies will come later. Note that while most of you out there (who likely shoot Canon - let's be honest here - this is a very heavy Canon oriented site) are ready to skewer me in argument, I seriously don't think Canon is going to sit on the sidelines and not do anything about it - likely they will to introduce lenses in areas where they've traditionally been weak (wide zooms, etc) in order to fully utilize what their sensors are capable of - but as of now, Sony and Nikon are addressing this first. Which is good - it puts pressure on Canon and that's not a bad thing.

* related to the above, I see that quite soon, once the major players have hi-rez FF bodies available, that lens sharpness will just simply HAVE to be really good - and while maybe one might be a smidge better than the other, we may arrive at a time where ANY of the best lenses from any of the brands will most definitely be professionally sharp and quite excellent.

* The hurdle for Sony becoming a pro player is going to be related to two things (watch out, I'm going to get negative here)..

  * Minolta bodies have been historically substandard. Sorry - in 30 years of photography I've seen/heard/witnesses more problems with Minolta gear than I ever have with Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Olympus. My own brief experience with Minolta left me with a sour taste as well. I'd happily use any of the other systems out there (well, not Olympus, but that's because 4/3rd is a dying game, but their bodies outside of that are ok) but I'd absolutely NEVER use a Minolta body, no matter what name is on it. (Interestingly, when I started out in the mid 70's, it was the same thing then - most of the pro's I talked to LOVED Rokkor-X glass, but none of them would touch a Minolta body with a 10 foot pole if they needed reliability and gear they could count on when the going got tough.)

  * To be a pro player, one needs a FULL line of lenses, and only two players have that right now - Canon and Nikon. Sony has a ways to go to catch up.

Sony probably can get the support aspect settled - they have decently deep pockets, but I'd have to see a fully fleshed out lens line and a good 5-6 year period where their bodies are in use by pro's - not just by the twice a year landscape serious amateur, but by a large contingent of pros - before I'd consider them ready for the pro game. I personally don't see it happening, but hey, I'll absolutely eat my words if I'm proven wrong.

Enough controversy for today - back to lurk mode I go

-m
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 12:13:06 AM by NashvilleMike » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2008, 05:03:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That might be nice in lolipop wonderland, but it's not going to happen, I don't think, anytime during our stay on the planet.

It seems like a lot of folks, in this "immediate gratification" day and age where one can get cash out of an ATM, a meal from a drive through and shop online all within the time span of ten minutes (or less, depending on the # of brain cells functioning in your friendly local fast food workers noggin when he takes your order) want a simple "grade" or number that tells us, is perfect, and can thus be used as the "final answer" as to which lens (or camera system, etc) is better but in reality that can't happen.

In terms of lenses - MTF graphs have their use, but they really can't be compared between manufacturers, and then again they don't always tell us how a lens performs in that pesky thing called "the real world". Lenses are balancing acts - and there is more than just sharpness to the equation. A lot of people, particularly in the forums, seem to have sharpness as the only attribute of lens quality that matters, when there is actually quite a bit more. I don't personally believe any one lens design firm, whether it be Zeiss, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus etc has automatically and immediate superiority over the rest in the same manner than Kenyan marathoners seem to kick everyone else's backsides in marathons - each firm has different objectives and philosophys, and I'm sure if you all went to each one of them and said "design me the sharpest lens and I don't care if it sucks at every other aspect of photograhy" they could end up with lenses that are actually rather similar. If you take a look at the Sony MTF's, you will see some family resemblance - like Nikon, they tend to like a contrasty lens, and they also seem to want to emphasize center sharpness over other aspects - at times you'll see more spread between the sagittal and tangential plots versus, say, Nikon for a similar lens, which may (or may not, being MTF is not a perfect indicator) indicate the Sony may have the very slightest edge in sharps but maybe not do so well in bokeh or tonal transitions - there are tradeoffs in every design, and each company has their own philosophy how to do it, and most of us who are "into" lenses likely eventually has their own tastes somewhat aligned with what the manufacturer we have chosen's balance. (I'm, for instance, a Nikon lens fan - I do prefer Nikon glass in general over Canon and most of the Zeiss stuff, and there are others who likely feel the opposite, and we do so more more for the rendering differences as opposed to how the lenses test on a chart or how much sharpness they have)

So there's really no way to test for that - and on top of that, lenses are often designed to task - certain things are "given up" to gain something else in an area that matches a task - so there's no really good way for a single "lens grade" to indicate that either, much to the dismay of the folks who can't handle the reality that subjective evaluation is neccessary for lens selection.

(we could go into tons of other factors - some lenses are better at distance, some better at closer range, some balanced - are you going to have 30 scores for a set of attributes in order for us to arrive at a conclusion? And then again, how are you going to test all of that?)

So at the end of the day, it's guys like Mark Welsh (on the canon centric side) and guys like Bjorn Rorslett (on the Nikon side) and personal evaulation that ultimately lets me know if a lens is going to cut it for what *I* do - no single MTF graph or brand zealot trumpeting some chart is going to tell me what I need to know.

--------------------

As far as the original thread goes, my contribution is thus (and I'm likely going to get some "heat" for this as here is where I get opinionated...)

* The way I see the industry, I currently only see two manufacturers dealing with the lens demands of FF bodies at the current time - Nikon and Sony. Witness the performance of the very latest Nikon zooms and the reviews on the Sony 24-70 and I think an argument can be made that while Canon took the FF route of making the camera bodies and sensors first, but perhaps leaving themselves a bit "short" in terms of ultimate lens quality for the highest resolving sensors, Nikon and Sony are taking the opposite approach - introducing very high performance lenses first and then the bodies will come later. Note that while most of you out there (who likely shoot Canon - let's be honest here - this is a very heavy Canon oriented site) are ready to skewer me in argument, I seriously don't think Canon is going to sit on the sidelines and not do anything about it - likely they will to introduce lenses in areas where they've traditionally been weak (wide zooms, etc) in order to fully utilize what their sensors are capable of - but as of now, Sony and Nikon are addressing this first. Which is good - it puts pressure on Canon and that's not a bad thing.

* related to the above, I see that quite soon, once the major players have hi-rez FF bodies available, that lens sharpness will just simply HAVE to be really good - and while maybe one might be a smidge better than the other, we may arrive at a time where ANY of the best lenses from any of the brands will most definitely be professionally sharp and quite excellent.

* The hurdle for Sony becoming a pro player is going to be related to two things (watch out, I'm going to get negative here)..

  * Minolta bodies have been historically substandard. Sorry - in 30 years of photography I've seen/heard/witnesses more problems with Minolta gear than I ever have with Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Olympus. My own brief experience with Minolta left me with a sour taste as well. I'd happily use any of the other systems out there (well, not Olympus, but that's because 4/3rd is a dying game, but their bodies outside of that are ok) but I'd absolutely NEVER use a Minolta body, no matter what name is on it. (Interestingly, when I started out in the mid 70's, it was the same thing then - most of the pro's I talked to LOVED minolta rokkor-X glass, but none of them would touch a Minolta body with a 10 foot pole if you needed reliability and gear you could count on when the going got tough.)

  * To be a pro player, one needs a FULL line of lenses, and only two players have that right now - Canon and Nikon. Sony has a ways to go to catch up.

Sony probably can get the support aspect settled - they have decently deep pockets, but I'd have to see a fully fleshed out lens line and a good 5-6 year period where their bodies are in use by pro's - not just by the twice a year landscape serious amateur, but by a large contingent of pros - before I'd consider them ready for the pro game. I personally don't see it happening, but hey, I'll absolutely eat my words if I'm proven wrong.

Enough controversy for today - back to lurk mode I go

-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I've got a couple of quibbles.  The last Minolta film cameras, the Maxxum 9 and 7 were great.  Also, Sony reps at PMA claim that the fullframe camera isn't going for a full on, pro system.  It is aimed at independent pros and high amateurs.  For a medium-format, portrait shooter like myself, their lens line-up is plenty, and that doesn't include the six other lenses high-end lenses coming soon.  Sony implicitly said at PMA that they are NOT interested in the NFL, and there are a lot of smaller pro markets that the current lens line-up can cover.
Logged
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2008, 05:45:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(snip) Also, Sony reps at PMA claim that the fullframe camera isn't going for a full on, pro system.  It is aimed at independent pros and high amateurs.  For a medium-format, portrait shooter like myself, their lens line-up is plenty, and that doesn't include the six other lenses high-end lenses coming soon.  Sony implicitly said at PMA that they are NOT interested in the NFL, and there are a lot of smaller pro markets that the current lens line-up can cover.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay, that explains some things - thanks for chiming in on this. Sony might have a very reasonable chance if they try to become the niche pro player, much like the Contax SLR system was in the mid 80's or so. Either way, more competition keeps the big boys busy in the lab, that's for sure, and that ultimately means more gear for us.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2008, 06:18:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Okay, that explains some things - thanks for chiming in on this. Sony might have a very reasonable chance if they try to become the niche pro player, much like the Contax SLR system was in the mid 80's or so. Either way, more competition keeps the big boys busy in the lab, that's for sure, and that ultimately means more gear for us.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Yeah, unless the price is lower than the expected $3000-$4000, I don't think Sony is planning on moving a ton of these fullframes.  It is their "flagship," and I would imagine they'll use it's 24.6MP "horsepower" rating to both give a budget MFDB alternative to some pros and lead new users into the system on the bottom end.  Sony will no doubt enter the full on pro market eventually, but this first cam is only an early piece of the puzzle from what I gather.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2008, 10:15:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I recently upgraded my DSLR and the Sony A700 was one of the cameras I got to try out.  Well, nice camera, actually, with a good enough feel and reasonable build quality for the money.  What shocked me though were the lenses I tried.  Both quite poor, yet one had a Zeiss badge on it  (the 16-80mm).  It is the first time I have come across a Zeiss lens which was not very sharp.  In this case, it was very, very soft in the corners.  It reminded me of the string of Minolta AF lenses I went through before I gave up on my much loved Minolta 9000 years ago.  Such a shame.

So I bought something else, also a "minor brand" and am ecstatic with it, but sadly disillusioned with Sony.  They will have to do much better if their big gun camera is going to steal sales away from the established players.

Don.
Logged

Don
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2008, 11:44:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have the 16-80 lens, too. It is soft in the corners but improves much when stopped down, at f:8 it's pretty good across the field. Some lenses may be better, tough. 5 times wide to short tele zooms are quite a challenge and few are optically really perfect.


Life is a compromise...

Erik


Quote
I recently upgraded my DSLR and the Sony A700 was one of the cameras I got to try out.  Well, nice camera, actually, with a good enough feel and reasonable build quality for the money.  What shocked me though were the lenses I tried.  Both quite poor, yet one had a Zeiss badge on it  (the 16-80mm).  It is the first time I have come across a Zeiss lens which was not very sharp.  In this case, it was very, very soft in the corners.  It reminded me of the string of Minolta AF lenses I went through before I gave up on my much loved Minolta 9000 years ago.  Such a shame.

So I bought something else, also a "minor brand" and am ecstatic with it, but sadly disillusioned with Sony.  They will have to do much better if their big gun camera is going to steal sales away from the established players.

Don.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2008, 06:37:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry but I really don't get it how people can expect so much from a 16-80 lens. It doesn't matter if it's Canon, Leica or Zeiss. They will never be as good as a 14-24 or 35-70. If you want prime lens quality the maximum factor will be around 2-3. On a 16-80 it is !5!. That can't work out.

This is also the reason why I love the Leica and Zeiss 35-70. Yes they don't have he great range like the Canon 24-105 or 24-70, but in that range they are like a prime. I would never want to go back to a crappy Canon 24-70, even if it adds some range from 24-35.
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2008, 12:52:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll tell everyone here something that needs to be remembered for those unfamiliar with the Sony system...

  The "Zeiss" 16-80mm is NOT one of the lenses referred to when one mentions the new, great Sony Zeiss lenses.  It is an aberration with a plastic build and is designed for APS-C.  The optics are still Zeiss, and it is still very good for a zoom with that kind of range, but it does not hold a candle to the fullframe Zeiss 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, and the new, amazing 24-70mm 2.8    These latter, ff Zeiss' are best in class lenses.

  I wish Sony hadn't caused confusion with the lesser 16-80mm Zeiss, because it is inevitably going to cause confusion for people who want to switch over later on down the line.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2008, 01:47:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

Actually I don't think that 85 1.4 is world class, what I have seen in MTF tests. The 135 1.8 seems to be world class. I looked at the MTF curves from the 24-70 2.8 as published by Sony and they are good but in no way perfect.

Best regards
Erik

Quote
I'll tell everyone here something that needs to be remembered for those unfamiliar with the Sony system...

  The "Zeiss" 16-80mm is NOT one of the lenses referred to when one mentions the new, great Sony Zeiss lenses.  It is an aberration with a plastic build and is designed for APS-C.  The optics are still Zeiss, and it is still very good for a zoom with that kind of range, but it does not hold a candle to the fullframe Zeiss 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, and the new, amazing 24-70mm 2.8    These latter, ff Zeiss' are best in class lenses.

  I wish Sony hadn't caused confusion with the lesser 16-80mm Zeiss, because it is inevitably going to cause confusion for people who want to switch over later on down the line.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2008, 02:12:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi!

Actually I don't think that 85 1.4 is world class, what I have seen in MTF tests. The 135 1.8 seems to be world class. I looked at the MTF curves from the 24-70 2.8 as published by Sony and they are good but in no way perfect.

Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  I disagree.  On photozone.de, the ZA 85mm 1.4 beats both the Nikon 85 and the Canon 85L.  Both popphoto and a polish mag (can't remember the name, i'll have to find the link) rate the 24-70mm as better than the Canon and Nikon.  Actually, the polish mag only rated it better than the Canon (which isn't tough. the Canon is showing it's age,) and they hadn't reviewed the Nikon yet.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 02:14:14 PM by douglasf13 » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2008, 02:42:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah,

But according to photozone.de the ZA 85 suffers from longitudal chromatic aberration. Also, don't forget that we are discussing full frame, and Photo Zone tests are done on APS-C. Unfortunately my information is mostly coming from Swedish monthly "Foto" who make their tests with MTF equipment at the Hasselblad factory. Their tests are for subscribers only.

My definition of world class is essentially:

1) As good as a fixed focal
2) No week spot
3) No significant astigmatism
4) Fully usable at all apertures

What I have against the ZA 85 is that:

It doesn't have very good MTF at full aperture (Foto)
It does suffer from significant longitudal chromatic aberration (Photozone.de)

These problems are not really bad, but I would expect that if you are paying a lot for a fixed focal you would expect excellent performace at all apertures?

Best regards
Erik




Quote
I disagree.  On photozone.de, the ZA 85mm 1.4 beats both the Nikon 85 and the Canon 85L.  Both popphoto and a polish mag (can't remember the name, i'll have to find the link) rate the 24-70mm as better than the Canon and Nikon.  Actually, the polish mag only rated it better than the Canon (which isn't tough. the Canon is showing it's age,) and they hadn't reviewed the Nikon yet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2008, 05:06:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But according to photozone.de the ZA 85 suffers from longitudal chromatic aberration. Also, don't forget that we are discussing full frame, and Photo Zone tests are done on APS-C. Unfortunately my information is mostly coming from Swedish monthly "Foto" who make their tests with MTF equipment at the Hasselblad factory. Their tests are for subscribers only.

My definition of world class is essentially:

1) As good as a fixed focal
2) No week spot
3) No significant astigmatism
4) Fully usable at all apertures

What I have against the ZA 85 is that:

It doesn't have very good MTF at full aperture (Foto)
It does suffer from significant longitudal chromatic aberration (Photozone.de)

These problems are not really bad, but I would expect that if you are paying a lot for a fixed focal you would expect excellent performace at all apertures?

Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, but the Canon and Nikon 85s suffer as well. From the photozone review:
"LoCAs (non-coinciding focal planes of the various colors), sometimes called "bokeh CAs", can be a problem in the field. Similar to the Canon 85mm f/1.2 USM L and Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 the Zeiss does also suffer from this optical defect."

And FWIW, photozone rates the Zeiss much sharper than the Nikon and Canon at F1.4

The Zeiss 24-70mm may not be up to your "world class" moniker, but it is definitely better than the competition.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2008, 06:21:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry but I really don't get it how people can expect so much from a 16-80 lens. It doesn't matter if it's Canon, Leica or Zeiss. They will never be as good as a 14-24 or 35-70. If you want prime lens quality the maximum factor will be around 2-3. On a 16-80 it is !5!. That can't work out.

This is also the reason why I love the Leica and Zeiss 35-70. Yes they don't have he great range like the Canon 24-105 or 24-70, but in that range they are like a prime. I would never want to go back to a crappy Canon 24-70, even if it adds some range from 24-35.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189905\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually the Olympus 12-60 works out near identical to the Zeiss 16-80 when you correct for the different formats.  It's also faster (but needs to be to give similar depth of field) and a similar price and it is much, much crisper across the frame.  To me, Zeiss always meant more than Olympus in that they compromised less and cost more.  I'll accept this lens is a marketing thing and that the much pricier Zeiss offerings would be in a different league.

Odd that people slag the Canon 24-70.  I took thousands of photos with one (full frame camera) and it was a stunner.  Maybe I just had a good one?  A completely different league to cheaper zooms I've had.

If you need 24mm, why settle for a 35mm lens?  They are not comparable!

Don.
Logged

Don
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad