Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony A900 Announced  (Read 34288 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2008, 03:37:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I did not do any systematic testing but I'm quite confident that IS works well with my 400 mm lens, even if I use 1.4x extender.

Best regards
Erik



Quote
Olaf,
Have you actually compared shots with and without stabilisation at these focal lengths? 3 stops latitude seems impressive. My longest focal length is 400mm which becomes effectively 640mm on my 40D. For a really sharp image I use a shutter speed based on the 1/FL rule x2, ie. 1/2FL or 1/1200th with a 600mm lens without IS. The IS on the 100-400 provides a latitude of about 2 stops, which brings a 1/1200th shutter speed down to 1/320th.

If the A900 could provide 4 stops of IS with my Sigma 400/5.6 (Minolta-fit) I would be very pleased. That would translate to 1/80th exposure and might help compensate for the disappointing noise of the A900 at high ISO, at least with a stationary subject    .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Let Biogons be Biogons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 11, 2008, 04:11:49 PM »
ReplyReply

A Sony executive is on record saying the Sony designed the Zeiss lenses.  Sony also is in total control of the manufacture, marketing and sale of the lenses -- contrary to Zeiss' previous arrangements with camera makers.

I would no go so far as to agree with the suggestion that Sony is just using the Zeiss name.  But I do believe, from all evidence to date, that Zeiss' role with the ZA lenses is more as a collaborator, or as a consultant, who has some sign-off authority on the final design.  But make no mistake, Sony is in total control of this show from start to finish.  Sony's name is even large on these lenses than Zeiss' -- and when have you EVER seen anyone else's name on a Zeiss lens but Zeiss'?



Quote
Two things:

  Firstly, Zeiss ZA lenses are very much Zeiss.  They are designed and tested by Zeiss, and are built in a Japanese factory with Zeiss QC.  Zeiss ZF are also built in Japan, as well as many Contax Zeiss lenses.  Comparing ZA lenses with camera phones are camcorder lenses has been an en vogue talking point lately, but it's ridiculous. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #62 on: September 11, 2008, 04:22:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A Sony executive is on record saying the Sony designed the Zeiss lenses.  Sony also is in total control of the manufacture, marketing and sale of the lenses -- contrary to Zeiss' previous arrangements with camera makers.

I would no go so far as to agree with the suggestion that Sony is just using the Zeiss name.  But I do believe, from all evidence to date, that Zeiss' role with the ZA lenses is more as a collaborator, or as a consultant, who has some sign-off authority on the final design.  But make no mistake, Sony is in total control of this show from start to finish.  Sony's name is even large on these lenses than Zeiss' -- and when have you EVER seen anyone else's name on a Zeiss lens but Zeiss'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Well, I just got that from the Zeiss website.  I'm sure Sony has a heavy hand in the development and manufacturing process, especially considering these lenses are AF (some are SSM,) but I don't doubt that these lenses are optically Zeiss all the way.
Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #63 on: September 11, 2008, 04:42:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually the Alpha 700 is very much comparable with the equivalent Canon from a year ago, when used in raw.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you tried the Sony A700 with firmware v4?  

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

Posts: 8878


« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2008, 07:24:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, I think it silly for that site to test those two bodies by shooting jpg...far better to shoot raw and compare the two images BEFORE any post processing is done.  I really don't understand these sites that analyze noise via jpgs!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The issue of high-ISO noise is of great interest to many of us. The fact that both cameras have an NR ON/OFF mode invites such a comparison. Even if it proves to be the case later that the A900 RAW images are closer in noise levels to the 1Ds3 (or even surpass it), it is still useful to know that in-camera jpegs are unusually noisy (comparatively speaking) and one might speculate as to why this might be the case.

We all know that assessing sharpness of images from in-camera jpegs at low ISO can be misleading due to different default sharpening levels. I'm reminded of all the hype surrounding the Olympus E3 and claims that it produced definitely sharper images than the 40D and even sharper images than the 5D. When dpreview later did their full review of the E3, we discovered that E3 RAW images were actually less sharp than 40D images, using the same converter.

Noise at high ISO is in a different category since any NR applied tends to reduce resolution to some degree and its application is more obvious. In the Imaging Resource comparison, the 1Ds3 images are not only cleaner but have more detail in both sets of comparisons with NR on and NR off, above ISO 800.

However, I agree these are early days and we shouldn't draw any definitive conclusions. You'll find that the first review of the Nikon D3 on this site, by James Russell, was a field test using jpegs, although James made it clear he doesn't normally shoot in jpeg mode. Subsequent claims that the D3 had up to 2 stops of high-ISO noise advantage over any other DSLR on the market appear to have been based on jpeg comparisons. D3 RAW images are only about 1/2 a stop cleaner than Canon 5D images, even when underexposing the 5D images at ISO 3200 to simulate an ISO 6400 or 12,800.

This issue is of particular interest to me because I have a bunch of Minolta A-mount lenses sitting on my shelf unused. From Photodo MTF tests I see that the Sigma 400/5.6 (one of the unused lenses on my shelf) is at least as sharp as the Canon 100-400 IS at 400mm. In fact the Sigma is about as sharp at full aperture as the 100-400 at F8.

When I last went on a photographic trip I used two cameras, the 40D with 100-400 for photographing small birds, and the 5D for wider angle shots. I sometimes carried both around my neck. A camera like the A900 would serve both purposes. An image cropped out of camera, from the 400mm lens and A900, should have approximately equal detail to the 40D with 400mm lens.

I certainly hope these comparisons from IR are not indicative of what's achievable with RAW images from a production A900, because, whether or not I buy this camera will depend upon it.
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2008, 07:25:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you tried the Sony A700 with firmware v4?  

-- Olaf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are right, I am comparing the firmware v4 images.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 11, 2008, 08:49:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Noise at high ISO is in a different category since any NR applied tends to reduce resolution to some degree and its application is more obvious. In the Imaging Resource comparison, the 1Ds3 images are not only cleaner but have more detail in both sets of comparisons with NR on and NR off, above ISO 800.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

See posts #31 and #44.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2008, 09:52:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
See posts #31 and #44.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let's be clear. I would never buy a camera before the full verdict is out. There's a possibility that the A900 will equal or even surpass the low noise levels of the 1Ds3 at high ISO. I want this to happen. But I'm not much into wishful thinking.

I'm not a betting man and I don't buy lottery tickets, but if I were asked to bet on this issue, the odds would be in favour of the 1Ds3.
Logged
hardloaf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 11, 2008, 11:38:04 PM »
ReplyReply

There is some misunderstanding around RPP - version 3.7.7 available from regular location http://raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Downloads.html DOESN'T support A900, even though it does open ARW files from it.

Special beta version,
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/RPP_Uni_788Beta.zip
DOES support A900 at full. Colors are ok for now, but they'll be better with some future official release (to make it right we need production camera).

Discussion about questionable importance of processing speed in photo development we'll leave for another time.

Quote
I have had a bit of a tinker around and whilst the results are not real good out of RPP, what I can see is there is a great deal of fine detail that the Sony RAW processor does not pull out. I'm convinced that a good RAW processor will be able to produce results that are right up there with, if not beyond, the 1DsM3.

I can't comment on noise yet but judging by the Imaging Resource results the noise is much the same as the 5D up to 800ASA, which is pretty good. Past that I'm not really interested - no camera is perfect.

Used as a tripod camera for max print quality this camera is awesome and the lenses are stunning.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2008, 01:22:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Let's be clear. I would never buy a camera before the full verdict is out. There's a possibility that the A900 will equal or even surpass the low noise levels of the 1Ds3 at high ISO. I want this to happen. But I'm not much into wishful thinking.

I'm not a betting man and I don't buy lottery tickets, but if I were asked to bet on this issue, the odds would be in favour of the 1Ds3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are obsessing about one aspect of image quality.  It is clear that the A900 has more resolution than the 1Ds MkIII and its ISO performance is very good in general and probably much better than MFDBs which is the primary competition for these class of DSLRs.  Even if the 1Ds MkIII is marginally better at high ISO, the price difference is over double, so you would expect it to be better in some ways that justify that cost differential.  If you can afford to spend $3800 more for a 1Ds MkIII because it has maybe a half stop better ISO performance above ISO 1600, then get it; personally I would never shoot either of them above ISO 400.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2008, 01:59:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are obsessing about one aspect of image quality. It is clear that the A900 has more resolution than the 1Ds MkIII and its ISO performance is very good in general and probably much better than MFDBs which is the primary competition for these class of DSLRs. Even if the 1Ds MkIII is marginally better at high ISO, the price difference is over double, so you would expect it to be better in some ways that justify that cost differential. If you can afford to spend $3800 more for a 1Ds MkIII because it has maybe a half stop better ISO performance above ISO 1600, then get it; personally I would never shoot either of them above ISO 400.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No obsession at all. I have purely practical concerns. I would have bought the 1Ds3 if it had been no heavier than the 5D. If you'd read my posts on this forum you would see that weight issues are a concern. I travel a lot to exotic locations.

The weight of the A900 is right. The pixel count is attractive. Most of the features are impressive. But a lack of Live View in conjunction with a lack of exceptionally low noise at high ISO would be deal-killers for me.

On my last trip to North Queensland, I found myself trying to shoot Azure Kingfishers on the banks of the Daintree with 400mm lens at 1/80th to 1/125th sec exposure and ISO 1600 (with the 40D). The results were not sharp as you can imagine.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 02:09:35 AM by Ray » Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2008, 05:58:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Well I use my 1DsMk3 at ISO 800 and 1600 very often. I would say 40%. I love it. The files are nice and a little grainy. I really don't like this pure flat digital look of ISO 100 or 200. If I have time and a tripod I can use my MFDB.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2008, 06:11:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well I use my 1DsMk3 at ISO 800 and 1600 very often. I would say 40%. I love it. The files are nice and a little grainy. I really don't like this pure flat digital look of ISO 100 or 200. If I have time and a tripod I can use my MFDB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The two most critical factors for a sharp image (camera hand-held) are shutter speed and accurate focussing. At small apertures, accurate focussing takes second place and shutter speed becomes paramount.

Any increase in high ISO performance effectively upgrades all one's lenses.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 06:13:05 AM by Ray » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7903



WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2008, 08:07:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On my last trip to North Queensland, I found myself trying to shoot Azure Kingfishers on the banks of the Daintree with 400mm lens at 1/80th to 1/125th sec exposure and ISO 1600 (with the 40D). The results were not sharp as you can imagine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, we all have such stories, but what % does that represent?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2008, 08:44:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sure, we all have such stories, but what % does that represent?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
More than you imply. We all fuss about lens sharpness. I'm careful with my money. I'd like to blow $10,000 on a really good lens, but I can't justify it.

What I find is that very often an insufficiently fast shutter speed is a more common cause of 'unsharpness' than an insufficiently sharp lens.

With my first DSLR, the Canon D60, I very rarely went above ISO 400. With the 20D and 5D, ISO 1600 is very usable, but not perfectly usable. There is a slight resolution penalty as well as a reduction in DR.

If you look at some of the crocodile shots in the 'Show your 35mm images' thread, you'll see that they are sometimes not 'tack sharp', yet I used shutter speeds ranging from 1/500th to 1/000th with a D60 at ISO 400. If I could repeat that experience with a modern camera.....
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 09:10:16 AM by Ray » Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #75 on: September 15, 2008, 12:12:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A Sony executive is on record saying the Sony designed the Zeiss lenses.  Sony also is in total control of the manufacture, marketing and sale of the lenses -- contrary to Zeiss' previous arrangements with camera makers.

I would no go so far as to agree with the suggestion that Sony is just using the Zeiss name.  But I do believe, from all evidence to date, that Zeiss' role with the ZA lenses is more as a collaborator, or as a consultant, who has some sign-off authority on the final design.  But make no mistake, Sony is in total control of this show from start to finish.  Sony's name is even large on these lenses than Zeiss' -- and when have you EVER seen anyone else's name on a Zeiss lens but Zeiss'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The following is what the Zeiss website says about the ZA lenses:
-------------------
ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss. Quality assurance specialists from the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen implement the ZEISS quality assurance system in the chosen facility. Many ZEISS optic measuring systems are installed. Carl Zeiss audits the lens production areas on a regular basis.
-------------------

Note that a Zeiss "Sonnar" or "Planar" or "Vario-Sonnar" or "Tessar" etc. are VERY specific  designs with some VERY specific criteria that are completely different between the different designs.  It is not just merely slapping a 'label' on them.

Also note that even in the Sony/Zeiss dSLR lens range, there are 2 categories:  The professional-grade Full-Frame lenses and an APS-C-only DT lens.  These are 2 completely different animals.

The Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar ZA, is a HUGE and heavy beast with full metal body and even the hood is completely metal.  The quality from this "Sonnar" design is also mind-blowing and in the "Excellent" range, corner-to-corner, right from wide-open.  You simply cannot get better than that.

The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar ZA is also full metal body, including the hood.  Extremely high quality professional-grade lens with the same "Excellent" quality from wide-open.

The Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar is another from their high-end Pro-grade range of lenses.  Ultra-high quality that beats down the new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 in sheer resolution, when tested on APS-C.  Since this is a 2008 design, specifically optimized for FF sensors, I would opine that the quality on FF would also be exemplary.

The newly announced Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar would also be expected to be of the same ultra-high-end quality as the above mentioned 24-70 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar.

Now comes the APS-C-only "Zeiss" lens, the 16-80 f/3.5-4.5, which is a whole different level from any of the above mentioned Pro-grade Zeiss lenses.  This particular one is pretty iffy from a build quality-perspective, with a plastic casing and is clearly intended as a high-end kit lens for APS-C products.  The optical performance is however, pretty good, albeit at a different level from the all-out-pro-grade Zeiss lenses in the range.

Note that every single one of the professional-grade Sony/Zeiss lenses, have a unique ZEISS serial#, *in addition to* the unique Sony serial number on the lens.  

I think the fact that the lenses are designed in Germany with all the design criteria surrounding it, and testing methods, and made using the Zeiss-exclusive Schott glass (only pro-grade ones) is a good thing.  

The fact that these German designed lenses are actually assembled in Japan, is even better, since there are none better than the Japanese, when it comes to precision assembly methods and are arguably even better than an equivalent assembly work done in Germany (my opinion).

German design, Japanese assembly - best of both worlds !  
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #76 on: September 15, 2008, 03:25:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Some of the samples published on DPreview are not very impressive regarding corner and edge sharpness on the 24-70/2.8. I have also seen a sample coming from a preproduction sample of 16/35 that were really mush. I'm somewhat sceptical about Zeiss doing any lenses that are magically better then top lenses from other vendors.

I hope that Sony will have a line of lenses that can mach the resolution of the Alpha 900 but we need to wait and see what kind of image quality and consistency their lenses will have.

Sony seems to have a three prong strategi:

1) Tamron lenses in Sony guise
2) The G-lenses which seems to be based on Minolta designs. Who is building them?
3) The ZA lenses with some kind of involvement from Zeiss.


What I have seen in tests this far:

On APS-C (Photozone.de)

16-80/3.5-4.5 Probably belongs to top of it's class, but not as good as Nikon's corresponding lens.

85/1.4, Good but no way perfect, mush when fully open

135/1.8, close to perfect

24-70/2.8 is excellent on APS-C. Both tested samples have significant centering problems.

Swedish Foto monthly, tests MTF at Hasselblad factory:

16-80/3.5-4.5, good but way below expectations, not as good as Sigma 18-50/2.8.
85/1.4 Not top class
135/1.8 Top class

24-75 not tested

Erik
Quote
The following is what the Zeiss website says about the ZA lenses:
-------------------
ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss. Quality assurance specialists from the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen implement the ZEISS quality assurance system in the chosen facility. Many ZEISS optic measuring systems are installed. Carl Zeiss audits the lens production areas on a regular basis.
-------------------

Note that a Zeiss "Sonnar" or "Planar" or "Vario-Sonnar" or "Tessar" etc. are VERY specific  designs with some VERY specific criteria that are completely different between the different designs.  It is not just merely slapping a 'label' on them.

Also note that even in the Sony/Zeiss dSLR lens range, there are 2 categories:  The professional-grade Full-Frame lenses and an APS-C-only DT lens.  These are 2 completely different animals.

The Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar ZA, is a HUGE and heavy beast with full metal body and even the hood is completely metal.  The quality from this "Sonnar" design is also mind-blowing and in the "Excellent" range, corner-to-corner, right from wide-open.  You simply cannot get better than that.

The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar ZA is also full metal body, including the hood.  Extremely high quality professional-grade lens with the same "Excellent" quality from wide-open.

The Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar is another from their high-end Pro-grade range of lenses.  Ultra-high quality that beats down the new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 in sheer resolution, when tested on APS-C.  Since this is a 2008 design, specifically optimized for FF sensors, I would opine that the quality on FF would also be exemplary.

The newly announced Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar would also be expected to be of the same ultra-high-end quality as the above mentioned 24-70 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar.

Now comes the APS-C-only "Zeiss" lens, the 16-80 f/3.5-4.5, which is a whole different level from any of the above mentioned Pro-grade Zeiss lenses.  This particular one is pretty iffy from a build quality-perspective, with a plastic casing and is clearly intended as a high-end kit lens for APS-C products.  The optical performance is however, pretty good, albeit at a different level from the all-out-pro-grade Zeiss lenses in the range.

Note that every single one of the professional-grade Sony/Zeiss lenses, have a unique ZEISS serial#, *in addition to* the unique Sony serial number on the lens.   

I think the fact that the lenses are designed in Germany with all the design criteria surrounding it, and testing methods, and made using the Zeiss-exclusive Schott glass (only pro-grade ones) is a good thing. 

The fact that these German designed lenses are actually assembled in Japan, is even better, since there are none better than the Japanese, when it comes to precision assembly methods and are arguably even better than an equivalent assembly work done in Germany (my opinion).

German design, Japanese assembly - best of both worlds ! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #77 on: September 15, 2008, 05:32:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sony seems to have a three prong strategi:

1) Tamron lenses in Sony guise
2) The G-lenses which seems to be based on Minolta designs. Who is building them?
3) The ZA lenses with some kind of involvement from Zeiss.
What I have seen in tests this far:

True.  The difference is that the Tamron lenses are exclusively localized to the APS-C space.  Almost like Sony does not want to spend any more resources than absolutely necessary, when it comes to non-Full-frame lenses.

Quote
On APS-C (Photozone.de)

16-80/3.5-4.5 Probably belongs to top of it's class, but not as good as Nikon's corresponding lens.

Clearly the 16-80 is an imperfect jewel.  Piss-poor build but decent optics.  

Quote
85/1.4, Good but no way perfect, mush when fully open

I got to call the above as total hyperbole  :-).  Both the Center and the Borders, WIDE OPEN (f/1.4) are in the "Excellent" range and improves a bit, when stopped down.  No other 85mm f/1.4 from ANY manufacturer or the Canon 85mm f/1.2, matches, this EVEN corner-to-corner resolution.

Check the below out since that is what you seem to be referencing (incorrectly):

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-l...a_85_14?start=1

Quoting from Klaus's conclusion of the "highly recommended" review of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar:
----------------------
The Zeiss ZA Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 is a great lens but we expected no less than that anyway, didn't we ? :-) It is already able to produce exceptionally sharp and contrasty results straight from f/1.4. The excellent performance peak is reached around f/4. The center to border quality is very even (although that's a lesser issue regarding the typical applications of such a lens). The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is buttery and about as good as it gets. Distortions, vignetting and lateral CAs are non-issues in field conditions. Nonetheless there's also bug - longitudinal CAs, sometimes also called "Bokeh CAs", are very pronounced at large aperture settings but that's a fate the Zeiss shares with fellow lenses such as the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L and Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D. Thanks to an all-metal body the lens feels very solid. If you're nit-picky you may criticize the focus ring which shows a little play when changing the focus direction. The AF speed is fine although nothing to rave about. At around 1200EUR/US$ the Zeiss ZA 85mm f/1.4 isn't cheap but definitely worth a deep thought regarding its optical qualities.
----------------------

Quote
135/1.8, close to perfect

Agree.  Just like the 85mm f/1.4, Klaus in Photozone, was literally gushing about the 135 f/1.8 Sonnar and went out of his way to "highly recommend" both of these Zeiss primes in the Sony range.

Quote
24-70/2.8 is excellent on APS-C. Both tested samples have significant centering problems.

Centering problems appear in every lens manufactured.  But look at the sheer quality and resolution (even WIDE-OPEN).  He seems to point out issues with the bokeh at 70mm under some exceptional lighting conditions:

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-l...2470_28?start=1

SLRgear.com also have been gushing about the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 (just like popphoto), while being less than impressed (to put it mildly) about the consumer-grade 16-80.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...duct/973/cat/83
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 05:50:02 PM by aaykay » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 15, 2008, 06:45:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I see your point. Problem is that Photozone tests are done with APS-C sensors, and most aberrations grow exponentially close to the corners. I did not check the Photozone test before responding, I read it a long time ago. Klaus had objections about the LOCA aberration but I think that in hindsight it can be said that almost all if not all large aperture lenses he tested share this problem.

I have seen a very detailed test in "Foto", it's the same equipment and methods they use that were used in the original "Photodo" tests. Their MTF figures go from center to edge on FF. In their test MTF is definitively quite low at full aperture on 85/1.4. Their tests can be downloaded but they are subscriber only.

The reasoning I object to is the assumption that Zeiss optics on 24.5 MPixels will match the resolution of the 24.5 MPixel sensor. I don't necesserily believe in that until it's proven by independent tests.

At least one the pictures on the DPReview sample page is less then impressive. It's the picture of the Tower bridge, taken with the 24-70/2.8 at f/8.0. I hoped that it would be sharp corner to corner but it is obviously not.

Best regards
Erik



Quote
True.  The difference is that the Tamron lenses are exclusively localized to the APS-C space.  Almost like Sony does not want to spend any more resources than absolutely necessary, when it comes to non-Full-frame lenses.
Clearly the 16-80 is an imperfect jewel.  Piss-poor build but decent optics. 
I got to call the above as total hyperbole  :-).  Both the Center and the Borders, WIDE OPEN (f/1.4) are in the "Excellent" range and improves a bit, when stopped down.  No other 85mm f/1.4 from ANY manufacturer or the Canon 85mm f/1.2, matches, this EVEN corner-to-corner resolution.

Check the below out since that is what you seem to be referencing (incorrectly):

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-l...a_85_14?start=1

Quoting from Klaus's conclusion of the "highly recommended" review of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar:
----------------------
The Zeiss ZA Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 is a great lens but we expected no less than that anyway, didn't we ? :-) It is already able to produce exceptionally sharp and contrasty results straight from f/1.4. The excellent performance peak is reached around f/4. The center to border quality is very even (although that's a lesser issue regarding the typical applications of such a lens). The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is buttery and about as good as it gets. Distortions, vignetting and lateral CAs are non-issues in field conditions. Nonetheless there's also bug - longitudinal CAs, sometimes also called "Bokeh CAs", are very pronounced at large aperture settings but that's a fate the Zeiss shares with fellow lenses such as the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L and Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D. Thanks to an all-metal body the lens feels very solid. If you're nit-picky you may criticize the focus ring which shows a little play when changing the focus direction. The AF speed is fine although nothing to rave about. At around 1200EUR/US$ the Zeiss ZA 85mm f/1.4 isn't cheap but definitely worth a deep thought regarding its optical qualities.
----------------------
Agree.  Just like the 85mm f/1.4, Klaus in Photozone, was literally gushing about the 135 f/1.8 Sonnar and went out of his way to "highly recommend" both of these Zeiss primes in the Sony range.
Centering problems appear in every lens manufactured.  But look at the sheer quality and resolution (even WIDE-OPEN).  He seems to point out issues with the bokeh at 70mm under some exceptional lighting conditions:

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-l...2470_28?start=1

SLRgear.com also have been gushing about the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 (just like popphoto), while being less than impressed (to put it mildly) about the consumer-grade 16-80.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...duct/973/cat/83
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2008, 08:43:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,

I see your point. Problem is that Photozone tests are done with APS-C sensors, and most aberrations grow exponentially close to the corners.

Absolutely true.  Exceptional results on 1.5x APS-C is no guarantee for high-performance on FF.  In fact dpreview has 2 different results for APS-C and FF, for every lens they test but Photozone only tests with APS-C sensors.  

Quote
The reasoning I object to is the assumption that Zeiss optics on 24.5 MPixels will match the resolution of the 24.5 MPixel sensor. I don't necesserily believe in that until it's proven by independent tests.

Now that the Sony FF is here, all of these lenses will be put to the test, under the unblinking glare of a high pixel density FF sensor.  We will see how the tire measures up, when the tread hits the road.    Since all of these lenses are designed/developed in the digital age (as opposed to film-era designs), I doubt any of these will have any problems in out-resolving the requirements of these sensors, either at these or even higher resolutions.  We will see.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad