Batis 25 along with Canon TSE 24 and Sony-Ziess 16-35

[dmward]

This morning I went out front to shoot some caparison images with the Batis 25/2, the Canon TSE 24 and the Sony-Ziess 16-35 at 24mm.

Here are full sized camera JPGs for you to evaluate.

The ability to link to the full sized images in a nice benefit, but does slow down page scrolling.

A7M2 on a tripod, shutter in Av mode, ISO 400. Camera picture style is Neutral, 12, 12 according to the EXIF data.

The first three images are at F11 which is where I expect most landscape images will be made.

TSE-24:

Batis 25:

Sony/Ziess 16-35:

and in anticipation of someone asking, here is the Batis 25 at F2

When looking at these images at 1:1 I noticed that the AF missed focus on the fountain water spout which I placed in the center of the focus bracket.
I also saw some CA between the out of focus leaves and sky at F2 that is not apparent at F11.
I expect that it can be easily dealt with in Lightroom or C1. At normal viewing size its not visible.

I tried MF for another set and missed focus. When using the magnified focus assist the yellow focus assist pixels are missing. I was using the LCD screen. Its possible that doing the MF via the EVF would work better. At F11 a minimal focus miss isn't consequential in most cases.

 

[iiiNelson]

This morning I went out front to shoot some caparison images with the Batis 25/2, the Canon TSE 24 and the Sony-Ziess 16-35 at 24mm.

Here are full sized camera JPGs for you to evaluate.

The ability to link to the full sized images in a nice benefit, but does slow down page scrolling.

A7M2 on a tripod, shutter in Av mode, ISO 400. Camera picture style is Neutral, 12, 12 according to the EXIF data.

The first three images are at F11 which is where I expect most landscape images will be made.

TSE-24:

Batis 25:

Sony/Ziess 16-35:

and in anticipation of someone asking, here is the Batis 25 at F2

When looking at these images at 1:1 I noticed that the AF missed focus on the fountain water spout which I placed in the center of the focus bracket.
I also saw some CA between the out of focus leaves and sky at F2 that is not apparent at F11.
I expect that it can be easily dealt with in Lightroom or C1. At normal viewing size its not visible.

I tried MF for another set and missed focus. When using the magnified focus assist the yellow focus assist pixels are missing. I was using the LCD screen. Its possible that doing the MF via the EVF would work better. At F11 a minimal focus miss isn't consequential in most cases.

I think it's pretty well known that focus peaking is pretty inaccurate wide open on FE bodies (consequently it's said to be amazingly accurate on the A6000 which kind of is somewhat telling as that camera has a great reputation for being accurate/quick to AF) when set to anything other than low in which case it's hit or miss. Either use it stopped down or focus zoom to confirm you're hitting what you want in focus.

 

[ggibson]

Pretty much confirms what I've seen in other comparisons between the 16-35 and Batis 25--the centers are near identical, but the Batis has a hint of advantage on the frame edges and corners. Looking at your 16-35 shots, it looked like the upper right was a bit less sharp than the upper left, and both were a bit less sharp than the lower two corners. Could be DOF, field curvature, or even motion blur though I suppose.

 

[mjm6]

Thanks for this posting... I have a handful of questions/thoughts...

Is there a link to the JPG files? I don't see anything active, and the images don't appear to click through.

It looks like the Canon lens has slightly less coverage than the 25mm Batis. That seems odd to me, as previously, the 25mm ZM lens was a little longer than 25mm and I would have expected the Canon to be 24 pretty closely.

The Canon also appears to suffer from more veiling flare. What adapter are you using with it? I think this is particularly a failing of the FE mount that the sensor cavity isn't oversized as it was previously necessary to do because of the mirror, and so a little stray light in the box has much more chance to be reflected back onto the sensor as veiling flare (I'm not talking about the specific reflections off the adapter that can be addressed through flocking material, that is not what this appears to be.) This problem is especially apparent with a lens that has a larger image circle than needed to cover the sensor, as the Canon does, for certain.

Those who have shot large format in the past are typically aware of these issues for the good old days, and the really small cavity that Sony uses for this camera system isn't helping things one bit. If they had made the mount 1/4" or so larger, there would be much, much more room to address the issues of secondary bounce veiling flare. As it is, we have to use lens hoods and flags to mitigate the flare issues.

It's not possible to pixel peep, so I can't evaluate the images for that performance at the moment...

I really appreciate the comparison. Since I have the 16-35, and have considered the Canon 24mm, it is useful to see what these all look like on the same subject, with the same treatment.


---Michael

 

[Jack]

Right click on image > open in new window, you done. Or right click > save image as (download to desktop) > open in editing program to manipulate.

 

[iiiNelson]

Is it possible to show all three at f/5.6 and/or f/8 because I believe either of those apertures will give much better performance/representation of what the lenses are capable of than f/11.

 

[rjp85]

You should try 5.6 for all lenses, IMO.

But from what I see, the 25 f/2 is clearly in a different league than the Canon, especially in the right corner.

 

[mjm6]

Of course... Thanks Jack. I'll look at them tonight on my iMac and see what things look like.

 

[dmward]

I'll try to answer all the questions.

The 24TSE because of its size and the adapter had the front element about 2 inches closer to the fountain than the Batis. That may account for the difference in angle of view.

The adapter I used with for this was the Fotodiox Pro version. I also have a Metabones IV, I should do a comparison. I'm having trouble seeing the flare being described. Could you point out a specific area?

The upper right edge tree is about 6 feet farther back than the fountain. The trees upper left corner are about 50 feet back. The bottom corners are about 4 feet closer to the camera position than the back edge of the fountain which is the focus point.

The manual focus was done with the zoom focus aid at maximum magnification. Even so I was off. The focus peaking aid only seems to work without the magnification.

I have images at each full F stop from max to minimum. I'll add the F5.6 if that what people think is the optimum for review.

 

[dmward]

Here is TSE 24 at F5.6

Batis 25 at F5.6

Sony/Ziess 16-35 at 24mm F5.6

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Actually the best aperture for the Canon 24 TSE is F9. The zoom F8 and my bet the Batis is best at 5.6 . You need to stop the zoom down and the Canon TSE it's for the corners and f9 but I have shot it at F11 as well. Effectively the Batis will have a one-two stop advantage over the TSE on the resolution side of the house. don't count DOF here.

 

[uhoh7]

I'd love to see all three in a landscape situation with distant details center, edge and a corner Which is best at infinity?

 

[turtle]

I concur re the 24 TSE and shoot mine at f8-f11 and usually somewhere in between. It also has some curvature at distance, so near, lower corners are usually sharper than distant top left and right corners.

Mine is very close to my 24-70 II, but the zoom is a touch better at 24mm. The TS-E has movements of course, which make it a very different lens! At f11 the circle is large and substantial movements can be used with great image quality at the end. I am not at all surprised that the 25mm Batis is superior in a straight shoot out, however.

The strong contrast and lack of flare with the 25mm Batis may not suit everyone. It is a very crisp, contrasty and 'ultra-real' rendering, rather like the Sony Zeiss 55 Sonnar. Both are technically incredible, but very 'direct' or 'literal' lenses typical of the modern era.

Actually the best aperture for the Canon 24 TSE is F9. The zoom F8 and my bet the Batis is best at 5.6 . You need to stop the zoom down and the Canon TSE it's for the corners and f9 but I have shot it at F11 as well. Effectively the Batis will have a one-two stop advantage over the TSE on the resolution side of the house. don't count DOF here.

 

[dmward]

Someone asked for samples at infinity focus.

Here are two camera JPGs at infinity focus.

The infinity focus point is in the center of the image on the tree trunk.

Here is another. The infinity focus point is off center right and high. The focus brackets were placed on the wall between the four windows.

The images, as processed in Lightroom are here:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55543-zeiss-batis-25-photos-post652059.html#post652059

 

[mjm6]

I'll try to answer all the questions.

The 24TSE because of its size and the adapter had the front element about 2 inches closer to the fountain than the Batis. That may account for the difference in angle of view.

The adapter I used with for this was the Fotodiox Pro version. I also have a Metabones IV, I should do a comparison. I'm having trouble seeing the flare being described. Could you point out a specific area?

The upper right edge tree is about 6 feet farther back than the fountain. The trees upper left corner are about 50 feet back. The bottom corners are about 4 feet closer to the camera position than the back edge of the fountain which is the focus point.

The manual focus was done with the zoom focus aid at maximum magnification. Even so I was off. The focus peaking aid only seems to work without the magnification.

I have images at each full F stop from max to minimum. I'll add the F5.6 if that what people think is the optimum for review.

OK, good information...

The issue with lenses like the Canon TS is that the larger image circle don't always appear to be compromising the image, but it might be doing so subtly. In this case, I wonder if the white sky that is outside the frame caused the image to appear to have considerably lower contrast in the image, especially in the areas near where the sky (that is outside the frame) is.

This is why I called it a "veiling flare" rather than simply "flare". Most people think of flare as a specific optical artifact, and it certainly is that, but it also can occur as a general reduction in the contrast of portions (or all) of the image.

When shooting with large format cameras, LF shooters often use lenses that have more coverage than the minimum needed for the size of the frame so that there is room for movement (rise, tilt, etc.). But doing so, they have to also be careful that the lenses aren't introducing a lot of excess light into the camera interior that doesn't go directly to the film or sensor, because that light will bounce around and cause a general 'fog' to be experienced by the film/sensor. This reduces contrast in the image typically.

To deal with that, I often used the darkslide from the film holder as a 'flag' (essentially a lens hood) to block light from the sky area of the image that was beyond the frame. Took some practice to not be including the darkslide in the frame, though.

Anyway, that is the one thing that the Canon TS shot appears to suffer from compared to the other two; a generally lower contrast and a 'lift' in the shadows that makes me think there was a bit of flare happening in the camera.


---Michael

 

[gazwas]

The 24 TS-E is defiantly suffering from flare as there is hardly a solid black in your first set of images at f11 I've examined and would benefit greatly from some sort of flagging or a good lens hood. My most used lens is the 24 TS-E and my hope was to use it on an A7RII but the images you've posted here have me worried as to the compatibility of that combo.

Do you have a hood/flag you could try with this lens and post some results?

Gareth

 

[dmward]

The 24 TS-E is defiantly suffering from flare as there is hardly a solid black in your first set of images at f11 I've examined and would benefit greatly from some sort of flagging or a good lens hood. My most used lens is the 24 TS-E and my hope was to use it on an A7RII but the images you've posted here have me worried as to the compatibility of that combo.

Do you have a hood/flag you could try with this lens and post some results?

Gareth

Gareth,
The lens had the hood on it that comes with the lens.
The test images were shot on an overcast day. The sun is camera left and probably a little more than 90 degrees from the lens axis. The lack of deep blacks has more to do with the dynamic range of the camera than flare from the lens. That's not to say that there may not be some internal flare caused by the adapter.

I did a set of images testing the two adapters I have, Fotodiox as used here as well as Metabones IV.

I'll look at those images and put some samples in a thread. Probably won't happen till Sunday.

David

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Impressed by the Batis, but I own the 16-35mm Zeiss and I'm not sure the relatively small difference I can see is material (and its a zoom of course).

 

[gazwas]

Hi David, thanks for the reply.

The lens had the hood on it that comes with the lens.

The one that comes with the lens is next to useless and I always flag or use a LEE WA lens hood which does an excellent job.

The test images were shot on an overcast day. The sun is camera left and probably a little more than 90 degrees from the lens axis.

A bright but overcast sky is often enough to get flare - many of the the digital Rodenstock technical camera lenses do a similar thing on overcast days without a hood.

The lack of deep blacks has more to do with the dynamic range of the camera than flare from the lens. That's not to say that there may not be some internal flare caused by the adapter.

i did initially think that but looking at the native lenses the colours and especially black are much punchier and if it was down to very wide DR wouldn't the Zeiss glass would be similar?

I did a set of images testing the two adapters I have, Fotodiox as used here as well as Metabones IV.

I'll look at those images and put some samples in a thread. Probably won't happen till Sunday.

That would be great to see thanks.

Gareth

 

[NoBob]

Hi David,

Did you get a chance to test the Fotodiox and Metabones IV for reflections/flare?

Thanks.

Gareth,
The lens had the hood on it that comes with the lens.
The test images were shot on an overcast day. The sun is camera left and probably a little more than 90 degrees from the lens axis. The lack of deep blacks has more to do with the dynamic range of the camera than flare from the lens. That's not to say that there may not be some internal flare caused by the adapter.

I did a set of images testing the two adapters I have, Fotodiox as used here as well as Metabones IV.

I'll look at those images and put some samples in a thread. Probably won't happen till Sunday.

David