The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony lenses on Roger's optical bench...compared.

vjbelle

Well-known member
So the QC certificate with some guy's signature does not mean much? :bugeyes:
The lens is the only thing that means anything to me..... maybe that certificate has some significance for you...... just a piece of paper to me.

Victor
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I suggest anyone who cares about Sony read that blog several times word for word. It's a bombshell if you really care about quality.

Not just Sony, but you see Zeiss, Sigma, Canon, Nikon variations from a large sample of copies. Hopefully we will see some figures for M as well.

Also the F/4 and 5.6 and f/8 numbers will come eventually.
It sure is a bombshell...... I have complained about lens quality for years only to fall on ears that thought I was just being too critical....skewed images, soft corners, sides out, a mid section soft, and from lenses that weren't $399.99 but more like $3999.99 and way beyond. The whole thing just pisses me off....:thumbdown: I'm convinced that many of the lens purchasers are either blind, don't know or don't care.

Victor
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The lens is the only thing that means anything to me..... maybe that certificate has some significance for you...... just a piece of paper to me.

Victor
I thought I could cash that in when the lens is not what it was claimed to be? :p
 

dandrewk

New member
Yes every lens has copy variations. How much they vary, that is the question. Roger, who I cannot thank enough for all the time he puts into this, now has the numbers to show which are the worst offenders:

"The FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA lenses are all over the place. It actually is a bit worse than the graphs look because a lot of the variance is WITHIN a copy, not just copy-to-copy. None of the 10 copies we tested had even corners. And I'll editorialize and say that none of the dozens we've tested on Imatest had even corners either. If you use this lens for centered objects, you'll be happy. If you want 4 sharp corners, it's not likely to happen unless your standards for equal sharpness are pretty low."
Roger.

So testing "in your usual shooting method" is not going to cut it really for some of us, who like Steve Huff, are all about the central subject, and don't really look hard at the edges much. But given the choice I imagine Steve would like the best copy too. :)

I suggest anyone who cares about Sony read that blog several times word for word. It's a bombshell if you really care about quality.

Not just Sony, but you see Zeiss, Sigma, Canon, Nikon variations from a large sample of copies. Hopefully we will see some figures for M as well.

Also the F/4 and 5.6 and f/8 numbers will come eventually.
That's it exactly. We read these blogs and scratch our heads and get worried. The issue of QC is and always has been an issue with lens manufacturers.

So we find out that Sony has QC problems. Is this surprising? No. Is it important? That's for the buyer to decide. Obviously, for the amount of money we spend, we want perfection. What defines "perfection" is an individual choice.

If the question is: Is Sony worse than others? As I posted, we don't know, and everything else is 100% conjecture. This isn't an automobile where user experiences are actively tabulated and published. If anyone is concerned that Sony is worse than others, I invite you to scan threads from Canon, Nikon etc. forums. From doing so myself, Turtle's "it looks like a duck" classic case is pretty universal.

It's really simple. Research lens. Buy lens. If you like the images in produces, you are golden. Everything else doesn't matter.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I thought I could cash that in when the lens is not what it was claimed to be? :p
Well..... not and keep the lens but for sure you can get your money back from either B&H or Amazon in the first 30 days.... just a real bummer considering how much money all of this stuff is. I have numerous posts regarding dismal lens quality and its like they hold us hostage.... where do we go? Its all hype and no show!!:thumbdown:

Victor
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
If the question is: Is Sony worse than others? As I posted, we don't know, and everything else is 100% conjecture. This isn't an automobile where user experiences are actively tabulated and published. If anyone is concerned that Sony is worse than others, I invite you to scan threads from Canon, Nikon etc. forums. From doing so myself, Turtle's "it looks like a duck" classic case is pretty universal.

It's really simple. Research lens. Buy lens. If you like the images in produces, you are golden. Everything else doesn't matter.
You are right...... there are no tabulated cases and never will be.... nobody gets killed from a lens unless its dropped from 50 feet onto their head:grin:. But this gets down to the crux of how lens manufacturer's think and its all about spewing this junk out until someone/everyone starts to rebel. If this was just an anomaly from cheap lenses it would be one thing but it isn't. They want the big bucks but deliver junk.....

Victor
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Re: Sony lenses on Roger's optical bench... some comments

Hi,

Lens rentals findings stirred up emotions a bit.

I feel it may be a good time to spread some oil on the waves or feed some oil in the flames…

Let's look at the 90/2.8 G which I do own. Lens rentals have tested it using Imatest and reported very good MTF 50 values. Also, DxO-mark has tested and it is the highest ranked lens regarding sharpness in their tests.

The 90/2.8G was a cornerstone in my buying into the Sony A7rII. What I wanted was essentially:

  • A very sharp macro lens
  • A short telephoto with reasonably large aperture performing very well at full aperture
  • A short telephoto lens having very little axial chromatic aberration at full aperture
  • A maximum aperture of f/2 seemed ideal to me
  • I really wanted around 70-90 mm, 135 mm is too long for me

Candidates were:
  • The Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 is great for sure but a bit to expensive, and I don't need f/1.4
  • The Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 would be great, but it has extensive axial chroma at large apertures
  • The Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135/2 would be perfect, except I don't really like 135 mm
  • An 85/2.0 APO would be ideal…
  • Zeiss presented that Batis 85/1.8 a great lens for me? I put an order on it.
  • Sony released the 90/2.8G macro and Lens Rentals published some very good data on it and so did DxO-mark

Now, the Batis seemed to be on a very long delivery schedule and Sony macro started looking more and more attractive. DxO data looked really good on the Sony. DxO doesn't report axial chroma, but lateral chroma was really good, indicating liberal amount of SD/AD glass. On the other hand, Guy Mancuso published a set of quite impressive images from the Batis.

Anyway, I finally decided to go with the Sony 90/2.8G. Ideally, I would have ordered five copies of all my candidates, did some extensive testing and picked the best one. But:
  • I cannot afford to buy 20-30 lenses.
  • I don't have the time to tests 20-30 lenses
  • I don't have the competence to test 20-30 lenses

So, I ended up buying the Sony 90/2.8G Macro. Honestly, I feel it performs very well. Would a Canon 100/2.8 LII macro be better? According to LensRentals data it would be definitively better at full aperture. Stopped down a stop? Who knows. Many lenses improve a lot on stopping down very little. To me it seems that the 90/2.8 may be quite OK.

But, it may also be that a Canon 100/2.8 LII macro may be even better. I know that the Zeiss 100/2 macro offers very good MTF 50 at full apertures, but I also know it suffers from a lot of axial chroma at reasonable apertures.

So, what I see is that the lens I bought works. Some other lenses may work even better.

Let's roll back to the A7r. Diglloyd has found that lack of EFCS (Electronic First Shutter Curtain) made it perform below pair at say 1/15 - 1/125s. But it still performed as a good 24MP camera. The loss of resolution caused by not using EFCS was not really observable, but clearly seen on MTF data. Now Sony has fixed the shutter vibration caused issues. Everyone is happy.

What I get from this? The Sony 90/2.8G macro works for me. Would it be smarter to buy the Canon 100/2.8LII macro? Maybe! Would I bee happier with Zeiss 100/2 macro? Probably not with the amount of axial chroma it has. Would the Batis 85/1.8 better? May be, may be not!

Would the Otus 85/1.4 be the ultimate solution? Possibly but weight and costs also matter…

Best regards
Erik
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Erik, very wise words! Especially like your what you wrote about axial CA in the Zeiss, there's more to a good lens then sharpness alone. In the end the whole purchase decision is probably is a subjective choice and cannot be made on scientific measures alone.

For me Roger's tests is just one more datapoint to consider. It's not the final answer but still one of the many inputs before buying a lens.
How much weight you put on this one vs. the many others you can find on the net is up to the purchaser.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Re: Sony lenses on Roger's optical bench... some comments

Let's roll back to the A7r. Diglloyd has found that lack of EFCS (Electronic First Shutter Curtain) made it perform below pair at say 1/15 - 1/125s. But it still performed as a good 24MP camera. The loss of resolution caused by not using EFCS was not really observable, but clearly seen on MTF data. Now Sony has fixed the shutter vibration caused issues. Everyone is happy.
That sounds like a bunch of Zheiss certificates. :LOL:

A 36mp camera performed as a good 24mp camera? For whom?

Plastic mount got changed by Sony in the A7r? Loss due to vibration was not observable? Sony fixed the shutter vibration?

Everyone is happy? :loco:

[Not if you have paid 2400 Euros.]

I am not buying any new Sony camera. Everything becomes available for ~50% in a few short months. Thanks to the A7r.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Re: Sony lenses on Roger's optical bench... some comments

Would the Otus 85/1.4 be the ultimate solution? Possibly but weight and costs also matter…

Best regards
Erik
Before forking out the big bucks for that lens make sure you purchase it from someone who will take it back - no questions asked!! I owned one for one hour - just long enough to test it. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. A complete quadrant was out of alignment - really out of alignment! It wouldn't sharpen out until f6.3.:shocked: I was/still am flabbergasted and extremely disappointed in Zeiss QC. I sent it back. I hate buying lenses!!

Victor
 

Zlatko Batistich

New member
Re: Sony lenses on Roger's optical bench... some comments

Also, DxO-mark has tested and it is the highest ranked lens regarding sharpness in their tests.
... as you noted above, all of the top rated lenses are tested on Nkon D8x0 and Sony A7r 36mp sensors, while they've tested Canon lenses on nothing more than 22mp sensors. If and when (?) they ever test a lens on a 50mp Canon sensor, the list of highest ranked may well get re-shuffled quite a bit, and a number of Sony lenses may drop out of the oft-mentioned top ten ranking. In the meantime, DxO is likely giving Sony/Zeiss/Nikon/Sigma lenses a nice (if not entirely earned) sales boost with so many people, even some respected photography blogs, quoting their "highest ranked" as if it were something reliable.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I sold my Sony 35 1.4 yesterday. I tested it again and that left side of mine just bugged me . Mine is actually pretty good to but I sent the buyer my tests so he knows exactly what he is getting. I'm waiting for a Batis 35 F2 but in the meantime I need something so I bout a new Tamron 35 1.8 canon mount a metabones and I snuck in a Canon 135 f2 used in there.

Both focal lengths I'm waiting to see what Sony does but I need to work too so I need something to get me through the night.

I'll post my test on this Tammy it's rated very good. Who knows I may wind up buying the 35 Sony again but I'm going to test the heck out of it.

Honestly for 1700 it was bugging me even though shooting might mean nothing.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Btw buying the old screw drive Sony 135 1.8 with the adapter was not in the cards with that center cluster . I'm sick of that setup
 

jaree

Member
If it makes you feel better my brand new Leica 35 Summilux FLE and 21 Super Elmar had issues out of the box: backfocus with the FLE and blurred lower left with the SE. SE was so bad that Leica NJ had to send it to Germany for adjustment. After this, I am calling BS on any claim by any manufacturer about their QC, esp Leica who claims each of the M lens is tested by hand and gives a signed test certificate. BS.

With this experience, I feel Sony is not so bad.

I do agree with testing the heck out of any lens you buy - one just can't assume that there is any meaningful QC. And if you do find a good lens, do not sell it.

I sold my Sony 35 1.4 yesterday. I tested it again and that left side of mine just bugged me . Mine is actually pretty good to but I sent the buyer my tests so he knows exactly what he is getting. I'm waiting for a Batis 35 F2 but in the meantime I need something so I bout a new Tamron 35 1.8 canon mount a metabones and I snuck in a Canon 135 f2 used in there.

Both focal lengths I'm waiting to see what Sony does but I need to work too so I need something to get me through the night.

I'll post my test on this Tammy it's rated very good. Who knows I may wind up buying the 35 Sony again but I'm going to test the heck out of it.

Honestly for 1700 it was bugging me even though shooting might mean nothing.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Re: Sony lenses on Roger's optical bench... some comments

Hi,

My understanding is that DxO measures lenses so they can do lens corrections in their DxO product. So they need to test a lot of lenses on a lot of bodies, for that reason I expect to see a lot lens tests on the 50 MP Canons coming out soon.

When I looked at the Sony 90/2.8G I found it was rated best in sharpness. But the Otus was tested on the D800 a later test of the Otus on a D810 was besting the 90/2.8G.

As long as lenses are good, it seems that sensor resolution dominates lens sharpness. Roger Ciala (Lensrentals) has investigated this in some detail, measuring MTF data for the Canon 24-70/LII and the Nikon 24-70/2.8 zoom on both the optical bench and using Imatest. The Canon was much sharper on the optical bench but the Nikon outperformed it easily on Imatest.

With MTF tests on optical bench the sensor is removed from the equation, so the MTF data just tell about lens performance.

To complicate things the "cover glass" also affects MTF, as it seems very little with lenses for the DSLRs but more with Sony lenses. Sony probably tries to make the lenses smaller by reducing distance between sensor and outlet pupil which increases beam angles.

I would expect Canon glass to perform well on Sony.

This is a bit interesting for me as I realised I need an ultrawide zoom for the Sony. Choice is the Sony 16-35/4, the Canon 16-35/4 and of course the Canon 11-24. I guess it may be I go with 16-35/4.

As a side note, I have been shooting my Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 quite a lot on a trip to Alsace and was very happy with the results but not at all happy with the same lens in the Dolomites. That came as a surprise to me.

But, in the Alsace I mostly shot church interiors and the Sigma worked great, but that kind of images often don't have very much details in the corners, also I often used it for stitched images where corners are seldom used, so a lens can work great in one situation and not so well in another situation.



On this image the upper left corner "fell apart":


Best regards
Erik




... as you noted above, all of the top rated lenses are tested on Nkon D8x0 and Sony A7r 36mp sensors, while they've tested Canon lenses on nothing more than 22mp sensors. If and when (?) they ever test a lens on a 50mp Canon sensor, the list of highest ranked may well get re-shuffled quite a bit, and a number of Sony lenses may drop out of the oft-mentioned top ten ranking. In the meantime, DxO is likely giving Sony/Zeiss/Nikon/Sigma lenses a nice (if not entirely earned) sales boost with so many people, even some respected photography blogs, quoting their "highest ranked" as if it were something reliable.
 

dmward

Member
I sold my Sony 35 1.4 yesterday. I tested it again and that left side of mine just bugged me . ....
It caught my attention that the 35 tends to have a bad side or corner.

I was thinking about getting one, since I like that FoV for a "normal" lens.

Now I'll wait for something more impressive.

I still have my Canon 35 1.4L with the Metabones IV if I feel the need. :)
 
Top