Sony Lens Test program for Photoclubalpha

[David Kilpatrick]

I am pleased to say that Paul Genge of Sony UK, recognising the difficulties involved in fitting lens testing into the loan program of their PR company, has offered to supply Sony and CZ lenses one a time to be reviewed as individual articles on Photoclubalpha. The first of these will be Carl Zeis 24mm f/2. Where practical (or indeed, needed) I will be also be creating Adobe ACR/LR Lens Profiles.

To help decide which lenses should follow, I've set up a poll with ten initial possibilities.

We have already covered, and could revise to suit a new format if necessary: SAL 70-300mm SSM G, 18-55mm SAM DT, 30mm Macro SAM DT, 11-18mm SAL (no longer here, sold), 18-250mm SAL (no longer here, sold), CZ 16-80mm DT ZA (it's getting rather old but it's a good lens), 16mm SEL E-mount, 18-55mm SEL E-mount, E-mount converters.

I have a new 28-75mm SAM f/2.8 here right now and that will reported on shortly. We assume that the new 16-50mm SSM and the E-mount 55-210mm will be included in reviews of the new camera models, so I have not put them in the list.

[agorabasta]

The SAM 28-75 f/2.8 would be interesting to analyse as the Tamron originals had a few slightly different variants, or at least there are a few different official profiles for them listed by Adobe.

My priority would be the SEL 18-200. I think it's the very best superzoom in existence. Too bad it had no suitable body to mount on, bar camcorders. Now I hope for the Nex7 providing a better handle for the beast.
Though I must say that the a-mount SAL 18-200 profile works for the SEL lens in very suspiciously good way...

[Dr. Harout]

Should be 85/2.8 SAM
Please, do add 70-300 G and 55-200 SAM

[Steve4D]

........To help decide which lenses should follow, I've set up a poll with ten initial possibilities.

We have already covered, and could revise to suit a new format if necessary: .......CZ 16-80mm DT ZA (it's getting rather old but it's a good lens)....

Well that's one down

Picked my 3 - thanks in advance David!

[David Kilpatrick]

The 16-80mm was originally tested on 10 megapixels - Alpha 100. Of course we've come miles since then. From what I have been able to tell on 12, 14 then 16 megapixels it just gets better (which is not the case for all lenses) and on Thursday, I was able to compare it with the 16-50mm f/2.8 and see what it can do on ISO 50 24 megapixels. Subject to trying a final production 16-50mm (which frankly doesn't offer the range I want, 80mm is far preferable) it looks as if the CZ 16-80mm will be the lens I use on the Alpha 77. That will be the best time, I think, to do a recap report - four years on.

Doc - the 70-300mm SSM is already covered on the site. But if we get the 70-400mm, the 70-300mm will be a part of that review as a comparison of what the two can do within the 70-300mm range is important. Also, there's no point in my requesting lenses which do not yet exist, and the poll format only allows 10 choices. The poll will be revised/repeated for other lenses.

David

[Steve4D]

The 16-80mm was originally tested on 10 megapixels - Alpha 100. Of course we've come miles since then. From what I have been able to tell on 12, 14 then 16 megapixels it just gets better (which is not the case for all lenses) and on Thursday, I was able to compare it with the 16-50mm f/2.8 and see what it can do on ISO 50 24 megapixels. Subject to trying a final production 16-50mm (which frankly doesn't offer the range I want, 80mm is far preferable) it looks as if the CZ 16-80mm will be the lens I use on the Alpha 77. That will be the best time, I think, to do a recap report - four years on.

I have had my 16-80 for just over three years, or make that a couple of months after I picked up an a700/16-105 kit for the right money. After using both lenses for while, and liking them almost equally very much, I decided to keep the 16-80. My experience with the 16-80 and the a700 has been a very good one and it now lives on my a700, very sharp with great colours and none of the mechanical problems others have had - yep, not even zoom creep. My only complaint is the dust magnet grips on the barrel, but hey at least that is consistent across all my Sony lenses

I have not tried the 16-80 on my a100 (which I have long since lent to my son, along with an 18-70 and 75-300), but I will certainly be trying it on my new a77 which I have just pre-ordered.....that is, as soon as I can get my sweaty hands on it!

I am with you on the 16-50's range, but at least it is a f/2.8? EDIT - Mmmmm, It might be very interesting to see how the 16-50/a77 combo goes head to haed against a 24-70/a900 combo both @ 24mp's?

I'm looking forward (very much) to reading your reviews!

Regards
Steve

[InTheSky]

David,

Do you think it is better to wait for the Nex 7 to really stress any APS-C lenses ? Where (I think) the SLT will to give very deep result as the Nex 7 will do ?

Probably the Nex 50mm 1.8 OSS and the Macro too will be good to be add to the list.

Regards,

Frank

[parv bitter almonds]

I could not vote for my selections; kept getting "The submitted form was invalid. Try submitting again." So, my choices would be ...

• CZ 24mm f/1.8 for NEX
• SAM 35mm f/1.8 DT
• CZ 85mm f/1.4

I wonder how the 85 mm lens would handle on a(ny) NEX.

[InTheSky]

I could not vote for my selections; kept getting "The submitted form was invalid. Try submitting again." So, my choices would be ...

• CZ 24mm f/1.8 for NEX
• SAM 35mm f/1.8 DT
• CZ 85mm f/1.4

I wonder how the 85 mm lens would handle on a(ny) NEX.

Welcome to the forum ! nice to see that you are participating right from the start.

Regards,

Frank

[Dr. Harout]

Where can I get the 70-300 G lens profile for LR?

[parv bitter almonds]

Welcome to the forum ! nice to see that you are participating right from the start.

Thanks, Frank (mind that there is one earlier post exists around these parts).

I am not much for small talk. Most of things have been discussed already by the time I read them (here, on Dyxum, Photo.net, & Flick[e]r).
Not to mention most of my reading happens near a computer where I don't have login data handy.


- parv
(waits for David K's review of Sony A77)

[Birma]

(waits for David K's review of Sony A77)

+1 to that! (Welcome to the forum from me as well .)

[catalytic]

I'd be interested in David's expert testing of the 35/1.4G. I find it is universally slagged by every lens test site on the Internet, yet so many users love this lens and have rated it highly on dyxum.com's user review section.

One theory is that the lens testing sites test at long focus distances, whereas users often use this lens at closer focus distances for portraiture. Apparently the lens designers chose to optimize for portraiture at closer distances (whereas other lenses are optimized more for farther focus distances), which necessitates some compromise in maximum MTF at farther distances.

Personally, i do find the lens a bit soft wide-open, but i don't understand the great disdain for the lens amongst the testers, nor do i understand the legendary cult status amongst its supporters who deny the very thought that this lens could be the slightest bit unsharp. I do think that there is a rather unique and desirable look that it imparts on the images, and that it is often a superior choice for portraits amongst lenses in its focal length class due to IMHO the somewhat edgy and nervous bokeh of most wide-angle lenses (the 35/2, for example, seems to have the opposite bias -- balanced more for sharpness than smooth bokeh).

Even if PCA doesn't end up testing the lens, I would be interested in a more thorough exploration and enlightenment from David (or anyone else) on this topic, as i am intrigued by the concept of designing lenses for specific applications like portraiture and how the design choices result in tradeoffs in optical characteristics that result in poor test results yet excellent user satisfaction.

For example, i imagine MTF tests only test the contrast / resolution performance of the lens at the plane of focus at a specific focus distance (if the tester follows the focus field) or at an imaginary plane at a specific focus distance (if the tester does not follow the focus field). It seems as if this only allows a 2D measurement of a 3D phenomenon. I would imagine that lenses perform differently at different focus distances not only at the plane of focus itself, but also according to the distance in front of / behind the plane of focus. And this is just MTF here. There are many other optical characteristics like coma, astigmatism, chromatic aberration (lateral and longitudinal), and vignetting, as well as more qualitative phenomena like bokeh.

Is it just me, or does lens testing in general as it exists today seem to only describe a fraction of the relevant qualities of a given lens?

[bfitzgerald]

I don't think you can beat real world shooting with a lens to give a good idea of what's going on. Not to dismiss serious lens testing it has a place of course, just some of it is a bit more than "pure resolution/sharpness" build, feel, focus speed, the look of the images including out of focus areas. A lot of that is open to debate too.

35mm f1.4 G it's a real wild card lens pretty much condemned by testers yet dearly loved by owners. I think it's a lens that always will get some controversy purely on price which is high..and for that outlay you start to get pretty fussy (and rightly so) I too would like to read about that, just to see what DK's take on it is, even though it's a lens I would never buy..ever even if you gave me the money to pay for it!