Photoclubalpha

Hi All

Just been killing time on the net, looking at lens tests at

http://www.photozone.de/

they have the largest range of review I've seen, include Song G lens.

I was comparing Sony G lenses to matching Canon L .
going by the tests the Sony G lenses are better than Canon L

70-400G
200mm MTF
F5 f8 f11
center 2048 2095 2020
border 2023 2092 1996
300mm
center 1970 2040 1948
border 1954 2013 1938
400mm
center 1092 2043 1939
border 1888 1989 1922

Canon 100-400 L USM IS
200mm F5
centre 1748 1885 1824
border 1676 1867 1792
300mm
center 1718 1851 1759
border 1662 1777 1708
400mm
centre 1670 1785 1745
border 1592 1767 1721


Now my question for you experts, at the same focal lengths the sony lens is over 20% more resolution
does difference show up in real world photos or are both lenses so good you could not tell them apart?

I have never used the Canon lens but am very satisfied with the Sony G.

Many Canon using pro's and enthusiasts have been using the Canon to produce good work. Side by side comparison would give the advantage to the Sony and in less than perfect shooting conditions this can mean a higher portion of technically acceptable keeper shots. Others more cynical than me would insist that given that Sony cameras don't have the IQ potential of some of their rivals, its a case of you win one and you loose one.

There has been quite a bit of traffic on both Canon and Nikon websites that both companies offerings need to be updated with higher performing and better constructed models.

Looking at more of the test results, All the Sony G lenses have better results that the same range canon L, haven't looked at Z lenses yet.


I wonder if this is an area Sony should spend more effort with advertising ? What's the point of having some of the best spec'ed lenses and not boasting about it. I know Sony need to do work on their bodies
but a company, does not get to Sonys size and not learn how to advertise. they do so well with advertising other products, but the advertising/promotion of Alpha products in Australia is very poor .

It's almost like Sony is still not sure what they want to achieve with Alpha products.
in Australia Nikon put a lot of money in advert/promotion, they are the "official camera" for a lot of events in Australia and both Sony and Canon reps spend a lot of time visiting Camera store on regular basis and even leave loan product for camera store staff to take home an use. What's sony advert/promotion like in the rest of the world?

This is the problem with those high resolution sensor now on the market. Most of the Low end lenses make the 10mp and more pure fantasy to use on cheap lenses. Or the need to be at least F/8.0 in the middle of the zoom range.

Some L glasses are really good, and there is some very interesting exotic lenses available or still on the market (like the 50mm F/1.0, and F/1.2). There is also not expensive and very good performer EF glasses that should has got the L status like the Canon 100mm F/2.0. I think Canon has too much invested time designing in lens stabiliser than improving that there glasses in the last decade.

Sony is very good on the lenses resolution, but unfortunately when we pomp up the sensitivity (ISO) we loosing all the benefit of those incredible glasses.

All my friends are Nikon and Canon owner. For the Canon the only thing I can complaint versus the Minolta glasses is the Size of the L lenses. The 35mm F/2.0 who is not better than my Minolta 35 mm F/2.0 is more than twice the size. And this is almost the same for other lenses.

Regards,

Frank

I thought the results are not cross comparable aka platforms? That's what I read on that side a long time ago..

Also, I've read a few reviews that are simply not believable v real world!