Zeiss 24-70 & 18-55 (OSS) on Nex

[OneGuyKs]

(From Taiwan Review)

Thoughts?

Zeiss 24-70mm




Original -Zeiss 24-70mm
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/463 ... 137a_o.jpg


18-55 (Original)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/463 ... 9df9_o.jpg

[KevinBarrett]

Initially I'd say the Zeiss lens is sharper overall and offers better contrast, but the NEX kit lens is marginally better at resisting CA. However, the devil is in the details: The Zeiss lens was tested at the extreme of its zoom range, and the kit lens was tested comfortably in the middle of its range.

The NEX kit lens is no slouch, but the performance of the Zeiss lens blows it away. But, seriously, who is going to choose between these two lenses? They've got different focal length ranges for different formats on different mounts. Forget the price difference!

[bossel]

Why would I use the 24-70 on a NEX?? Because it's possible? Get yourself a cheap and light A450 if you need a 2nd body for your 24-70 and be happy!! Or wait for a 30/2 pancake for the NEX, or similar!

[OneGuyKs]

folks it's not about getting Zeiss lens. The thread is about a comparison shot of the same scene with the kit lens and Zeiss 24-70 taken on Nex.

I was expecting comments on the optical quality of kit in this shot and how it compares to Zeiss here -- not posts with the theme "why you will buy Zeiss and Nex"

[bossel]

Thoughts?

Well, this have been my thoughts you asked for them, I told ya!

The kit lens is zoomed in a bit more, which might leed to think it shows more detail, if you compare crops of the same area. Leaving aside this, the 18-55 does look amazingly good, unlike the 16mm samples I've seen.

[David Kilpatrick]

Both pictures were mashed so much by JPEGging they both looked like consumer digicam snaps. Neither would be acceptable for my work, and I know both lenses can do better. Simple as that. There is zero point in posting up smoothed, sharpened, JPEG compressed shots like this to make any case about lenses.

David

[Vidgamer]

Both pictures were mashed so much by JPEGging they both looked like consumer digicam snaps. Neither would be acceptable for my work, and I know both lenses can do better. Simple as that. There is zero point in posting up smoothed, sharpened, JPEG compressed shots like this to make any case about lenses.

David

I can see the oversharpening (halos), but the JPEG file is 10.5 megs! That shouldn't have any JPEG artifacting at that size! There must be something else that is going on to mangle the photos.

But even the oversharpening to me is annoying. Why not use a cheap lens if you're going to harm the low-level detail anyway?