I tested my kit lens at 18-55 versus the ZA 24 1.8 - setup was gorilla pod on car window, using self timer, and using AF to focus (sorry Herb). I did not check focus point manually because I hate MF'ing fly by wire lenses. Too fiddly for me. These are from the RAW files, with whatever little bit of default sharpening LR applies (something like 25).
Apologies in advance if I totally f'd this up. I'm uber-tired today.
The kit zoom does extremely well. The only real difference I can see from the non-crop websize images is that the zooms colors are a bit anemic compared to the Zeiss. Or could be that the Zeiss just renders a little warmer.
Zeiss seems to show its strengths at larger apertures across the frame vs. the zoom.
I felt the same, and returned the 24. Not because of the kit, even though I agree it is vrey good indeed for the money, but because of other alt primes that were just quite a bit better. Not at close range, though. First Zeiss lens I try and don't buy. Major bummer!
I agree with you both. The interesting thing to me was that the kit lens corners were distinctly better for close up work, too. It's just so darned slooooooow at f/4.
p.1 #12 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Michelle, thanks for putting in the time to do this.
The color does look warmer on the ZA, and there does seem to be a bit more contrast. In the scene with the fence and telephone polls the kit lens looks a little flat in comparison. Corners look close enough @f8.
Not enough difference for me to consider the ZA for landscape. Close up and specialty... ok, sure. The close up photos I've seen so far actually show the ZA in a much better light, IMO. I have SLR gear for that type of thing though.
p.1 #13 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Here's some branch detail with the purple channel punched up on both images to show how much CA is on the branches at f/8 on the ZA versus the kit. These images have normal processing also, some sharpening, curves, etc.
p.1 #14 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Are indeed primes better than zooms?
Perhaps by a small margin...always important to pixel peepers.
From your tests I would say the kit lens is an awesome performer.
p.1 #15 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
camerapapi wrote:
Are indeed primes better than zooms?
Perhaps by a small margin...always important to pixel peepers.
From your tests I would say the kit lens is an awesome performer.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
The kit lens is good at 24mm, but I would not vouch for it at the long end. I took some of my cafe candids (people in the coffee shop) this morning to see how the kit zoom did, and the images were pretty awful, mostly taken at 35-55mm.
I greatly prefer CZ35-70 or my OM 50 for that focal length in my limited use. Looking forward to trying the G 45, too. I might try a test set at 45 when the G is here.
p.1 #16 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Here's a set from the coffee shop. ZA v Kit at f/4. ZA picked up a lot more detail in this type of shot & with poor lighting conditions. Fleece jacket shows the difference in small detail rendering.
p.1 #17 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Interesting -- thanks for posting this. I don't have a 24/1.8, but I've been consistently impressed by the kit zoom, especially in the middle of the range. I'm not surprised to see it do well.
Apart from the color, the biggest difference I see (especially in the second pair of pics) is that they're focused slightly differently (kit is closer to infinity). There's no substitute for speed when you need it, but they're clearly both excellent lenses.
p.1 #18 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Interesting -- thanks for posting this. I don't have a 24/1.8, but I've been consistently impressed by the kit zoom, especially in the middle of the range. I'm not surprised to see it do well.
Apart from the color, the biggest difference I see (especially in the second pair of pics) is that they're focused slightly differently (kit is closer to infinity). There's no substitute for speed when you need it, but they're clearly both excellent lenses.
In all the sets of photos (including the people photo), the kit seems to be focused a bit behind the ZA. I don't know why or how it could do that, I thought with contrast AF it should focus more similarly.
I did receive a 2nd copy of the kit lens that I'd like to compare against the first copy. Interested to see if that behavior is the same or if it's sample variation.
Too fiddly for me. These are from the RAW files, with whatever little bit of default sharpening LR applies (something like 25).