Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2011 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?
  
 
edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


So according to DXO Sony's 100 macro is better than the ZE 100 MP

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/330/(lens2)/276/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Zeiss/(brand2)/Sony#div1anchor

I really have a problem believing that because I do own the Sony and I don't think it has anything special about it.

According to the same website, the Sony ZA 85 is better than the ZE. This I'm ok with.

But the big surprise is how bad the 21 Distagon performed. Even the Sony 20 is better.

I suspect DXO are measuring lenses at MFD, which removes all credibility from their tests.

PS: go to the resolution page comparison and click on field map.



Jan 29, 2011 at 06:06 PM
Keith B.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Test charts and MTF measurements are excellent predictors of a lens' performance reproducing test charts and MTF images...and, to some extent, actual photographic images as well. However, it would be certainly be interesting(in a just-for-laughs type of way) to be able to compare the Sony 20mm vs. the Zeiss 21mm. You never quite know.
Alas, being stuck with only Nikon dslrs, I'll just have to make do with my dethroned, denigrated, poorly-performing, yesterday's news, sadly pathetic Zeiss ZF 21.



Jan 29, 2011 at 06:22 PM
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


@Keith:


Jan 29, 2011 at 06:30 PM
edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


There you are:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/326/(lens2)/216/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Zeiss/(brand2)/Sony#div1anchor




Jan 29, 2011 at 06:35 PM
philber
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


If anyone is interested, I am willing to be very generous, and trade their Zeiss 100MP and Z* 21 lens for brand new (better) Sony lenses which I will buy just for them!


Jan 29, 2011 at 07:59 PM
MichaD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Huh? Where does it say the Sony's are better? Looking purely at the "DxOMark Score" the Zeis wins in both cases. The 21 by a very big margin actually.
What is lower for the Zeiss is the Resolution but that might just be due to the fact that the A900 is currently the highest resolving 35mm DSLR.

The field map is indeed very puzzling though.
The corners get a lot worse from f/4 to f/5.6?!



Jan 29, 2011 at 08:32 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Cross-camera platforms lens comparisons tests like this are bogus.
We have discussed this before.



Jan 29, 2011 at 09:28 PM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


It's not just the cross-camera testing - the whole thing is a joke. If you want a good laugh, look at their comparison of the Canon 16-35/II and the Zeiss 21...the Canon scores higher in the resolution score It would not be a hyperbole to say that it's the equivalent of saying that a Trabant beats a Ferrari in an acceleration comparison test.


Jan 29, 2011 at 09:38 PM
philber
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


I just shake my head at all this quantitative testing, instead of taking or looking at pictures and choosing equipment that way. This leads, among other things, to the vastly exagerated importance give to sharpness (corners wide open viewed at 100% obviously) compared to other factors.


Jan 29, 2011 at 09:41 PM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Philippe, I agree with you in principle. However, if you do landscape shots and prints then sharpness across the frame can be really important or you get unusable shots - especially if you print larger images.

In fact the reason why I bought the Zeiss 21 in the first place was because the Canon 16-35/II failed me in the sharpness department. I had a bunch of landscape shots that were ruined by the weak edge and corners.

Here's a specific example with the 16-35.

http://peltarion.eu/img/canon/ef1635-4.jpg

100% crop:
http://peltarion.eu/img/canon/ef1635-5.jpg

To me that's simply unacceptable performance that resulted in images that I could basically just delete. They're not good enough for web size postings and much less printing.

So for small aperture, large DOF landscape photography there is for me a minimum performance level when it comes to sharpness. The Canon in question doesn't cut it until about f/8 and even then you have no trouble seeing its inferior performance on a large print.



Jan 29, 2011 at 09:50 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



philber
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Luka, I am not saying that sharpness across the frame doesn't matter, only that (1) if I can't see it on a large print, then what numbers might indicate as a weakness shouldn't bother me, and (2) that not all shots incorporate this requirement, whereas colour and contrast impact 100% of all pictures. Whereas it seems that, on this forum, though not on this thread, sharpness gets at least 50% of all lens dicussions.


Jan 29, 2011 at 09:54 PM
ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Hey, color isn't that important on my monochromes! :P

(I'm just trying, and failing, in the funny-department)



Jan 29, 2011 at 09:56 PM
s23chang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


I would agree with you at 16mm @F2.8. However, at 20mm, the Canon 16-35mm isn't so bad. Of course it is no match for prime lens that cost more than a zoom


denoir wrote:
To me that's simply unacceptable performance that resulted in images that I could basically just delete. They're not good enough for web size postings and much less printing.

So for small aperture, large DOF landscape photography there is for me a minimum performance level when it comes to sharpness. The Canon in question doesn't cut it until about f/8 and even then you have no trouble seeing its inferior performance on a large print.




Jan 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM
magiclight
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Denoir, I moved from the 16-35 to the 21mm and the 35mm f2 because the outer zone were to soft when printing A2 with Ilford Gord Fibre Silk.

I think the 16-35mm is a good zoom but after I first used the Zeiss 21mm I havnt used the zoom again.

With the 21mm you also get the lovely drawing style and micro contrast which really make high frequency landscape prints come alive.


All I need now is to find a something in 14mm - 16mm range. There is some talk about Zeiss developing a 15mm?

I think resolution will become even more important if you want to get the best out of the next generation of DSLRs due out sometime this year?



Jan 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


More stupid ineptitude.

Buy a REAL lens testing bench and do some REAL testing instead of this sort of cheap, ad hoc nonsense.

This make one wonder what DxO bases their lens correction software on.

Looking at their lens comparison, can anyone tell me what these graphs mean and what they show (and purport to show)? First is the Zeiss 21, the second is the Sony 20mm.
Limiting resolution map at selected field position vs focal length and aperture (at 1/3 field)
http://www.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/CanonEOS5DMarkII/Result/DakResult/Zeiss_Carl_Zeiss_Distagon_T_21mm_f28_ZE_Canon/MTF/GLOBAL_MTF_onethirdfield_small.png
http://www.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/SonyA900/Result/DakResult/Sony_20mm_f28/MTF/GLOBAL_MTF_onethirdfield_small.png
http://www.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/colorscale/scale_mtf10p.png

edit: sorry it appears that FM doesn't support png files...
You can find them under "resolution" when comparing 2 lenses





Jan 30, 2011 at 02:47 AM
edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


I started this thread as a joke but didn't consider that the results, as funny as they may look, denote a complete ignorance and lack of understanding from lens reviewers even from such an illustrious company. I, like lotusm50, wonder if their lens corrections are based on tests done at MFD like the above mentioned ones. I'm sorry to say that DXO used to enjoy a lot of respect from me but it completely lost it.


Jan 30, 2011 at 04:23 AM
edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


The macro lens comparison is still puzzling though. I would estimate the shooting distance for a 100mm lens at around 1.5 to 2 meters. Macro lenses should excel at such a distance as they are designed to shoot at much closer. Still the Sony is doing quite obviously better especially from 5.6 upwards. Could it be that the guys at DXO are having trouble with manual focus?


Jan 30, 2011 at 05:02 AM
edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


wayne seltzer wrote:
Cross-camera platforms lens comparisons tests like this are bogus.
We have discussed this before.


Quite the contrary our previous discussions have shown that the A900 is at a resolution disadvantage versus the 5D2 which makes the DXO tests even more weird.



Jan 30, 2011 at 05:05 AM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Hmm, I've never heard that the A900 has a resolution disadvantage compared to the 5D ii.

As for the lenses, I don't own either macros, so I have no opinion, but it isn't like Minolta was terrible at designing lenses, so I wouldn't be surprised for a Minolta to occasionally outperform our precious Zeiss.



Jan 30, 2011 at 05:43 AM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Sony 100 macro better than Zeiss ?


Their tests are (unfortunately) made at a "certain magnification", which makes WA lenses get very close to MFD in most cases. IGNORE the WA tests!

The 100 vs 100 makro comparison doesn't look flawed at all to me, it looks just as I would assume. The ZF is flatter, and more consistent. The Minolta/Sony is sharper in the frame center at medium apertures. Just as in reality.

You might want to look at the MTF per field position. As per usual, the "overall scores" tells you next to nothing. The ZE100 has 5-10% higher 20-40lp/mm MTF's for all positions except center. That's quite a lot, depending on the testing methodology.



Jan 30, 2011 at 05:56 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password