I understand the f2.8 won't excite many people, but I would welcome it if it means keeping the lenses small and light. I don't need fast primes right now, but when I do I'm sure I'll be over here screaming 'we need X/1.4 !!'
I found a spec on the 19 reporting 140 grams, 45mm long, 46mm filter. The 30 looks shorter, so one might assume lighter also.
The 30/2.8 is only 38.6mm long, so about the same as the CV 35/1.4 or ZM 35/2.8 with the NEX adapter included. However, the new Sigma 30 is nearly as big around as other NEX lenses, so it may feel a little bigger than those lenses.
Yes but I'd rather have the kit zoom anyways (which is, to return a bit to the original topic, very good for a kit zoom). Having one of those Sigma lenses alongside it isn't probably worthwhile (especially the 19). At least Zeiss 24 is really much faster (f/1.8 vs. f/4), the 50/1.8 even more so.
Herb1911 wrote:
Michelle thanks for all your efforts. And I won't argue your test methods
I remembered your quote about someone at DPR using AF for his testing and it being not very useful.
Herb1911 wrote:
I will not make another thread here, I have just a few minutes left and couldn't resist.
Before the E ZA 24 is sent to the garbage bin (or good for close up only) I would like to show that it is a lens with an incredible high level of resolution. Here is a 100% centre crop @f/5.6 from this lens on the Nex 7. Only corrected for CA and some added deconvolution sharpening to make the present detail a little more clear.
If the kit lens is (almost) as good then it is also almost as good as a Summilux 24. And then we can regard the kit lens as a true miracle.
It might be good to point out that for many, many occasions the kitlens provides enough quality to make fantastic photo's. This is a healthy point of view countering the attention to overrated small differences between lenses.
With still some money left in our pockets we will have tremendous joy in shooting our kitlens, and this joy will make us better photographers.
I will buy the kitlens for the test. If it performs comparable to the E ZA 24 I will eat my hiking boots. ...Show more →
I will not eat my stinky hiking boots for any reason, but I will love to see what you can do with a good copy of the kit lens. I will not be suprised if you make it look much better than I did.
I don't know that the kit lens is as good as the Zeiss because I'm not that technical about lens performance. But for my own use I am not seeing as much difference between them as I hoped for. The CY35-70 kind of jumps off the page and punches you in the face with the microcontrast and goodness in the images it makes compared to my L lenses (excepting the 24TSEII), and it has perhaps set unreasonable expectations for me. There are some images from it that I see magic in, and I like magic.
I will be honored to be trounced by your test images. I mean that in a sincere way... So fire away and post your images on this thread if you'd like. I don't mind at all.
Herb1911 wrote:
If the kit lens is (almost) as good then it is also almost as good as a Summilux 24.
Well, it might just be almost as good as the Summilux in terms of resolution. But there can be a big gap between almost as good, and equally as good Even from these simple samples it's not hard to see that the ZA does have better color and contrast than the kit lens, and it's better in the corners (although at f8 it doesn't look too far ahead). With the right processing maybe they'll look similar enough. Seeing that the context of the comparison is at f5.6 - f8, I don't think a miracle is necessarily needed for the lenses to be 'almost' similar in some respects, but how many people would pay for the fast aperture privilege (especially the 'Lux) only to shoot it stopped down?
Anyone who plans to shoot it wide open most of the time won't care about this comparison anyway.
Some people that want to multi-purpose the lens (like me) will have to decide if the cost and size factors are worth the price tag for a lens that performs similar to the kit lens at 24mm (in some ways) when stopped down, but also offers f1.8.
But, if I could rationalize paying what the 24 Lux demands, I wouldn't think twice about it!
I have zero illusions about the kit lens being as good as the Zeiss 24/1.8 (let alone the Leica 24/1.4), and there's no substitute for speed -- but within its limitations, I find very little to complain about. I seldom use it, so I don't have loads of tests, but here are a few chosen fairly at random -- all are very casual shots, quickly and minimally processed, shown full frame, then followed by 100% crops.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmm nobody else thinks the corners look markedly better on the ZA?
Yes, I do.
Having used the Zeiss 24mm F2.8 on my Nex-7, I cannot bring myself to go back to the kit lens.
The kit lens does a great job for the money, but its corner performance is poor relative to the Zeiss, which somewhat negates the use of a high resolution sensor. Also the kit lens is of course significantly slower than the Zeiss.
As to CA, this is an interesting issue and seems to reflect a deliberate design compromise on the part of Zeiss. Another lens with a CA issue in some situations is the Zeiss F1.4 for the Sony A mount. I did a comparison a while back between two "A" mount Zeiss lenses; the F1.4 and the 24-70mm F2.8 Zoom. I took two shots both at F2.8. The zoom had no CA, the F1.4 a fair bit of longitudinal CA.
Now I'm guessing here, but I suspect that if you asked Zeiss about it, they would probably say that they could design the 24mm F1.8 E mount lens (or other fast primes) with no CA, but it would cost twice as much or more and would be a lot heavier. As it is fairly easy to deal with CA in most situations, they have compromised to keep price and weight down. I can deal with CA so its a compromise that works for me, but others may feel differently. If you read the Michael Reichmann comparison between the Zeiss and a Leica lens which cost 6 times as much, the difference was largely the occasional CA issue, which suggests that the Zeiss is indeed good value for money. I certainly think that it is but YMMV.
Any suggestions for easily removing CA in scenes that have plenty of purple/magenta naturally? For example in the snapshot below, near branch detail could be improved by removing some of the CA, but much of the background of the photo contains purple/magenta tones that I love seeing in the brush and winter foliage. The sky is also affected by desaturation of PM tones. This is posted on the NEX thread, it's a ZA 24 f/5.6 image. I need to do some printing to see how larger prints look.
p.3 #10 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
mco_970 wrote:
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.
I was thinking at first the difference in fleece detail was due to the fleeces angle to the camera caused by arm position but now I'm thinking its more due to slight focus difference. If you look at the menu board in the background the kit lens focus is definitely back a bit.
p.3 #12 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Is there a way to pull up the focus point used like you can do with DPP software (Canon)? I am pretty sure focus point was right on her hair line with her face since I thought that was the highest contrast feature. I, myself, would be interested to be able to check the focus point, too - on this photo and others occasionally.
p.3 #14 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Michelle, your images and the place you are photographing looks like heaven for photographers and nature lovers alike.
If you want to maintain the purple and magenta do not desature them in Lightroom. Only CA fringes correction here. In Photoshop with the help of a mask you could additionaly reduce some PM in the trees if required. A plug-in like Viveza works also terrific. However you mentioned you would like to print the image. Well that can be quite a different story. Here the real photography begins
You will have to soft proof your image because my best estimate is that some color might be out of gamut for you print. Depending on your printer/ink and paper it might be required to tune down some colors before you can actually print them accordingly.
I have no idea about your printing experience but a little training might be required before you get disappointed. That what you created on your screen does often not compare to your print, so you will have to learn to prepare your images for print. Tell me what stage you are and maybe I can help you further or give a hint in the good direction.
p.3 #15 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Herb1911 wrote:
Michelle, your images and the place you are photographing looks like heaven for photographers and nature lovers alike.
If you want to maintain the purple and magenta do not desature them in Lightroom. Only CA fringes correction here. In Photoshop with the help of a mask you could additionaly reduce some PM in the trees if required. A plug-in like Viveza works also terrific. However you mentioned you would like to print the image. Well that can be quite a different story. Here the real photography begins
You will have to soft proof your image because my best estimate is that some color might be out of gamut for you print. Depending on your printer/ink and paper it might be required to tune down some colors before you can actually print them accordingly.
I have no idea about your printing experience but a little training might be required before you get disappointed. That what you created on your screen does often not compare to your print, so you will have to learn to prepare your images for print. Tell me what stage you are and maybe I can help you further or give a hint in the good direction.
I do soft proof and check the gamut in PS before printing - no worries there. I have heard the next version of LR3 will have soft proofing, and it will be VERY much appreciated! I double checked that image in PS and all but for a small bit of the clouds, it's in gamut for my paper & printer (suprising, since sometimes working in lab color pushes it out of gamut quickly).
I did print an 8x10 crop of it and it looks good, the CA isn't too much of an issue and the image detail held up really well.
I had hoped you have a magic way to easily remove CA from scenes with PM coloring in the background, but it seems like there just isn't anything ideal yet. I will look at Viveza and see if it would fit into my work flow easily.
p.3 #16 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
mco_970 wrote:
Is there a way to pull up the focus point used like you can do with DPP software (Canon)? I am pretty sure focus point was right on her hair line with her face since I thought that was the highest contrast feature. I, myself, would be interested to be able to check the focus point, too - on this photo and others occasionally.
As I warned you Autofocus is always very unreliable. It is always hit or miss if you want your focus on a very specific point. And it is also very sloppy. Nikon and Canon invest milions to get this working better. And systems get better but I do not bet on it, yet. With focus peaking you will get 99,9% hits after a little training. Flip up your screen of the Nex 5n and focus peek looking down like a Rolleiflex. You will be even faster than your AF system with a manual focus lens adapted.
You can save your image of the coffeshop with some selective sharpening and softening but you can never restore your focus point. You will need to buy a Lytro light field camera then you can put the focus anywhere and anytime after the exposure.
Herb
p.3 #17 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
pcvrz22g wrote:
I was thinking at first the difference in fleece detail was due to the fleeces angle to the camera caused by arm position but now I'm thinking its more due to slight focus difference. If you look at the menu board in the background the kit lens focus is definitely back a bit.
The lighting on the fleece is very different in those two shots, impossible to compare sharpness based on that , in my opinion.
p.3 #18 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Hi Herb,
No way, man, if I pay for autofocus, I am using it sometimes! I can manually focus the other 99% of the time. Besides, I hate fly by wire lenses for manual focus.
p.3 #20 · NEX 5N - samples of 18-55 at 24 V. ZA 24
Glad I didn't spend the $1000 on the Zeiss 24mm. I don't think it is worth the $1000. Too big of an investment to put into such a new system for me any how. I'd feel much safer investing it in M mount glass that I can use on a different system if I want to make a switch sometime down the road.
I remembered your quote about someone at DPR using AF for his testing and it being not very useful. 
I will not be suprised if you make it look much better than I did. 