I got the lens today and took it for a walk so i would like to share my initial impressions
first some examples optimized for displaying on the net:
EDIT
My copy is decentered so the tests below don't always show what a good copy would look like. I think especially the results at longer focal lenght would be better with a not decentered lens.
hmm, really? maybe it's just that I'm not used to zooms covering a large range, but those edges look quite weak to me, especially at wider angles. it looks very nice in the central 2/3 though.
phillip, do corners look better at 16-24mm stopped down further?
sebboh wrote:
hmm, really? maybe it's just that I'm not used to zooms covering a large range, but those edges look quite weak to me, especially at wider angles. it looks very nice in the central 2/3 though.
phillip, do corners look better at 16-24mm stopped down further?
I hadn't clicked on the full size samples - I was going by rendering. Yeah, looking up close, it's got a lot of CA and quite a bit of softness at the edges. The Fuji XC 16-50 is actually a little sharper than this with better CA control (though a full stop slower and a bit shorter).
sebboh wrote:
hmm, really? maybe it's just that I'm not used to zooms covering a large range, but those edges look quite weak to me, especially at wider angles. it looks very nice in the central 2/3 though.
phillip, do corners look better at 16-24mm stopped down further?
i don't think so.
I have to confess that i expected quite a bit more for 800 bucks, have a look at these 100% crops:
(i used a tripod and 2 sec selftimer, but only focused once and wasn#t to careful setting the chart up but i think a trend can be clearly seen
Thanks for the shots and the review. Wide angle shots posted in your flickr acct looked better then the ones above. 70mm bokeh looks very good but softness is not good...
Yesterday, I checked one raw image at 16mm w/ nex 7 and the corners looked a little soft or also some vignetting correction might be happening. Rawtherapee shows 4015x6020 pixels compared to 4000x6000 nex 7 image size so there is a little cutting going on but much less then the Pana 12-35mm I have. 12-35mm has ~6% distortion correction. That is why I am looking for Zeiss option. I don't know how the new Oly will be also, maybe more optically corrected with its bigger size. Both Sony and Pana show purple fringing.
These findings remind me very much of the A mount version of the lens I tried. Great center sharpness, nice & Zeissy look for strong central subjects, but the corners and edges were lacking.
p.1 #10 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Phillip,
Thanks for starting this thread. Like a lot of people here, I'm considering this lens and am much more interested in your thoughts than those of the "professional" testers.
p.1 #12 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Yep I thought that its a bit "soft" on long end. It really is. Tho given reach its no wonder.. Its close to impossible to make high reach zoom without compromising anything. For today, its decent.
Best "long" zoom I know of is 35-135 C/Y and then most likely K-M 28-135.. And thats about everything (well ok, 14-150 Leica for 4/3 .. probably one of best, just not FF soo..).
p.1 #13 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Thank you for this Phillip.
It doesn't look to good compared to the good old Minolta.
Could it be that the lens doesn't focus right?
Did you try manual focus as well on the testcard?
p.1 #14 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Phillip Reeve wrote:
i don't think so.
I have to confess that i expected quite a bit more for 800 bucks, have a look at these 100% crops:
(i used a tripod and 2 sec selftimer, but only focused once and wasn#t to careful setting the chart up but i think a trend can be clearly seen
p.1 #15 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Please keep in mind that this is quick and dirty and nowhere near professional testing standards.
Nonetheless a pattern can be seen, i think.
The Zeiss was focused manually.
?