Interesting results, Phillip. The Zeiss looks good overall in this set, and esp. at f/8-f/11. What is your impression from working with the files on this set?
And thank you again for taking the time to do all of this work.
mco_970 wrote:
Interesting results, Phillip. The Zeiss looks good overall in this set, and esp. at f/8-f/11. What is your impression from working with the files on this set?
And thank you again for taking the time to do all of this work.
i haven't really worked with them yet, sorry
wait for the next one, the Sigma 60/2.8 is the only awesome lens in this whole set and the longer focal lenghts are a weakness of the Zeiss, so the Sigma destroys the Zeiss.
p.3 #13 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
At distance, I'd say it looks pretty good. It's certainly not going to beat a set of good primes, but still, pretty good.
The "closer" stuff is interesting - surprising that it (and the other lenses) would do so much worse than the 1855 here. Focus issues? (curvature or whatever).
p.3 #14 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
It was pretty good until past 50mm, I feel sorry for the final KO. I must say I am disappointed. there are many zoom perform much consistent over the range like Canikon and sony zeiss 24-70 f2.8. even 24-105, 24-120 F4 Canikon. Consider this is a f4 APS-C
Realistically, about 80%, I would say we use WA for landscape which require corner, and tele for people, which is not. But This is not a lens made history but just another Sony zoom.
Unless the copy variation?
Edit: color is nice though, I bet flare performance good too from its clarity, but I know that already, the famous T* coating works
p.3 #16 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Can you make some on one of those wierd steps between f8 and f11? Im for example using f9 quite a bit with my old zoom lens.. cause f8 is sharp but not that much DOF and not "perfectly even" but f11 is starting to be too soft.
Otherwise, I think it really is close to old 16-80. How much CA does it have without using CA removing? Btw. is it distortion corrected or not? (that could actually explain those corners too)
If you cant check it, just upload few RAW files (16, 28, 35, 50, 70 @ f9 or so). I can check it and see what I can squeeze out of it.
p.3 #17 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Taylor Sherman wrote:
The "closer" stuff is interesting - surprising that it (and the other lenses) would do so much worse than the 1855 here. Focus issues? (curvature or whatever).
i believe the 18-55mm has field curvature that curves inward while the new zeiss has field curvature that curves out (at least at the wide end).
p.3 #18 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
sebboh wrote:
i believe the 18-55mm has field curvature that curves inward while the new zeiss has field curvature that curves out (at least at the wide end).
That would be consistent with Zeiss' most lens designs (very few exceptions like the Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM).
p.3 #19 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
sebboh wrote:
i believe the 18-55mm has field curvature that curves inward while the new zeiss has field curvature that curves out (at least at the wide end).
i had the same thought
Mescalamba wrote:
Can you make some on one of those wierd steps between f8 and f11? Im for example using f9 quite a bit with my old zoom lens.. cause f8 is sharp but not that much DOF and not "perfectly even" but f11 is starting to be too soft.
Otherwise, I think it really is close to old 16-80. How much CA does it have without using CA removing? Btw. is it distortion corrected or not? (that could actually explain those corners too)
If you cant check it, just upload few RAW files (16, 28, 35, 50, 70 @ f9 or so). I can check it and see what I can squeeze out of it. ...Show more →
The charts on page 1 are taken without CA correction, i would say better than the kit but not by much.
Distortion isn't corrected.
here are some "real world" images, mostly at f9. If you would like to see the raw just send me an email @ reeve.phillipgmail.com
What is your impression from working with the files on this set?
