fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2014 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

So, some have requested that I shoot a comparison between the Zeiss 16-70, and the Sony G 18-105mm, and I've also received a request to compare them both to the Fuji 18-55, so I did that today.

I originally shot the Sony zoom comparison outdoors to provide some better distance information, but after examining the images, I can't really be sure that the images are representative. It was very windy today, and I don't have the custom plate for my NEX-6 yet, and as a result, every time the wind blew, the lenses, especially the front heavy 18-105, would bounce a bit. (though similar trends to the indoor test could be seen).

All images were shot on a tripod from the same position, and I did my very best to frame the shots the same between lenses/camera, but it was difficult, especially in the middle of the zoom range. For the 70mm shots, I set the 18-105mm to 70 (since it shows the exact number in the finder), though this is actually slightly longer than the 70mm end of the 16-70mm. Likewise, the 18-105mm is closer to 19mm than 18mm (matching framing was 19mm on both the Zeiss and the Fuji).

I processed the images all in Lightroom mainly because it's a heck of a lot easier to organize and keep track of multiple images from multiple lenses in Lightroom due to color coding, and frankly I don't have time to deal with the individual stuff in another converter. While this may put the Fuji at a mild disadvantage since LR is prone to some of Adobe's best artifacts with X-Trans, for the most part, it doesn't pose a problem for judging the lens resolution.

On to the images. All are 100% crops:

@ 18mm, Center:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms18_center.jpg

@ 18mm, Corner:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms18_corner.jpg

To my eye, the Zeiss and the Fuji are very close at f/4 in the center, with the Fuji maybe having a very slight edge. The Sony pulls up the rear here, though it's still decent. Stopping down, they are all extremely close. I'd still probably put the Fuji in the lead, but barely.

In the corner, the Fuji has a pretty clear advantage, providing rather sharp results into the corner, while the Zeiss is a bit behind, and again the Sony pulls up the rear. Stopped down, the Sony gets into 'decent' territory, but is still a little soft. The Zeiss is pretty good here, but still doesn't match the Fuji.

At 18mm, Rank: 1) Fuji, 2) Zeiss, 3) Sony

@ 30mm, Center:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms30_center.jpg

@30mm, Corner:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms30_corner.jpg

The picture at 30mm is similar once again, with the Fuji again having a slight advantage in the center, with the Zeiss second and the Sony third, though stopped down all are quite good, and all are certainly decent at f/4 in the center. Again on the edges, the Fuji is clearly the best, with sharp corners. At f/8, the two NEX lenses catch up a bit, but still can't match it.

Again, At 30mm, Rank: 1) Fuji, 2) Zeiss, 3) Sony

@ 55mm, Center:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms55_center.jpg

@55mm, Corner:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms55_corner.jpg

Things are a bit different here. First off, at this magnification, the test target book starts to be a bit too magnified for really crisp results...we're looking at the dots of the printing here, making things a bit harder to judge. (Sorry 'bout that). Still, one can still see the differences.

At 55mm, which is the Fuji's weakest point, the Zeiss takes the lead in the center, with the Sony and Fuji in practically a dead heat. (Maybe a VERY slight edge to the Fuji). In the corner, none of the lenses do particularly well here, though the Sony actually takes a slight edge, with the Fuji second and the Zeiss pretty bad in the corners at this length.

Rank: Inconclusive....Zeiss best in the center, Sony best in the corners, Fuji second in both.

Overall, between the three lenses, I personally think the Fuji pulls ahead of the two in the common range. However, both of the other lenses have notably wider zoom ranges...the Zeiss is wider by a not-negligible margin, and both are longer, with the Sony being significantly longer.

Continuing with the Sony vs. Zeiss comparison, here's both lenses at 70mm:

Center:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms70_center.jpg

Corner:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/zooms70_corner.jpg

Here, they are both pretty close. The Zeiss is a smidge better in the center, and both are about equal in the corner, with maybe a slight edge to the Sony here.

Between the two E-Mount lenses, the Zeiss is generally the better lens, though the 18-105mm puts in a decent performance, aside from a bit of softness in the corners. However, given the range and the constant f/4 aperture, that's not a bad showing, especially since it's the cheapest lens in this comparison, and a full $400 cheaper than the Zeiss.

For grins, I also compared the Fuji at 30mm, where it was the best, to the super cheap and outstanding Sigma 30mm f/2.8....and the Sigma pulls ahead a bit. Amazing performance for a sub-$200 lens.
Center:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/fuji_sigma_center.jpg

Corner
http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/fuji_sigma_corner.jpg

Edited on Jun 13, 2014 at 08:46 AM · View previous versions

Jun 11, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Geoff CB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Nice test, 18-105 didn't fare as poorly as I expected.

Jun 11, 2014 at 10:28 PM

Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Thanks for doing these 'tests'. Even though I think you can't really compare lenses between systems because the sensor plays a part in this too.

For me, comparing the Zeiss and Sony makes the most sense. I also would have liked to see how the Sigma compares to the Zeiss and Sony @ 30mm. While you are at it, you may consider comparing the Sigma 19mm to them as well. Also a very cheap prime with excellent IQ across the frame.

I am thinking how a lens like the Sony 18-105 or Zeiss 16-70 would be beneficial to my photography. Both are relatively sharp in the center, but not so much in the corners. But since these are slow lenses, I don't see them as portrait lenses (where center sharpness matter). Or landscape lenses for that matter (where corner sharpness matters). Of course, for portraits bokeh and rendering are also important.

I find these lenses relatively expensive. Especially considering the cheap - but excellent - alternatives, like the Sigma lenses and Sony's own primes offerings.

Is it all about convenience at the cost of IQ? Don't get me wrong. These lenses still perform good enough for a lot of applications. But the slow aperture combined with the not so stellar IQ make them not so versatile IMHO

I wonder how others think about this?

Jun 12, 2014 at 03:06 AM

wolfloid
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Very interesting test, the Zeiss and the Fuji both seem very competent and the Sony has a good range. Unfortunately, none of them really match the versatility of the Canon 24-105mm f4, which makes me wonder when we are going to see the size advantages of the APS-C format in zoom lenses.

A 16-70mm f2.8 lens is needed if we are to get the same range covered and if we are still going to get reasonable focus separation at the telephoto end. It must also be smaller and lighter than the Canon, if there is going to be any advantage. At the moment these lenses still seem to be too limited, meaning that the two Sigmas are still competetive, if one doesn't mind changing lenses.

Jun 12, 2014 at 04:46 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Daan B wrote:
Thanks for doing these 'tests'. Even though I think you can't really compare lenses between systems because the sensor plays a part in this too.

For me, comparing the Zeiss and Sony makes the most sense. I also would have liked to see how the Sigma compares to the Zeiss and Sony @ 30mm. While you are at it, you may consider comparing the Sigma 19mm to them as well. Also a very cheap prime with excellent IQ across the frame.

I am thinking how a lens like the Sony 18-105 or Zeiss 16-70 would be beneficial to my photography....Show more →

When I put these results into my article (coupled with further focus distance tests), I won't include the Fuji....that was done because it was asked for. In general use, these lenses may not be prime sharp, but they are good general purpose lenses that make for an excellent walk around.

Jun 12, 2014 at 05:18 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

wolfloid wrote:
Very interesting test, the Zeiss and the Fuji both seem very competent and the Sony has a good range. Unfortunately, none of them really match the versatility of the Canon 24-105mm f4, which makes me wonder when we are going to see the size advantages of the APS-C format in zoom lenses.

A 16-70mm f2.8 lens is needed if we are to get the same range covered and if we are still going to get reasonable focus separation at the telephoto end. It must also be smaller and lighter than the Canon, if there is going to be any advantage. At...Show more →

There's never a free lunch. If you require full frame levels of depth of field, there's not much of a size advantage, because you need a correspondingly larger aperture. The advantages here are in a compact system with good image quality, sometimes at the expense of depth of field control.

While many of these lenses don't give the maximum amount if blur,they are also often sharper at wide apertures vs their full frame faster counterparts, allowing for great images wide open. This is especially true for the primes, though m4/3 and Fuji have correspondingly good zooms as well and Sony has a handful too, though I have less experience with them overall (which I will be remedying over then next few months as I review more Sony gear).

The big size advantages come at the wide angle end due to shorter register difference, and at the telephoto end on smaller formats due to the shorter focal length needed, though if you want similar DOF control, the savings won't be that big (a 300/4 is roughly the same size as a 400/5.6 on full frame, likewise a 200/2 vs a 300/2.8). There's some advantage, but it isn't huge.

Jun 12, 2014 at 05:34 AM

Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Jun 12, 2014 at 06:04 AM

Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

I think an advantage of mirrorless smaller sensor cameras for zooms is that there are some fairly high quality zooms for these systems for which there is nothing similar for full frame. The 16-70 f/4 is a great example. It is small and has pretty good IQ. Mechanically, it is pretty nice. It has a decent range, but not so large of range that huge compromises are needed. Another good example is the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 made for m4/3rds.

I have no doubt that a good quality small zoom with something like a 24-105 or 24-80 focal length range and a constant f/5.6 aperture could be made for FF, but so far nobody has done it. I doubt they will either, because given current prices these would seem to have to be priced less than current f/4 zooms, which doesn't seem to leave much room for any profit. The advantage of this type of zoom is that it is small and could be quite nice for travel and if you want a small kit. The disadvantage is that max aperture isn't very wide. Either the advantage or the disadvantage may or may not matter to you.

In contrast FF systems also have zooms for which there is nothing similar available for smaller sensor camera (although Sigma has recently developed an f/1.8 zoom for APS-C that would fit the bill). Their f/2.8 aperture zooms are generally very high quality, offer shallower depth of field, but are very large. I suppose mirrorless makers could build large f/2 zooms for APS-C and maybe even f/1.4 zooms for m4/3rds, but such a zoom doesn't make much sense on a small camera, IMO, as they are still going to be very large. I can't see much of a market for these. These lenses have been the staple of many photographers and I think will remain popular, but there will also be people who won't want them because of their size (I would be one of those people).

So, different horses for different courses. If you want shallow depth of field and don't care about size by all means get a FF DSLR and fast zooms and primes. If you want small and portable and are willing to sacrifice by having less shallow depth of field possibilities, then a mirroless system makes a lot of sense. If you want small and portable with a wide range zoom, the shallow depth of field of an f/2.8 lens on FF, and great optical quality, well, that ain't going to happen any time in the foreseeable future.

Jun 12, 2014 at 10:07 AM

CBokeh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

I find it strange that in the 18mm range the Zeiss loses corner sharpness as the lens is stopped down. Note the word "MARRIED," or any of the similar text for that matter at f4, then f5.6-- and then again at f8.

Jun 13, 2014 at 01:18 AM

wolfloid
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

So, different horses for different courses. If you want shallow depth of field and don't care about size by all means get a FF DSLR and fast zooms and primes. If you want small and portable and are willing to sacrifice by having less shallow depth of field possibilities, then a mirroless system makes a lot of sense.

The problem with this argument is that it seems to suggest a Sony R100 III or a Sony RX10 rather than an APS-C or M4/3rds if I really do want portable at the expense of depth of field control. I just can't see why I would choose an APS-C with a 16-70 f4, if at the tele end it just doesn't separate focus very much. I see the point with primes, but not with a walk around zoom that also needs to be used for portraiture. Or am I pushing the argument too far?

Jun 13, 2014 at 06:33 AM

FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

CBokeh wrote:
I find it strange that in the 18mm range the Zeiss loses corner sharpness as the lens is stopped down. Note the word "MARRIED," or any of the similar text for that matter at f4, then f5.6-- and then again at f8.

Yeah, same, I wonder what's going on there.

Jun 13, 2014 at 06:59 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

wolfloid wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it seems to suggest a Sony R100 III or a Sony RX10 rather than an APS-C or M4/3rds if I really do want portable at the expense of depth of field control. I just can't see why I would choose an APS-C with a 16-70 f4, if at the tele end it just doesn't separate focus very much. I see the point with primes, but not with a walk around zoom that also needs to be used for portraiture. Or am I pushing the argument too far?

I think you're harping on one thing a bit much. Yes, APS-C mirrorless with a fast walkaround standard zoom isn't going to save you a ton of size vs. a small full frame kit. It'll save some, but not too much. The upcoming Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 should be extremely good optically (you can see that its cheaper 'kit' cousin here does very, very well), and will give the equivalent separation of a 24-83mm f/4 on full frame, which isn't bad at all. It, of course, though, won't be much smaller (if at all) to the full frame variant. However, if you build your system around the smaller camera and generally smaller primes and telephoto lenses, having the standard zoom be similar in size still allows you to just use one body and one mount, while still saving on overall system size. Certain individual lenses may not be smaller (depending on what you're after), but the system as a whole generally is quite a bit lighter.

My Fuji daily carry is typically the X-T1 with 14mm f/2.8, either the 23/1.4 or 18-55 (depending on what I'm shooting), the 56/1.2 or 60/2.4 Macro (again, depending on what I'm shooting) and the 55-200mm. This gives an eminently capable kit from 21mm equivalent to 300mm equivalent, with some fast glass thrown in. All of these lenses are outstanding optically, and provide me with image quality extremely close to (if not better in some cases due to glass quality) a full frame kit with high end glass, but weighs at least half of what you would need to carry to get equivalent optical quality. In some cases there's more DOF for that equivalent quality, and sometimes there's not, but with the 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2, I have all the shallow DOF capability I need in my system. (I also have an 85/1.4 Rokinon for times I want a 135mm equivalent with shallow DOF and a Zeiss 90/2.8 for times I want a small lens of equivalent length).

Jun 13, 2014 at 07:04 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

FlyPenFly wrote:
Yeah, same, I wonder what's going on there.

Possibly accentuated field curvature upon stopping down?

Jun 13, 2014 at 07:11 AM

FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Ah okay so the focus wasn't reset between aperture changes?

It's weird because the Zeiss looks the best in some of them and by far the worst in some of them.

Jun 13, 2014 at 07:27 AM

you2
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Well I think this is where Olympus has done a decent job with the 12-40f2.8; It is a bit larger than some m4/3 lens but a lot smaller than a 24-70f2.8

Jun 13, 2014 at 08:00 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

FlyPenFly wrote:
Ah okay so the focus wasn't reset between aperture changes?

It's weird because the Zeiss looks the best in some of them and by far the worst in some of them.

No, it was (AF in the center), but there can sometimes be changes in field curvature when stopping down. The Zeiss does exhibit some field curvature at the wide end, and if the focus point stays solid in the center, but the plane of focus bends more towards the camera when stopping down, it could lead to slightly softer corners when stopping down. Given the relatively close focus of this test (which was at about 1.5m), those effects would be exaggerated here, but would likely not be visible in most real world wide angle shooting.

Jun 13, 2014 at 08:37 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Oh...for those interested, here's the Zeiss next to the Sony. (Used the Fuji to take the shot, actually):

http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/sony_zooms1.jpg

Jun 13, 2014 at 08:46 AM

Frank54
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

you2 wrote:
Well I think this is where Olympus has done a decent job with the 12-40f2.8; It is a bit larger than some m4/3 lens but a lot smaller than a 24-70f2.8

Fuji has a couple of 2.8 zooms to be introduced near term including a 16-55 maybe? They have potential to be super performers.

I am really looking forward to see how these (as well as an upcoming 120-400mm) perform, the 50-140mm model of particular interest to me for portraiture and when the cameras get faster, sports...

The size, as you mentioned, may run contrary to the compact ILC concept advantage of smallness. We'll see

Jun 13, 2014 at 08:51 AM

Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Jun 13, 2014 at 09:02 AM

andyjaggy82
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Zeiss 16-70 vs Sony G 18-105 vs Fuji 18-55

Pretty much mirrors my finding on the performance on of the 18-105.

I think mine has some fairly bad field curvature. When focusing in the center at any focal range the bottom two corners are always mushy. However if I manually focus in those corners they both sharpen up nicely. I don't know if that is field curvature or something is decentered?

Jun 14, 2014 at 09:03 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end