This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
p.4 #1Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
tsdevine wrote:
I agree Fred.... Part of the learning curve of the lens.
-Tim
IMO, for the Loxia shot, a fraction before infinity would provide more uniformity throughout the frame at f/5.6.
Hi Tim,
Sorry if the Batis needs to go back to Zeiss.
This is beginning to seem to be a fairly common problem for decentered Sony and to a lesser extent Zeiss lenses.
However, if you remember reading my my Thread on possible problems with my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM which has now trasformed into an assessment of the V3 versus V2 Kolari Modded A7r cameras, we found that my A7r sensor was out of alignment. It may be worth checking the alignment of your A7rII sensor.
Rich
I agree Fred.... Part of the learning curve of the lens.
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote
Tim,IMO, for the Loxia shot, a fraction before infinity would provide more uniformity throughout the frame at f/5.6.
Hi Tim,
Sorry if the Batis needs to go back to Zeiss.
This is beginning to seem to be a fairly common problem for decentered Sony and to a lesser extent Zeiss lenses.However, if you remember reading my my Thread on possible problems with my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM which has now trasformed into an assessment of the V3 versus V2 Kolari Modded A7r cameras, we found that my A7r sensor was out of alignment. It may be worth checking the alignment of your A7rII sensor.
Rich
Feb 15, 2016 at 06:35 PM
p.4 #2Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I ran my own test today between the 16-35 and the Loxia and they were darn near identical across 98% of the frame when shot stopped down. The Loxia's sharper at wider apertures, but stopped down for typical landscape use, only the very corners were appreciably sharper, and even then it's not enough to matter much. Both lenses have great contrast, though the Loxia produces more saturated color out of the gate and maybe just a hint more pop. Two great options.
Feb 15, 2016 at 07:30 PM
p.4 #3Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I don't know Rich, many of my other lenses look symmetrical at the same f-stop. Even in this test the Loxia and FE 16-35 look pretty symmetrical. If the sensor was out of whack, wouldn't you expect to see that show up in my other WA lenses?
-Tim
naturephoto1 wrote:
tsdevine wrote
I agree Fred.... Part of the learning curve of the lens.-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote
Tim,IMO, for the Loxia shot, a fraction before infinity would provide more uniformity throughout the frame at f/5.6.
Sorry if the Batis needs to go back to Zeiss.
This is beginning to seem to be a fairly common problem for decentered Sony and to a lesser extent Zeiss lenses.However, if you remember reading my my Thread on possible problems with my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM which has now trasformed into an assessment of the V3 versus V2 Kolari Modded A7r cameras, we found that my A7r sensor was out of alignment. It may be worth checking the alignment of your A7rII sensor.
Rich
Feb 15, 2016 at 07:58 PM
p.4 #4Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Jordan, I'll have to look closer at my shots I posted here, although you might have a better copy of the FE 16-35 as well. (Not saying it put up a bad showing here.)
-Tim
Jman13 wrote:
I ran my own test today between the 16-35 and the Loxia and they were darn near identical across 98% of the frame when shot stopped down. The Loxia's sharper at wider apertures, but stopped down for typical landscape use, only the very corners were appreciably sharper, and even then it's not enough to matter much. Both lenses have great contrast, though the Loxia produces more saturated color out of the gate and maybe just a hint more pop. Two great options.
Feb 15, 2016 at 08:00 PM
p.4 #5Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Here are the f/8 and f/11 shots, same guidance about these as given above...EXCEPT...these shots were focused via live view at f/2.8 and then I stopped down to f/8 and f/11 for the shot. The focus point was the face of mansion/windows above the porch roof.
Loxia 21 (focused @ f/2.8, stopped down to f/8 for the shot)
Full Size
SooC JPEG
Loxia 21 (focused @ f/2.8, stopped down to f/11 for the shot)
Full Size
SooC JPEG
So as Fred noted, focusing a little bit in between the mansion focus point I used, and hard stop would probably nail most of the frame as the aperture gets wider. It shows that field curvature can be mitigated by focusing strategies.
-Tim
Feb 15, 2016 at 08:09 PM
p.4 #6Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I believe going back through this thread that every lens here had fans. It comes down to preferences and priorities.
-Tim
Feb 15, 2016 at 08:22 PM
p.4 #7Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Jman13 wrote:
I ran my own test today between the 16-35 and the Loxia and they were darn near identical across 98% of the frame when shot stopped down. The Loxia's sharper at wider apertures, but stopped down for typical landscape use, only the very corners were appreciably sharper, and even then it's not enough to matter much. Both lenses have great contrast, though the Loxia produces more saturated color out of the gate and maybe just a hint more pop. Two great options.
I have well-centered copies of the Loxia 21/2.8 and 16-35/4 and would not hesitate to use either for serious work.
However, the Loxia is sharper at the corners and extreme corners at all apertures. By looking at my own crops shot at infinity, they look similar at center and mid-field. (About 80% of the frame). Still I personally prefer the warmer/bold colors and contrast of the Loxia rendering. Even at f/11, the 16-35/4 extreme corners do not sharpen up due to astigmatism.
This is actually an incredible performance for the zoom which performs best at around 20mm.
I posted some crops comparing the Loxia 21/2.8 and 16-35/4@21mm here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1391948/26#13375700
I ran my own test today between the 16-35 and the Loxia and they were darn near identical across 98% of the frame when shot stopped down. The Loxia's sharper at wider apertures, but stopped down for typical landscape use, only the very corners were appreciably sharper, and even then it's not enough to matter much. Both lenses have great contrast, though the Loxia produces more saturated color out of the gate and maybe just a hint more pop. Two great options.
I have well-centered copies of the Loxia 21/2.8 and 16-35/4 and would not hesitate to use either for serious work.
However, the Loxia is sharper at the corners and extreme corners at all apertures. By looking at my own crops shot at infinity, they look similar at center and mid-field. (About 80% of the frame). Still I personally prefer the warmer/bold colors and contrast of the Loxia rendering. Even at f/11, the 16-35/4 extreme corners do not sharpen up due to astigmatism.
This is actually an incredible performance for the zoom which performs best at around 20mm.
I posted some crops comparing the Loxia 21/2.8 and 16-35/4@21mm here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1391948/26#13375700
Feb 15, 2016 at 08:42 PM
p.4 #8Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have well-centered copies of the Loxia 21/2.8 and 16-35/4 and would not hesitate to use either for serious work.
However, the Loxia is sharper at the corners and extreme corners at all apertures. By looking at my own crops shot at infinity, they look similar at center and mid-field. (About 80% of the frame). Still I personally prefer the warmer/bold colors and contrast of the Loxia rendering. Even at f/11, the 16-35/4 extreme corners do not sharpen up due to astigmatism.
This is actually an incredible performance for the zoom which performs best at around 20mm.
I posted some crops...Show more →
I feel exactly the same way. The Loxia is for me, better in the corners but what sells me on this lens is it's drawing style compared to the FE16-35. I won't sell either lens . . . they're both outstanding.
Jman13 wrote
I ran my own test today between the 16-35 and the Loxia and they were darn near identical across 98% of the frame when shot stopped down. The Loxia's sharper at wider apertures, but stopped down for typical landscape use, only the very corners were appreciably sharper, and even then it's not enough to matter much. Both lenses have great contrast, though the Loxia produces more saturated color out of the gate and maybe just a hint more pop. Two great options.However, the Loxia is sharper at the corners and extreme corners at all apertures. By looking at my own crops shot at infinity, they look similar at center and mid-field. (About 80% of the frame). Still I personally prefer the warmer/bold colors and contrast of the Loxia rendering. Even at f/11, the 16-35/4 extreme corners do not sharpen up due to astigmatism.
This is actually an incredible performance for the zoom which performs best at around 20mm.
I posted some crops...Show more →
I feel exactly the same way. The Loxia is for me, better in the corners but what sells me on this lens is it's drawing style compared to the FE16-35. I won't sell either lens . . . they're both outstanding.
Feb 15, 2016 at 08:52 PM
p.4 #9Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Every time I see those pics of El Capitan I'm floored. Those pictures sold me on the Loxia21.
Feb 15, 2016 at 08:58 PM
p.4 #10Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Thank you for sharing these results, Tim. There is no reason for me to hang on ZE21 any longer. So far, none sensor progress from Canon to tell me to keep it alive.
Feb 15, 2016 at 09:09 PM
p.4 #11Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
All these samples just make me really want the 16-35, it turns in a very comparable performance and the OSS sounds excellent for the motion blur prone a7r
Feb 16, 2016 at 01:22 AM
p.4 #12Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
My biggest beef with the zoom is that it is extended when shooting at the wide end-- which is where the zoom performs best, and where I'm most likely to use it. It's more of an issue than I imagined, since it's much more compact when not extended, and I prefer to walk around with it closed (which adds a step before shooting, namely extending it).
Performance, for a zoom (and I'm a dogmatic prime guy for <200mm), is outstanding. We're comparing it to the legendary 21mm, and the Loxia, after all, and it can hang.
Each passing day I hope for a killer 18mm, ideally Loxia-- but I'd settle for Batis. Or Samyang.
Performance, for a zoom (and I'm a dogmatic prime guy for <200mm), is outstanding. We're comparing it to the legendary 21mm, and the Loxia, after all, and it can hang.
Each passing day I hope for a killer 18mm, ideally Loxia-- but I'd settle for Batis. Or Samyang.
Feb 16, 2016 at 03:57 AM
p.4 #13Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I do not find 16-35/4 THAT excellent. First, it somewhat lacks in contrast. Also, A-mount 16-35/2.8 Zeiss' drawing style is more closer to the legendary 21mm Distagon @ 21mm. Also, 16-35/2.8 does not extend at all but might put off some users due to its weight. Performance @ f/4 (with LA-EA3) is similar to 16-35/4 @ f/4. Difference is that 16-35/4 never sharpens up in the corners but 16-35/2.8 does. At 35mm they both fail.
Feb 16, 2016 at 05:36 AM