As expected. Folks nothing right now will touch the CV 65 apo or the Batis 135. So having said that I agree nice performance coming off the zoom. We simple can’t expect a zoom to beat these high end primes but if it’s really close than its a big bonus. Now we are talking very critical resolution here too. Most folks may not care at all.
f/5.6: One stop down, and the 24-105/4 @ 65mm improves greatly. It gets closer to the CV 65/2's performance. If you own the Voigtlander, you know this is pretty much amazing performance for a long range zoom. It does not match the micro-contrast and resolution level but very few 'primes' can do that.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Thanks Fred for these tests and your summaries of the results. They somewhat mirror some tests that I did last week with my copy of the 12-24 G, 16-35 GM and 24-105 G. I found that all three of these zooms provide impressive performance from center to edges from wide open to f/11. There are some very subtle differences at some of the overlapping focal lengths that I tested. As we know copy variance can make findings from a single copy of one lens tested against a single copy another somewhat subjective. I would caution anyone from assuming that the tests that I or someone else runs and the results that are observed from one set of lenses will hold absolutely true for every other lens of the same kind produced. It certainly may give a good general idea of the strengths or weaknesses of the tested lenses, but particularly with the very complex lens formulas that are concocted to make these zooms perform at the multiple focal lengths, performance can certainly vary from lens to lens slightly. Roger’s Lensrental tests with multiple copies of a lens has shown us that over and over again.
I found from my tests that from 16-24mm my copy of the 16-35 GM outperforms my copy of the 12-24 G at the focal lengths of 16-24 and my copy of the 16-35 GM outperforms my copy of the 24-105 at the focal lengths of 24-28. The differences are not by any means large. They are subtle and would like only be noticable in very large prints or extreme high Rez monitor pixel peeping. But it is good to know so when I’m in the field I can use the lens that I know performs the best at these various over lapping focal lengths when practical (asumming I’m carrying all 3 of them). But I certainly wouldn’t have a problem using these lens at any of these focal lengths because they are still all very impressive for zooms. And at the end of the day sometimes getting the shot counts more then stressing over “do I have the best lens on the camera now?” I’m planning on running some more tests on My copy of the 24-105 G against the following primes that I have hopefully next week after I come back from a week long business trip. I will compare my 24-105 G against my 35 f/2.8 ZA, CV 65, Batis 85 and Batis 135. If I find the time I will post the crops or at least give a summary of my findings....Show more →
Chuck are you stopping down your GM 16-35 to f/4 for your comparisons to the two f/4 zooms? I have done the same tests and found the zoom at 2.8 to be no where near as good as the other zooms at f/4. I still need to test the GM at f/4 though. My GM though is very even and performs well at 24 & 35
Should I even post f/8 crops? Looks to be diffracting when testing high performance lenses...Well, I have it, so here it is...
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G vs Voigtlander 65/2 APO
f/8: It's worth noting that as you can see, the 24-105 @ 65mm is longer than the CV 65mm. Looks like 70mm to me.
Anyways, the CV 65 starts diffracting at f/8 and the 24-105 seems to hold on to resolution and contrast. When shooting landscapes at f/8, both lenses are great performers. The zoom's contrast and colors can be improved further in post, so I'm not sure if these differences will be evident in prints. There is no doubt the CV 65 is the better lens but as I wrote, the zoom put up a fight.
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G @105mm vs Batis 135/2.8 APO
f/4: The zoom performs well wide open but improves greatly at f/5.6 as you will see next.
Very hard to compete with the Batis here but I'd say the zoom performs great at center and mid-zone even wide-open.
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G @105mm vs Batis 135/2.8 APO
f/5.6: Wow. Huge jump for the zoom. It gets very close to the mighty Zeiss, except for the corners. I'd say this zoom is a freak just like its sister ultra-wide.
BTW: My Batis performed slightly better than the ZF 135/2 APO starting at f/4.
Maybe I should reconsider thinking 105mm is the weakest focal length...It definitely improve at f/5.6! Let's see f/8 next...
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Fred I’m amazed at how well the zoom compares to such an excellent prime like the CV 65!
I'd say my copy performs best wide open from 24-40mm. Starting at 50mm it benefits slightly from f/5.6 and from 85-105mm, it benefits greatly. At f/8 is holds its goodies without much diffraction creeping in...
Rob L wrote:
Chuck are you stopping down your GM 16-35 to f/4 for your comparisons to the two f/4 zooms? I have done the same tests and found the zoom at 2.8 to be no where near as good as the other zooms at f/4. I still need to test the GM at f/4 though. My GM though is very even and performs well at 24 & 35
Rob,
I’m comparing the GM to the f/4 zooms at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8. These are the aperatures that matter to me for the kinds of shooting that I primarily do. I typically try to focus stack my landscape shots at f/5.6 through f/8 when possible. The corner performance of the 16-35 GM at 2.8 is not as good as at f/4 but it isn’t that far behind from my testing.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'd say my copy performs best wide open from 24-40mm. Starting at 50mm it benefits slightly from f/5.6 and from 85-105mm, it benefits greatly. At f/8 is holds its goodies without much diffraction creeping in...
Fred,
Your results and observations mirror what I have observed with my 24-105 G as well. It’s performs very well right from wide open at f/4! Really something.
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G @105mm vs Batis 135/2.8 APO
f/8: Not much improvement for either lens. They both kept their resolution although I see some loss of micro-contrast for the Zeiss. The zoom gets uncomfortably close at center and especially at mid-zone because of that. I think the Batis got a bit worried here.
Corners do not improve for the zoom where the optimal aperture is f/5.6. The Batis still remains king at the very extreme corners showing very low astigmatism. However in a normal landscape image, the edges of the frame would perform very close.
Your results and observations mirror what I have observed with my 24-105 G as well. It’s performs very well right from wide open at f/4! Really something.
Chuck,
We test lenses is a similar manner. Infinity distance (slanted to show the edge of the image field) and using best of 3 for each focal length. The only difference is that you refocus at every aperture. I usually focus at about a stop from wide open (like f/5) and than just change the aperture without refocusing. Your technique prevents focal shift from showing, mine not so much.
Also, I always focus at mid-zone when comparing lenses since they differ on the amount of field curvature. For this zoom at wide FLs, if you focus on center, it will look better in detriment of the corners. The field curvature, although mild, is a bit unusual, wave type. Roger found that as well. He should post his findings this week on his blog.
I have a feeling that his test won't show the lens performs this great from 70-105mm since he will be only testing the lens wide open. However, we know it improves greatly at f/5.6 and perhaps f/6.3.
Since it performs great at f/4 for the wide range, I except to see great results from his MTF test.
Fred, the CV 65mm Apo Lanthat is one heck of a lens alright. And it did transmit more light than the 24-105mm. At your comparison images, the resulting shutter speed from the lens is about ⅓-stop faster and yet, the images are "brighter". Probably the actual light transmission difference between the two lenses at 65mm is more like ⅔-stop. And yes, the resulting IQ off that lens is crisper and contrastier, too. It is hardly surprising since we are comparing a superb prime with an excellent zoom lens. Although it speaks volume to the zoom lens but, like you mentioned in a different thread, that CV 65mm lens is the best FE mount lens there is.... again, at this point.
snapsy wrote:
Awesome, thanks Fred. I know from your experience the corners are a better measure of acuity at the periphery since they're more demanding than the edges. But I find in practice the edges are a more useful/representative of my needs as a landscape shooter since many times nothing but sky in the upper two corners (or soft clouds), and soft corners at the bottom of the frame can be cropped out with a slight vertical crop. I tend to prefer wider framing so such cropping actually fits into my workflow, whereas cropping soft edges would go against that.
As for why the corners might be demanding than the edges, I would guess it has to do with them being more sensitive to off-axis lens tilt/alignment effects on aberrations like astigmatism....Show more →
I think I am able to answer your question Adam. I just tested this today and instead of using my usual slanted infinity framing, I kept the horizon level just like we would do in the real world.
I thought it was an interesting question because there is actually no increase in astigmatism on this area when stopping the lens down from f/4 to f/8. At the very extreme corners, I see that happening slightly.
In fact, when checking the edge area instead of extreme corner, there is actually a very slight increase in resolution.
Here are the results here at 35mm (f/4 and f/8). Feel free to post your thoughts.
