A unexpectedly finding from doing this comparison is, some shots from Z7 are clearly sharper and have less CA than when FE35 and FE55 are natively mounted on A7R4, which defies logic. I am planning to do another round of testing to figure what exactly is the contributing factor.
But what this does say is, under less than ideal conditions or normal situations, the Z7 with these non-native lenses actually perform better than A7R4, which is quite shocking to me.
But in terms of default colors on Adobe, Sony colors used to suck but their latest firmwares have improved significantly compared to before, now side by side the Nikon colors look overly saturated and also misisng nuances in many parts of the scene, eg. foliage, glass, bricks.
It's really interesting to be able to do these side-by-side comparisons on TZE-01 that were not possible to do easily before.
A unexpectedly finding from doing this comparison is, some shots from Z7 are clearly sharper and have less CA than when FE35 and FE55 are natively mounted on A7R4, which defies logic. I am planning to do another round of testing to figure what exactly is the contributing factor.
This was my experience too. I accidentally came into possession of Zeiss 35mm. I had Z7 at the time. I liked the lens so much that I bought it.
Now that I am solely using A7r IV, I don't like this lens so much for the reasons mentioned above.
p.16 #4 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
If it's purple fringing that's in question, it could be differences in the UV filters on the sensor. For example, Panasonic lenses sometimes did poorly on Olympus bodies in this, since Olympus didn't have a strong UV filter on the sensor. Nikon may be filtering UV more aggressively than Sony, which would show as less purple fringing.
p.16 #5 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
Thank you for the extensive testing and feedback - it is highly appreciated it.
It seems as a viable option to go for some of the Sony FE lenses with the TZE adapter.
I am building up a new lens setup after having sold all my Canon 5D IV + 4 lenses. I like the Z6 better than the A7iii - both ergonomics, menu system, surprisingly also the AF and the definitely the output of the OOC jpegs (although FW might change this in the future). I think Nikon has almost made the perfect mirrorless camera in the 1st take.
But the lens collection from Nikon is heavy and large compared to Sony and a main drawback from my point of view - thus I am looking for ways to reduce size/weight but still having some good quality output.
I am thinking in the lines of having a lens collection of:
1. 24-70 f4 (it came with the camera as kit lens)
2. Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 (for the special / unique character)
3. 35mm f2.8 (walk around Street lens)
4. Sony 85mm 1.4 (or the 1.8 if it performs similar to the 1.4) vs Nikon 85mm 1.8 (portrait work)
5. And some kind of UWA lens - it could be 12-24mm from sony (I do some landscape and architecture shots). Alternatively the Nikon 14-30mm f4 since I probably do not need more than f4 on the wide end.
Have you tried some of the other lenses in above? And any suggestions to some changes in above?
And could also be great to get input from other users on the forum :-)
p.16 #6 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
Well, I haven't used any of the Sony lenses you are talking about...but I think:
1. The Nikon zoom is unmatched in E mount right now.
2. CV normals on the Z have been a big success so far.
3. Right now there's no Nikon equivalent. However, there are compact 40mm and 28mm lenses coming in the next 6-18 months. If you can wait a bit, I think they will be better. I might get the Sony used for now and move it on once the native options arrive.
4. I'd go with native Z lenses if there is a close equivalent. Weather sealing, 5 axis IBIS (we haven't seen if that is working on the TZE yet, and it will be hard to be sure).
5. Depends how much you want 12-14mm I guess. Otherwise see #4. If corners are critical, be prepared to test--the sensor cover glass is close, but it's not quite the same, and that seems to manifest more and more as you get wider.
p.16 #10 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
I just got a new TZE based on reports here.
I did a test with the CV 110, focused at infinity, 1/60th handheld, kneeling. 30 shots with the TZE and 30 with a dumb adapter set to 105mm. I didn't make any particular effort to control breathing or nurse each shot carefully.
My quick grading of the files (so obviously there's some large errorbars here):
Good/okay/poor
TZE: 13/12/5
Dumb: 11/11/8
I'm confident the TZE is working with IBIS as intended now. I did TZE first and the lens is heavy enough to fatigue my arms, so I don't think I'm detecting the difference between 110mm and 105mm.
This corroborates my qualitative testing through the viewfinder. Setting non-CPU to 105mm, mounting the TZE, looking through it, then dismounting the lens slightly to disconnect electronics--no apparent difference. Setting non-CPU to 50mm, same process--obvious difference.
Well done, TechArt. At least on the second try
Next I want to try renting a Nikon 24-200 and a Tamron 28-200 and shoot them head to head. Do we get to pick the best lenses from both systems? What a great feeling.
p.16 #11 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
Headed in good directions. I still think 12-15mm is the real test. Even at 21mm it was only sometimes obvious.
As far as the 28-200/24-200 I never shot the Nikon, but the Tamron wins on aperture for me, if it functions well enough...
johnvanatta wrote:
I just got a new TZE based on reports here.
I did a test with the CV 110, focused at infinity, 1/60th handheld, kneeling. 30 shots with the TZE and 30 with a dumb adapter set to 105mm. I didn't make any particular effort to control breathing or nurse each shot carefully.
My quick grading of the files (so obviously there's some large errorbars here):
Good/okay/poor
TZE: 13/12/5
Dumb: 11/11/8
I'm confident the TZE is working with IBIS as intended now. I did TZE first and the lens is heavy enough to fatigue my arms, so I don't think I'm detecting the difference between 110mm and 105mm.
This corroborates my qualitative testing through the viewfinder. Setting non-CPU to 105mm, mounting the TZE, looking through it, then dismounting the lens slightly to disconnect electronics--no apparent difference. Setting non-CPU to 50mm, same process--obvious difference.
Well done, TechArt. At least on the second try
Next I want to try renting a Nikon 24-200 and a Tamron 28-200 and shoot them head to head. Do we get to pick the best lenses from both systems? What a great feeling....Show more →
p.16 #12 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
I've updated firmware
I confirm IBIS working for me with Loxia 25 and Loxia 85
I can leave shutter speed at 1/fl for non mooving subjects
Now I'm going to buy another techart adapter to leave permanently fixed on lens
Very good fit with loxia rubber, no play at all
green dot for best focus confirmation (no need to zoom it's so precise)
Well done!
Aug 17, 2020 at 05:07 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #13 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
Here are a couple of shots with the TZE-01. The first with the Voigtlander 21 f/1.4 and the second with the Voigtlander 50 f/1.2. I like both lenses a lot, but I am replacing the CV 21 f/1.4 with the Loxia 21 f/2.8 to get a bit smaller lens.
p.16 #14 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
Is anyone seeing very noticeable pincushion distortion with their TZE-01?
I am using it on a Z7 with several Sony (50mm f/2.8 OSS; 24-205mm f/4 G OSS; 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS) and Sigma DG DN (35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art; 45mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary; 70mm f/2.8 DGDN Macro Art; 85mm f/1.4 DG DN Art) and 35mm f/2.8 DI III Tamron.
Firmware has been updated to 3.0. (I have 2 of teh adapters) I tried reverting to firmware v2, but it does no seem to make any difference.
The 85mm Sigma DG DN Art is the worst, followed by the Sony 70-300.
The Sony 24-105 is almost distortion free at 24mm, but gets increasingly worse at the focal length increases.
The 45mm Sigma and 70mm Sigma Macro have moderate distortion.
The 35mm f/1.8 Sigma, 35mm f/2.8 Tamron and 50mm f/1.8 Sony are almost distortion free.
Below is a sample of the Sigma 85mm DG DN, Sigma 45mm f/2.8 and Sigma 35mm f/1.8. All at maximum aperture.
p.16 #15 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
The Sigma 85 has lots of pincushion in any camera. 70-300 also is suppose to have a fair bit. Didn’t look for reviews of the others.
It is possible some of the lenses are automatically corrected for distortion on a Sony body and of course aren’t on the Nikon. Similarly possible if using a RAW converter it picks up a profile automatically when on a Sony but doesn’t on the Nikon.
p.16 #16 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
The samples you are looking at are jpg extracts fro the raw file using PhotoMechanic, no correction was applied in post.
The Sigma 85 may pincushion, but I can't imagine it is as bad as what is shown in my sample. Nor can the Sony be as bad as the sample. If they were that bad, I can't imagine anyone buying these lenses.
It makes me wonder if the TZE-01has some physical property that causes this to happen at longer focal lengths. Perhaps the mount is slightly too thin or thick?
I haven't tested the Sony 70-300 at anything longer than 70mm, as I don't have a good target handy.
p.16 #18 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
mklass wrote:
The Sigma 85 may pincushion, but I can't imagine it is as bad as what is shown in my sample. Nor can the Sony be as bad as the sample. If they were that bad, I can't imagine anyone buying these lenses.
Then you must not have ever read a review of the Sigma before you bought it because the distortion in the review samples are 100% identical to the amount of distortion in your sample.
And of course it is impossible for an adapter with no glass in it to change the distortion of a lens.
This isn't rocket science folks. Many lenses meant for mirrorless cameras have a fair bit of distortion meant to be corrected. Cut off the metadata path for those corrections and of course you are going to see a fair bit of distortion.
And seriously. The web is full of reviews that illustrate this clearly. I mean it is a bit of a step past "let me Google that for you" but a little due diligence before posting would help...
EDIT: Ah, sorry for being a grumpy-pus. I must need a snack.
Anyway, everything is fine and working just the way it should.
p.16 #20 · TZE-01 Owners Unite! Images/Evaluation Data for Techart Sony E > Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter / image picture pictu
kwalsh wrote:
Then you must not have ever read a review of the Sigma before you bought it because the distortion in the review samples are 100% identical to the amount of distortion in your sample.
And of course it is impossible for an adapter with no glass in it to change the distortion of a lens.
Oh I read it, and it was nothing as bad as what I and seeing. Nor do other lenses exhibit the pincushioning that I have. However an adapter without glass can certainly cause the image to display improperly if it does not accurately reflect the specified flange focal distance. Nikon Z is 16mm. Sony E is 18mm. That means the TZE must be only 2. What if it is off a bit, either consistently or inconsistently around the flange?
