lambers wrote:
I agree. Returning lenses due to minimal colour difference when all you need to do is move one or two sliders in Lightroom is crazy. Field curvature, on the other hand, is a showstopper and there are no sliders that will cure this evil with the Loxia 21.
What cures field curvature is stopping down and stopped down to f/5.6 or narrower the filed curvature of the Loxia 21 that is quite mild has never affected any of my shots.
I think it is important to mention the obvious. Colors can look slightly different for different people. Heck even left and right eyes can collect color information differently. So there are many factors that go into how the brain interprets the information collected by our eyes. Another know fact is age. Someone here that is 70 most likely is "seeing" colors slightly different than even a 50 year old. Luckily colors can be tweaked to our individual liking now a days so color is the least of my concerns about any lens. That is not to say I don't have favorite straight out of camera looks. But although it may seem like just the colors are different it is usually alot more than just colors that contribute to that "look" each of us like of certain lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
What cures field curvature is stopping down and stopped down to f/5.6 or narrower the filed curvature of the Loxia 21 that is quite mild has never affected any of my shots.
Yes, to some extent. One needs to learn the lens behaviour from practical experience to get a grip on that. This means that there is both some experimentation on part of the user to gain that experience and a learning curve involved.
E.g. the Sony 90/2.8 G has some field curvature for distant subjects, which has to be learnt.
Holger wrote:
I still think people spend too much time with this "tonal subtleties" and minutia. They spend hours discussing A vs. B, weigh this against that. In a blind test I bet this very same people won't be able to distinguish the lenses they are discussing (unless we include characteristica like sun stars, for example). Post processing, the motive, the perspective, the composition are much more important.
If I need to spend a lot of time finding out differences, in my opinion that's time better spend on taking images and improving technique. Interestingly, I usually find people not doing this for a living to discuss it most. A look at their Flickr, Insta etc. (I don't mean anyone specific here, so please don't take that personal) often shows images which won't look better irrespective of lens used. That's my personal opinion.
Of course people are free to do so, esp. if its their hobby, but to what purpose? I think nobody will stand in front of an image and think, would that have been better looking when taking with lens B vs. lens A? The very fact alone that so many opinions exists tells me a lot about this latest lenses. I had the Loxia. And I now have the 20G and sold the Loxia. I cannot find enough positives for the Loxia and color differences are the least of my concern. You will have your opinion which likely differs from mine. ...Show more →
I respectfully disagree with you on several points, and agree on several. But I'll pass on continuing to discuss--we obviously have different ideas and priorities about shooting. I am glad though that we both have suitable options
Although 14mm is quite different than 20mm, I would love to see a comparison of the 20G to the Sigma 14f1.8 Art. Particularly with astro work. The 14Art is considered a strong performer.
I have a 14Art but it is big and heavy in Sony mount, (or any mount). In the long run I wonder if I would have a better field kit with the 20G along with a Sigma14-24f2.8 or the rumored 12-24GM.
p.6 #10 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Colour is problematic across populations and individuals, obviously. Too much to get into here, but age is often a big advantage, as are lifestyle and fitness and outdoor life experience. Some believe colour is learned, even genetic across populations. With mass urbanisation and pollution, lifestyle has changed so much - for the worse, for billions.
Many kids grow up in metal/glass dominant urban environs, do intensive close work, never focus at infinity and need eye correction sooner/more than their parents. It's been known for decades and they are moving into adult age groups en masse. The better you see colour, the more you see deficiencies and casts. In the natural environment, lives depended on this skill.
A-B tests work but you need hundreds of images to achieve representativeness, to even out extraneous effects like exposure and lighting. Look at lots of images for a candidate lens, if colour is critical to your work!
p.6 #11 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
philip_pj wrote:
Colour is problematic across populations and individuals, obviously. Too much to get into here, but age is often a big advantage, as are lifestyle and fitness and outdoor life experience. Some believe colour is learned, even genetic across populations. With mass urbanisation and pollution, lifestyle has changed so much - for the worse, for billions.
Many kids grow up in metal/glass dominant urban environs, do intensive close work, never focus at infinity and need eye correction sooner/more than their parents. It's been known for decades and they are moving into adult age groups en masse. The better you see colour, the more you see deficiencies and casts. In the natural environment, lives depended on this skill.
A-B tests work but you need hundreds of images to achieve representativeness, to even out extraneous effects like exposure and lighting. Look at lots of images for a candidate lens, if colour is critical to your work!
Color is the worst. Everyone sees it a little differently, but I don't fault that.
What does irk me, is everybody has lots of opinions, but nobody (or rarely if ever that I see) has crops or even tries to scientifically compare color.
p.6 #12 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've just took this sample at f/11 for both Sony 20/1.8 and Loxia 21/2.8.
I was not intentionally looking for an angle that minimizes flare. I could move the lens around the sun and the results were the same. I am actually getting a bit more ghosting with the Loxia in many situations. I can't say this lens has bad flare resistance. Quite the opposite.
Hi Fred,
I know the two images were shot at same settings and processed the same but the Sony image just looks darker. Especially looking at the sky portion of what is dark and what is near blown out. Are the colors really different or is it that the aperture is not really accurate and a simple exposure adjustment would make them look more similar?
I have no dog ion this fight, as I sold my Loxia and only considering the 20mm for astro.
p.6 #14 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Makes me glad I abandoned my beloved Nikon for Sony a few years ago. That 20mm from Nikon is ridiculously long for no apparent major optical advantage. I've always felt that my modern Nikon AF DSLR lenses were overly large and apparently the trend has continued with their Z mount. Apparently Sony has access to better optical designers that Nikon or made better managerial decisions on their 20mm design.
p.6 #15 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
billsnature wrote:
Hi Fred,
I know the two images were shot at same settings and processed the same but the Sony image just looks darker. Especially looking at the sky portion of what is dark and what is near blown out. Are the colors really different or is it that the aperture is not really accurate and a simple exposure adjustment would make them look more similar?
I have no dog ion this fight, as I sold my Loxia and only considering the 20mm for astro.
Bill
It's a difference in color rendering Bill. I see that in all my comparison samples. Like someone wrote, color can be tweaked in post, so for many shooters, it's not a major concern.
p.6 #17 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
jhinkey wrote:
Makes me glad I abandoned my beloved Nikon for Sony a few years ago. That 20mm from Nikon is ridiculously long for no apparent major optical advantage. I've always felt that my modern Nikon AF DSLR lenses were overly large and apparently the trend has continued with their Z mount. Apparently Sony has access to better optical designers that Nikon or made better managerial decisions on their 20mm design.
Nikon did a great job with the the Z-mount 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. According to the fan-base touting the big mount-advantage, I expected the 20/1.8 to be "clearly superior", but to the contrary, if Jim K.'s result will be confirmed by Fred Miranda, the Sony is sharper in the center and a least as good in the corners with less vignetting. CAs are very very low, too and that in a clearly smaller package. I really like the lens so far.
Unfortunately weddings are postponed or cancelled at the moment to really put pressure on the lens ...
Mar 30, 2020 at 02:45 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #18 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Holger wrote:
Nikon did a great job with the the Z-mount 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. According to the fan-base touting the big mount-advantage, I expected the 20/1.8 to be "clearly superior", but to the contrary, if Jim K.'s result will be confirmed by Fred Miranda, the Sony is sharper in the center and a least as good in the corners with less vignetting. CAs are very very low, too and that in a clearly smaller package. I really like the lens so far.
Unfortunately weddings are postponed or cancelled at the moment to really put pressure on the lens ...
It is hard to have a lens clearly superior to the Sony 20 f/1.8 G. It is a very nice lens in a nice small package. We know from the tests Fred has done so far that the Sony G is phenomenally sharp in the center. It beats the Loxia 21 there as well. It doesn't do too badly in the corners either and stopped down is really nice there as well. Keep in mind, however, that Jim Kasson's results are labelled preliminary. He does good tests, but this is just a test of sharpness at one focus distance. His pattern is to do quite a number of tests. I don't expect the final results to be much different, but let's see what else he comes up with. Even from this one test, however, both lenses clearly performed well. I think we will find that both lenses are quite nice additions to the market and will serve their customers well, but the Sony lens is smaller, even if the Nikon is not incredibly large.
