I don't know if this is interesting or even helpful to anyone. But I thought I'd share it. Out of curiosity, I took a few photos yesterday with my Sony A7III (RAW) and developed them in Capture One.
With the following lenses:
Sony GM 50 1.2 (once at f1.2, once at f2.0)
Zeiss Batis 40 (at f2.0)
Zeiss Loxia 50 (at f2.0)
Tamron 35-150 (at 50mm and f2.2)
For comparison (especially for the Batis 40), I also used my Leica Q3 43.
I shot everything from a tripod and left the tripod in place, regardless of whether I was using the 40/43mm or the 50mm. The exposure compensation on the Leica was set to -0.3. I overlooked this and brightened it up accordingly in post-processing.
For me, what was primarily interesting was what a (quickly) edited photo (my workflow) would look like. Of course, I also have the unedited RAWs.
My workflow in C1 was simple. I primarily adjusted the exposure and tonal values. I applied a Mastin Labs filter (Fuji 160NS) over it. Then I set one image as a reference and applied it to the other images using the "Adjust Look" function.
I thought I'd share it, even though it's absolutely not scientific.
I find this an interesting test you did! For me, objectively speaking, the top three in order of an overall pleasing image would be: 1. Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM, 2. Tamron 35-150mm, 3. Zeiss Loxia 50mm. Between the two 40mm's, I think I prefer the bokeh of the Leica but the color of the Zeiss. Thanks for sharing, they all look great and I think most people who are not photographers would not notice the subtle differences.
adventure_photo wrote:
I find this an interesting test you did! For me, objectively speaking, the top three in order of an overall pleasing image would be: 1. Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM, 2. Tamron 35-150mm, 3. Zeiss Loxia 50mm. Between the two 40mm's, I think I prefer the bokeh of the Leica but the color of the Zeiss. Thanks for sharing, they all look great and I think most people who are not photographers would not notice the subtle differences.
Thank you for the feedback. I'm glad it was helpful or of interest to someone. Your ranking is really interesting!
Thanks for posting. I agree with adventure_photo's comments. The GM looks best overall and obviously f1.2 is special, but the Tamron is no slouch at f2.2 and has such a flexible range.
I haven't seen too many Leica Q 43 comparisons, and it looks good here. A little more field curvature in the far corners vs. the Batis, but overall the rendering is a bit smoother. I'd be curious to see it against the popular CV40.
While not scientific, this small comparison showcases what I didn't like about the Batis' rendering. A pity since I really liked its close focus capabilities.
The Tamron once again does better than it should.
Egg Salad wrote:
While not scientific, this small comparison showcases what I didn't like about the Batis' rendering. A pity since I really liked its close focus capabilities.
The Tamron once again does better than it should.
Egg Salad wrote:
While not scientific, this small comparison showcases what I didn't like about the Batis' rendering. A pity since I really liked its close focus capabilities.
The Tamron once again does better than it should.
The Batis 40 is probably not made for busy backgrounds and maybe not first choice for “classical" beauty photography. However, it can be wonderful for portraits if the setting is right. And, of course, for reportage.
I love it for its distinct look.
The Tamron, however, actually always delivers.
grahamgibson wrote:
I haven't seen too many Leica Q 43 comparisons, and it looks good here. A little more field curvature in the far corners vs. the Batis, but overall the rendering is a bit smoother. I'd be curious to see it against the popular CV40.
Thank you for your comment! I love the Leica Q3 43 for portraits. Maybe not that visible in this picture. This particular picture, but it’s bokeh is great (in my eyes).
Besides, I fully agree. The Sony 50 GM 1.2 is best for portraits. This is a very special lens. Followed probably by the Tamron 35-150.
Thanks for the comparison! It's certainly interesting to see how much (or not) the lenses differ between each other, especially if some processing is applied.
I think the non-scientific part is actually a good thing, as what matters in the end is effect the picture has on the person viewing it. Let alone the fact that doing an actual scientific-like comparison is quite time consuming and (both mentally and physically, tried one not that long ago) exhausting .
Now, nudge nudge, it would be great to see how the latest Sony f/2 zoom compares ...
NJPhotographer wrote:
What did you not like about the Batis' rendering?
While its dispersion discs are almost perfectly round, they are very well defined. This worked fine for close-ups but I found it way too distracting in medium range shots. I always looked kind of rough.
For me, the 2x 50/1.2 shots come out best in this set, with the Batis 40 a close third. Her cheeks are too flat and white in the other shots, indicating a lack of tonal gradation. As with the Q28, the Q43 is too contrasty for my taste -- surprisingly unlike other Leica lenses IMHO.
To my eyes
The Q3 43 has the best, cool as in calm, bokeh. The 50GM at f1.2 is good, at f2 the bokeh is worse. I don't think I can say anything about contrast levels as processing parameters are unknown.
@zeitlos@ You have made a nice comparison, thank you!
Of the 50mm shots, I like the 50/1.2GM at f/1.2 the least. Of the other three, they are near enough to equal in my eyes, although if I was forced to pick I think I would go for the Tamron. (And yes, I said I like the f/1.2 shot the least. I would say the bokeh is about the same on all of the lenses but obviously there is more blur at f/1.2, and for me the transition from in focus to out of focus seems unnatural.)
Of the 40mm shots, I think there is little between them but I have a slight preference for the Zeiss. The image just seems to have a little bit more "life" to it somehow (or is it just slightly more exposed and I am reacting to that?).
Just shows what an excellent lens the Tamron 35-150 is and especially as it is the only zoom in the bunch. Incredibly versatile as a portrait and event lens
Viramati wrote:
Just shows what an excellent lens the Tamron 35-150 is and especially as it is the only zoom in the bunch. Incredibly versatile as a portrait and event lens
Yes, it's the range for me mostly. I really like that 35mm on the wide end compared to 50mm for example...
Egg Salad wrote:
While its dispersion discs are almost perfectly round, they are very well defined. This worked fine for close-ups but I found it way too distracting in medium range shots. I always looked kind of rough.
Yeah, the Zeiss contrasty bokeh is not always the most attractive. I sold my Batis 40 for the 35GM (nice to also get another stop of light to play with).
j4nu wrote:
Yes, it's the range for me mostly. I really like that 35mm on the wide end compared to 50mm for example...
indeed and it's also f2 and 35mm
.
...