Two shots. Both handheld taken with a Sony a7R V and similarly processed in Lightroom. Both shots are at f/8. Both color corrected with some other tweaks in Lightroom. Both are corrected for vignetting, as best I could. I also leveled them....tough when you handhold a shot like this.
Why did I use this shot for the comparison? It's what I had. I can go make more, just not a huge priority for me.
Which is the Simera and which was taken with another lens (that has 3 low dispersion and 3 aspherical elements)? A or B....and why did you choose what you chose?
Both photographs are competent, even appealing at a casual glance. But hold them side by side for longer than a heartbeat and the underlying optical philosophies begin to reveal themselves.
One of the images presents a kind of engineered cleanliness. The edges bite a little too eagerly, micro-contrast is almost combative, and the transition zone has that familiar aspherical “snap” where mid-distance detail collapses prematurely into an undifferentiated wash. It’s technically impressive, yes, but visually brittle. You can practically sense the design brief: maximum correction, minimum forgiveness.
The other image approaches the scene differently. The air between planes remains intact. Objects recede as they do in the real world, not by vanishing but by softening, holding shape just long enough to maintain the illusion of space. Highlights diffuse rather than fracture. There is coherence here — not the coherence of charts, but the perceptual coherence of how we actually see.
No need to name brands, but one of these lenses carries multiple aspherical surfaces whose job is to polish away every trace of natural behavior. The other follows a more humanistic design lineage, allowing curvature and tonal falloff to work together instead of against each other.
What fascinates me is how decisively the difference shows up in the emotional geometry of the frame. In one image, the subject appears isolated by force. In the other, the subject seems situated in relation, in context, in space. The distinction is subtle but profound: separation versus presence.
MTF charts, as always, are unhelpful here; they are blind to dimensional interplay. They speak in frequencies, not in perception. They can measure sharpness but not the continuity between sharpness and its dissolution — which is where a lens either succeeds or fails at translating the world into a believable image.
To put it simply: One image offers precision without breath. The other offers breath without sacrificing precision.
No need to specify which is which. Anyone who spends time with both photographs will feel the divergence immediately. And that feeling — that almost tactile sense of depth, coherence, and atmospheric integrity — tells you everything you need to know about how differently lenses can interpret the same moment in time.
---
Just kidding a bit here! I respect Philips work and style of writing, even the attempt to push how we see and value lenses, aesthetically and intellectually interesting, but we really needed to have this reality check – just to keep our feet on the ground. Often I feel I would love to hear more about the people and places, the context, when I see Philips pictures.
Looking at the corners at 100% I can identify the signature look of the Simera's corners compared to lens B. Also, like Yogifi said, there is slightly less detail in the bark on the trees in A compared to B.
But...both look almost identical unless blown up to 100%.
For me, the strength of the Simera lenses is in the f1.4 - f2.8 range where I love the overall look of people in the environment and how the bokeh looks. They excel in close-ups as well (at least for me). I just posted an image in the FE thread (and Simera threads) of roses up close in the Tuileries Garden. I love the look of these lenses in images like those.
In the Simera image, Immediately obvious are the strikingly wide gamuts of greens and reds. You can clearly see trees with different hues. Different species have very different color presentations. Reds and near tones like red-oranges are very well presented. We are only looking at color here, but it’s easy to see the exact location and shapes of trees.
You understand the Simera image more easily and fully, as it rapidly engages your vision.
😇
Will try to respond to everyone later tonight. Just want to make sure people realize that I do think lenses can produce different looks (and may be more noticeable at wider apertures), but lately there is kind of rarified air when it comes to discussions about a certain lens manufacturer. I'm definitely cool with different people liking and choosing different lenses and equipment.
What spurred me to post was this post of the 3D pop thread. It looked like a more stopped down shot, but the difference in lighting, focal length, etc made it really hard for me to look at the objective merits of the lenses being compared.
Thanks for doing this Tim. In web res, the photos are very close where most wont even pick up the differences, but in the full size there are some differences in sharpness and micro-contrast. Based on this, my guess:
A = Simera
B = Other lens
I dont see any striking differences in the gamuts of red and greens or how one image rapidly engages your vision or how the real life color nuances are not coming across in one image. Geez, the guy probably needs help + meds to calm the heck down. I'm starting to get really sick and tired of a particular forum member who posts all kinds of subjective nonsense dressed in poetic gobbledygook, non-simera brand bashing and then posts a "comparison" image set that demonstrates a lack of fundamental understanding of comparing apples to apples. But I digress...
Yogifi wrote:
I'm not sure which lens it's being compared to (though I am curious!) but the differences seem basically negligible to my eye in this comparison.
Image (A) having a little less detail on the tree trunks (left inner midzone) and less sharp at the edge (I checked left-side).
It's only visible if you look at the full-size, I can't tell any differences without opening that up.
Yes, agree with your summary on the shots. I think lens "A" is probably taking some lingering penalty for not being optimized for Sony sensor stack. Someone recently posted a comparison of the Simera 28/1.4 on a thin sensor mode body and a stock Sony body. Sorry, I forget who it was, and I'm horrible with names, so that's probably part of it. As you stop down, impact on sensor stack mismatches is mitigated somewhat, but I suspect there is still some measureable penalty at f/8 (could be wrong though.)
Kalainen wrote:
Both photographs are competent, even appealing at a casual glance. But hold them side by side for longer than a heartbeat and the underlying optical philosophies begin to reveal themselves.
One of the images presents a kind of engineered cleanliness. The edges bite a little too eagerly, micro-contrast is almost combative, and the transition zone has that familiar aspherical “snap” where mid-distance detail collapses prematurely into an undifferentiated wash. It’s technically impressive, yes, but visually brittle. You can practically sense the design brief: maximum correction, minimum forgiveness.
The other image approaches the scene differently. The air between planes remains intact. Objects recede as they do in the real world, not by vanishing but by softening, holding shape just long enough to maintain the illusion of space. Highlights diffuse rather than fracture. There is coherence here — not the coherence of charts, but the perceptual coherence of how we actually see.
No need to name brands, but one of these lenses carries multiple aspherical surfaces whose job is to polish away every trace of natural behavior. The other follows a more humanistic design lineage, allowing curvature and tonal falloff to work together instead of against each other.
What fascinates me is how decisively the difference shows up in the emotional geometry of the frame. In one image, the subject appears isolated by force. In the other, the subject seems situated in relation, in context, in space. The distinction is subtle but profound: separation versus presence.
MTF charts, as always, are unhelpful here; they are blind to dimensional interplay. They speak in frequencies, not in perception. They can measure sharpness but not the continuity between sharpness and its dissolution — which is where a lens either succeeds or fails at translating the world into a believable image.
To put it simply: One image offers precision without breath. The other offers breath without sacrificing precision.
No need to specify which is which. Anyone who spends time with both photographs will feel the divergence immediately. And that feeling — that almost tactile sense of depth, coherence, and atmospheric integrity — tells you everything you need to know about how differently lenses can interpret the same moment in time.
---
Just kidding a bit here! I respect Philips work and style of writing, even the attempt to push how we see and value lenses, aesthetically and intellectually interesting, but we really needed to have this reality check – just to keep our feet on the ground. Often I feel I would love to hear more about the people and places, the context, when I see Philips pictures. ...Show more →
Wow. All I could think was the Borg assimilating more and more people...or the Jedi mind trick. You really did a good job there, kudos!
Looking at the corners at 100% I can identify the signature look of the Simera's corners compared to lens B. Also, like Yogifi said, there is slightly less detail in the bark on the trees in A compared to B.
But...both look almost identical unless blown up to 100%.
For me, the strength of the Simera lenses is in the f1.4 - f2.8 range where I love the overall look of people in the environment and how the bokeh looks. They excel in close-ups as well (at least for me). I just posted an image in the FE thread (and Simera threads) of roses up close in the Tuileries Garden. I love the look of these lenses in images like those.
Great game, Tim! We need to do this more often....Show more →
Bingo. You called it. And I'm not saying the Simera doesn't have merits. I suspect there will be more noticeable differences at wider apertures, possibly different focus distances as well. So what draws you to it, draws you to it, as you note. So definitely not trying to knock any lens in this comparison.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
In the Simera image, Immediately obvious are the strikingly wide gamuts of greens and reds. You can clearly see trees with different hues. Different species have very different color presentations. Reds and near tones like red-oranges are very well presented. We are only looking at color here, but it’s easy to see the exact location and shapes of trees.
You understand the Simera image more easily and fully, as it rapidly engages your vision.
😇
Yeah, not sure there is any transcendental aspect to this comparison. It's possibly different lenses, with different vignetting characteristics could impact exposure. And a lens may be default impart a warmer and cooler pallette before you start post processing, but in this case I didn't see a huge different after adjusting color temps.
Picture This! wrote:
Thanks for doing this Tim. In web res, the photos are very close where most wont even pick up the differences, but in the full size there are some differences in sharpness and micro-contrast. Based on this, my guess:
A = Simera
B = Other lens
I dont see any striking differences in the gamuts of red and greens or how one image rapidly engages your vision or how the real life color nuances are not coming across in one image. Geez, the guy probably needs help + meds to calm the heck down. I'm starting to get really sick and tired of a particular forum member who posts all kinds of subjective nonsense dressed in poetic gobbledygook, non-simera brand bashing and then posts a "comparison" image set that demonstrates a lack of fundamental understanding of comparing apples to apples. But I digress... ...Show more →
You are correct, "A" is the Simera. I'm sure there would be more noticeable difference at wider apertures. But at least with these 2 lenses, I don't think there is some fundamental huge difference in color captured.
Here's a bonus. Probably my favorite E mount wide angle prime. Also at f/8 and processed similar to the Simera and Sigma above. This lens seems to maximize depth of field at landscape apertures. It's a bit wider than 28mm though.
Very interesting! It reminds of a thread on DPR where people couldn't tell 16-50 kit lens from 24/1.8 ZA (also shot around f/8 I think).
Next time remove the EXIF please (I inadvertently looked it up on the dowloaded fullsize images) .
The interesting thing is that (at 200% at least) I get the impressions the right side (trees) is marginally better on the Simera. But it's the other way around on the left side...
j4nu wrote:
Very interesting! It reminds of a thread on DPR where people couldn't tell 16-50 kit lens from 24/1.8 ZA (also shot around f/8 I think).
Next time remove the EXIF please (I inadvertently looked it up on the dowloaded fullsize images) .
The interesting thing is that (at 200% at least) I get the impressions the right side (trees) is marginally better on the Simera. But it's the other way around on the left side...
Ah, will do. I didn't realize Flickr didn't strip it on the full size ones. I'll manually strip it next time. Obviously you know what lens "C" is now as well.
It's possible one of them has some tilt I guess. I didn't test the Simera for centering. And given the Sigma is a more complex, it's not outside the realm of possibility. Although when I tested in the past, it seemed well centered.
I didn’t look at the exif data on the third lens but I’m guessing it’s the Loxia 25 based on the field of view and comments you’ve made over the years.
I respect Philips work and style of writing, even the attempt to push how we see and value lenses, aesthetically and intellectually interesting, but we really needed to have this reality check – just to keep our feet on the ground. Often I feel I would love to hear more about the people and places, the context, when I see Philips pictures. 
(also shot around f/8 I think).