So we have the N17-35 with much better bokeh, (perhaps) slightly better overall resolution - excellent Zone C (corners) and a quirky resolution blip in the Zone B mid-frame for those who care to compare. Should be stellar.
And it looks like they solved the weird performance drop-off above 24mm . . .
Assuming a D700X by mid-09, the mid/high-end DSLR market is becoming a very evenly matched proposition.
Unless Canon steps up with a world class IS 24-70L II at PMA, we could easily find that Sony offers the most attractive optics overall, combined with the highest resolution sensor and second-best AF. Nikon would still enjoy top-dog status for fast-moving subject matter, high ISO and ultra-wide superiority with the 14-24 and 24PCE (probably), and Canon could look a bit like the poor relation with its relatively weak AF and mediocre wide angles . . . only the 50L, 70-200/4 IS and long tele primes could be considered class-leading.
That, and the 5D II's HD video, which history will record either as a tremendously far-sighted innovation, or a temporary failure of judgment. Is the jury still out on that?
The beauty and appeal of Sony's line up is that they've designed it from the ground up with maximum economy and efficiency: most professionals yearn to simplify their menagerie of lenses to a handful of uncompromised tools. As it happens, I'd be delighted to chuck away every lens I own in favour of optimal, image stabilised Zeiss 16-35/2.8, 24/1.4, 24-70/2.8, 85/1.4, 135/1.8 and 80-400mm - plus a sweet fast 50 (the Sigma would do) plus a few macro and tilt lenses.
A 35/1.4 would be a bonus, but not a deal-breaker if absent. If I picked up an aberrant glut of sports work, I'd also pick up a 200/2.8 HS (feeling a bit jealous of the competition's f2 and faster options) and maybe worry that the Minolta 300/2.8 wasn't up to the Canon's standard, but as I don't make a living shoot footballers or birds, and as the Sony/Minolta tele-zooms are so fine, I could live with that.
Jan 22, 2009 at 04:57 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I agree that the playing field is definitely leveling, but I don't think things will be so bad for Canon. We'll see soon, but they might well release a 1D MKIV at PMA that would have both higher fps and higher resolution than the competitors. This camera might well challenge and even surpass Nikon for fast moving subjects. I also think that their 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 and to most people their 85mm f/1.2 will still be seen as class leaders. On the other hand, they would still need a 1Ds MkIV to come out before long to challenge (and perhaps surpass) Nikon (and Sony) at the high resolution side.
Sony is making nice progress, but they still have a ways to go. The 85 and 135 primes from Zeiss are nice, but their fast primes wider than this are pretty poor. They also still need a lot of work on all the longer teles as well. They have made a nice start and I hope and expect they will keep improving, but IMO they are still 2 to 3 years away from having anything like a complete system. Right now, however, for some types of shooting they are definitely very competitive. For example somebody who does studio portraits, could easily see the Sony system as the best for them. And now with the new 16-35 Zeiss discussed here even landscape shooters may find Sony to be the best system. Given a couple more years they could be competitive on all fronts even sports, PJ, and wildlife.
Fair play: forgot the class leading 35L! And there's no dispute about ownership of the 200-600mm range. The 85L II is very special, no doubt, but the Zeiss 85 isn't a dealbreaker: anything you can do with the Canon you can do with the Sony/Zeiss, bar the final half-stop.
But if Sony delivers the expected CZ25/1.X in the next few weeks, the system would be complete enough for many (including me!) to buy into. In fact, anything f2 or faster in the 25-35 range with Zeiss glass, AF and in-body stabilisation would keep me happy.
If I understand it correctly, the dip is only visible on flat objects such as testing targets. On 3D objects, the focus moves away from the ideal plane but will remain sharp.
There is a rumor going around that began on the xitek forum, and I emphasize RUMOR, that these fullframe lenses are coming soon:
Sony AF 24-105 F4 G SSM（Sony design）
Sony AF 200/fa macro za ssm（Zeiss design）
Sony AF 600/4 G SSM（Sony design）
Sony AF 24/1.4 ZA （Zeiss design）
If true, I think that does a good job of rounding out a nice Sony line-up, outside of T/S. We'll have to see. The only real surprise here is the Zeiss 200 macro, as we've seen a lot in regard to the other three lenses.
edwardkaraa wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the dip is only visible on flat objects such as testing targets. On 3D objects, the focus moves away from the ideal plane but will remain sharp.
Good point- I always wondered if the charts were done at just one focus point where the center is sharp, of if they were done at assorted focus'es IE, at optimum focus points for that particular area of the lens circle being measured.
Even assuming a flat test target, there's no clear evidence either way about the cause of the Zone B dip: it may or may not be field curvature ripple. However, I clearly saw a resolution drop in real-world 3D subjects in the 16:9 tests in the area predicted by the MTF.
Because we're so attuned to the 'domed' pattern of resolution fall-off, it doesn't present as a flaw on first inspection: the eye skips from the centre to the corner, where you expect to see softness - you find it surprisingly good, and you think it's all gravy.
And to be fair, even at its lowest ebb, the CZ17-35 still renders very sweetly at 10 and 20lpmm, which makes the effect tougher to spot. But when you compare it to a typical wide angle which better retains 40lpmm information in Zone B, the dip is undeniably present - and once you know it's there, it's hard to overlook, or forget.
So I suspect that the 16-35 will get great reviews, and people will be ever so impressed by the 100% corner samples, but it won't resolve as well across the frame as the Nikon 14-24mm. Having said that, the new lens does look better than the 17-35 in every department, and the colour and bokeh (the latter particularly surprising!) seem genuinely impressive.
Certainly an A900/CZ16-35 will significantly outperform anything Canon has this year.
douglasf13 wrote:
There is a rumor going around that began on the xitek forum, and I emphasize RUMOR, that these fullframe lenses are coming soon:
Sony AF 24-105 F4 G SSM（Sony design）
Sony AF 200/fa macro za ssm（Zeiss design）
Sony AF 600/4 G SSM（Sony design）
Sony AF 24/1.4 ZA （Zeiss design）
If true, I think that does a good job of rounding out a nice Sony line-up, outside of T/S. We'll have to see. The only real surprise here is the Zeiss 200 macro, as we've seen a lot in regard to the other three lenses.
Two of these are much more than rumour: it would be shocking if Sony didn't have the 24-105/4 available before the summer, having done everything bar announce the price in the last 18 months. Similarly, something like a 24/1.4 is all-but guaranteed this year: perhaps in the first half. Personally, I think a 25mm f2 is more likely . . .
Contrastingly, the 200mm macro is a rumour without a history. It would make sense, but we'll have to wait and see. The 600mm is widely considered pie in the sky.
What do you think about the distortion of this CZ-Sony 16-35?
It seems to be more than the 14-24G, just like the 18 ZF right?
Does the zone b dip go hand in hand with greater amounts of distortion?
Also, don't you think producing a world class 16-35 zoom is alot harder than a 14-24.
I think Nikon made the wise choice by going 14-24.
Hmmm. Comparing 16-35 v 14-24 for distortion is tricky/premature. Tricky because it's not entirely fair to say that the Nikon is well corrected for distortion because there is pronounced barreling at 14-15mm. However, the Zeiss can't even go there. And from 16-20mm, the Nikon is actually almost perfect, whereas the CZ is doubtless squiggly. And we haven't really seen enough from the new Zeiss across the zoom to get a feel for how it behaves.
Fascinating to note the earlier post re: floating elements and the Zone B dip. Certainly all the SLR Zeiss wides I've used have some waveform distortion particularly impacting on Zone C - as do the Leica versions. It's tempting to think of that as a 'bending back' of the field in order to improve corner resolution, but I think the effect is visible at all distances and not just across a plane which seems to point to something more than astigmatism at work.
hubsand wrote:
Contrastingly, the 200mm macro is a rumour without a history. It would make sense, but we'll have to wait and see. The 600mm is widely considered pie in the sky.
The 200 Macro and 600 are both cases of people desperately wanting Sony to replace certain VERY rare Minolta lenses that some would really like to get their hands on. It would be hard to come up with two rarer MA lenses.
So we have the N17-35 with much better bokeh, (perhaps) slightly better overall resolution - excellent Zone C (corners) and a quirky resolution blip in the Zone B mid-frame for those who care to compare. Should be stellar.
And it looks like they solved the weird performance drop-off above 24mm . . .
Are the Sony MTF's real or computed? If they are computed then the 17-35mm should be better wide open at the wide end, if they are real, then again the 17-35mm looks to out resolve the sony on zone B.
The Sony is becoming very a compelling alternative for some types of shooting. It will be great to see alternative adapters for that system evolve and the continued evolution of the lens line up.
Andrew Gough wrote:
Are the Sony MTF's real or computed? If they are computed then the 17-35mm should be better wide open at the wide end, if they are real, then again the 17-35mm looks to out resolve the sony on zone B.
They are computed, not "real" based on measured production samples. (seriously, do we really expect near 100% contrast in the center for 40lp/mm at 16mm at f8?!) These are Sony MTF's, and a somewhat consistent with the ones for their other lenses (presumably so they don't look worse than the Sony (nee Minolta) lenses.
With that in mind, I suspect that the Sony ZA 16-35 will perform similarly to the Contax 17-35. Hard to really say which will be better, but I suspect those differences will be small overall.
Andrew Gough wrote:
Are the Sony MTF's real or computed? If they are computed then the 17-35mm should be better wide open at the wide end, if they are real, then again the 17-35mm looks to out resolve the sony on zone B.
The Sony is becoming very a compelling alternative for some types of shooting. It will be great to see alternative adapters for that system evolve and the continued evolution of the lens line up.
Anybody's guess . . . Zeiss once had a grand tradition of actual-sample measurement, but it seems that Sony are less interested in this approach.
If we take the data at face value, it's hard to compare the wide open performance of both at 17mm because of such wildly divergent sagittal and tangential figures on the Contax N. Note, too, that the Contax version shows f5.6 data and the Sony f8 . . .
hubsand wrote:
Anybody's guess . . . Zeiss once had a grand tradition of actual-sample measurement, but it seems that Sony are less interested in this approach.
If we take the data at face value, it's hard to compare the wide open performance of both at 17mm because of such wildly divergent sagittal and tangential figures on the Contax N. Note, too, that the Contax version shows f5.6 data and the Sony f8 . . .
I have a feeling that they will be quite close, I would love to see them side by side
I'm not sure we can really tell so much concerning the bokeh yet given that the shot linked was almost in macro territory where even lenses considered to have ugly bokeh can look good. The samples I have seen from this lens do appear to have incredible color. I'm waiting on the rumored 24/25 ZA lens myself.
hubsand wrote:
Having said that, the new lens does look better than the 17-35 in every department, and the colour and bokeh (the latter particularly surprising!) seem genuinely impressive.
Certainly an A900/CZ16-35 will significantly outperform anything Canon has this year.
When Zeiss got the contract to build lenses for Hasselblad, it was most likely one of the best things that happened to Zeiss. A first rate camera now with first rate lenses. (I believe the first Hasselblads used lenses built by Kodak.)
But for 35mm SLRs, it seemed they always stumbled. Their partnership with Yashica, a second rate camera company, just didn't have the clout or visibility of Nikon or Canon. The Contax lenses and bodies were certainly first rate, but I believe being in bed with the Yashica brand, (then Kyocera) pulled them down. Now their superb AF lenses are featured on a Sony system. It may be a fine camera, but again, Sony is a company that is simply not known as a leader in 35mm types of cameras, and probably never will be. A real coup would have been to become the sole lens supplier to Mamiya (when Mamiya traded hands a couple years ago).
