Back for another installment of NEX-7 lens tests...
There aren\'t many non-slr lens choices for the NEX-7 in the 20-25mm range. I have been comparing the ZA E 24mm and the PenF 25mm f/4, and the differences became quickly apparent. First, the ZA is a very modern design -- very sharp and contrasty from wide open to f/8. I think it\'s suitable for even landscape use even at f/2 - f/2.8. It has lots of CA, which is generally easily corrected in LR3 (R/C -24; B/Y +12).
The PenF is old, and not that well coated. It suffers from some purple corners and smearing on the 7. Although it\'s images always looked rich and contrasty to me, when I compared the PenF to the ZA, the ZA revealed much more contrast and micro-contrast, and was somewhat sharper in the center, and much sharper in the corners -- almost as sharp as my ZM 50 Planar.
I guess it makes sense -- a $200 40-year old lens isn\'t quite as sharp and contrasty as a $1,000 modern lens, but the PenF is a fine lens on its own.
I shot a quick comparison on a cloudy, low-contrast day. First is the overall frame at f/5.6 from the ZA:
Next are the centers at 100%, ZA on the left. I used Cornerfix on the PenF. Notice the contrast differences in the bushes and trees, especially the yellow areas. Results in bright sunshine are somewhat more remarkable, where fine resolution jumps from the ZA images, while the PenF looks sharp but doesn\'t reveal broad contrast or micro-contrast to nearly the same degree.
Here\'s a crop form the right edge. The PenF faded out badly in the low contrast mist, whereas the ZA held it\'s sharpness and contrast pretty well. It looks a bit like flare -- neither lens had a hood on:
I really like the ZA, and it\'s nice to have AF on a walkaround lens as well...
Back for another installment of NEX-7 lens tests...
There aren\'t many non-slr lens choices for the NEX-7 in the 20-25mm range. I have been comparing the ZA E 24mm and the PenF 25mm f/4, and the differences became quickly apparent. First, the ZA is very modern in design -- very sharp and contrasty from wide open to f/8. I think it\'s suitable for even landscape use even at f/2 - f/2.8. It has lots of CA, which is generally easily corrected in LR3 (R/C -24; B/Y +12).
The PenF is old, and not that well coated. It suffers from some purple corners and smearing on the 7. Although it\'s images always looked rich and contrasty to me, when I compared the PenF to the ZA, the ZA revealed much more contrast and micro-contrast, and was somewhat sharper in the center, and much sharper in the corners -- almost as sharp as my ZM 50 Planar.
I guess it makes sense -- a $200 40-year old lens isn\'t quite as sharp and contrasty as a $1,000 modern lens, but the PenF is a fine lens on its own.
I shot a quick comparison on a cloudy, low-contrast day. First is the overall frame at f/5.6 from the ZA:
Next are the centers at 100%, ZA on the left. I used Cornerfix on the PenF. Notice the contrast differences in the bushes and trees, especially the yellow areas. Results in bright sunshine are somewhat more remarkable, where fine resolution jumps from the ZA images, while the PenF looks sharp but doesn\'t reveal broad contrast or micro-contrast to nearly the same degree.
Here\'s a crop form the right edge. The PenF faded out badly in the low contrast mist, whereas the ZA held it\'s sharpness and contrast pretty well. It looks a bit like flare -- neither lens had a hood on:
I really like the ZA, and it\'s nice to have AF on a walkaround lens as well...
