Well, I\'m having all this time to examine the pics before I can load them here!
Again my 2nd and 3rd impressions are like the 1st, more about how similar than any major differences between them, especially comparing the results at F11.
In fact I can only really detect differences if I put in comparison mode in Lr5 and quickly flip from one to another, and even then they are very minor.
However, some differences are clear. The OM Zuiko is the widest, then the FD, then MC then Fuji, then there is a bit more of a jump down to the 25mm of the ZS.
The Minolta MC VFC is consistently slightly less sharp than the others throughout. However that could be just this copy or because it\'s been converted to EF. (However in tests with an MD version I used to own, I couldn\'t see any differences with it and this one.)
I can see that there are differences in depth of focus in front of and behind my focus point.
eg, the Zeiss ZS doesn\'t have good near corners, in fact they are the poorest of the lot , but it excels at distant corners. I\'m wondering if this is something to do with its strongly curved field?
It\'s no surprise that the OM Zuiko has best overall sharpness from corner to corner, but it\'s nearly matched by the FD and then next by the Fuji.
Because of the poor close corners of the ZS, I\'m very surprised to find that I\'m liking the OM, FD and Fuji results the best, the only slight fault with the Fuji is it is slightly less sharp wide open than the others, but that disappears 1 stop down.
However, the FD has the worst moustache distortion of the lot and that could well be a deal breaker for me as a landscape photographer.
Tiny differences in focus must make a big difference, because what I note about one shot, like worst distance depth of field, are then immediately cancelled out by the observations on the next scene I shot!
Jan 22, 2015 at 09:55 AM
Previous versions of timballic's message #12813068 « Sony A7 24mm F2.8 Lens Comparison/shootout »
