Image by ePhotozine.
The Sony Hong Kong RX1 Press Release contains an interesting MTF resolution chart. Here is it:
The lines may don’t help you much without a comparison. Here are the resolution results of the [shoplink 13883 ebay]Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Biogon ZM lens[/shoplink] at f/2.0 aperture:
.
The RX1 lens is way better than the current ZM lens!
—
A99 body Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Jessops, Wex UK, Wex Germany, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH and more links at Alphacameradeals.
A99 with kit lens links Alphacameradeals.
RX1 Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK ,Wex Germany and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-6 body Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK, Wex Germany Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-6 with kit lens Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Jessops, Wex Uk ,Wex Germany and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-VG900 Amazon, BHphoto, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, Wex Uk and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-VG30 Adorama, Amazon, BHphoto, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Sony E-mount 16-50mm Amazon, Adorama, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals .
Sony E-mount 35mm Amazon, Adorama, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Sony E-mount 10-18mm Amazon, Adorama, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Sony A-mount 300mm f/2.8 Amazon, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH.
55 Responses
Man, that is one sharp lens!!!
And i’ve used the Biogon 35.
Hi,
Those MTF curves look to me to come from the marketing department instead of the lab.
Clue, no lens has 100% MTF at 10 lp/mm.
Best regards
Erik
Man, it is sharp and expansive too.
It expands ? That’s cool …
O_o looks like this lens under some circumstances might be sharper and bit more predictable then (very, very expensive) Zeiss 35 f/1.4 which already is one of the most outstanding lenses out there. Remarkable.
Pretty impressive. However have in mind that the Biogon ZM MTF shows 10, 20 and 40 l/mm and Sony’s MTF 10 and 30 l/mm.
I am not really an expert in MTF data, but clearly the results speaks for itself..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonyelectronics/sets/72157631631658271/with/8028160557/
🙂
Yes, this one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonyelectronics/8028159648/in/set-72157631631658271
Crazy field curvature?
lol. Perfect image to judge field curative.
expensive toy
I love constructive comments like this one. They really add a little something special to an otherwise factual and interesting discussion.
Now that is sarcasm I can get behind! Kudos; good call.
While it looks good they are two different designs for two different purposes. Besides outside of speed most people find the 35 Biogon-C superior to the 35 Biogon. I also wouldn’t consider the Biogon an “expensive” lens. It’s less expensive money than most premium 35mm system lenses.
the summicron 35mm f2 is named the sharpest of 35mm fullframes. the zeiss 35mm f2 per kenrockwells compaarison: The filter issue aside, this ZEISS is a spectacular lens, significantly sharper than the LEICA SUMMICRON-M 35mm f/2, as sharp as the LEICA SUMMICRON-M 35mm f/2 ASPH, and with less distortion than either!
so if this new sony 35mm rx1 lens is that much better mtf performance than the zeiss ZM, then the sony also easily beats the Leica Summicron? And you get a free sensor?
I don’t think ken is the only one who thinks that lens is sharper than the summicron. But it doesn’t matter, the biogon is a great lens by anyone’s standard, and as long as this rx1 is on par, I’m moe than satisfied. I also have to second ken on the filter issue. All my m-mount lenses are 46mm except the biogon. Annoying.
I searched for a source for the Zeiss 35/2.0 MTF chart so I could find the actual number of line pairs behind each curve. (Bad, bad, bad SAR not to include this info since an MTF comparison is worthless without).
I stumbled over this page whichs shows MTF for the Leica lens too:
http://sonyalphanex.blogspot.dk/2012/09/rx1-35mm-sonnar-lens-mtf-chart.html
10 lines/mm and 30 lines/mm
Actually the Biogon MTF curves are 10, 20 and 40 cycles per mm. This and the fact that the Sony 35mm/2 Sonnar curve is calculated while the Biogon curve is measured on a machine makes a direct comparison scientifically invalid.
Sony compute their MTFs, which shows the theoretic maximum performance rather than real world results, whereas Zeiss measures actual lens samples off their production line for their in-house lenses. Computed and measured MTFs are really apples to oranges.
If my memory is serving me right, Zeiss also use 40lpmm rather than the 30lpmm that Sony uses.
When it comes time to measure real world performance, the Sony lens is likely going to do very well too. It is not because of superior craftsmanship or experience, but likely simply due to the fact that they can take advantage of a 1 to 1 lens / sensor relationship and don’t have to worry about other design constraints such as an interchangeable bayonet system for one. Some will call it a toy, others characterize it as expensive “prestige” jewelry, but for some, it will in fact be a serious photography tool.
Tom
And possibly a new way to design capturing systems. I’d like to see Sony bring out some lens extensions.
+100000
yeahh i hope sony bring RX1 with wide and tele conventer lens
Keep in mind: The Sony lens is a calculated chart, The Zeiss is a measured chart. Calculated and measured mtf charts should not be compared.
Can’t wait to see what the “Moan and whinge about the price brigade”, make of this.
That is one very sharp and high contrasty lens! The MFT are very, very high even to the corners!
Even if you consider the RX1 lens to be “only” as good in real life situations as the beforementioned other top lenses, you deduct the cost of those from the RX1 price …..
…. the RX1 looks still like a bargain, then. 🙂
I own the ZM 35/f2 and it is one very sharp lens…Less so at f2 I will admit but improves rapidly by f2.8…What people are missing here is that lens distortion plays a significant roll in the design of a lens, which will have a knock on effect upon a MTF chart, I wouldn’t particularly want a lens that was razor sharp if the distortion was crap…The 35mm Biogon ZM lens has practically zero distortion!
I see no mention of the 35mm Sonnar distortion figures!…I wonder why they didn’t include the distortion chart.
Precisely because the distortion is so bad. 4% barrel or so.
I remember a while back I floated my opinion that the RX1 had a built-in flash. Carl Garrard told me absolutely it did not. Tonight I read on B&H that it definitely does – the pictures show it clearly and the review mentions it. Twice.
Does it? Or doesn’t it? I find it strange that a so-called hands on reviewer could get something so fundamental so wrong.
There are photos of the RX1 flash, it’s identical to the flash on the nex7.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/3
It isnt, it will not be possible to make it aim upwards for bounce flash. A for power, I dont know.
I’m afraid the chart in the HK press release may not be correct. You can find the MTF chart in the Sony Japan site.
http://www.sony.jp/cyber-shot/products/DSC-RX1/feature_1.html
It’s still impressive, though.
False comparison. Sony, Canon, etc. use calculated mtfs. Zeiss uses measured mtfs that can’t be directly compared.
arent they both zeiss lenses?
I agree, it’s wrong to use these charts as a direct comparison between the two lenses. Diffraction reduces the measured micro contrast to a level less than the calculated values obtained from the transform function. When the Zeiss lens is interpolated to 30 line pairs, it however gives an indication that in the tangential direction the performance is a tad better in RX1 but still, unless measured directly, they can’t be compared.
At f/2 and 30 lpmm, diffraction is pretty much irrelevant…
Diffraction is included in the theoretical, or “as-designed” curves. The difference in design and measured curves is the tolerances on manufacturing and alignment, of both the lens elements and the housing components.
Even allowing for a very generous 0.9 3-sigma error budget, rest assured, the final production lenses will rock.
http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/y_RX1_ZEISS_MTF_02.jpg
That said, the 10-20-40 chart could well be measured or monte-carlo expected curves.
To me, from the samples I’ve seen, RX1 lens renders quite nicely, so I wouldn’t worry about the clinical sharpness as much. The Biogon T* 2/35 ZM alone is 68 mm long, whereas the RX1 in total is 70mm. deep. That’s where it makes the difference.
But no one has seen the Japanese press release which shows another chart, wide open, where it shows the 40lp/mm lines. I asked my Japanese friends to translate that part of the release but neither of them could see whether the chart was calculated or measured. That being said, it is still better than the summicron, biogon and distagons.
http://www.sony.jp/cyber-shot/products/DSC-RX1/feature_1.html
scroll down.
Patrick–looking at those press-release charts, the 10 and 20 lp/mm lines are identical to the 10 and 30 lp/mm lines in the SAR chart.
I assume that means “calculated”, and I wonder whether the chart SAR found is mislabeled–perhaps what we’ve been looking at are for 10 and 20 lp/mm.
Indeed, you are right. We are looking at 10/20 lp/mm in the SAr table which is the same one as in sonyalphanex blog. Andrea, you may want to check the error in the chart above. I would likely trust the japanese site more because the chart you show above has been around for a while.
Good lens.
However, as it comes paired with its own body, it remains to be seen of how much options of creativity the body allows for pros, compared to a regular pro DSLR body.
An interchangeable lens would have allowed attaching itself to a pro body that provides options for tethering, all kinds of unlimited bracketing, superior auto focus module, advanced lighting options, wireless flash control, attaching gears for pro videography etc. etc.
Will the Cybershot provide all that? …I doubt… as we’re still waiting for an Alpha to provide all that in one package.
So, if the camera cannot provide suppot for all these pro options, I do not see any reason for comparing its lens to the other interchangeable pro lenses.
Many people talk about the limits of the lens without mentioning the fact that it has a macro ring. This makes it more well-rounded than many suggest.
+1000
C’mon. Zeiss has been making lenses for what, a hundred years? Cosina has been making Zeiss lenses for 20 years? Better than lenses that cost 5 times as much? This kind of test result could only be the result of a major breakthrough in lens technology. Sony would be trumpeting the new tech from the mountain tops. Not a peep. Probably a good lens but it seems naive to me to swallow this MTF with no skepticism.
Might be real, but possibility is quite low. I think its same issue as with most manufacturers.
Leica and Zeiss (including Cosine ones) create MTF graphs by actually measuring them (same as most reviewers do, just they know bit better how to do it, especially Zeiss, since they invented MTF graphs).
This on other hand looks very much like so called “calculated” graph. Which is graph of theoretical lens output (part of lens design is that you will know how it will work, in theory). In practice, lower it by few notches and it should be close to real deal. I expect something exactly like that ZM in best case scenarion.
But as its Sony Zeiss, it might be lower.. They have some really nice Zeiss lens, but then some not so nice, as for example 16-80mm, which works only on very high F-stops and its not particulary amazing. Not mentioning very flaky QC on 24mm f2 SSM (including pretty weak coating and lots of flare). Then we got front element from 135mm f1.8 which can sometimes, well.. fall out. 😀
Tho from optical point of view only 16-80mm is “not so good”, rest is usually pretty good. Just that QC could be better..
I expect this combo to work very good (maybe as good as DP2 from Sigma), but I dont expect miracles. Truth is, that if it would be that good lens as MTF suggest, it would cost around 150-200% price of that RX1. 😀 And that would be lens only..
I’m not sure that I buy or understand these charts. These would infer that this is MUCH better than every other zeiss lens in existence. I own a G F2 45MM lens, recognized as being one of the best lenses every made by any company and it does not have MTF charts that are this good. Actual measured results might be different?
Sorry but the 16-80 is optically excellent. It’s probably the best 5x zoom on the market.
My copy of the 16-80 was really soft. I sold it on eBay and to be honest it gave me a bad feeling about Zeiss. It was only after borrowing a friend’s 35/f2 that I truly saw how sharp their lenses could be. I just wish I could afford my own copy 🙂
It’s not in any way a soft lens, Dave – I would suspect focus errors. Very sharp lenses can look soft misfocussed.
Put next to, say, the ZA24-70 or C/Y 100-300 APO the results aren’t quite so rosy.
That said, it’s a relatively cheap lens in the grander scheme of things, so that isn’t surprising.
Any of these are 5x zooms? Nope.
3x at most.
Well said Skywalker. In fact there’s little difference between the 16-80 and and the 24-70. Google the MTFs. People think the 24-70’s better because they use it on Aps-c and only use the lens’s sweetspot.
And the 16-80 is only really cheaper than the 24-70 because it uses smaller glasses and has a lighter build. If it was a full frame lens it would cost the same or more.
I am hoping Sony can release a RX pro with full frame sensor and a fixed 50mm f0.95, with a price much cheaper than Leica….
lol I know I am dreaming and it’s a bit irrelevant… please don’t bash me 😛
The 10-20-40 chart was published in the Sony brochure as well if you want to see it in English.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G9bziLLgIpE/UFAhDZIUChI/AAAAAAAAB_M/IvSlGEzRNN8/s1600/rx1-2.jpg