Click on image to enlarge
Zeiss 55mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
–
At very beginning some readers were disappointed to see that new Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 lens didn’t have a faster f/1.4 aperture. That said, the Zeiss 55mm shows an impressive performance! The graphs here show the FE lens versus the $4,000 Otus 55mm Zeiss. UPDATE: We are obviously are comparing apple and oranges as MTF graph do not match the same aperture. But as you see at medium apertures the lenses are on par. But obviously the Otus has been designed to give you a maximum sharpness at f/1.4 aperture. And compared to the Zeiss FE the corners are sharper when shooting wide open (f/1.4 the Otus and f/1.8 the FE). But not really by that much!
Click on image to enlarge
–
MTF graph source: Zeiss Otus pdf, Zeiss FE page.
Zeiss 55mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
65 Responses
Admin, now just wait for it…
Vlad knows what Sony should know but doesn’t appear interested in.
Umm…this must be a really slow day for SAR because it is so wrong to compare these MTFs.
Sony Zeiss’s MTF is calculated (no lens has 100% contrast even at f/8.0) whereas Zeiss Zeiss’ is measured from a real lens
In addition to that, the Sony lens does not have any data of light fall off or field flatness.
“On par” LOL!
Sure, when Samsung takes over photography…
+1
It takes one with F8 to match a F4, big difference
And look at the comparison when both are fully wide open. No contest. On par admin say? HAHAHAHA!!!!
stop dreaming pls. mtf of a sony zeiss is determined by calculation. and mtf of a cosina zeiss is determined by testing each of the lens. they are different!
and even a USD 100 50/1.8 would perform perfectly under f8
Cosina does the actual measurement? I thought all Japs use calculations…
BTW Otus is from the original Zeiss, not Cosina Zeiss.
a zeiss fan from Taiwan has actually sent a mail to zeiss engineer, asking about the mtf of ZA lens. and here are the reply he got.
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:56:47 +0200
From: “Hoenlinger, Bertram”
Dear Mr. Lau,
Thanks for your request.
The MTF data for all Sony lenses (including the Carl Zeiss ZA lenses) are created and published exclusively by our partner SONY. We do not have had influence on the published MTF charts.
So please contact Sony directly about the measuring methods and further details of their MTF data.
Best Regards
Bertram Hoenlinger
Reply – 2
(From Dr. Hubert Nasse who had published the guide for reading MTF diagrams in Camera Lens News)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:14:05 +0200
From: “Nasse, Hubert”
Dear Mr. Lau,
the curves which are shown in some Sony brochures have been “processed” with some freedom
by the graphics designers of the brochures. They are scientifically not valid, easily to be seen in
some cases where the figures exceed diffraction limits. So they should not at all be compared to
the data which are published by Carl Zeiss.
With best regards
Wow very interesting. Thanks for posting this. It would be nice to see some objective measurement of these two lenses, plus the a-mount Zeiss 50mm.
Yes, Diglloyd said so here: http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131008_2-Zeiss-Otus-55f1_4-MTF.html
A bit off topic but nice to be mentioned: If looking at a Leica M MTF one should be aware that it begins with a 5 lp/mm line while Zeiss is showing the 10/20/40 lp/mm lines only. The 5 lp/mm trick makes the Leica MTF look better in comparison.
Leica MTFs are based on calculation too. Only Zeiss AG publishes graphs that are made by measurement. But It wasn’t always like that too. More information are available here: http://translate.google.pl/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marcocavina.com%2Farticoli_fotografici%2Fzeiss_contarex_mtf%2F00_pag.htm
Exactly what I was about to say – cheap 50 f/1.8 SAM is as brilliant as Otus at f/8.
You don’t need to spend over 1000 euro to get lens that’s great at f/8.
lol
Admin tries to make a hype out of nothing.
Yes.. That’s what I’ve heard too.
And in fact Zeiss does NOTHING with either ZAs or NEX «zeisses» except badge: they designed by japanese and manufactured somewhere else (asia, of course).
any source for that statement?
If I recall, the Sony Zeiss partnership allows Sony lens designers to use Zeiss lens designs with their consent and the lens IQ will be QCed by Zeiss to make sure it’s up to their standards. I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me.
I think the 4000 dollar price tag for the otus is it’s f1.4 performance. The 55f1.8 lens seems to be a very good lens but having good f8.0 performance should be a given for any 1000 dollar lens
Most people buy primes like the 50mm to shoot wide open, not F8. Personally I couldn’t give a damn about F8.
If this was a wide angle, F8 might be relevant.
And corner performance is little relevant at the shallow DOF of 1.4/ 1.8.
If you need best corners, take a crop of the 36Mp 🙂
It’s reassuring for us mere mortals who can’t afford the Otus. It tells me that I can get exceptional performance out of a “premium” planar or distagon zeiss outside of wide open.
With that said, I don’t think this negates the value of the Otus. Many 50mm lenses either perform sharpest stopped down or wide open- it’s always slanted one way or the other. If you MUST HAVE top shelf performance at all times, then the Otus encompasses the performances of numerous 50mm’s all in one.
What a weird statement. Most lenses are very similar at f8 except for the really bad ones.
“At very beginning some readers were disappointed to see that new Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 lens didn’t have a faster f/1.4 aperture.”
It wasn’t just readers, I remember admin saying these camera’s should have been released with 35,55,85 F1.4 lenses from the get go.
Everyone did. For a 1000 euro this lens would be considered expensive even with f/1.4 aperture.
This lens information makes me want to migrate over to Sony even more now, quality primes will last through the next several generations of bodies, and make a good investment. I believe the the whole system is very agressively priced, and coupled with the possibility of using premium lenses like the Canon TS-E models, Sony is going to take a very large share of the market for Camera body sales in the commercial and prosumer segment.
This (SAR) really is a very well managed site, and Sony should be thankful that they didn’t run you off the web. Thanks for the work organizing the information Admin.
Just a quick question. How precisely do we learn from this lens chart? Are charts 100% reliable and accurate?
F8 vs f4?
If we’re counting the amount of stops from wide open…then maybe. It would be best to have f4 vs f4.
I am willing to bet, however, that the Otus is not worth 2-3k more than the FE at those apertures. I think the Otus raison-d’etre is for wide open performance, though, where it should be harder to beat.
Reading the site on my phone. I should have gone further down before writing. OK, the FE is close-ish to the Otus but still 1.8 vs 1.4…
The Otus is also designed specifically to render for high MP cameras and that is its biggest advantage.
So is the FE 55mm. Not saying it is better than the Otus but isn’t much worse!
Where does it say that?
How many stops down from maximum aperture doesn’t mean much at all. Everything comes down to lens design and then diffraction when looking at the image quality of the photo.
I don’t care so much about charts and numbers to validate a purchase for me. From what I’ve seen off the back of the LCD screen at the Photoplus Expo, I was indeed very impressed with the 50mm even at 1.8. No doubt examining photos on the high resolution monitor back home would impress me further.
I agree there are issues comparing these figures. I wish that Sony would publish more “real” measurements but I doubt the MTF graph is wildly different in reality. The FE 55mm gives it up to the Otus only the extreme corners–and I do mean extreme corners. Edge to edge the two should be very similar in sharpness. I think real world and third party testing will confirm this once the cameras and lenses are out in the wild. Sony/Zeiss knew the 55mm had to be really great because it would be paired from day one with a 36MP camera.
Also, not every lens gets that good by f/8–not even close. (I did some poking around at comparable lenses when the FE’s were announced to decide whether they were worth it. Look up actual MTF graphs.) Also the difference in DoF, light transmission (esp. on a digital sensor), and bokeh is very small between f/1.8 and f/1.4. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if someone can show me real world evidence.
All that said for the time being I’m sticking to my Zeiss planar on my A7 for the time being. But that’s a cost factor on my end.
I have the ZF planar 50/1.4 and I was comparing its mtf to the FE 55 and it looks to me the FE wide open is better than my planar stopped down at least in charts. The planar is the cheapest Zeiss though.
An apples and oranges comparison on just about every level. The whole premise of this is therefore nonsense. The only way to compare these is to compare them at the same apertures using the same test jig at the same time under the same conditions, by the same technician, etc, etc… Comparing a lens at f/4 that is stopped down 3 stops vs another that is stopped down 4.5 stops is a waste of time.
Sharpness is not everything. Bokeh quality, flare resistance, color rendition, micro contrast and build quality are all part of what makes a lens great. Zeiss the actual has been known o make extraordinary lenses in terms of these aspects, the 15mm Zeiss Distagon ZM is the most flare-resistant and contrasty superwide I have ever used, and the micro contrast advantage over a Voigtlander 15mm is obvious even when shots are downsized to monitor resolutions.
I do expect the 55 1.8 to be a very good 50mm prime. But from the samples I see now, there is coma wide open, flare resistance is mediocre at best compared to the Zeiss 50mm planar, and Bokeh quality, while certainly not bad, is not really praiseworthy for a f1.8 50mm prime. IMO the Makro-planar 50mm f2 has comparable sharpness wide open and slightly better rendition.
Man, I used the Zeiss 15mm before on the NEX 7 and although not as wide as it’s supposed to be (looking forward to test it on my future A7r 😉 ), damn it’s SHARP! VIRTUALLY NO DISTORTION! THE MICRO CONTRAST IS GREAT! THE COLOR IS GREAT TOO! and when compared to the Nikon 14-24 (another very excellent lens and it’s a zoom as well!), there’s no comparison, at 15mm the Zeiss is just simply better!
I hope that 24-70/f4 will be just as well designed lens as theese new primes seem to be. The samples so far were all at f8 and f11 on that zoom, so not that encouraging.
a7 + 24-70 + 55 might be my go-everywhere 1.2kg combo 🙂
I cant believe how light the upcoming 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 is, the 70-200 is even lighter then some Zeiss ZF.2 offerings, I believe it is lighter or the same weight as the excellent 100 f/2,8 Makro Planar and the Otus-before-they-named-it-that-way 135 f/2.
A7/r + FE 24-70 + FE 70-200 = The ultimate high quality travel companion
Sony – you’re such a tease! It’s time to get body in hand. 🙂
How about Zeiss FE 55mm vs CZ 50mm 1.4?
+10000
Now that is a good idea.
That is not a surprise. Even bad fast lenses do a good job stopped down that much.
I don’t actually think you can say one lens is better than another? OK you think I am crazy. Is a lens and camera just a technical gadget? Is it just about directing fotons to a sensor/film or is it about what you make out of it? I think you create better pictures out of a camera and lens you really love. Do you want to carry it ALL the time? Do you like others beeing jealous? Is the lens beautiful?
I think Nikon F was nice. So was Lieca M4 and now Sony Nex7 and A7!
That matters more to me than Steve Huffs ratings – just to mention one expert.
Looking at their designs one can suggest that FE 55/1.8 is a simplified version of Otus 55, that could be shared by Zeiss with Sony. Both are different from SAL 50/1.4 and 50/1.4Z, which are symmetric Planar alike.
Quite hard to say it that way cuz:
1. The 55 is a Planar design whereas the Otus is a Distagon design
2. The Otus Distagon is a combination of 2 lens designs, I’m guessing a mix between Distagon and Planar hence why it has certain elements that look the same, sort of.
3. Generally all lens optics once you study em will belong to certain group of designs families, so while the 55 Planar is shaping out great, I doubt it’ll make use of the 2 lens design families found on the Otus
No, FE 55 is not Planar. Check it yourself: Otus 55 vs FE 55. They are strikingly similar. Groups 1, (2,3), 4 and 5 of FE correspond to groups (2,3), (5,6), 7 and 8 in Otus, kind of. Both have 1 AD element and 5 aspherials in FE vs 6 in Otus. In the rest they are different.
Need same f/stop for clear comparison and computed versus experimental always leaves something to be desired. The Ottus is outstanding at F/1.4 the edge to edge performance is exceptional. The Sony f/1.8 is a bit sharper than the Zeiss f/1.4 in the center but not as good in the corners. I expect the Zeiss at f/1.8 is as sharp as the Sony in the center and of course better in the corners. The Sony is a very good lens, but using a planar lens design means that Zeiss/Sony could not get the lens as well corrected across the board as the Ottus which used a Distagon design. Of course it is also $3000 cheaper and much lighter. If you need the Ottus performance one can be used with an adaptor.
Correction, the Sony Zeiss is a Sonnar design not planar of course, point is the same.
Honestly, looking at some of the sample images the FE55 looks quite good even at wide open (most likely not as good as the Otus). And for those that think F1.8 is slow do check Zeiss M mount rangefinder lenses. All I want to know is how is the FE 55mmF1.8 compare to the amazing Zeiss ZM Planar 50mmF2.0
To my eye the FE55 looks better than my ZM 2/50 Planar did, overall. It’s a stunning lens and not even priced horribly for what it is. Sony & Zeiss seem to be firing on all cylinders with the new A7/r cameras and lens releases… can hardly wait to check out the new lenses in 2014. Meanwhile I’ve ordered both the FE35 and FE55.
Comparing mtf charts is stupid and basing a purchase on published mtf charts is even more stupid. Buy from a reputable dealer and shoot your own tests and if you don’t like the results return it. Frankly for the price of either of these ‘jewels’ you should be getting a flawless optic and maybe a weekend at a tropical beach.
Another reason this is meaningless is that I’d bet anything the Sony Zeiss lenses get “calculated” (made up) MTF charts whereas the Otus (and I believe even the Z*) are actually measured.
Sony A7 with a 55 1.8…..can’t wait!!!!!!!!
I believe I read in one of these reviews that Zeiss has committed to making native FE lenses for the a7 series. Just probably have to wait until next year for them. Then you can get your ‘real’ Zeiss lenses.
Though, honestly, the Sony Zeiss seem to be holding up pretty well to the Touit lenses. Not sure a ‘real’ Zeiss will do much better than what Sony will offer. Unless they do something like an Otus someday, but I’m sure you’ll pay through the nose (in cash and in weight/size) for the quality boost.
Well the Touit, while it gets all the ticks on lens testing correct, it appears it doesn’t have the Zeiss look that made people buy Zeiss lenses, sure it’s there but if you compare it to the Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 series, it’s disappointing.
We’ll know next year on what Zeiss plan for the FE mount, from the information we have so far, it’ll be manual focus (hurray! cuz it’ll be within their element of lens design), long focus throw so it’s easier to manual focus precisely and for video focus pulling.
And this is just my guess, since the Sony rep stated they are not really interested in making fast lenses yet (I’m guessing they are referring to f/1,4 lenses, so we’ll probably see more f/1,8 lenses instead), Zeiss might make these upcoming FE lenses at f/1,4 manual lenses with long focus throw and without the AF motor, it’ll allow them to make it small and lightweight (lightweight will be one of their important criteria as it’ll have to match the mirrorless lightweight ideology as compared to their SLR lens line).
What a massive load of rubbish to say that Touit lenses don’t live up to the quality of ZF/ZE lenses. Have you even used a Touit lens? I’ve used the 12mm and it’s exceptionally and mind-blowingly sharp wide from f/2.8 right from the diagonal corners.
Not all the lenses of the ZF/ZE line are good either… which have you used and what have you compared them against? Just like not all Leica lenses are good. The reality is, not all lenses are the same and not all lenses of a single manufacturer are perfect.
People got away claiming rubbish 20+ years back because things were a lot harder to learn and verify back then. We don’t have that problem anymore… use the internet at least to learn about the subject before you go spreading wrong information about it.
Read again properly, I mentioned that it ticks all the lens testing correct (that means distortion, sharpness and etc etc) but it doesn’t have the Zeiss look which is high micro contrast.
I’ve used both the Touit 12 and 32 before, the 12 is better then the 32, but still doesn’t have the look you get from the ZE/ZF.2 line.
Yes not all the ZE/ZF.2 lens are good, in particular the 50 1.4, but that is arguably the cheapest of the lineup. The 85 has a glow wide open, but apparently that is a “design decision” rather then a flaw. I’ve also used the 15mm f/2.8 which is a fantastic UWA, beats the highly acclaimed Nikkor 14-24 (although it’s still the best UWA zoom you can ever find) and I guess it is unfair to compare to the Touit 12mm to the 15mm f/2.8, cause the 15mm has that Zeiss look which I always look for whenever I’m purchasing a Zeiss lens.
Now I know these days most people compare lenses by diffraction, sharpness and etc etc, but Zeiss and Leica has a certain unique look that warrants its high price, if not why would people pay that much?
The Touit is a fine lens (sharp wide open, and etc etc) but like I said, it doesn’t really have the Zeiss look that I expect to see in a Zeiss lens, so if the buyer doesn’t care then so be it. It’s a free world and people are free to make their own choice and decisions.
Apple and oranges..Sure. But it is still a good comparison of Bang for your Buck. If you want to spend $4000 on a lens that you will never see the difference when it goes to print..Sure knock yourself out…
Agreed. However..
I consider myself a newbie when it comes to the more artistic side of photography. Something I’ve been learning more about. But even still, I’ve seen a lot of pictures taken with various lenses from lens promotional materials and shots people have taken and shown off, and the pictures from the Otus blew me away. There is something about them that makes the images just stand out way better than most anything I’ve seen before. I can’t even explain it. Some of them it’s the shallow DOF, some it’s the sharpness of the image, or the way the image gently softens as things move out of focus. I imagine part of it is the supposed zero color aberrations. (Even if you can’t see them well, in most lenses they’re still there, subtly eating your image apart). I don’t know. But somehow the images were something special.
Yup, chances are you just experienced the mythical Zeiss look or 3D pop (generally means high micro contrast)! 😉
Any thoughts on how the new FE 35 2.8 and 55 1.8 stack up to the Zeiss ZE 35/2 and 50/2 MP? I have both of the ZE lenses and the metabones adapter and have also preordered the A7r and the two new FE primes. Trying to decide if I should keep the ZE lenses or let them go…..it would be nice to have smaller, lighter lenses with the option of autofocus, but don’t want to give up quality…..
If you can hold those 2 ZE lenses for the time being, I suggest you to do so as the 35 and 55 FE is new and it’ll take awhile for more comparison and data to come in.