DxOmark (Click here) just published the [shoplink 36056 ebay]Zeiss 28mm FE lens[/shoplink] results and writes:
Ranking third for all hybrid lenses, just behind two significantly more expensive Carl Zeiss options, is a great result for the Sony FE 28mm F2 lens. At a cost of just $498, and boasting a “fast” F2 aperture and solid results in most categories, it’s an affordable wide-angle solution for Sony A7 series shooters. It’s actually marginally ahead of the Zeiss wide-angle competition overall for sharpness, but isn’t quite as strong at F2.8, where the corners drop off a little. The main area of concern is Distortion, however, with quite heavy “barrelling” that landscape and architecture photographers will want to correct in post-production.
An absolute great performance for the money!
The FE 28mm is now in Stock for the first time in USA at [shoplink 36004 ebay]Focuscamera eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
Zeiss Distagon second best lens after the 55mm FE:
It’s also interesting to note that DxO also added the Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 to the database. With 38 points it scores as second best FE lens right behind the 42 points of the [shoplink 36054 ebay]55mm FE lens[/shoplink].
The 35mm Distagon is finally in back in Stock at Amazon US (Click here).
All new FE lens preorder links:
In USA at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony Fisheye Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Fisheye Converter for E 16mm F/2.8 and E 20mm F/2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Converter for E 16mm F2.8 and E 20mm F2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
In Europe at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide Angle converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
In Asia/Australia at:
Sony 24-240mm FE lens at Digitalrev, CameraPRO, Sony Australia.
Sony 28mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Sony 90mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
118 Responses
A lot of claim saying 35mm is sharper than the 55mm. Is this true?
FE 1.8/55 is the sharper lens
I don’t have FE 35/2.8 but according to any empirical review FE 55/1.8 is far sharper, except both wide open, which is F1.8 vs F2.8.
I think SamT was talking about the f/1,4 35mm.
Oh, my bad. DxO did post the FE35/1.4. Well… so FE 35/1.4 has the nearly the same sharpness as FE35/2.8? That’s weird.
Not at all weird. It’s 1-Mpix sharper while two whole stops faster than the 35/2.8.
Who claim 35mm f/1.4 is sharper than 55mm f/1.8?
Yeah, reading from those new owners of the FE 35 f1.4 at most forums said sharper. Though, I’m skeptical and couldn’t justify enough to sell my current Sigma Art 35mm A-mount for maybe $650 then whip out $1600 for a convenient
of not having an adapter and maybe….maybe slight better. Nah! I’ll keep the Sigma then.
Are you using the Sigma Art with the LA-EA4 or the LA-EA3. I have the 35 Art with the LA-EA4 but I was wondering how it might work without the mirror in the adapter.
I use with the LA-EA4.
I don’t have any idea how or if it would work without the mirror for AF.
I have the FE55/1.8 and FE 35/1.4. Forget sharpness and all these statistics, the FE 35/1.4 takes seriously wonderful photos, much nicer rendering than the FE55, which I find a little harsh and clinical.
good night guys 🙂
It’s a hell of an achievement, especially at this price level. Some “fun” facts, based on DxO tests: FE 55 F1.8 is ranked #19 out of… 7795 lens/body combinations they’ve rated, FE 28 F2 ranked #134. Now, again, these are various lens/body combinations, meaning that it’s besting out just about all other glass out there, aside from the very best, cream of the crop ones.
Yes, these are just the techno tests, but impressive nonetheless.
The Nikon 28mm F1.8g outperforms the FE 28mm F2 in all areas notably so in regard to sharpness , distortion and CA
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-28mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Sony-FE-28mm-F2___952_963_1516_0
I don’t see the Distagon 1.4
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
You did mix up with the lens from the RX1 I believe…
Cheers.
Doesn’t seem so. DXO talks about this lens in the text directly (used on A7r).
Yes I just saw it thank you, but I can’t find this lens review alone !
I can’t believe the FE 1,4/35 has a lower score than the FE 1,8/55…
How can this be? The 35mm is more expensive and it’s massive in size.
The 55mm must have some godly lens structure underneath it. Has anyone seen some diagrams of its glass pieces?
Or some cross section image?
I have both and I can definitely say that the 55 is superior in sharpness to the 35. The 35 is still an awesome lens but part of it’s massive size is the fact that it is a 1.4 and not a 1.8.
Just imagine if it were a 1.2
What make you think bigger and more expensive is better? LensRental has an article showing 35mm f/1.4 isn’t as sharp as 35mm f/2.8, let alone 55mm f/1.8.
I just think it’s fair to suspect that. For example the Otus series, Zeiss is making the lens as large as they need to be without much compromise. So a bigger lens normally has more headroom to play with.
You can’t compare across focal lengths like that. Wides and ultra wides are harder to make than 50mm (or 55mm). All that extra glass (and expense) is used to bring it up to par as possible but will probably never achieve it especially in the corners. A ‘cheap’ 50mm is going to be far better than most expensive wides for this reason.
Also Distagon (35mm F1.4) designs are naturally larger than Sonnar (the 55mm F1.8). They are not just fluff names, they refer to a standard arrangement, shapes and number of lens elements inside the lens. Each has their pros and cons. While within some types (e.g. for Sonnar) may have less or more glass the same basic shapes and arrangement will be there. The Biogon is a very compact design so you can see why the Loxia 35mm F2 (which is a Biogon design) is small.
Similarly, those Sony tele lens that go for over 5k are not necessarily better.
The thing is, the FE 35 f/1.4 is Sony Zeiss, not Zeiss Zeiss. Zeiss Zeiss lens are usually excellent, but Sony Zeiss lens are hit and miss so far.
All Lensrental did was comparing the lenses shooting some crappy images and said, they would rather go with the small f2.8 because of its price.
If you cant get the difference between those two lenses, you really dont need the distagon.
You see numbers here? They draws the same conlcusion. For the price of Sony Distagon 35 you can have two Sigmas 35 Art what destroys Sony’s crap optically and, ironically, adapter+Sigma has about the same dimensions as this fake “Zeiss”.
Crappy image? Care to elaborate?
Oh yes Id love to:
http://flic.kr/p/r7fPC4
http://flic.kr/p/rWRuyi
http://flic.kr/p/rUgDVq
http://flic.kr/p/s73sPu
http://flic.kr/p/rYAfPd
http://flic.kr/p/sfPRa3
These dxo numbers mean nothing, its all about the rendering of a lens. They are all sharp enough, and that Distagon just draws more beautifully than any other current FE lens. Yes this is my opinion. The Batis line may change that.
First of all, we are discussing sharpness here, not rendering. If you think you have a better way to compare, why don’t you shoot the exact same picture with both lens?
I have shot both. It surely is a beautiful and compact lens, dont get me wrong.
Back to the original topic, unless I see a better test, LensRental article is legit and a fair comparison between 2 lens.
basically, 1 stop brighter, 3 times much difficult to keep the sharpness. If you compare Nikon 50mm f1.4G & 50mm f1.8G, the f1.8 is slightly sharper yet cheaper.
Well, it is not even a half stop brighter. f1.4 is little more than half stop wider aperture than f1.8, and since the light transmission of FE 35 is only T1.6, and FE 55 is T1.8, its clear that the difference in light gathering is minimal.
Because the 55 F/1.8 (which i own), is essentially a Zeiss Otus thats autofocus.
35mm are optically more difficult to design than 50 or 55, or even 85. If you look at the DXO best rated lenses, they all are 55, 85, 135 or even 200mm focal length.
The first 35 is the sigma ART which is considered as the state of the art in the 35mm family, at least for sharpness, and it’s at rank 11 (dxomark score), and 14 if you just consider sharpness. So for me, it’s not so surprising to see the cheaper and smaller 55 1.8 from Sony/Zeiss to perform better than the 35 1.4 from the same manufacturer…
35/1.4 is retrofocus crap whereas 55/1.8 is symmetric design
Looking at the blue bar for the transmission value, it seems to be over an absolute scale. Plotting the others (vignetting, distortion, CA, even resolution) over an absolute scale makes sense because they have a natural maximum (zero for vignetting, distortion and CA, the sensor resolution for P-Mpix). But what is the natural maximum for the t-stop? Some would say t/0.7 (ie, 100% transmission on a f/0.7 lens) but that is only true for spherical lenses.
How come no true Sony lens score above mid 40s? 42 is the highest and the rest are Nikon lenses.
Wide for me starts at 17mm. This might as well be a telephoto- but I dig it for the price.
The 28mm f/2 is an excellent lens for landscaping for the price. I wish it came out before Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 so that I can get the 28mm instead.
How would they have made money off such a slow Sony Zeiss lens if it wasn’t the only option?
To be fair, the 35mm is smaller and lighter and it’s a great lens too. However, 28mm is sharper at f/11 and wider than 35mm, which is perfect for what I need.
I think the reason the 35/2.8 came out first was because Sony really tried to market how small and light the lenses were for their full-frame mirrorless cameras. Eventually Sony figured that the market preferred image quality with sacrifice to size and weight, hence we have hefty beasts emerging with greater f-stops.
Just my speculation though.
Agreed that it is a great affordable option for landscaping. Where did all the love for the 16-35/4 go? Okay, it’s not as sharp/fast/cheap.
well, it hasn’t gone anywhere as far as I’m concerned. in fact, I’m debating between it and this 28f2 as we speak..especially since I don’t see them (or Zeiss, for that matter..) releasing another ultrawide this year, and I could certainly use one..
Samyang 14mm f2.8 seems really good. Some funny distortion though, but correctable.
I’ll have to look into it. I’m sure its considerably cheaper too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/keri72/16179057580/in/faves-127094754@N02/ (photo of keri hambly) I would say its pretty good for 300$. And i dont think i need AF for such a wide angle really.
You’re essentially right.
Problem is: Sony started making faster lenses, but continues to sacrifice quality to make them smaller. Distortion is the best example. And of course bigger lenses would make it possible to use mechanical focusing. With small lenses you have to live with focus-by-wire.
We’ve seen this also with bodies. A7II is the first decent one in the lineup, but still somehow short for most hands, so I wouldn’t recommend using it without the battery grip.
I call rubbish with this statement “A7II is the first decent one in the lineup, but still somehow short for most hands, so I wouldn’t recommend using it without the battery grip.”
I have bigg ass hands. Easily holding basketball. Grip on A7II is very pleasant. And the hight is good enough. I agree that for big hands A7 (and R, S ver.) grip was too small to use it comfortably for long periods of time. But really, how many people have huge hands like me? Making a point that smaller size is a con sound’s like some canon fanboy cry :/ Sorry my Polish friend 🙂
FE 55 1.8 is a godly lens. Sharp, contrasty, minimal aberrations, smooth bokeh, compact and reasonably priced to boot. It’s the reason to buy into the FE mount. Sadly the FE 35 1.4 is not.
APS-C shooters?
Look at this!
Which is the sharpest corner to corner ?
Oof, that’s some serious distortion! But apparently it’s got the sharpness to make up for it, so…
Bad news: Streching pixels to correct that distorsion will result in less sharpness.
good news: users are getting their ”not-leica prices” and ”small” lenses.
Hm, Sony Distagon 35 on the picture? It is not currently available on DxO Mark. Quite a poor performance I must say if these number are true. Sigma 35 is smaller, sharper, has less CA, less pronounced barrel distortion.
Sony keeps doing crap. I am glad recent analysis on Q1 shows 14% sales drop: because you cannot do crap like Sony does and somehow earn money on it.
Yea, i was shocked to see that a $1,500 Sony 35mm 1.4 has that much distortion and vignetting.
The 35mm F2/8 Distorts a little as well.
the 28, is awful
Its all fine if your a jpg shooter.. because its fixed in camera, but when you open a raw file, you spend a lot of time doing lens corrections.
A lot of time? It’s one click.
Only if you have LR6 .. there are no Lens profiles for the new lenses in LR 5
Quite a non-problem though since one Always can download profiles if needed. The problem is more that it needs software corrections to such an extent that it’ll greatly affect IQ.
There is no way that i have been able to find, to install a lens profile into LR … and from all of my searching i cant even find the lens profile for the 28mm F/2
You can create your own profile for whatever lens you have. There is separate Adobe software for that – lens profile creator.
I didn’t know that existed.
There is also a Sony app for lens correction. Have not tried it though. LR: this lens will soon be included!
Lot of whining for someone who didn’t bother to look, just saying.
You know, I’m here to have a conversation, and ask questions, not to receive snide comments and remarks. How do you know i haven’t looked? Your comment is unwarranted and unwanted. If you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation, please refrain.
‘here to have a conversion’, right! One where you bitch and moan for like 15 posts about something that (mostly) is based on your own inadequacies and turn every suggestion down because again, you won’t or you don’t like etc. That’s not having a conversation, that is you dictating the terms of your personal diatribe which is unwarranted and unwanted.
You know how you don’t have to apply corrections to your Canon? It’s because they are imbedded, nothing more.
Yes it is slightly annoying being on the bleeding edge and it not being fully supported yet, but that is what happens sometimes. But you DO have options, as suggested:
Upgrade LR, as a stalwart LR user you will upgrade eventually, do it now and be happy.
Use the $30 Capture One Pro for Sony that Sony carefully make available for this very reason.
Create your own profile.
It is far from the end of the world and many very well celebrated optics use software / digital correction, it is literally part of the optic design now. Unless you are using an Otus expect that to continue as the norm.
Im not sure what you are so Angry about, But i hope life gets better for you soon, and you cease with all your condescending remarks. If it makes you feel better about yourself, and well.. your life to take out your frustrations on others like this.. then feel free to type away. I will just ignore you from this moment on. Unlike yourself, i ask questions, and I attempt to find as many solutions to a problem that i can, you know, other solutions than learning an entirely different piece of software. As some have mentioned on other post, they have taken the lens profile from the DNG converter, and applied to LR, I’m curious how that is done as well, so maybe ill ask that. Is there a way to move profiles around, without buying software, without buying new software and completely learning something new. Its called CONVERSATION and DISCUSSION. What options are available, what options are out there… sharing information with others, and experiences. Im sorry that you have such a hard time with this.
Yes, provided by Adobe Labs http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=193&platform=Windows (mac version also available, and elsewhere, details on how to use). While I have never actually used it – just downloaded and created the chart, you take a series of shots at a checkered pattern and develop the profile. It can (will) be very camera/lens/RAW or jpg specific so you can create very unique combinations such as an adapted Leica, Nikon, Canon or other lens specific to your camera/sensor that Adobe never will create.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/tag/lens-correction-profiles
There are other processing programs than LR and they also don’t offer any automatic correction (some will never).
Anyway, its not like correcting distortion is a perfect cure. It will degrade sharpness significantly. DxO results are based on the original RAWs.
I compared this (on DxO) to Nikkor 28/1.8. Centre is similar, but Nikkor easily wins overall. This difference will grow after correcting.
Generally.. Sony E users want small lenses. They’re getting, what they asked for.
but the 55mm F/1.8 is near perfect (in my opinion)
Definitely the best of the bunch
Well… 55/1.8 is a very good lens, but its also rather big and heavy. Nikon’s and Canon’s 50/1.8 are much smaller, although both belong to a totally different class (in both sharpness and price).
So that’s a trade-off we have here. Very good lenses for E-mount are expensive and relatively big. Not exactly what many A7 fans expected.
We’re yet to see if Sony is able (and willing!) to make a good and cheap 50/1.8 or 85/1.8.
At this point they’re very proud of offering the cheapest FF body (coincidentally: the only one without sealing, with half of DSLRs’ CIPA battery rating and with the AF poor even by Sony standards :)).
But because of the lenses it is very expensive to actually build a basic kit.
Anyway, all this means that Sony FE is maturing well and becoming a competitive system – at least for people with a bigger budget.
You and I have very different opinions on what we call “big”… I’m coming from a Canon 5DIII, 35 F/1.4 and 50 F/1.4, so the 55 F/1.8 is very small.
My Sony A7II is weather sealed, …. I’ve shot in the rain with it.
Your Sony A7II is not weather sealed. This is a common mistake in reviews and something Sony fans persuade each other to believe in.
Even Sony does not claim any dust or moisture resistance (like they do with some lenses or SLT). Furthermore, people around the world dismantle cameras and lenses, so we know, which have seals and which don’t:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/the-a7ii-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-new-camera
Most cameras are well screwed together, so surviving a few drops of water is not a great achievement. Even the cheapest DSLRs can do that.
Weather “Resistant” i do believe is that they say
I’ve carried the 55/1.8 around for hours and I don’t think I’ve ever considered it to be either big or heavy. Sure, it’s heavier than a Canon 50/1.8, but that is a cheap and cheerful plastic prime.
>>55/1.8 is a very good lens, but its also rather big and heavy.<<
how do you manage to lift your fingers for typing such posts? you must be the smallest and weakest person of the world.
So get LR6. You can pay for the CC Photography plan monthly for the same price as a couple of beers or cups of coffee from your favourite multinational coffee corporation.
Not even a click with dxo…
a real whiner, this one. you know the type. privileged. lazy. “if I can’t do it the way I want then it sucks & I’m going back to mommie..err I mean Canon”.
Shame, because he lives in Saigon & I love visiting (& of course shooting!) there, but I work to avoid this kind of tool like a plague.
maybe some people enjoy being on the bleeding edge of something that *didn’t exist a year and a half ago* & don’t expect everything to be perfect from the get go, but is interesting enough & open to enough adaptation and improvisation to be interesting and effective? but not as far as this guy is concerned : )
Here is your distortion. Raw image of a shower, testing for distortion. There is no lens profile in LR 5.7.1, which is the last version of LR before LR 6 i believe. There is no way to add a lens profile either, that i have been able to determine (mac user), so if you want the proper lens profile in LR you need to update to LR 6.
The best profile you can use for correcting distortion will be as follows…
-Sony FE PZ 28-135mm F/4
-Sony FE 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6
I stayed up through the night trying find a way to just update lens profiles for LR, I updated the new DNG converter to 9.0 and tried based on info from DPreview, that did not work either. I deleted DNG Converter 9.0 and installed 8.8, which is the version the profiles were introduced, that did not work either, so i went back to version 9.0
So all I know that you can do at this time is turn on the lens corrections in camera, which only work for jpg files, and shows you on your screens a corrected image, and find some work around for a profile in LR as listed above for raw files.
In some images the distortion is so bad it renders the images worthless. If you try to shoot wide interiors with this lens..wide city shots, and you are slightly out of alignment with your buildings, etc.. your going to want to pull your hair out of your head trying to correct it in LR. So if your on top of a building (like i often am here in Saigon for work), and you shoot a wide sweeping shot of the city, most likely your buildings are going to seriously warp if you tilt down or tilt up slightly with a camera.
Having also worked in a camera shop in America, i would have expected this amount of barrel distortion in a much wider lens, not a 28. Its a bit absurd for this lens to have this amount of distortion. All of these people who are singing its praises, and saying its a great lens, must only be shooting jpg files. To me, this lens isn’t worth the money and a waste of time, unless you enjoy all the post work.
Even the 35mm F/2.8 has barrel distortion, something that surprised me after switching from Canon to Sony. Using the Canon 35mm F/1.4 L, i had no barrel distortion issues. A bit disappointing that the nearly $800 USD Sony 35mm F/2.8 lens distorts, mostly in the corners,
and luckily there is a lens profile for it in LR 5.7.1
Again, the image is of the 28mm F/2
Try also capture one, it is free for Sony cameras and better than LR. But I am not sure if it has this lens in profile.
LR is the industry standard and even if i wanted the full version i would still have to pay for that, only the trial version is free.. a very basic stripped down version i would guess. Not only that, i have all my presets for LR that i don’t feel like re-creating.
To me industry standard is a hype. I was at the same impression that I started with LR, but due to some comments in SAR I just gave capture one a try. Now I am very happy with that. First thing you will notice is its much higher speed of rendering. I also like its color rendition which is more saturated than LR.
Pro version only costs $30 for Sony cameras. Read the reviews of capture one vs LR in the internet.
It takes a couple of days though to get used to it.
Don’t get me wrong, i can appreciate your enthusiasm for Capture One, it simply isn’t for me. I don’t need a increase in saturation, what i see on my screen is what pretty accurate to the colors when i print, or open up on other screens. Color Vibrancy and Saturation isn’t the issue here, its the lens profiles, and your not even certain that Capture One has the specific profile I’m looking for (28mm F/2) Also the loss of hundreds of presets, thats just simply something i cant loose.
I will say faster rendering speed would be a nice advantage, but not worth the jump.
Im just curious do you shoot professionally or semi pro?
Can you perform a Color Checker Passport camera calibration profile with Capture On Pro, or use an existing profile?
I haven’t used this feature but found this link that might be useful:
https://robertharringtonstudios.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/the-x-rite-color-checker-passport-and-capture-one/
$30 for Capture One Pro for Sony.
Lr is not a “standard”.
Capture One was a “standard” that Adobe based Lr on.
I just ran the DNG converter 8.8 installer from here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5888
and it installed the a profile for the 28mm f/2.0 fine.
Are you using PS CS 6 and LR 6? … btw there is a 9.0 out now which is what i have.. thats also a windows link 🙂
Just go Capture One Pro…$30
Far better with Sony files than Lr.
I have both.
Lol I was just pointing to a version that I know works (for me at least)…
I’m using Photoshop CC 2014 and Adobe Camera RAW 8.6
Have you tried navigating to where Lightroom stores the profiles to see if the 28mm one is there? In Windows it’s in C:ProgramDataAdobeCameraRawLensProfiles1.0Sony not sure where it is on a Mac but you could search the hard drive for .lcp files.
There is a 28mm in there, but its not the FE 28, and really has little effect, what i did find out is that the Sony FE 18-135 F/3.5-5.6 works fairly well.. but not the best.
Im using CS5 with Lightroom 5.7.1 …
Sounds like the DNG converter install didn’t work properly for some reason, when I did it I could see it unpacking all the lens profile files and installing them in the correct folder. You could try copying in the 28mm profile manually, here’s the version I have:
http://mattgrum.com/sar/SONY%20%28Sony%20FE%2028mm%20F2%29%20-%20RAW.lcp
If that doesn’t work you’ll have to contact Adobe technical support.
The problem is, I’m not sure how to do that… BlueClearSky1587 is my Skype if you want to chat.. instead of endless forum post
I have thought there may be some issue with the DNG install.. I’m going to also install Camera Raw 8.6 as well
I’ll stick to my 28mm 2.8 Minolta MD.
2 easiest answers – both won’t make Sony A7 users happy…
1) Nikon makes better and more lenses (sorry).
2) Larger flange distance improves sharpness near the borders (most Sony lenses are mediocre performers outside the center). The best way to work with short flange distance is to make a big mount and allow lenses with relatively big last element. That’s what Olympus has done with MFT.
Nonsense! If you look at the Lens performance on the D800 thrn the results are more comparable. Real world different between D800 and D800E for example is neglible, but somehow Nikon lens scores go through the roof on D800E. The interesting part is that the D800E is not missing the AA filter like the A7R, but apparently uses something to counteract the effect of an AA filter.
This is fishy at best or else the A7R sensorstack, thicker glass, is loosing some sharpness in the process. In summary, only fools compare lenses on DXOMark across sensors!
1) You discovered America 🙂 Nikon (decades old system) makes more lenses than 1.5 year ols Sony FE system. Thank you for letting us know 🙂
2) Tell that to Leica engineers. They could use expert like you 🙂
good morning guys 🙂
“it’s besting out just about all other glass out there”
Nope.
The main “fun fact” is that the top is dominated by 36 MPx sensors, so most lenses (Canon, Olympus, Pentax) didn’t have a chance.
If you’d make a ranking based on acutance, the order would look very different.
For the same reason everything will change when DxO tests the 5DS. It is highly probable that almost all Canon EF lenses mounted to 50 MPx will beat almost everything DxO has measured before (maybe not the Otus and sharpest Nikon tele primes).
You’ve missed the point… as of today, those are the rankings based on the existing lens/body combos that were tested. Simple fact that you can’t argue.
I understand what you’re saying about the new 5DS, but by the same token you can, presumably, have this argument about upcoming 50+ Sony’s sensors. And you know Sony does make better sensors than Canon.
That is excellent point. Rumoured 50+mp sensor will most likely make lenses like 55mm 1.8 outscore OTUS on Nikon d810 in those technical tests. It does’t mean it will be better lens but that was not the point either. Just for the sake of argument, it looks like new Batis lens comes very close to Otus for a fraction of the price. Any points for Sony here for having such great lens in the system family?Nah, My countryman is going on some Sony crusade here. Will be difficult to argue with him.
I’m not arguing with the fact about lens/body combos.
Once again:
“it’s besting out just about all other glass out there”
This is not true, it doesn’t. There are at least 10 Canon lenses sharper than the Sony 55/1.8. “10” is a safe estimation, as it’s more like 20…
Then we have some excellent Leica, Olympus and Pentax models (and other brands as well).
There are many lenses which would go higher in the ranking if they could be measured with a 36 MPx sensor.
And of course we can’t have an argument about upcoming 50+ Sony sensor, because – what a surprise – we don’t know if it will ever exist.
Canon’s 50 MPx is already here. It will be in shops in few weeks.
Look man, you can’t shape an argument just so it fits your point while ignoring facts. As of this minute, you 5DS is no more real than A7RII or whatever is coming. The tests for those lens/body combos haven’t been done. They don’t exist. Period. You’re going off guesswork and assumptions.
So, to argue that one lens is better than another is pointless unless you can prove it via some sort of test/benchmark/comparison. Hence what I said is valid, and what you said is not, until it’s been tested and ranked. At least in the context of DxO’s results.
…”There are at least 10 Canon lenses sharper than the Sony 55/1.8. “10” is a safe estimation, as it’s more like 20…Then we have some excellent Leica, Olympus and Pentax models (and other brands as well). There are many lenses which would go higher in the ranking if they could be measured with a 36 MPx sensor”… – prove it. That’s right, you can’t 🙂
And one more thing – who gives a fccck if a lens is somehow “better” then others if you can’t pair it to a body that can deliver those results. See the problem here?
Bye!
“And one more thing – who gives a fccck if a lens is somehow “better” then others if you can’t pair it to a body that can deliver those results. See the problem here?”
Seldom I see someone as inconsistent as you. Even among brand fanboys…
You’re the one who said that 55/1.8 is besting most other glass, not me.
So now you’re talking again about lens+body sets. Fine. And you said that 55/1.8 is great, because you can use it with the FF sensor with current top resolution (A7R). Again, fine.
If someone has a NEX 3 and buys the 55/1.8, does that make the lens rubbish? Because the results will be far from what A7R outputs.
If we’re talking about lens quality, 55/1.8 is very good, but there are some interesting alternatives – especially for people who are fine with adapters and manual focusing (which Sony users seem to love).
If we’re talking about actual image quality (lens + body), then its the 36 MPx sensor that gives the advantage over most of the competition – not the lens. So why do you praise the lens? 😮
We could imagine a situation where some company is far ahead in sensor development (lets call it “RED” for no obvious reason). You could mount even a really poor lens and the pair would win many rankings. So?
Last but not least: I find equaling the existence of Canon and Sony 50MPx+ somehow entertaining. Canon’s sensor had been shown publicly. Many people used the preproduction camera and samples are available online.
We know nothing about the Sony sensor other than the fact that Sony is certainly able to make it, so they most likely will. And if they make it, it should be better than the Canon counterpart. But these are all speculations, while the Canon’s 50 MPx is a fact.
It is much better than my ultron 28 mm and I use it for remote control so I need AF in this particular case. It is sharp all over the picture. I am very content with the SEL28f20. Good price / performance. Hate focus by wire in all other normal cases.
Interesting that it beats the 35/2.8… I know it’s not as sharp as the 55/1.8 wide open, but it still puts in a very respectable performance on the sharpness front. Personally, and I’m more interested in rendering, which is where the 35/2.8 shines.
With E-mount lenses, Sony relies too much on distorsion correction, which decreases sharpness (streching pixels will result in softness). And since E-mount lenses are made to be used with EVF cameras, and not OVF, all that distorsion can be hidden with in-camera corrections to try get smaller optical designs
Look for uncorrected distorsion of SELP18105G and SEL2470Z and be amazed.
If you add that Sony isn’t well known for good optical designs aside from the SEL50F18, SEL55F18Z, SAL135F18Z and SAL70400G…that may explain lower scores.
You’re right and wrong… Of course, distortion correction decreases sharpness. But this decrease in sharpness due to distortion correction is NOT analyzed by DXO… They only work with uncorrected raws; So the sharpness results of the FE lenses would be probably even worse compared to their DSLR counterparts with less distortions if they’d check at the results after corrections…
D800E has – what they call – “canceled” OLPF.
What that means is: if you’re an advanced optical company you can do some optical magic and improve the sharpness even with an OLPF. Fuji went for a similar idea (although with a different solution).
Of course this is already obsolete. The sensor and processing advanced and it seems we won’t see OLPFs in still cameras very often. However, they might appear in video-oriented cameras.
As for the “comparing of lenses across sensors” – this is obviously a poor idea. But are you interested in having a sharp lens or sharp photos?
If the latter case DxO approach is quite useful.
Frankly, almost all reviews of lens sharpness are based on lens+sensor performance. You might look for MTF graphs, but their not always reliable.
Personally, my curiosity was between the 35mm 1.4 FE on A7 (not R) and the 35mm 1.4 ZM on M240.
From the samples I have seen, the ZM is excellent, even wide open, on a Leica. On a Sony, the ZM’s corners and sides suffer a bit much for my taste. So, I would have liked to see how each lens was performing on their native mounts. Shame DxO doesn’t do Leica much…
It’s also a shame DxO hasn’t placed the 35mm 1.4 FE on the catalog because we can’t see how it performs on 24mp (A7) and compare it to the excellent RX1 Sonnar.
I wouldn’t worry too much – the scores of the 35mm 1.4 FE indicate that it is a very good lens and at that point it is much more about the rendering and handling.
From my personal experience having rent the FE 1.4 – wide open the corners are not stellar sharp (but not bad either), everything else is. However shooting wide open you rarely need perfect corner sharpness and the pleasing rendering of that lens is what temps me to buy it.
nah, it’s extrapolated data, this is the problem of lens measurement in DXO.
MTF charts say that all 3 DN Sigma lenses are extraordinary sharp. Not just DXO.
yes of course for an aps-c lens the sigma is sharp, but it’s mft is for aps-c area. How do you think the Zeisss MTF will look like on APS-c area?
Yes, i have no doubt the sigmas is sharp, i am just commented about how the DXO extrapolated data and the comparison value might be wrong.
And also all the sigma’s DN MTF chart ended up in 12.5 which is an aps-c area MTF, how do you think the zeiss MTF chart will look on aps-c area sensor? it’s got all the sweet spot.
I know quiet a bit, been around for quiet a while, but thanks for the insult.