DxOmark (Click here) tells you which lens is the best for your Sony A99. I guess none here will be surprised to see the Zeiss lenses on top:
Primes:
The Sony Planar 85mm lens wins easily. It will be curious to see if the new Zeiss 50mm lens (in Stock now at Adorama) can match or even surpass the Planar.
Zooms:
The Zeiss 24-70mm lens wins. But the other zooms are pretty close (see table on the bottom of this post)
Note:
Too bad DxO had no time to test Samyang lenses. I suspect they are pretty close to the Zeiss lenses.
Price check:
Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 at [shopcountry 19367]
Zeiss 24-70mm at [shopcountry 6050]
58 Responses
Well, these lists leave something to be desired! Where are the Sigma 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.4 lenses? The 24 f1.8? Where is the Tamron 70-300 Di VC f4-5.6? And others missing from above list of “best” for the A99?
What 24mm 1.8 would that be? if it’s the one for NEX then it’s got nothing to do on that list.
The Sigma one I guess?
Maybe… tex?
Yes, the Sigma 24 f1.8 EX DG: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24mm-f18-ex-dg-asp-macro.
A macro lens BTW, and available in Sony A mount. I have one. Honestly haven’t used it that much, my 16-35 is so good. But I got it for the extra stops. Look here for some intelligent user comments: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=126
This exercise is a bit…bland, I think.
The point being ‘the sharpest lens for your a99’ kind of undermines practical photography to a large extent, doesn’t it?
I mean, I don’t buy the sharpest lens because it is the sharpest lens of them all. I buy a focal length I need and the sharpest or most characteristic lens available of that focal length on that mount.
I wouldn’t buy the 85mm for being the sharpest, because I don’t use anything longer than 50mm. Seeing the Sony 35mm 1.4 in the middle is little surprising. It is not a good lens. The Sigma 35mm should be there as soon as DxO can test it on the a99 and place it way above the Sony 35mm.
I don’t know. This is a bit like saying: “the fastest car on earth” is the car that runs at the speed of sound for a few seconds, only goes on a straight line and has only one seat. I’ll take the coupe instead…
yeah it’s just stuffing because there’s no news
That has to be DxO stuffing man. Shame on them!
Any lenses/bodies combo you all think DxO should be doing?
Maybe they’ll come and comment and take up some suggestions.
I would personally welcome alternative M mount lenses on the VG900.
“Seeing the Sony 35mm 1.4 in the middle is little surprising. It is not a good lens.” – that’s a good point.
(though I disagree with general attitude)
Neither Sigma nor Samyang asked DxO about this test, I think, that’s why omissions in the pi$$ing contest. Surprisingly, some lenses behave better on A99 than on A900 (within rounding errors, I presume).
the new zeiss 50/1.4 is also a planar
Zeiss 135 f/1.8 isn’t included? Test invalid.
😉
do you really need conformation that the 135 is good? Its documented to be one of the best, if not THE best lens for any camera. A chart giving it a number is not required.
anh, I don’t. Just playing with DXO 🙂
Totally agree. Even a blind monkey knows that the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 is hands down the sharpest or one of the sharpest lens for A-mount. Same with 135mm STF…
What a test…
Too bad Sony 300/2.8II sux compared to the Canon counterpart. So is the 500/4 giving worse results, and also you have to mention that the Canon lenses are optically stabilized. Sony offerings are more expensive, esp. 500/4. Of course many of the Sony users will never have the chance to shoot with these lenses, but Sony has to think about that, are they doing everything right.
Man are you smoking something… The Sony 300mm sucks compared to the Cannon counterpart? Why in the world do you think that??? Please stop spreading disinformation just because you are a Cannon fanboy.
I’m no Canon fanboy… A blind one are you, and if not totally blind – try to take a look at the results – http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-300mm-f-2.8-G-SSM-II-lens-review-second-update-to-pro-oriented-G-series-super-telephoto-prime/Sony-300mm-F2.8-G-II-vs-competition
In the resolution test Sony resolved 15Mpix on A99
Canon – 22Mpix on 5DmkIII – I hope you’re not too dumb to notice the difference.
and the zeiss 24-70 beats the pants off the canon equiv, no doubt there are key lenses for Nikon too, thats life.
I am not the one who is trashing any lens silly. I am just saying that the Sony 300 is no slouch. I actually own version one and it is incredible. I think you need to go out and take pics and stop reading what people post and complaining. I really do not care what they think and did it ever occur to you that those posting that stuff may just have an agenda?
Really?? You are basing it off of the DXO test. Oh boy. I am definitely not blind. I am not deceived either. I like many others commenting here realize that there is something wrong with the DXO testing. Please find some better reason dude.
And what are you basing on? I really wish Sony did better, you called me a Canon “fanboi”, which I’m not, I’m invested and biased towards Sony – but sadly it doesn’t do really well in the pro oriented division. Actually it wasn’t only DXO, there are some samples and discussion in the Russian sony-club.ru forums regarding 300/2.8 and the Canon counterpart, shot by real people for real professional purposes. I’m actually glad that these Sony lenses are put to work…
I have the Minolta 300mm 2.8 anybody saying the new Sony is isn’t as good as a Canon is a knob.
Is or isn’t?
I do however wonder how they conclude this:
“Be that as it may, while it’s still not a surprise to see the same familiar focal lengths (and variants of the same model in some cases) as the top-performing lenses, the Sony SLT-A99 doesn’t quite achieve the same high-levels of sharpness as either the Nikon D600 or even the Canon EOS 5D Mk III.”
Can someone please explain?
Their scores seem completely arbitrary to me.
If I had to pick the best 85mm in A mount it wouldn’t be the Zeiss. My 50/1.4 isn’t even in the same class as my 300/2.8 I, so I find it hard to believe the II would suddenly become worse.
With so many lenses that are not tested, what’s the value of those lists?
Their lens tests often baffle me. To see what I mean, for example compare the 300mm F2.8 II on the A580, A550 and…. A380.
Unexplainable mediocre performance on all but the A580 result really makes no sense.
I’ve also wondered why the 5DmkIII preforms do much better than the mkII. As in, how much of that is real extra detail and how much is false detail, compromised by moire etc.
Am I correct in understanding that they picked a couple of lenses and scored them as opposed to testing a wider range and selecting the top 22 ? Still interesting and I hope they would do the same for the A77 for instance.
DXOMark shows the CZ 85mm f1.4 beats out the EF 85mm f1.2L II by a score of 31 to 28.
If you go to slrgear.com and pull up the graphs for these two lenses, you will see a completely different story. The graphs show greater sharpness and detail at f1.2 than the CZ at f1.4. The EF 85mm at f4 shows again greater sharpness in the center and in the corners than the CZ. At f5.6 the corners are about the same for both, but the EF has a far greater region of center sharpness.
Maybe you forgot that the test is not only about sharpness?
Are you saying that the best 85 mm lens for an A99 is not the Zeiss, but the Canon?
How will you make it function?
What I was saying is that we can’t trust the numbers all the time.
Where is the fabulous 135 F2.8 / T4.5 STF ?????
It’s in my Photo bag 😀
It’s incredibly sharp, but, like so many other lenses, it hasn’t been tested by DxO, because Sony is only the third largest SLR brand.
The trouble with DXO tests is that they seem so wildly inconsistent and out-of-touch with results elsewhere.
Take a look at the 70-300G tested on the A700. The sharpness tests at 300mm make it look like a very poor lens, where stopping down will apparently make no improvement.
Then look at the A99 with the same lens. All of a sudden it a much sharper lens, especially when stopping down from f/5.6 to f/8 or f/11.
Now look at the Photozone review of the same lens on the A700. Very decent results.
There are a lot of lenses missing like both 135mm lenses from sony. if the sony 20mm is up there then the minolta 24mm should be there. If the minolta 50mm 1.4 is there then the 50mm 1.7 should be there. The minolta 28-135 is also missing. I could go on and on.
Wayne are you saying that many of the best primes for Sony are lenses discontinued years ago and that is what DxO should use?
It looks like Nikon has both Canon and Sony beat in price/performance with the recent little 50/f1.8G and the 85/f1.8G
It’s really something to read all of the post trashing the scores and how defensive fanboys can be when there selected “team” is shown to be less than what they believe it should be.
Sony has a lot of ground to make-up optically and some of recent updates have disappointed many and as cameras continue to move to higher megapixels lenses we once believed to be great are not as great as we thought.
The problem is that DXO often produce results that vary quite drastically from other sites, eg. see my example above.
When results don’t seem to make any sense when compared to both real world results and other tests, you have to become at least slightly suspicious of DXO’s testing methodologies, motivations or prejudices.
At the end of the day DXO tests are at best limited, or at worst fatally flawed, in that their tests are purely graph and numbers based. Do they ever post an actual photo?
I’m sorry, but Sony/Minolta 50/1.4 is the worst 50mm lens I’ve ever had for any system, sharp from 2.8, flat color…
Haha … that’s what I thought too! Realising that this should be the second best Prime for my A99 proofs how senseless this tests are!!!
The 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 are not great performers compared to Canon, considering what they cost. I am concerned the 400mm f4 will follow a similar trend.
Could you please point us to some professional reviews of those lenses Steve? Apart from DXO, obviously.
Actually, the 500/4 is fairly close to the results of the Canon 500/4 USM II that recently came out. If you factor in that DxO reports that the A99 generally resolves lower than what competing cameras resolve, it suggests that the two 500’s may be quite comparable. Unfortunately, it’s not the same story for the 300/2.8, which raises questions about DxO’s testing procedure to the lens, whether the sample DxO tested is “up to snuff,” whether the lens simply is an under-performer (particularly for its price), or whether the design of the test methodology does not show the true character of the lens. We have no way to really know the answer.
A lot of excellent sigma and tamron lenses are not on this list.
It would be more usefull if the list were larger to compare ratings of more lenses
Any idea when the 70-200G2 lens should be released?
DXO = BFRO
The Big Foot Research Organization is a small group of fools running around in the woods at night looking for a mythical creature that does not exist.
Yeah, I don’t get the DXOmark scores. I had a Sony Zeiss 24-70 2.8 just long enough to hate it. Bought the Tamron 24-70 2.8 USD and it is FAR superior in optical performance.
I can show you shots I did in the studio with the Sony lens on my a99 at f5.6-f8 at 70mm that are sharp in the center, but blurry as hell towards the edges of the frame.
When I am shooting for a client I can’t give them images of a model whose waist is sharp but her eyes are not.
Yet, the Sony lens gets a higher score than the Tamron on DXO???
Can’t waist any more time on a web site which doesn’t allow me to comment beyond this one of many attempts to do so. Sorry SAR. You’re almost as unpredictable as Sony.
The 16-50mm 2.8 SSM, while a kit lens is still very highly regarded. Surely it’s sharper than a 28-300 zoom, but it’s not even on the list?
Pater D, totally agreed…my 16-50 2.8 is actually sharper than the Sony 24-70 2.8 I bought.
However, I think this list is for FF lenses for the a99.
Umm, please read carefully next time. This is lenses for A99. 16-50 is an APSC lens and is useless on A99.
To add my own 05c, the tests are crap. SAL35F14G is a pure trash and an overpriced one at that, which isn’t worth $100, and it makes the list??!?!
If you have one to sell for $100, drop me a line. I could do with a backup.
It actually is interesting to compare the DxO Mark Score for the Sony 300 and 500 lenses, and the individual metrics upon which that score is supposedly based. The 500 scores 22, vs. 24 for the 300. However, in sharpness the 500 has a 17P-Mpix score vs. 15P-Mpix for the 300; both lenses lose 0.3 stops in transmission; distortion is 0.2% for the 500 vs. 0.1% for the 300; vignetting is -1 EV for the 500 vs. -0.9 EV for the 300; and both have the same chromatic aberration score (6). So why does the 300 have a DxO Mark Score that is two points higher than the 500? If you start comparing various lenses and their respective scores you can find other examples that don’t seem to make much sense.
Too bad they haven’t tested the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 on Sony yet. That will most definitely be the best. Assuming that the D600 and A99 perform similarly, the Sigma 35mm on D600 scores a 37 compared to the 85mm f/1.4’s 33. Talk about a must-have lens.
Based on the test of the Tamron 24-70 on the A99, D600 and 5D Mk III, the Sigma 35/1.4 will not test out as well on the Sony body as it does on the Nikon or Canon bodies, at least based on DxO’s test methodology. The Tamron tested several points lower on the A99 than on the other two cameras. Unless that’s a function of sample to sample variation (which is possible), it is one piece of supporting evidence that the A99 does not provide a level of sharpness, as measured by DxO, comparable to the other cameras.
Thanks for that good point. I still think that the A99 is an amazing camera, and the tiny bit of lower sharpness is not a big deal to me. It is other problems I had with dealing with an EVF that trumped its benefits and caused me to get a D800 (arrives Friday) and the Sigma 35. I may still look back and wish I had the IBIS and other features of the A99 though. The IBIS very well might give the A99 a sharpness edge in real world performance over Canikon, but that’s just my speculation and only in certain conditions.