Roger Cicala from Lensrentals testes all the best 50mm lenses. The best lens is the 8000 Dollar/Euro [shoplink 27099 ebay]Leica Summicron f/2.0 (here on eBay)[/shoplink]. But the surprise is “again” the new Sigma 50mm ART lens. Roger writes:
I think it’s pretty cool that two SLR lenses (Zeiss Otus and Sigma ART) are able to hang right there with the f/1.4 Leica lens, the Summilux. Price-wise, you would hope the Otus would, but certainly the Sigma, one of the least expensive lenses in the test, has to take honors for hanging with the best at a tiny fraction of their price.
Note: The A-mount lens can be preordered in USA Amazon (Click here) at BHphoto (Click here) and Adorama (Click here). And in Europe at WexUK (Click here) and WexDe (Click here).
And the Sigma is very close to the Summicron lens at f/2.0 aperture:
Now let’s hope the 24mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses coming at Photokina will be as good as the 50mm ART!
–
The A-mount lens can be preordered in USA Amazon (Click here) at BHphoto (Click here) and Adorama (Click here). And in Europe at WexUK (Click here) and WexDe (Click here).
0 Responses
1st blood! ^^
double kill!
triple killled! 🙂
Killing spree
Mega killed! 🙂
Wicked sick
Monster Killled! 🙂
C-C-C-Combo Breaker!!!
My Sigma ART lens just conked out. Meanwhile, my late 1960s Leica lenses are maybe 5 years from their first required service. Just sayin.
Get your act together, Sigma!
(And lets pray for better OOF rensdering on the Siggy 50mm. Samples so fat are iffy. Doesn’t matter as much on the 35mm, but does at 50mm)
“Meanwhile, my late 1960s Leica lenses are maybe 5 years from their first required service.”
There are real reasons why that brand still is synonymous with photography. 🙂
It really pains me, but I have to agree with you here 😉
im guessing the af motor died in your sigma? the old lenses wont have that problem,,, 🙂
Can a person put your 1960s Leica lens on a DSLR? 😛
Also, if youre on mirrorless, get the F mount version of the Sigma and an aperture controlling adapter. It’ll be just like a fully mechanical lens.
Yes, one can! Leica R lens on any DSLR. 🙂
I meant Leica… not Minolta 😉
Many times I have explained that todays high quality lenses far exceed the resolution of not only current sensors but any sensors we could possibly ask for.
The very lowest number of any lens at any setting on this chart is about 500 lp/ mm.
Translated into mp on a ff sensor thats about 600mp.
The best performers here can resolve close to 2,500mp on a ff sensor.
No I am not suggesting we make terrapixel cameras.
But I am trying to put to rest once and for all the argument that todays lenses cannot outresolve todays sensors.
Which is why the test is somewhat irrelevant for practical use. People usually take pictures with a camera+lens combo, not by the lens itself 😉 It would be more interesting what 50-ish mm lens and camera combo would be the best. Leica+A7R, Zeiss+A7R, Leica+Leica etc.
Most tests are far less sophisticated than these and do test lenses on current cameras.
That type of testing introduces far more variables and is not a true indication of the actual quality of the lens.
As a result many many people read these tests and insist that lenses are much more limited than they are.
Look back at SAR comments and you will litterally see thousands of coments that todays lenses cannot outresolve todays sensors…even from knowledgable people that should know better.
You cannot accurately test the resolution of a lens that can resolve hundreds of mp on a 24mp sensor.
The ability to detect black and white line pairs (often at very low contrast) is not really field relevant.
Just because an optic has a measured resolution on the bench, doesn’t mean it can or cannot ‘outperform’ a given sensor.
If you believe that a lens/sensor test is less field relevant than an optical bench analysis… or that resolution differences above a sensor’s nominal reolution don’t show up in images, you have to go back to the books and study harder.
Both types of testing have thier place.
One type of testing more accurately determines how a given lens/camera combination will perform while the other more accurately measures the potential of the lens itself.
Both methods also have thier shortcomings.
My comment is not intended to find fault in the test methods but rather to point out how the results are commonly being missinterpreted.
Whether a lens can outperform a sensor that does not yet exist cannot be directly measured.
It can only be interpolated from knowoledge of both what the lens is capable of independent of existing sensors and how the lens performs with existing sensors.
Clearly knowing what the optimum resolving power of the lens itself is is very relevent.
What you need to do is find a similar test for a lens that is outresolved by the sensor, then use the sensor resolution to match it to the lines listed above.
Please explain the test you are talking about.
Absolutely correct Bart!
You don’t even understand the limitations of this test yet you say how it’s better. First, these measurements don’t take field curvature in to account. Secondly, these lenses will perform differently on the same sensor (!) let alone across all sensors.
I reread the blog and you are correct I DID MISREAD IT THE FIRST TIME
I also appologize for accusing you of being blatently incorrect…you were correct.
Now however I do not understand how these resolution numbers are as low as the are as these lenses clearly produce much better images than these numbers would indicate.
You state I do not understand the limits of this test ..can you explain what you mean by that?
I mentioned the limits somewhere here but cant find where.
First, these are from the center. Off-center performance is affected by field curvature. Secondly, these lenses will perform differently on the same sensor
>Now however I do not understand how these resolution numbers are as low as the are as these lenses clearly produce much better images than these numbers would indicate<
I think that my point yesterday about maintaining "subjectivity" and the danger of relying on "hard science" and absolutes!
In printing. ..lithography. ..we typically use 150 dots/inch to print a 40 pixel/inch picture….70 ppi if text or linework is included.
Therefore higher res sensors are still beneficial even if yhey could exceed the lens res.
In actual practice actual sensor resolution is far less than the pixel count.
No harm Barry (now I understand) apology accepted!
I couldn’t disagree more Barry. Theory is all well and good, but photography is and always will be an imprecise science, trying to quantify it with hard science is an exercise in futility. Real world shooting experience bares little resemblance to theory!
It is not possible to test a sensor that does not yet exisr.
This is not theory..it is actual lens petfomance data that has been tested. Forthermore ot is the ONLY to predict how a lens will perform on future sensors.
Both lens only and lens/camera data are necessarry to make a reasonable prediction.
Lens /camera data alone is missleading.
But it is possible to use super fine grain black and white film.
Granted, many here wont bother, but that works as proof of lens performance outside of the colour concerns like chroma aberration, fringing, etc.
Agreed
The resolutions being discussed are far greater than the size of the “super fine grains” in such films. I tried these a while ago and grain always wins even for 1:1 reproduction. You can safely forget about lesser magnifications and certainly infinity is out of question.
Maybe I’ve had it wrong all these years then, maybe all I needed was a slow Sigma zoom and a few rolls of Technical Pan and life would’ve been perfect out on the range?
Kodak Technical pan can test lp/mm beyond any commercially available sensor today. Zeiss used Orthopan to achieve 400lp/mm with their 25mm 2.8 ZM lens a few years ago.
How is that not applicable practically?
Anyone shooting 35mm with Technical Pan or Orthopan for super high resolution can say “hey, I’m going to use the ZM 35mm to achieve that stupid resolution for this shot” and they know which lens to get.
Good grief, go look at what I do http://www.chrisgibbs.com then post a link to your work and we’ll discus practical rational!
Don’t forget that link back to your work!!!!!
Does taking photos some how qualify you on the intricacies of sensor design physics and optics. I have my doubts, I never saw any links on your site that demonstrate your scientific background , perhaps you could do so, that we may judge the value of your expertise.
Of course you are correct! But telling a “photographer” that we’re not “lens limed” is just plain nonsense. The lens is the limiting factor in the digital pipeline as it was with analogue — nothing has changed!
Didn’t think my comment was worthy of such a rant and a call for a piss contest.
It all boils down to transparency, we’re dealing with nameless entities over an anomalous medium here. Asking to see someones work should be our way of measuring a “photographers” level or commitment in their given medium. It’s “practical photography” not the “religion of photography” we are discussing here. How are you going to improve “your art” with current Sony cameras? Maybe someone on here could assist you or I, but without seeing their actual work we may be simply talking to a bloke who’s never taken an actual picture or one who simply prefers to recycle someone else’s half baked rhetoric for the love of it? There are many on these boards (Thom Hogan springs to mind) who are genuinely interested in “helping people” but they’re being constantly bombarded by “theoretical constructs” that bear zero relation to any practical photographic application.
These guys just cant understand that the low resolution niumbers in common tests are just test limits and not in any way indicative of actual lens resolution.
Here are more accurate results and they refuse to believe then.
Furthermore for those that holler about diffraction…whatever diffraction there is was there for this testing.
So lets ignore theory and hard science and we can desighn better cameras and lenses.
Mayby your real world experience bares little resemblance to theory.
Or mayby your experience bares little resemblance to the real world.
You are very welcome — glad to be of assistance! (:-)
Theories are fine, it’s just when people misquote them, like Barry has, they earn a bad reputation.
You have no clue about diffraction do you, Barry? If I remember correctly, this is the second time you’ve made a claim like that.
First…the test numbers right here prove what I am saying…diffraction and all.
Secondly Sony has diffraction reducing technolgy….which has actually been introduced on the a77II
You see the resolutions posted right here on this chart…how can you argue with it?
No. These numbers are line pairs per frame height. You need to divide them by 24. So 1680 is 70lp/mm.
Also, do look in to what diffraction is before claiming things like 2500MP
On very high mp FF sensors diffraction would act in effect as an AA filter .Diffraction is not a cliff rather a slope and a higher mp sensor would still deliver better results at any given aperture .Obviously there is a physical limit where this benefit will be of negligible impact on real life shooting but it will be a far higher MP density than current 36MP options.
I’m not sure what relevance your reply has to what I said.
Barry was talking about 500lp/mm and 2500MP off a FF sensor. This is utter rubbish. .. saying it like this because he’s claiming it as fact.
MTF50 results given in line pairs/image height. Divide 500 by 24 for lp/mm < 21.
I already read the blog
These numbers are line pairs/mm
The referrence you refer to is for mtf numbers used by other testors using lens /camera combo and multiplying that by 24 to get hieght.
This is bench testing and the only accurate measure of lens resolution….or at least as accurate as lenses can be measured.
It is more expensive than slapping a lens on a camera therefore most tests are done on cameras.
Reread the blog …all this is clearly stated,
Take a look at your statemment…you claim that this collection of the worlds highest quality lenses resolve less than 21 lp/mm or 6mp on a ff camera.
Can you possibly believe what you are saying?
No you haven’t read the blog post properly then.
Barry’s just trolling, kids.
Lets get some definitions strait
You are making an off topic statement for the sole purpose of sidetraking the topic…the absolute classic definition of trolling.
I am specifically talking on and about the topic…clearly not trolling.
Furthermore didnt your mother ban you from the computer for a month..what would she say if she knew you were starting up again.
If your theory would be true, every average lens should be able to give as sharp images over the whole frame. But they don’t, because your maths is wrong Barry…
Oh and 54 MP wouldn’t change anything. It’s less than 20% increase from a 36 MP sensor.
Yes its only about 20% advantage but..
Compared to 24mp crop sensor
The res/pixel density is enough to compensate for the crop factor advantage..while still having the same size pixels.
The hieght..4000 pixels is enough to match the width of a 24mp image when ratating
A single 54mp image is equivelent to stiching 3 a77 images together..which I often do now.
Lastly if this 54mp turns out to be a 3 layer stacked sensor then the photosites will be as large as a current 18mp sensor and the resolution will actually produce an image with resolution comparable to a 72mp bayer sensor…..18mp scaled 2x yields 72mp comparable to the scaling that occurs in demosaicing a bayer sensor file.
The file 2 native file sizes yielded would be 18mp true non-interpolated raw or 72mp at 2x interpolation of at least bayer quality.
So while there are currently a few advantages an disadvantages to C size this sensor would eliminate almost all those advantages
Why nobody test the sony zeiss 50mm for a mount?
Because it’s performance would be outstanding just like the 135mm f/1.8, 16-50mm or 135m STF that remain untested even after being available for years.
And the Nikon, and Canon users don’t want that. If Sony’s Zeiss lineup dominated the reviews, and tests they’d be up in arms, and most of the review sites cater only to the companies that support them (Canon, Nikon).
Look at all of the hate posts SAR has receiving since the A77II was launched.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. It would be a very unfair comparison for the 16-50mm against these class of primes. Also the 135mm Sony Zeiss and the 135mm STF are not 50mm so the reason for their exclusion is obvious (plus the latter is a rather specialty lens beyond the focal length).
Ultimately Sony lenses do not have the popularity of Canon & Nikon lenses or the cachet of Leica lenses for many reviewers (for now anyway).
I think he meant that those lenses were never tested and compared by third party reviewers, ever. I remember looking for comparisons of the 135/1.8 but never found any.
Oh I see. I have seen a couple of comparisons of the Sony zeiss 50mm. Subsequently, the otus and sigma stole its thunder.
The Sony 135 STF is essentially a re-badge of the minolta 135 stf, so there is information out there. As for the 135 1.8, try dyxum.com for at least user reviews & impressions. Also, you can try searching for the lens on 500px.com to see real world examples.
Concerning the sensor / lens resolution comments:
I have found that many lenses are outperformed by todays sensors. My Canon 24-105 L lens is supper sharp, but under almost any back lit condition the color fringes are a big problem. Lines of resolution are not the full story, but they are a major part of it. (i am not bashing this super-zoom it makes me a lot of $)
Apo correction and floating elements make a big improvement in performance!
Lenses I thought were stellar on Kodachrome really do not cut it on digital. My Leica 24mm is far outperformed by my Leica 21mm (both 2.8 asph), note that the 21 has just slightly better resolution performance. Both lenses looked perfect on film. While they both probably resolve more lines per mm than the sensor can resolve the difference is clear on 100% printed enlargements.
I frequently use the canon 24-105, it’s not a very good lens – generally not sharp and poor light transmission. The Canon 24-70 lenses are much better.
I know someone with a few World Press Photo wins that uses that 24-105! exclusively!
Post-process or simply leave it there. 😀 Most of WPP really dont care that much about technical perfection.
I use it for convenience (when I don’t want to use two bodies for the range) but I know I’m not getting optimal optical quality.
There is no way that the current sensors outperform the better lenses the reason for the apparent weaknesses of the widest apertures is due to the lower performance of the extreme edges which downgrades the overall maximum resolution scores
The extremes of the image circle of a 3×2 ratio sensor places substantially more demand on the lens than does a 4×3 ratio. Considering we are getting good results from mFT lenses with a pixel density equal to 61mp on FF, heck the Sony RX100 series deliver good results on a sensor with a pixel density equal to nearly 150mp on FF
This is about getting the best quality possibe.
So you use a wa- tele zoom of poor quality the backlivht your subject to further degrade quality and that is supposed to prove something?
Yes there are many ways to get your camera to take a poor quality picture if you tryhard enough.
Now if they could test the 55mm Zeiss for FE mount !
1) They couldn’t due to focus by wire and electronic aperture control of FE 55
2) There are clear signs (APS-C comparison at DxO mark, APS-C put more stress on lens resolution than FF) the Sony performance is below Otus. The same comparison between Sigma and Otus (on APS-C) shows Sigma is sharper and this matches that lensrental test.
Sony should do something with their sensor, I want leica performs at its true level on Sony bodies.
The 55mm Zeiss is Full Frame not APS-C.
I don’t see why you couldn’t test the lens because it has focus by wire.
1) Read my #2 carefully. Read somewhere why so called lens “sweet spot” on APS-C is generally a myth and why smaller sensor in fact needs sharper lenses.
2) Because focus rings works via lens motor, not directly. You need device controlling the lens and that test equipment obviously cannot do that.
What makes you think 1 is relevant? These test are done at infinity. The focus is not changed during the test. The real issue is controlling aperture but that too can be taken care of easily by removing the lens off the camera while it’s powered.
hopefully sigma build one for Emount 🙂
Optical performance is one thing, but for this price it must come at a cost–in this case, construction/build quality/reliability? I realize that to get that last 10% of performance usually requires exponentially greater cost, but is there a real reliability/build quality issue with these Sigmas?
Old Sigmas have a reputation for bad QC, but the new ones…need more real world testing.
Don’t forget, the modern lens fw can be updated, etc. too.
Why must there be some sacrifice in quality for a price point? Can it be equally possible that the others are simply priced too high in the first place?
Yes, absolutely. Also they are from different manufacturers, different companies entirely.
I assume for sake of argument (perhaps wrongly) that there is some consistency among and between these manufacturers, but you are quite correct in your observation.
Stopping one stop down doesn’t improve center or middle performance of the 50 Lux at all? Not even by one point? Is that possible?
Possibly and c&p error?
Original link would be nice:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7
Yep, tons of affiliate links but no links to the comparison.
The decision of which fifty to get is something that everyone will have to “rEsOlVe” for themselves.
still demanding more pixel filled sensors… PLEASE STOP
if this test really show anything, its the universal fact, that no matter if film or silicon is behind the lens, the LENS is what gives the resolution, not the sensor.
stacking more pixels in a sensor WONT increase lense resolution.
in real world, leaving theorical physics math to nerds
anyone knows that a prime generally give more IQ than a zoom
if the best primes CAN NOT give you 36mp images with today FF sensors
what would give you zooms? even the best zooms… of course lower resolution
so stop asking a super dense sensor for your mega zoom, you wont GAIN resolution.
why neither of all those sites test the Otus in an APS-C body?
because they will get the same resolution than with the FF body.
if a more dense pixel sensor would increase resolution in a lense
or if today pixel density sensors wont outresolve every single lense out there
then Otus should be getting better resolution in APS-C bodies, but it CAN NOT.
in fact, today FF dense sensors, with great lenses (not the “perfect” primes in that list, still better than 99% in the analog days) give you images that viewed at 100% (pixel to pixel) look anything but PERFECT, in APS-C more dense sensor you get even softer images, and if sensor pixel dense increase, we will get softer and softer images, just like compact cameras did when the megapixel race.
if YOU are one that still believe, lenses outresolve sensors, that a lense cannot be meassured with today sensor, and all that crap, PLEASE just go to any nikon store, got the best nikon glass available, put it in the D610, then in the D800, then in the D7100, then in the V3, then go home an check the images, if you still believe more pixels are the future, or that you get better resolution with more pixels in a sensor, well, sorry my friend, WE TOTALLY LOST YOU