Lensrentals tested a few E-mount lenses and confirms that Sony has some issues on delivering consistent quality on their lenses. There are larger copy-to-copy variations than with Nikon and Canon lenses.
Mostly we are just starting with FE lens testing. Over the next few weeks, we should get a good handle on how the Sony lenses compare to each other.
I think there’s no question we’ve seen support for what a lot of people are claiming: the [shoplink 41854 ebay]35mm f/1.4 ZA lens[/shoplink] is very likely to have some tilt with one corner or side out of the plane of focus. Depending on what you photograph this may make no difference to you, or may be a huge issue. But I doubt sending copy after copy back is going to make much difference (you may trade a soft right upper corner for a slightly soft left side, etc.). We’ve taken a couple of these apart and there’s not a ton of optical adjustments that can be made: there are a set of shims behind the front group that can be modified a bit, but it’s a crude and very time-consuming adjustment, so I don’t think it’s generally going to be something that can be fixed.
The [shoplink 41856 ebay]55mm f/1.8[/shoplink] is really a good lens, very sharp and consistently made. The [shoplink 41855 ebay]90 mm f/2.8[/shoplink] is a decent lens, reasonably sharp, but there seems to be a fair bit of copy-to-copy variation in overall sharpness.
All that being said, these lenses may look better on-camera than on the optical bench because there seems to be at least some modification of files as the raw is written. We’ll get a better handle on that as we test more lenses.
In short: Sony really has to improve the quality control on the production chain.
149 Responses
More and more I’m getting the sense that the blue badge (Zeiss sticker) means less and less. Unfortunate. I wonder how the ‘Zeiss proper’ (ie. Loxia, Batis) lenses will fare?
Last sunday I’ve met a guy trying to record video with newly bought sel1670za. It disconnected from the camera each 5-15 seconds. Placed on my camera, it had the same behaviour. Looks like nobody tested this lens at all in factory.
Why does Sony need Zeiss sticker? Because people are idiots, that’s why.
1670 is a piece of crap compared to A-mount “no-blue-badge” “kit-lens” 16-50/2.8…
1670 would be good kit lens if it had $300 price tag.
$500 is more fair.
Blurry f/4 in 2015 is a budget glass. I’m quite sure ages old minolta 35-70/4 can compete with 16-70/4 quite well.
It doesn’t. Plus, it starts at 35. Oops.
Not sure if you’ve noticed Sony pricing … $500 IS budget glass.
Clean the contacts with a rubber.
I looked at contacts and they looked extremely clean; it was brand new lens. So it was returned to the shop.
You know…I’m about to buy the FE 28mm which does not have the Zeiss badge.
You have no idea how worried I am about its performance after reading all this hysteria. If the Zeiss badge was inadequate, then what happens when it’s not there?
Al that happens is that it costs less
The 28/2 exhibits quite astonishing distortion which is just about correctable using the LR lens profile. It’s sharp though. Here’s a quick hand held of Bristol Gorge I did using the A7r earlier in the year, PP was LR5.whatever . . .
https://www.flickr.com/photos/56053365@N07/16885027887/in/datetaken/lightbox/
I wouldn’t worry too much, as with any lens just get it from a vendor you can return it to if it’s a bit wonky.
I think they have done many comparison between Canon, Nikon and Zeiss SLR lenses. The biggest takeaway from those tests are that… the Otus are not having significantly better quality control.
Still… I reckon they’re better than Sony Zeiss since they’re made by Cosina, while Sony makes their Zeiss in Thailand.
Wait… since when does the Zeiss Otus range not have significantly better QC than Canon/Nikon lenses? Everything I’ve ever heard is along the lines of the Otus QC being completely beyond anything else, it’s one of the main reasons the lenses cost so much to produce. I have personally had issues with Nikon sample variation, and I’ve heard of plenty of people having issues with Nikon and Canon lenses right across their ranges (from ultrawides to flagship super teles). Every review I’ve seen of the Otus lenses points to absolute consistency. Where did you hear otherwise?
“The biggest takeaway from those tests are that… the Otus are not having significantly better quality control.”
I was really surprised to see that the Sigma 50 Art seems to have better quality control than the Otus 55.
By the images i ve seen so far, nothing tells me that batis are better than sony sonnar. Quite the opposite.
I really think that if you want zeiss quality, you should go for their heavy metal manual lenses. There is a reason why makro planar 100 costs 1800. Whatever dxo says about it, i am sure it is the best and sharpest macro made so far.
My bad, just saw that bit in the article. I wonder if anyone has contacted Zeiss about this, considering they do 100% inspection?
I had/have/tried already about 12 manual ZE lenses. There are sometimes minuscule differences in infinity focus settings between different copies of same focal length (all are equal at f5.6), but NONE of them has shown sign on decentering or tilting.
SEL55F18 has a quite simple construction with 5 groups, so not much could go wrong here xD Probably it’s the reason it’s one of sharpest Sony lenses xD
BTW, lenses for mirrorless have advantage they are more symmetric, so this lessens requirements for assembly quality somewhat.
Yet lousy implementation can overweight this xD
Symmetric?
yeah. unlike e.g. 55 Otus which has a lot of negative elements in front and a lot of positive elements in rear.
I don’t know much about this, but isn’t 7 elements relatively complex for a 55mm?
Picture of the Sony 55mm:
http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/optical/23a5b2305a4ea70c9365962535b54e04.jpg
7 elements is simple for a $1k normal prime.
Yup. My ZA 35mm F2.8 was misaligned out of the box, rendering the left side unsharp. The 55, 90, and 16-35 have been fantastic, though.
Meh, every A77II I’ve seen comes with dusty sensor right out of the box and misaligned PDAF module.
Every A77II I’ve seen? LOL what does that mean? 2?
Around five.
How do you know, if you’ve only ‘seen’ them? Wouldn’t you have to do some extensive testing hands-on?
By “extensive testing” you mean a shot with flash at f/16-f/22 pointed to white ceiling? And another two shots wide open with rightmost and leftmost AF points? Yeah, “quite extensive”.
I’m curious, based on your other reply, as to why you have, either on line or by going into a store, bought/tried five A77ii cameras and done nothing more than taken three pictures.
I’m sure you must appreciate that it’s likely almost every camera sold will have some dust on their sensor and that it would need many shots to diagnose AF issues, much less PDAF module alignment.
Read up on the A77II dust issue, it’s not just me. And it all started with A77II.
About PDAF module alignment – it’s a matter of experience how many shots you’ll need. Some people use the camera for years and have no clue it’s flawed.
To satisfy my own curiosity, I tried searching for mention of Sony A77ii dust issues and couldn’t find anything at all of significance.
By all means provide links to the many cases you have seen.
As to AF alignment issues, even with the very best kit in the best conditions you can get slight shot to shot variation. If you’re in a gloomy shop, just hand holding, the likelihood of an accurate test of AF module alignment is close to nil and completely useless with just one shot for each focus point.
To illustrate this it took many, many owners weeks and weeks, with endless samples, to get Nikon to acknowledge an AF issue with the D800. I doubt Sony would gve much credence to you suggesting all their A77ii cameras are out of spec based on two quick shots each.
“Hand holding”? Put the camera on the desk, use flash, and set a 2-second shutter delay. “Kit conditions”? Bring your 16-50/2.8 along.
You are nothing but a demagogue. Come back when you have two tack sharp sequential shots made wide open by focusing with rightmost and leftmost AF points at a close distance on a new not-serviced-before A77II. Many tried.
I think you need to improve your literacy, both reading and writing.
Far from having any particular flag to fly, or axe to grind, regarding the A77ii (never owned one, never wanted one), I am merely asking you to back up your claim that they all have serious dust contamination and misaligned AF modules.
All you have done to this point is incorrectly quote me and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding regarding test procedures.
Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I shall regard you as a troll and leave you to your own devices.
Meh, more demagogy. Don’t have 2 shots from A77II I’ve mentioned above? Good bye, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Here, another guy confirms OOB sensor dust, this time on A7RII.
http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/2814-canon-pro-after-one-week-with-a7rii/
One swallow does not a summer make…
So you keep denying the reality.
No, I keep asking for more than very occasional anecdotal evidence.
Please feel free to provide a good number of links showing discussions where plenty of people complain of the same issue. I couldn’t find any…
I’d toss you 10-20 complaints in russian, but I’ll keep waiting on some english sources just for you. Also next time you get a Sony camera – check the sensor. You’ll see for yourself how realistic “anecdotal evidence” is.
The next time? I’ve had 2 of A900, 1 of A850, 1 of A55, 2 of A99, 2 of A7, 2 of A7S and now 2 of A7Rii and not had an issue with any of them.
Am I just extraordinarily lucky? I don’t think so.
Having read the full post..
Apparently this optical bench testing has required significant modification of his equipment to be able to do.
As a result comparing Sony to other brand lenses will present anomalies that are likely to distort the results.
This testing is most useful for comaring E mount to E mount lenses only.
It is not certain if the high degree of variation between copy to copy is due to test accentricites or quality control/lens variation issues.
This does however highlight the advantages of a universal mount where you can choose any lens, vs A proprietary mount where you are locked into a single mount.
This is one of the reasons some people like me are reluctant to return to A mount even if it were not dead.
A-mount lenses did not suffer the same quality control issues.
Oh really… E.g. just from the top of my head, there were many backfocusing 85/2.8 lens, people had to set -9…-11 adjusts for them.
…and if you owned anything under the A7x/7xx, you were SOL.
@TeddyBear, what what do you expect from the plastic fantastic line-up? If it’s priced that cheap, of course it won’t have the same QC as their high end glass.
I mostly stick with G and Zeiss glass, with some classics for good measure.
I had two copies of the 85 f/1.4 ZA that weren’t consistent at all, couldn’t even micro adjust them, the AFMA value went from -20 to +10 on the A99 easily. Never had any AFMA issues with other lenses though.
I’ve seen several zeiss 16-80’s that blurred one side of the image too. I’ve seen 70-200’s that required different adjusts on short and long end.
What, do you work at a camera repair shop? All lens manufacturers have imperfections, but I still maintain that Sony’s Zeiss & G QC is better than on their other glass. That’s not saying they’re perfect. Also lenses can get damaged / misaligned in the distribution chain from shipping to warehouse to store.
Well, it all depends on optic scheme and internal complexity I think. There are some cheap lens (16-50/2.8, 35/1.8) that are very good copy-to-copy. There are some G and Z lens that have issues more or less often.
Amount of lens damaged in distribution should be the same for E and A, so it can be neglected.
I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make.
You were the one making a point actually.
Seems like you like to waste time arguing for the sake of arguing. I don’t have a way to block you on here, but consider yourself ignored.
Meh, you’ve stated a point you had no idea about in the beginning of this message thread, obviously failed to defend it – and now are just making excuses. Consider myself ignored? Who cares.
Apparently you have not read or understood the complete original article…
The bench testing apparatus needed to be highly modified to accomadate E mount lenses, resulting in a differrent sampling area and a lower sampling count than other lenses.
Any comparison from E mount to Non E mount lenses would be missleading.
Since both A and E mount lenses are manufactured by the same manufacturers, it is not logical that E mount lenses would have QC isues that A mount lenses do not.
The higher rate of variation is very likely due to the highly modified juryrigged testing bench required to accomadate the E mount lenses.
“The higher rate of variation is very likely due to the highly modified juryrigged testing bench required to accomadate the E mount lenses.”
A comment from Roger on a different site:
“FWIW, until a month ago when we started setting up the optical bench to do FE lenses, I was doing FE lens variation on-camera with Imatest. The bench results are actually a bit better than what we saw with Imatest. Unfortunately, those tests can’t be published – while it’s not strictly under nondisclosure I have a policy of not publishing data I’ve obtained doing tests that we’ve charged for.”
The difference in variation due to the 6 vs 8 corners issue could certainly have an effect, but that effect will diminish with increasing sample size and is just as likely to have a positive effect on variation as it is to have a negative effect.
And I thought canon glass was pretty swanky, until I put them on the 7r. Also, I hated the fe24-70 on the 7r and have no problem whatsoever on the r2. It’s all relative.
http://www.dearsusan.net/2015/08/20/392-sony-a7r-vs-sony-a7rii-what-evolution/
It does seem the FE lenses prefer the MkII.
I’m not sure that’s a valid criticism. All because equipment is modified, or calibrated differently, does not mean it is more prone to testing errors.
In general, I have great respect for Lensrentals and their understanding of the physical side of photography. I’d put more store in their comments that in DXOmark.
However, it is only guidance and if the lens you own does the task you need then there is no problem.
E mount lenses do not test the same image area as non E mount lenses.
Read the original article
You are testing E mount apples and everyone elses oranges.
Yes the tests are objective, but the equipment has limitations.
I wouldn’t say apples to oranges, but more Golden Delicious to Bramley.
Like I and Lensrentals said, it’s guidance and should be viewed as such, rather than empirical proof.
Urgh, Bramley.
Copy-to-copy variations test isn’t affected by equipment modifications.
Read the full article !!!!!
Read it. It’s not affected.
Different sampling area,
Differend sample guantity.
= Different standard deviation.
If you cannot understand that than you cannot understand what these charts mean and discussing it with you is pointless.
I think its comparable, just not fair and far from perfect!
If a tendency for one side or the other is very high it could be a indicator.
But for the moment is unfair to compare.
I believe we are saying the same thing in differrent words.
These tests are good for comparing differrent E mount lenses to each other, but not good fpr comparing E mount to non E mount lenses.
we are, i agree with you.
Again, copy-to-copy comparision is not affected. RTFM.
Stop wasting my time. I will be answering fewer of you posts in the future.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and plan to continue to dissagree with me no matter what what I say.
Go pick up a statistic book and learn something about sampling data.
One more reason to shoot A-mount.
What makes you think Sony’s production of A-mount lenses is better than E?
my dad had a 70-400 that was junk, crazy fast focus but soft and blurgh, had it “repaired” and then testing it, it wouldnt focus at 200mm, neither AF or MF would get in focus. it got returned, the second one we got is much better.
I think its a fairly recent thing, last 2 years? they havent been great
Yep! everything about e-mount is rushed and not well thought out!
My experiences on a-mount is just like with this e-mount test. see up.
The variation score is based on the green set of curves, but it looks like most of the others also have issues. If you look closely you can see that the Sony 90 f/2.8 may be better than the Canon or much worse at each of the frequencies the MTF was measured at. So you could get one of the best lenses made or an average lens. Sony really needs to step up quality control.
“If you look closely you can see that the Sony 90 f/2.8 may be better than the Canon or much worse at each of the frequencies the MTF was measured at.”
The variation scores are spaced out in a way that makes them easier to read, but makes their actual MTF values inaccurate. If you look at the mean MTF plots you can infer that the +1.5 Sigma line for the 90FE MTF30 curves is very close to the mean value for the 100L MTF30 curve.
Been testing my Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 ZA Distagonally expensive thing. Yes, it’s soft in the lower right hand corner and doesn’t clean up to peeping until around f/5. The A7r’s shutter shock exacerbates this I suspect. FE 28/2 and 55/1.8 are good, very good actually. FE 70-200 G is very soft in the corners beyond 150mm’s at a rough guess, but I do like this lens especially.
Disappointed in the 35/1.4’s performance considering it’s cost. A soft corner at f/1.4 even to f/2.8 wouldn’t really bother me but still there somewhat at f/5, not so good.
I did read on Dear Susan I think it was that the FE lenses behave very differently on the A7rII (much better) than the original slow clonky thing.
the 35/1.4 distagon is far from being an open wide sharpness champion. Pixel peepers will be disappointed in deed. People who want a special look might be blown away. Yes, you dont get the sigma sharpness at 1.4.But you get something else..beautiful rendering, amazing OOF in certain situations, great colors and overall dream like atmosphere (if you know how to use the lens). Currently Im traveling across India with a pack of FE lenses: 16-35, 35/1.4, 55/1.8, batis 85/1.8, 70-200/4. I end up using only the 16-35, 35, and 85. The 70-200 I could have just left at home to save weight and the 55…hm..the so much praised 55:you know what? Its all sharp and blah, but I find its rendering boring. So out of the 3 lenses I use, the 35/1.4 gets around 70% usage. If I had to use a term for this lens, I would use “storyteller”. It produces magic and Im glad I grew up from the “sharpness uber alles” phase some time ago…
It’s not about that, it’s sharp in three corners and not the fourth, it’s totally off its axis. Best storyteller lens I have is the Pentax FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited which wide open is as soft as butter, my 31mm f/1.8 Limited also very good wide open.
If your intention is to use it at F5, needing a corner to corner sharpness, then it seems like its not a tool for you. Dough according to the dxomark at f5, you should have plenty of corner to corner sharpness. The quality control seems to be an issue there… Can mine produce corner-to-corner sharpness? Is it off axis? I dont know. And I dont care 😀 And I doubt I will ever find out…for my type of shooting, the lens is a masterpiece…
I had dire problems with my FA 31 out of the box, but got it fixed locally. That too was a pricey prime and now sorted it’s magic.
Yes, it is a quality control issue. Sony need to know it, no doubt they do and will hopefully sort it out. My issue is probably more to do with what the 35/1.4 is mounted on, the A7r, the whole thing feels wrong.
The 55/1.8, I love the stellar sharpness because I use it for macro with screw on Raynox macro lenses. That combo works really well and negates the requirement for a dedicated, heavy and rather expensive macro lens.
Surprised you’d have left the 70-200 at home, kind of handy having that zoom range.
Yep…the Sony FE 35mm 1.4 is not a great lens at all. I got myself the sigma and couldn’t be happier. It’s actually very usable at 1.4. By comparison the Sony is softer in the center and way softer in the corners. That’s how it is… I would have loved to see the sony 35 surpass the sigma 35 but it’s not even close.
PS. I would have opted for the canon 35 ll but it was not available…
I make you right and it’s not just flaws in copies, it’s a weird lens to shoot. Not keen either.
The FE 35/1.4 ist currently the best lens for low light AF on the A7RII. An adapted lens just won’t do it.
Why not? My 35A works well for me on the A7R2.
You have to choose between either PDAF or CDAF, the camera doesn’t use hybrid AF. Eye-AF doesn’t work and there’s no face-detection (correct me if wrong). That can make the difference between “focusses on the eye” and “focusses on the nose”. Native lenses just work overall better, I think.
Rly? It works just fine for me. 🙂
sharpness, sharpness uber alles 🙂
pixelpeepers who consider a lens “not good” because its not razor sharp wide open might overlook a gem easily…
Theres so much more to a lens than “ultimate sharpness”. Overall rendering speaking, the 35/1.4 might be the best lens I used so far. A dream-machine…
Maybe for you…. you seem like a guy that can be satisfied with lower quality. Me…I prefer the best quality I get my hands on. This is not a gem… Not by a longshot.
It’s an overpriced average lens. It was so bad at 1.4-2.0 that I was living the impression I purchased my old canon 35 1.4 l again.
you seem like the guy that watches his pictures at 100 percent magnification all the time. Let me tell you one thing: no one else is going to look at your pictures with a magnification glass. ultimate sharpness doesnt mean ultimate quality. Sigma is sharp, hell yes. But apart of that it lacks character, the bokeh is FAR from the distagons.
Let me give you an example: currently my main lenses are the distagon 35 and batis 85/1.8. The batis is crazy sharp. Kicks the distagons ass in sharpness comparison any time. But still, I prefer the overall look and feel from the pictures done by the distagon. Distagon gives me magic almost every time. Batis not that much, not at all…
Andrea, you write “Sony really has to improve the quality control on the production chain.” I don’t think so 100%. They have also to change their design! If there is no possibility to compensate production tolerances in assembly you need insane low tolerances – or accept that customers suffer from tolerances. I had two 1670, the first one being exemplary for this lens: low IQ at 24 mm, poor sides everywhere elses, otherwise ok. The second one was massively decentered out of the box, was repaired under warranty by Sony and then yielded again the IQ as the first. I returned that one, too.
Seems Sony is not willing to invest in lens designs that are more robust and also allow compensation during assemby (which in turn would require close inspection, too). They rather have the lenses tumble from the line with minimal interaction (and cost). That this results in meeh lenses inspite of high price tags still hasn’t penetrated the minds of the directors of this electronics giant.
Excellent, thorough testing from someone I trust so much more than the ridiculous DXO.
I agree. DXO tests is crap
Yep e-mount is crap!
What would you recommend as an overall good all round system?
I experienced it on my former Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 that was very unsharp on both sides from 50-70 even at f/8, and had malfunctioning SSM when I recieved it. My 70-200 has been adjusted for centering problem and is now perfect. My 20 f2.8 never been acting weird. So SONY learn and construct your lenses better, together with better quality control!
I believe SONY wants to make inroads with pros. I was surprised SONY reacted so quickly with lossless RAW. Sony has started a pro program (although Precision may not have best rep). I believe SONY will tighten up and improve quality measures that cater to professionals much sooner than later. Sony does not want Nikon and Canon users to switch and not buy Sony lenses eventually. Plus as E-mount gets more attention, the “after market” brands like Sigma, Tamron etc will fill voids as well. ART series E mount lenses would really make a lot of noise. I don’t know how Sigma’s lens to lens variation is. Tamron’s use to be rough
reacted so quickly? it’s been an issue for years, and was certainly made a significant issue about when the A7R /A7 first came out.
Sony had uncompressed raw and lossy craw many years ago while A900 was still around. They finally bought it back on 7r2. However, it finally reached where it used to be and we’ll see when they moved forward and how.
I wonder how my Zeiss Macro Plannar 100mm f/2 would compare to the Canon. I have it in Canon mount.
Lol. You own probably the best lens ever made and still ask yourself that question. Dont compare them at all.
Lol best? Ever? At 100mm maybe. Even then I doubt. It’s one of the most overrated lenses. People harp on about it because “macro” is spelled with a k and that sort of thing automatically makes for a self esteem boost.
Man, start to pay more attention to the image quality which that masterpiece delivers, instead of wasting time on snobbish trivialities.
Masterpiece? Lol I don’t have such poor standards
I think in four or five years time it’ll be nicely matured and an excellent system for enthusiasts and professionals alike.
It would help if all the Sigma Art lenses were native FE. The new Tamron
35mm lens is getting great reviews and much faster than the Sony lens about the same price. But to do AF you need a $400 Metabones IV adapter.
So if we can get everyone to finally take Sony seriously we can save money and get the best lenses for the money.
I’m actually not going any further down this path. £6000 worth of A7r/A6000 and glass already and all my passion for photography is gone. Dead. I’ve really tried to gel with the things, really tried to make it work, but it’s not for me. I just can’t get natural and fluid control of the things, they’re so slow and awkward in all respects, at least for me. I simply can’t drive them. Perhaps it’s just me, but I’m hopeless with both cameras and it shows in the deterioration of my photos/lack of activity.
For others I know these Sony cameras work very well, but they’re like Marmite. You either love them or hate them.
As soon as I’m able I’m going back to my old DSLR platform (which I adore) for which I still have two APS-C bodies and fantastic full frame prime glass. A new full frame body is allegedly coming out by Spring 2016, may also add their new f2.8 zooms.
Technically, on paper that system is far behind the Sony A7/x MKII series but in my experience the best photos come from the camera you’re most comfortable and confident with.
Sony must forget about focus-by-wire crap altogether. Why can’t they design SSM lenses with mechanical coupling just like A-mount lenses?
If you do not have to drag the focusing ring around with you when you focus it can be much faster and take less energy. On the FE 90 f/2.8 macro the manual focus has a decoupling mechanism so that in auto-focus is does not move the manual system around.
Have you ever used Sony A-mount SSM lenses? In AF, the manual focus ring doesn’t move either and it has mechanical coupling via ring-type ultrasonic motors. You can even move focus mechanism without electrical power. I would like to see that on E-mount lenses.
If it hasn’t happened yet I wouldn’t hold out hope.
Seems rather split between native MF (legacy & Loxias) and AF (with motorized MF). Reviewers seem to like the FE 90 Macro MF feel though.
Have never used an SSM lens but even if you can change the focus without power no A-mount AF lens I’ve ever held has had nice MF. Except perhaps the Minolta 100 f/2. It autofocuses slower than a glacier and it makes a horrible sound while doing it but the rather narrow focus ring has very nice feedback.
”Have never used an SSM lens but even if you can change the focus without power no A-mount AF lens I’ve ever held has had nice MF.”
You just said it, because you have never used a SSM lens. SSM are extremely silent (unless you put your ear next to the lens but stepping motors from E-mount does the same kind of noise too) and they have a nice dampened MF ring. Try them, they are waaaay better than focus-by-wire crap from E-mount.
Aha. Would a Canon USM lens act the same, more or less? No more A-mount lenses planned and everyone in the local photo club uses Nikon. I recently acquired a 7d and 400 5,6 because E-mount and tele, well, and the 400 5,6, even if from 1993 or so, appears the king of budget AF teles for birds outdoors. Anyway, hard to say if it changes focus while disconnected (and not powered) when turning the focus ring since it’s IF, but regardless the MF feel is pretty nice.
And yes, I don’t use MF on any of the E-mount AF-lenses I have. The Touit 32 is nice but that MF ..eeh.
A-mount SSM lenses work in a similar fashion as USM, USD, HSM and SWM lenses (ring-type only systems). I can tell you that all my SSM lenses can change focus while being disconnected (unpowered). All of them are IF too and the MF ring are great. And once again, they’re way better than any E-mount lens with focus-by-wire.
I take your word for it as I wouldn’t know how to check. Changing focus when disconnected seems irrelevant for most practical scenarios anyhow. And, once again, I’m not disagreeing about USM being smoother than Sony’s focus by wire, rather the opposite. I think Sony’s strat of polarizing MF and AF is working, financially, and we don’t know what implementing A-mount SSM-style in an E-mount lens would cost.
The Minolta 100mm f/2.0 on my A77m2 and A77 focus fast as sh*t that is why I shoot basketball with it!
MAGIC
/s
Oh definitely, it’s ghastly. In fact I find focus-by-wire impossible to use.
Motors work differently. Mirrorless systems favor linear motor, which are focus-by-wire. SSM And other ring motors don’t seem to work well with contrast focusing system.
The 90 FE macro’s motor is called SSM, albeit “direct” rather than “ring”, by forinstance mhohner. It always seemed quirky and it surely caused confusion prior to release, that it has a distance scale yet is focus by wire.
Well that’s a Sony innovation I suppose. The ultimate goal was probably to incorporate old ring motors into the new focusing system so people have access to old a mount lens. But if they end up changing the working scheme, adapting 3rd party dslr lens could have an issue.
It can use a distance scale because it uses fixed-point sensors which measure at which point you have set the focus point and that translates in movement of the focusing mechanism.
When Otus sell hundreds, CANIKONs sells millions.
You will hear much more about Canikon problems, because very few people had the chance to have problem with Otus
If they tightened up quality assurance control then something else would have to give financially/feature wise/environmentally/ethically and we may rest assured it wouldn’t be a CEO salary shrinking. It’s good to highlight something though for else it would perhaps never change, regardless of how that change came to be.
Additionally if I purchased the 35 1,4 it would not be for corners.
sony lenses suck… it´s not news… i had to replace my 90mm macro 2 times.
and that for a lens that was so much hyped… 🙁
Only in the digital era, people are testing in 200% how the corners of the photo looks.
That was a good reading. Roger needs to start his own DxO-alike website as a side business, and I think unlike DxO it will be credible.
That’s what he did, in fact, with the-digital-pictures.com.
These results directly contradict Dx0 mark results (sony 35 much sharper then sigma art 35 and 90mm being the sharpest lens theyve tested). He mentions numerous user reports claiming the 35 is soft on one side? I have never read any reports like that. Every report I raad on the 35 claims its very sharp, read nothing about softness.
I think this dudes machine isnt accurate. Thats all I get out of this.
Actually DXO reports that the Sigma pretty soundly trounces the Sony (23 P-MPix for the Sony 35 vs 30 P-MPix for the Sigma 35). As for the sharpest lens they’ve ever tested, that accolade belongs to the Otus 85, although many of the supertele primes also beat out the Sony 90.
DXOMark is a joke!
Just did a search on “sony zeiss 35 1.4 fe” it comes back with zero hits linking to user claims or reviews of softness in this lens. When I look at B&H and amazon all reviews are glowing. When I read reviews from blogs again, all glowing.
It seems clear to me this dude invented that info and it appears to have no substantiation. My guess is theyre on canikon pay roll
He’s talking most likely about his customers. I doubt they are on somebody’s payroll like random bloggers, their profit depends on how many lens do they give for rent. I doubt Amazon reviewers have optical benches to test their lenses 🙂
All tests are limited when compared with real world use. Focal plane could shift based on aperture and focus distance. Reviews could hardly tell you everything. As far as I concern, they are the first I came across testing this with a bench rather than shooting a test chart. Cameras these days have internal correction implemented as well… So this test from lensrental might contradict something and I won’t be surprised.
An example would be nikon 58/1.4. It would be a terrible lens if you shoot close up. However, when purchasing, just change it until you are happy. I personally would test de-centering but I don’t think many do.
Seems to me that you don’t know much about Roger Cicala! He is one of the very few that I would trust -much- more that a zillion fanboys/haters on the net regarding lenses – most of them review only a single copy of a lens (LR tested 10 copies).
LR tests lenses on a special test bench. Not on cameras which may or many not modify the recorded image before you get to see it. And some of the blog comments confirm what his findings of the FE 35mm F1.4 ZA. I just did a google search and got several owners/reviews confirming soft corners for the lens.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1787
“Especially on a full-frame camera, at ƒ/1.4, the corners in particular are quite a bit softer than the center of the frame, and even the center itself is not tack sharp, though not bad.”
You clearly don’t know who Roger Cicala is and what he does for a living.
It seems like I’m extremely happy with some very bad lenses.
statistically inconsistency doesn’t mean much for a random sample.
Test bench performance =/= real world performance.
Quite some damage to Sony, that will be nearly impossible to overcome, this is everything guys like Digiloyd, Angry photographer, Rockwell and Ming Thein dream of.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/23/9605776/sony-toshiba-smartphone-image-sensor-sale
Game over
Now this makes me curious about the Loxiae…
So far Z and C were the most consistent according to Roger.
If this stands regardless of lens lineup then that’s pretty good.
When you will work with large prints you will realize that sharpness counts…a lot more than almost anything else…as this is what actually makes your image. And this becomes a lot more serious when you(or your clients)start to crop out the photo. That “look” that you and others talk about is like saying … “Yeah I know it’s soft … but I want to belive that it’s still better…so I’ll make up that it has something that I can’t really put my finger on…just to place it in my mind as better”. So for family pictures maybe the sony is better…
Belive me when I said I wanted it to be better than the sigma. Tried both … the sigma is way better. The bokeh is worse indeed but I couldn’t tell the difference in many of my shots. However the lack of sharpness gave it away….