[shoplink 42649]
[/shoplink]
DxOmark (Click here) tested the Sony PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS E-mount lens. And the surprise is that it is as good as the Zeiss 16-70mm lens:
It might not have the Zeiss badge, but the [shoplink 42649]Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS[/shoplink] has good center sharpness throughout the whole zoom range, and that includes the initial aperture where zooms like this are usually poor, and particularly so at the longer end of the range. The downside is that it’s not as well corrected in other areas as the Sony Zeiss E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, with which it is often compared. It still wouldn’t be an easy choice, even taking into account the $400 premium for the Zeiss. However the longer reach of the Sony is attractive, and for video users especially, the power zoom option may just swing it.
Find the lens on [shopcountry 42649].
34 Responses
Isn’t that lens also known as the “pillow lens” because of the massive distorsion?
I remember plenty of FS100/FS700 users getting mad for buying that lens…
Looking at this chart at 35mm, you can see the huge amount of pincushion distorsion.
Looking at this chart at 35mm you can see the huge amount of pincushion distorsion.
Yes. Sony seems to have made a decision to allow heavy distortion with the intention that it be corrected in post. As a result they get excellent quality relative to price and relative to weight, other than the distortion. The fact that the DXO score is still pretty good without correcting the distortion makes that strategy seem like a success, because anyone using JPEG or a RAW converter is also correcting the distortion. Meaning they real world image quality is high relative to the DXO score.
WTF? Looks like a reverse fisheye.
according to the lenses ranking, this is one of the worst lenses, regarding distortion, dxo has tested so far
Looking at their figures it seems that the 18-55 kit lens equals the picture quality (apart from the longer reach) of the G lens.
And?
Are you serious?
What are you expecting?
An answer, I guess.
OK, seriously, I did not expect that anyone really has probems to get the point, because it was so obvious. Sorry, I still think you are not serious.
The sharpness chart look too good… http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E-PZ-18-105mm-F4-G-OSS-mounted-on-Sony-NEX-7—Measurements__736
Why would you say its good? Wide open, it looks quite bad… not a single green pixel anywhere… Its only OK, when you stop down one stop.
I would still say that continuing with the kit lens and supplementing it with fast primes (For the extra $600) would be better than upgrading to the G or Zeiss… For example, I would spend that $600 on a 50mm 1.8 and a Rokinon 12mm f2… Just my opinion though.
The 16-70 isn’t…. Particularly good…
So, I got one of these “Hasselblad/white label/whatever” 16-70 F4 Zeiss zooms from B&H last week to use in S35 mode on A7Rii as the sole purpose. Opted for it instead of the G due to size as I don’t need the extra reach but can use the wide end. I can’t quite make up my mind yet, because the IQ is mediocre, more so than expected. In S35 it’s soft in corners and frankly the center never gets sharp enough through the whole range wide open either. 5.6 improve center slightly. The part that surprised me is that it’s pretty close to my 28-135 F4 G cine zoom in IQ (obviously different animal). I thought the size/practicality would make me ignore optical quality in video, but even then it’s quite apparent. I’ll do some more shooting with it today, but I’m leaning towards returning it.
Glad I didn’t jump on it then, as I was seriously considering it, too. It’s pretty disappointing, Sony still doesn’t yet make a great mid-range zoom for either their FF or APS-C mirrorless cameras. Their current offerings in that realm are making that Zeiss badge kinda meaningless…
I rented the 24-70 F4 before as well and just wasn’t impressed with it either – based on my own experience with these mid-range zooms, I have to agree with all the $hit they get from bloggers/reviews because they really are mediocre. They can hold their own for folks with low IQ expectations and those who value that zoom flexibility, but because I’m spoiled with all Zeiss/G primes the IQ differences really bothers me the second I see the results.
On a contrary, my A-mount 24-70 F2.8 zooms was absolutely stellar. Fingers crossed Zony can pull off a miracle and shrink it just a bit for FE and at least maintain the IQ.
Yeah, given how stellar their A-mount Zeiss zooms are, that’s what makes these all the more disappointing.
So the 28-135 isn’t better in APS-C then the Zeiss? Thought it should be …
28-135 F4 is just slightly better in the range I’ve tested it, 28-70 (roughly 42-105 equivalent angle of view) where they overlap, but the differences are small and frankly a wash. That’s was the surprise. My comparisons included shooting stills at every aperture and then doing a few minutes of video in various picture profiles in 4K.
I think it’s still a good option for anyone not looking to do critical pixel peeing for stills and use it as a very flexible option for video: great colors, contrast, incredibly compact package, OSS, claimed weather resistance, completely silent and super fast AF. As I mentioned… I’m still undecided. The biggest question for me right now is the fact that it would really be just the S35 video zoom for me when I don’t want to lug around the massive 28-135. At $700 it’s not a bad deal, especially if Sony every comes out with an updated crop sensor body with strong video features…
SAL1650 … tried it on my A5100, that’s to small 🙂 But on an A7s it’s fine.
I will sell mine tomorrow and I really thougt long about it – it’s the only lens from A-mount (APS-C) I will miss cause there is nothing compareable.
It should be sharp in the center at least. Maybe try another copy?
Thanks for sharing this. It’s exactly what I would have expected, unfortunately. I’m 99 percent sure Sony has a affiliation with DXO. Their Zeiss FE 24-70 f/4 was “re-reviewe,” and now out-scores the kit FE 28-70– but it was actually 1 point lower before. There have been other Sony lenses not tested for strange reasons in the past. And knowing how DXO is with rating lenses, why these two now? And why are they both surprisingly good?
I am, however, surprised that the optics of the FE 28-135mm cinema lens aren’t better. I would have thought the quality was amazing given its size, max aperture and price. Were you surprised by this?
I definitely had that 28-135mm on my radar, but if I can confirm it’s optically not great, I’ll definitely go with a Speedbooster and the 15-30mm f/2.8 Tamron, and 24-70mm/70-200mm f/2.8 Canons. All but the 24-70 having IS, all all of them having incredible image quality.
…so there’s the thing… I’ve just done another test (mind you, I’m doing simple comparisons without color grading, etc.) in different light conditions (natural 100 iso, vs. mixed lighting the other day) and the IQ differences between this 16-70 and the 3x expensive 28-135 are mostly a wash. BUT – this isn’t to say that IQ is bad, it’s actually good when you look at them on their own. As I’ve mentioned, I’m a primes shooter most of the time so my observations and corresponding opinions are really in context of the best IQ I can get out of my gear and in comparison to the results usually get with my primes is of course not as good (no surprise there).
If you look at the DXO tests (and I personally have no reason to suspect they’re botched… they’re certainly a whole of a lot more scientific than anything I can master) the 16-70 fares really well, actually. In my opinion, it is THE zoom to own if you’re an APS-C shooter, plain and simple (especially for $700). In fact, it you expand the results to CaNikon in the same lineup, it performs better (though obviously not an apples to apples comparisons).
Again, my venture into this particular piece of glass is somewhat specialized (S35 video only – I don’t even own a crop body) and so I’m trying to figure if I’ll get enough use out of it to justify a random $700 purchase, lol. If Zony had a really good native FE option wider than 28mm with AF (still waiting for my Batis 25) I wouldn’t bother, but until then…
16-35mm? 21mm Loxia?
I have the Loxia 21 and Batis 25 on pre-order… mid-december isn’t coming fast enough! I’ve considered the 16-35, rented it while making my move from A to E mount, it was a good performer, better, in fact, than my A-mount 2.8 version. However, it delivered poor results outside of 16-24 range which rendered it a NO for me at the time. 16mm is where it’s best, but once I got to the 28-35 it went south, big time – correction was OK but because I often crop to 2.35:1 for my motion work I could actually see the poor corner performance, even in 1080p. But you’re right, that one might be the only other option in this range that’s worth considering – I’ll might be in the market for it again after I see how much I like the UWA Loxia and Batis.
Thanks for the reply, it’s helpful. I also only shoot S35 and I have a mix of lenses from most major manufacturers– so what I don’t understand, based on what you’re saying, is why compromise image quality at all by going with a Sony lens that isn’t up to par? The autofocus is the only thing i can think of– but you sound like you work like I do, primes and MF.
If you need on AF lens wouldn’t the DT 16-50 f/2.8 via LE-A2/4(?) adapter work? That lens is way better than any of the E-mount zooms we’re discussing, or maybe the 25mm or 35mm?
You mentioned the Sony Zeiss A-mount glass as being significantly better, and I would agree. Canon’s 24-70mm f/2.8 is also a top lens, so why compromise with these Sony zooms?
I should mention I’m a big believer in the Metabones speed boosters (I own 3) and I’ve only seen them make the image better, if not equal. So the FF zooms (wide, normal and tele) all become f/2 lenses, stabilized (except for the 24-70mm) and more versatile (remove the SB and you have a longer reach).
The next option for me after the FF zooms I mentioned would be SBs on S35 would be Sigma ART primes. And then after that we’re talking real cinema glass.
I can understand wanting one E-mount lens for AF, and the 28-135mm seems like a great cinema style zoom, but outside that why go with anything other than the best lens? And how can you deal with f/4 on an S35 sensor? That’s like shooting FF with a max aperture of f/5.6. I’m not a shallow DOF freak, but I need at least f/2.8 on an S35 sensor (unless it’s my one AF “run and dumb” lens I guess).
In short, I was looking for a small run ‘n gun combo and the 16-70 is tiny, about same size as the 55mm 1.8. I don’t own any Canon glass so adapters aren’t really an option for me. My A-mount zooms and primes all completely sucked in AF with LEA3, no tracking either with it and I’m personally not a believer in frankenstein setups like that (LEA4 is just a bad idea all around for me because I loose A7Rii’s PDAF and introduce a mirror and the ergonomics are $hit.) None of my A-mount zooms had hard stops and MF just wasn’t smooth. So for those occasions when I want AF, it’s native glass for me or nothing and I lost a bit of IQ and dropped to F4 as a compromise with the PZ.
Honestly I don’t use the 28-135 as much, as I do prefer primes and shallow DOF, but it’s a really nice focal range on my A7Sii, so it’s a keeper. Having 135 and 200mm in S35 is great too and the lens is very strong at the long end. Being a proper cine glass it’s used mostly on a rig and in FF DOF is good enough for me on a that package. It’s more than sufficient once I crank over half the length.
In short, I’ve sent the 16-70 back earlier this evening, as the only benefit was the size when all else in considered.
Also, for the price of the Batis 25mm, you could get the very excellent Tamron 15-30mm, and it could be stabilized and would be an f/2 lens with a SB. (Though I just throwing it out there– I’ve shot on the Batis 85mm and loved it, so I fully understand why you’d want that lens.)
There’s 2 points score difference on the A6000 (why would it default to the NEX-7?) – 15 vs 17. Those 2 points are not with US$400. The 18-105 shows how good software corrections have gotten.
I have been very happy with my version as an all purpose hiking lens 🙂 both ooc jpgs.
http://i.imgur.com/68qjppw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/n0jyCmo.jpg
Can’t get over why the Sony lens scores are so abysmal. I prefer the a7 over the Fuji bodies but the Sony lens prices and single digit sharpness scores aren’t worth the prIce since I need AF.
A7 has no Problem, APS-C has.