Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Photozone, you have to retest the Sony E Mount lenses.
#11
Quote:The site clearly says that absolute numbers cannot be directly compared when sensor sizes are different.
We do, but still these kind of discussion/questions come up again and again (see also the thread about the Tamron 24-70 VC and Sigma 24-105 OS in the lens section). I have the feeling that we need to explain the topic in a little more detail in every review.
 
Quote:PS I wonder whether it might have sense to "normalise" them... at least to have a gross comparation.
We tried this once. But that makes things even worse. Because the results still are not cross-system comparable, but the normalised scale suggests they are.

If you want a gross comparison, don't look at the numbers, but at the rough scale that we use (the one going from "poor" to "excellent"). But be aware that it still is only a "rough" comparison. The camera used (or, more precise: its sensor and the software workflow used) still remains a fundamental part of the results.

Edit: I just noticed we don't use this scale consistently across all sections. We'll discuss this internally.

-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#12
Quote:Edit: I just noticed we don't use this scale consistently across all sections. We'll discuss this internally.


-- Markus
 

That's precisely the gross comparison I meant and, yes, at the moment it's not possible because of inconsistencies. I think it would be quite useful. For instance, I could have the choice between two lenses: one cheap, and the other costs 1000 €. I'm sure that the latter is "better", but is it better enough to justify the price? If I have experience with a lens in different system, that perhaps I know it actually is worth the money, and I can compare its "class" to the one of the new lens, I can draw some conclusion on the new purchase.

 

(edited to clarify)

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#13
I find it interesting that this site has not reviewed the universally highly regarded 55/1.8 ZA. Why is that?


You could argue some of the E-mount zooms (e.g. 24-70 ZA) are underdesigned (that isn't always necessarily a bad thing if it benefits size and weight reduction), but certainly not the primes. The 55/1.8 is stellar with or without corrections, but your site hasn't touched that lens for some reason.
#14
Quote:You could argue some of the E-mount zooms (e.g. 24-70 ZA) are underdesigned (that isn't always necessarily a bad thing if it benefits size and weight reduction), ...
 

Correct. But they shouldn't be so expensive (for me, I'm thinking of the SEL1670Z).
stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#15
That is a pricey lens, no doubt, but I have no experience with it to judge whether or not it is worth the price.


Some argue the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 are priced too high as well, and if you look at the specs that is an easy conclusion to make, but in my experience the results are truly impressive. I probably use those two lenses 90% of the time.
#16
Quote:I find it interesting that this site has not reviewed the universally highly regarded 55/1.8 ZA. Why is that?


You could argue some of the E-mount zooms (e.g. 24-70 ZA) are underdesigned (that isn't always necessarily a bad thing if it benefits size and weight reduction), but certainly not the primes. The 55/1.8 is stellar with or without corrections, but your site hasn't touched that lens for some reason.
 

Priorities. The 16-35/4 will be reviewed next week probably. The 55 should follow in April or so.

At the moment I can barely keep up with all the new lens releases (for the system that I cover). The world is bigger than just Sony after all. Given the reader statistics it remains fact that Canon (and Nikon) DSLR lenses are still way, way on top of the interest scale.

#17
Regarding the price of the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8-

 

The 35/2.8's price stems from its ridiclous construction.  It has three aspheres which are aspheric on both sides, and two of them have thin center thicknesses and must be very hard to manufacture.  Three pieces of the entire 100+ part object account for almost 30% of its price tag given a value of $75 per asphere which is about right for their size.

 

In general the 35/2.8 is an interesting design to study - it answers the question of "is simply throwing more aspheres at it a good solution" with a resounding "no" which is nice to see, but not nice for sony.  There's also a great deal of negative power towards the back of the lens, so I would imagine the exit pupil sits quite uncomfortably close to the sensor.  I believe the sonnar form was a very poor choice for that particular lens, a heliar or biotar starting point could have cut the cost in half.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)