[dave9t5]

I don't understand this verdict at all:

Canon 35/2 gets 4 stars and has a center resolution of 3512 LW/PH @ f/2.8

This Zeiss only gets 3 stars and has a center resolution of 4252 @ f/2.8 and on the border still very close to the center of the Canon

 

Read the very top of this section:

http://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews

[stoppingdown]

Good review, as always.

 

I'm wondering about this auto correction business with RAWs.  I understand that enabling auto correction in camera will affect RAWs with regard to CA, distortion and vignetting, but how do the RAW editors deal with this in terms of lens profiles?

 

Example, I notice there is an FE 35mm profile in Adobe Camera RAW, but does the profile assume lens correction is on or off in camera?  I assume the Adobe profile is designed to apply a fixed set of correction values, so anybody using this would surely need to be careful that they choose the correct setting in camera, otherwise the correction values will be wrong.

 

I didn't find the time to mess up with the metadata in ARW, but there could be a metadata item saying whether the in-camera corrections were applied or not, and Lightroom might use it. Consider tons of conditionals here...

[WyldRage]

So there is no automatic distortion correction on this lens? That's remarkable on such a small lens for a mirrorless camera.

[JJ_SO]

Read the very top of this section:

http://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews

I know that, but nonetheless both are full frame, the Sony has a couple more megapixels and there's another tester who redid the tests because he was sure they did it stopped down. And then he was almost cheering about the sharpness of that lens - wide open sharper than some other wellknown candidates.

 

Roger Cigala was comparing that lens on A7R to a D800e with 35/1.4 G and Zeiss 50/2.

 

 

<b>MTF50 Center LP/IH</b> <b>MTF50 Avg LP/IH</b> <b>MTF50 Avg Corner Lp/IH</b>

 

<b>A7R</b> 35mm f/2.8 FE f/2.8 1320 1175 695

<b>A7R</b> 35mm f/2.8 FE f/4 1420 1190 750

 

<b>D800e</b> 35mm f/1.4 G f/4 1150 1020 625

<b>D800e</b> ZF.2 50mm f/2 f/5.6 1260 1100 660

I know, different apertures and he also recommends a grain of salt because of different systems, but still... and PZ is confirming this sharpness. But obviously Klaus has reasons to give 3 stars. I'm just curious about those reasons...

[Guest]

In the past there has been a harsh penalty for excessive vignetting (see the review on the zeiss 35f2). I am a bit shocked at the level of vignetting for a slow lens but as I said above perhaps this is partially the camera fault ?

[Scythels]

Might want to change the review date from Oct 2013 to Feb 2014

[Klaus]

Might want to change the review date from Oct 2013 to Feb 2014

 

Uups :-)

[Atto]

Well, I didn't expect much more actually.

At 36mp you are seeing scaling effects primarily in the image center whereas the borders are comparatively more dampened compared to smaller mp cameras. I don't think that a comparison to a 20mp EOS 5D II is valid.

 

Plus we are talking about a mirrorless system.

 

Thus for a prime lens this is alright here.

 

Thanks for the test!

 

Well - there was not much more to expect looking at the MTF Sony published.

The 35 2.0 on the RX1 shows superior MTF curves when compared to the FE 35 2.8.



The FE 55 1.8 should play in the same league with the RX1 35 2.0 although at 55mm it should be easier anyway to have high resolution at the border.

[Brightcolours]

I don't understand this verdict at all:

Canon 35/2 gets 4 stars and has a center resolution of 3512 LW/PH @ f/2.8

This Zeiss only gets 3 stars and has a center resolution of 4252 @ f/2.8 and on the border still very close to the center of the Canon


Is the worse verdict only because of vignetting? That could easily be corrected in post, or am I wrong?

You are wrong (in the judging of sharpness). PZ gives for each camera they do lens tests on an approximate max. resolution for their testing method. You can read the max. resolution on the top of the vertical scale. For the 5D mkII, Klaus gives a max. resolution figure of 3700 lw/ph. Klaus gives a max. resolution figure for the A7r of 4500 lw/ph. 

Of course the MTF software will give higher resolution from the 36mp sensor, and the lack of AA-filter. Says nothing about the lens, though.

 

While the numbers of the Sony are higher, the bar heights are the same or lower.

 

Both are very good little lenses, the Canon just edges it out a little bit in the tested criteria (as sharp or sharper, nicer vignetting characteristic, a tad smoother bokeh highlights, slightly lower CA even).

[JJ_SO]

"MTF software says nothing about the lens"

 

Oh, good. It's more for nice and decorative charts, right?

 

Once again I can't follow your reasoning or would have to disagree if I tried to. But that's alright, I leave it to others to discuss that since I know close to nothing about Sony stuff these days. -_-