Sony A7RII lens comparison

[mrenters]

I've been disappointed with the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 lens performance on the A7RII so I did some testing to see how it compares with a Leica Summicron 50mm, Canon 24-105 f/4, Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 24-70 f/2.8 using various mount adapters.

Here's a link:

http://www.teckelworks.com/2016/03/sony-a7rii-lens-comparison-tests/

RAW files are available for download on the page for those interested in exploring further.

Martin

[ErikKaffehr]

Martin,

Thanks for sharing. I agree that the 24-70/4 doesn't look sharp at all. Well it doesn't have a great reputation either...

Would be interesting to compare corner detail.

Best regards
Erik

I've been disappointed with the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 lens performance on the A7RII so I did some testing to see how it compares with a Leica Summicron 50mm, Canon 24-105 f/4, Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 24-70 f/2.8 using various mount adapters.

Here's a link:

http://www.teckelworks.com/2016/03/sony-a7rii-lens-comparison-tests/

RAW files are available for download on the page for those interested in exploring further.

Martin

[Herbc]

I returned the copy I had with the A7R-did not pass muster with the Zony 55 f1.8.

[David Good]

I returned the copy I had with the A7R-did not pass muster with the Zony 55 f1.8.

Agreed, the little 55/1.8 is a real gem, fast, sharp, light. I decided to pass on the zooms and stick to primes, time will tell what Sony has in store for us with their continuing line-up of G-lenses.

[mrenters]

Which version of the Leica Summicron 50mm did you use?

It isn't the current version but the prior generation.

Martin

[Telecaster]

In my experience the 24–70/4 isn't marvelous but for most purposes it's still fine. A couple weeks ago I did a 14x21" print comparison (as large as I can make with a 3:2 image) between some A7r2 pics taken in daylight with it the lens at 24mm and pics of the same scenes taken with a Zeiss 25/2 Batis. Tripod, same apertures, etc. I can't see any meaningful differences between the zoom pics and those from the 25mm. In low light situations I'd opt for the Batis, otherwise it comes down to whether I want more compact (Batis) or more convenient (zoom).

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Dave,

That may be a very good point. Pixel peeping is an extreme and unpractical form of viewing images.

On the other hand, I don't think that there is any significant difference between a 24 MP device and a 39-42 MP device at print sizes I normally use (normally I print at A2 about 16" x 23"). So, I don't necessarily feel we need > 24 MP for those sizes. Occasionally I print larger and than I feel more pixels are beneficial.

Best regards
Erik

In my experience the 24–70/4 isn't marvelous but for most purposes it's still fine. A couple weeks ago I did a 14x21" print comparison (as large as I can make with a 3:2 image) between some A7r2 pics taken in daylight with it at 24mm and pics of the same scenes taken with a Zeiss 25/2 Batis. Tripod, same apertures, etc. I can't see any meaningful differences between the zoom pics and those from the 25mm. In low light situations I'd opt for the Batis, otherwise it comes down to whether I want more compact (Batis) or more convenient (zoom).

-Dave-

[john2]

I'm not totally convinced by the comparison. It looks to me as if the Zeiss lens has better sharpness in the fur on the stomach and feet of the bear than the Canon lenses, whereas the upholstery is unquestionably sharper in the Canon photos. Is it possible that there was a slight difference between where these lenses were focused?

[mrenters]

I'm not totally convinced by the comparison. It looks to me as if the Zeiss lens has better sharpness in the fur on the stomach and feet of the bear than the Canon lenses, whereas the upholstery is unquestionably sharper in the Canon photos. Is it possible that there was a slight difference between where these lenses were focused?

I see what you mean. All lenses were focused on the x-rite text and circle using live view at the maximum magnification level at f/4. If you look at the f/4 versions of the RAW images you'll see that the area in focus on the foot is pretty much the same. The aperture settings were changed via Capture One's camera control, so I didn't have to touch the camera. The other lenses all have mechanical focusing mechanisms whereas the Sony has an electronic adjustment - i.e. the focusing ring isn't directly connected to the optics, it only controls a motor that moves the optics.

Martin

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Most lenses have some focus shift when stopping down and this can be quite significant.

These articles by Jim Kasson illustrates it:

http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20160220
http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20160221
http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20160223

Even the mighty Otus has some significant focus shift, as shown in Jim's postings.

Photozone used to have some illustration of this in their tests, but it may be they have removed it for some reason.

Best regards
Erik

I see what you mean. All lenses were focused on the x-rite text and circle using live view at the maximum magnification level at f/4. If you look at the f/4 versions of the RAW images you'll see that the area in focus on the foot is pretty much the same. The aperture settings were changed via Capture One's camera control, so I didn't have to touch the camera. The other lenses all have mechanical focusing mechanisms whereas the Sony has an electronic adjustment - i.e. the focusing ring isn't directly connected to the optics, it only controls a motor that moves the optics.

Martin

[john2]

Interesting. My comments were based on the F8 photos - I agree that at F4 the Zeiss lens does look slightly less sharp than the Canons. Perhaps the message is not to use it wide open.