Lens reviews update: DxOMark data for Sony NEX primes

There are ads? On the internet? I did not know, I think it may be this script I wrote in 2009, I dunno. ;)

Jul 8, 2013permalink

vadims

> if you're looking for good quality ad free content...

Did I mention "ad free"?

The five ads I mentioned have a *bug*. Re-read my post and look at the ads. QA issue. Something somebody at DPR (Amazon) has to fix. Web sites happen to have bugs, you know. Understand now?

Jul 8, 2013permalink

ET2

With all the posters who never owned Nex constantly claiming that Nex lenses are very "bad", as it turns out, they aren't really that "bad".

Jul 6, 2013permalink

King Penguin

Oh good 'not that bad'........actually, I'll think I'll stick to my d600 and Nikkor glass.........

.......and before you mention dirty sensor, I've not found it an issue......

Jul 6, 2013permalink

steelhead3

All systems have there foibles; some people are just more tolerant of QC issues.

Jul 6, 2013permalink

oh irony, seems like Nikon is currently having most of QC issues on an entire photography market.

Jul 8, 2013permalink

Hugo600si

50 is an easier lens design, 24's have always been more expensive. And part of the price of the 24 is for the brand on the lens, don't enjoy it any less due to that, at the time it was the only decent lens available.
Have to get me a 50 now though, it has been raved about since launch, but now its a must have (denies stating earlier that the DXO mark results can be a complete mess with the 35/1.4G junk scoring high...)

Jul 5, 2013permalink

> 24's have always been more expensive.

we cannot talk about cost without specifying the mount/format, that 24mm is very easy to design and make for all mirrorless mounts.

optical design is mostly affected by three factors,
angle of view, 37mm equiv. for E24/1.8,
aperture, f/2.8 equiv. for E24/1.8, and
back focus, 28mm equiv. for Sony NEX/E-mount.

E24/1.8 may worth 150 US or so compared with traditional 35/2 lenses. it costs less for 37mm > 28mm back focus, more for being a new product, and more for bearing a dirt stain called Zeiss.

Jul 6, 2013*permalink

mandophoto

Well, OK, this is just a guess and don't take it the wrong way, but we can assume you don't like Zeiss, right?

Jul 6, 2013permalink

please tell me anyone for any reason should like Zeiss.

Jul 7, 2013permalink

quality? tradition? image rendering?

Jul 8, 2013permalink

I recognize their tradition since 1973. they lost all the tradition, capabilities, experiences, know-how before that (well those are of little value today anyways, so they may not have lost much).

Jul 8, 2013*permalink

peevee1

And $300 Sony 50/1.8 OSS beats $1100 Zeiss 24/1.8.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

no problem Zeiss usually means lower quality.
it always means significantly less value for money.

Jul 6, 2013permalink

tecnoworld

Also samsung nx lenses have been tested by dxo. No news for them? :-)

Jul 5, 2013permalink

All in good time...

Jul 5, 2013permalink

tjobbe

news will have the usual delays ;-)

Jul 7, 2013permalink

Boerseuntjie

And were is HowaboutRaw now raving over the NX 85mm F1.4 it's about just as good as the Sony NEX 50mm F1.8...LOL
Better than Leica Canon and Nikon, what a joke

Jul 9, 2013permalink

a little bit embarassing

Jul 5, 2013permalink

dedicated mirrorless lenses should deliver high performance as 35mm format lenses, higher for wide-angles.
20/2.8 - 31/4.3 equiv., vs 35/2 stopped down, < 1/4 price,
24/1.8 - 37/2.8 equiv., vs 35/2 stopped down, ~ 1/2 price,
30/3.5 - 46/5.4 equiv., vs 50/2.8 stopped down, > 1/4 price,
35/1.8 - 54/2.8 equiv., vs 50/1.8 stopped down, < 1/2 price,
50/1.8 - 77/2.8 equiv., vs 85/1.8 stopped down, < 1/2 price,
16/2.8 - 25/4.3 equiv., vs 24/2.8 stopped down, << 1/2 price,

Jul 5, 2013*permalink

eightnine

hi. i'm new to photography. could you explain your comment means in layman terms. I was thinking about getting the NEX system because it's light weight and the cost is low on the used market. thanks

Jul 5, 2013permalink

> 24/1.8 - 37/2.8 equiv., vs 35/2 stopped down, ~ 1/2 price,

this is E24mm f/1.8,
it's same as, gives us everything we can expect from,
a 37mm f/2.8 lens on a 35mm full-frame camera,

35mm f/2 is a very popular lens for FF.
stopping it down to f/2.8 gives us a lens that works
almost the same as E24/1.8 at open.

since this is 1 stop smaller aperture (half area),
the cost should be 1 stop lower (about, not accurate),
35/2 lenses are sold for about 300 US.

Jul 6, 2013*permalink

flipmac

When calculating equivalence on 135 format (fullframe), lens speed doesn't change. So, the 24/1.8 is 36/1.8 on FF, which means it has an angle/field of view (AoV or FoV) equivalent to a 36mm FF lens because of the 1.5 crop factor, but the light gathering ability is still F/1.8.

You only multiply the f-number by the crop factor to calculate equivalent depth of field (DoF) on FF, which would be like the FF 36mm lens stopped down to F/2.7. This is either better or worst depending on your preference and situation.

Jul 6, 2013permalink

> the 24/1.8 is 36/1.8 on FF

can we find anything in the output photograph to prove it? or
can we find anything in the output photograph that is different from a 37/2.8 on FF?

Jul 6, 2013permalink

tietheknot

flipmac is talking about light transmission. An f1.8 lens in ff will transmit the same amount of light in APS-C etc etc. This is the reason why people describe a lens with a smaller f-number a faster lens, since it lets in more light hence you can use a faster shutter speed to get the same exposure.

Rather you are speaking of depth of field equivalents: flipmac talks of this in his second paragraph

Jul 6, 2013permalink

Onur Otlu

yabokkie, yes we can; no camera shake blur as you could take the photo at 1/40 sec thanks to f/1,8.

Jul 6, 2013permalink

Onur Otlu

Also, by your logic the Sigma 30 1,4 for EF-s mount should be $ 70. As it's a 48 2,2, it's clearly worse than the Canon 50 1,8.

Jul 6, 2013permalink

> you are speaking of depth of field equivalents

where did I say that? I say every photographic result produced by the lens that one can find in the output image. you name it and see it same as 37/2.8.

everything the same with no exception because we have only one aperture, the size of which = 24/1.8 = 37/2.8 = 13.3mm.

Jul 6, 2013*permalink

cocopro

50mm/f1.8 = very good bang for the buck, primes for E & MFT with similar performance sell for 2x-3x price.
Zeiss = rich man's toys.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

peevee1

45/1.8 is $350 now, about the same thing (portrait lens).

Jul 5, 2013permalink

45/1.8 is a rare lens that the 4/3" gang doesn't tag with unreasonable price. one can buy a G5X or GX1X zoom kit with 45/1.8 and say bye-bye.

Jul 7, 2013permalink

Smartypants

As camera sensors grow above 24 - 36 MP the quality of the optics are more important. I think all manufactures are having problem shrinking optics and keeping corner to corner sharpness. When I buy into a camera system its the lenses that are the most important element.
I would love to replace my Sony a850's and my Nikon D800E systems with something smaller but for me Sony's NEX system just isn't there yet with the optical range, speed and sharpness for me.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

Dave Oddie

The primes are all (bar the CZ 24) the wrong focal length to my mind.

Why persist with 50mm focal as a portrait lens? Back in the day of film there was plenty of debate if 85mm was a bit too short for a portrait lens never mind 75mm.

Sony had the luxury of starting from scratch with the E system so no need to press gang old 50mm standard lenses into service as a portrait lens. Yet they still seem to pander to outmoded focal lengths. The 50mm should be a 60mm, the 20 mm ought to be 17mm and so on.

Why not be more radical and offer a standard lens focal length related to the diagonal of the sensor? A true standard.

Look at Oly. 45mm portrait lens with f.o.v of 90mm on FF. That is how you do it!

And no I aint an Oly user but an A-mount user.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

TimT999

I'm disappointed by the lens reviews. For many of us, the excitement of the mirror less approach is to have near-DSLR quality in a smaller form factor. Yet these lens reviews don't include DSLR comparisons to give us that context.

Obviously the Nex lineup can't come close to a full frame -- and no one would expect that. But if I'm going to consider one of these mirror less systems, I want to know if it can come close to (or better!) the crop systems that Canon and Nikon is coming out with now.

After all, these Sony lenses are priced comparably -- I can currently get the Canon 24-105mm L for under $800 from lots of vendors. So why not include a Canon/Nikon crop body/lens system in the mirrorless system reviews done by DxO and DPReview so we know how these newer technologies stack up?

Jul 5, 2013*permalink

You can compare the Sony NEX lens data side-by-side with a wide range of other lenses in our data widget - just click the 'Compare' link at the bottom right, then select another lens. For example, here's how the Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS compares to the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM on APS-C:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-widget-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=sonye351p8&cameraId=sonynex7&fl=35&av=1.8&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=sigma351p4&cameraId2=nikon_d7000&fl2=35&av2=1.4

Jul 5, 2013permalink

Vlad S

Why aren't the micro 4/3 lenses in the comparison list? Seems like it's the main competitor to the E system.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

We're building up the lens list over time, and will add Micro Four Thirds in due course. But they're less straightforward than the others as DxOMark likes to report 'raw' data before the designed-in distortion correction is applied, whereas we'll be showing data after correction as we consider that to be more relevent to the end user. This means rather more work on our (i.e. my) part to get that data into the widget.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee

How about some Fuji X lenses? I know it's going to make a lot of these look bad in comparison, but you can't spin this marketing effort forever.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

Simon Joinson

Fuji X lenses are also much more complicated (mainly down to the raw format used by xtrans IIRC). Believe me we want them in there too!

Jul 5, 2013permalink

I've a NEX-7 as a light system. I find the 50 superb. The 16 is good enough, the 18-55 is excellent at working apertures, the 55-210 is not bad, but not good either. People should take these very exacting tests with a grain of salt. The requisite question is can you see these differences in prints? If not then they're just counting angels on the head of a pin.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

TimT999

Andy, I appreciate your replying to my comment about not including more context of NEX or 4/3 reviews against DSLRs. And I have certainly used (and appreciate) your side-by-side compare tool.

My point is that your reviews do provide context between mirrorless systems -- how a Panasonic stacks up to a Sony Nex. But I feel we should have that same level of context to the DSLR system in the article text. As it is, someone has to dig into the compare tools to do that groundwork.

If mirrorless is is ready for the big leagues, you need to say it. And if it's still not up to snuff you need to tell us.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

If you have a problem with the reviews on DxOMark's site, you need to address it to them, not me.

Meanwhile, there's no doubt that the best lenses for mirrorless are truly excellent. If you're not happy with lenses like the Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R, you probably won't be happy with anything much.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

The RAW conversion on the xtrans sensor is well in hand. I have 5 RAW converters for it in two operating systems.

Fuji's Silkypix is the standard but even Capture One is good now.

This not a problem anymore.

Jul 6, 2013permalink

supeyugin1

Sony 50/1.8 is good, the rest (Zeiss) is good, but too expensive.
Look at Samsung instead.

Jul 6, 2013permalink

I have both the Fuji XF 60mm and XF 14mm lenses and both are superb. The camera is kinda magic folks.

I come from a 4x5 and Schneider Apos and I am very happy with the tiny files. ;)

Jul 6, 2013*permalink

Hm... seems like none of them can compare with best of A-mount lenses. Basically: nothing changed during last 2-3 years. Sad.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

cocopro

DOX lens rating is related to body format, nikon 85mm f/1.4G is rated 40 on D600 and 25 on D7000. If you limit body format to APS-C then the best score of any tested lens is only 26, close to the score of 24 for E mount.

Jul 5, 2013permalink

obviously all these Sony lenses are of super low value.

a 85/1.4G loses half value instantaly mounted on APS-C, for less than half of the designed image area (frame or image circle) but at the center where the qualities are higher than average. so 40 to 25 looks quite natural and reasonable (but as we all understand this is not lens' fault).

effectively cocopro says that Sony lenses have only half of the value and he is correct.

Jul 8, 2013*permalink