Reading mode: Light Dark

Comparing E-mount zooms (Part 1)

Go to last post
D

Digital Nigel

Forum Pro
Messages
22,411
Solutions
37
Reaction score
10,982
Location
London, UK
There have been a number of threads lately comparing the various 18-200 and 55-210 zooms, as well as the kit and 16-70ZA zoom. There are also frequent threads comparing the RX100 and a6000. I decided to try out my own copies to see how they compared.

Rather than shooting a brick wall, a decided to shoot something a bit more interesting, in fact a view that most people here will recognise and many will have seen: the Palace of Westminster, shot from across the Thames. I took my a6000 and the following lenses:
  • SEL18200 (the original silver one)
  • SEL55210
  • SEL1670ZA
  • SEL1855 (the original kit lens)
  • SEL50f18
  • RX100 m1 (just for fun)
All the pictures were taken using S mode, with shutter speed 1/500, 10 secs delay, auto ISO, on a mini tripod (sitting on a curved wall and unfortunately not quite level) and OSS turned off. The mini tripod is quite light, so the camera moved a bit between shots, but was very stable during the shots. I shot RAW+JPEG (with one exception), but am initially showing OOC JPEGs here. All are uploaded full size. I don't normally shoot JPEGs, so all the JPEG settings are default.

First, here's some shots at around 50-55mm (ie, 75-80 equiv):

50mm (SEL50f18 prime)
50mm (SEL50f18 prime)

51mm (16-70ZA)
51mm (16-70ZA)

51mm (18-200 original hefty silver zoom)
51mm (18-200 original hefty silver zoom)

55mm (old 18-55 kit lens)
55mm (old 18-55 kit lens)

55mm (55-210)
55mm (55-210)

To keep this post down to a sensible length, I'll do other threads for other focal lengths.
 
Why did you not maintain the same aperture values? Aperture has a major effect on sharpness. On tripod, shutter speed simply does not matter.

There appears to be something seriously wrong with your SEL50F18.

--
Dan
 
Last edited:
audiobomber said:
Sorry, I don't see any value in your test. You need to maintain the same aperture values, not the same shutter speed, because aperture has a major effect on sharpness. On tripod, shutter speed simply does not matter.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to reproduce what would happen in the real world -- if I have a lens that will open wider, I'll obviously use it. In practice, I'd be using OSS and not a tripod, hence the deliberately high shutter speed in all cases. For example, if the 16-70 has f/4 available, and the telephoto zooms don't, why would I limit myself to the smaller aperture that they can provide?
audiobomber said:
There appears to be something seriously wrong with your SEL50F18.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm going to check that out some more, as the quality should be better than it appears. It's a lens I seldom use.
 
Digital Nigel said:
audiobomber said:
Sorry, I don't see any value in your test. You need to maintain the same aperture values, not the same shutter speed, because aperture has a major effect on sharpness. On tripod, shutter speed simply does not matter.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to reproduce what would happen in the real world -- if I have a lens that will open wider, I'll obviously use it. In practice, I'd be using OSS and not a tripod, hence the deliberately high shutter speed in all cases. For example, if the 16-70 has f/4 available, and the telephoto zooms don't, why would I limit myself to the smaller aperture that they can provide?
Click to expand...
Wait, is your 55-210 f/8 wide open?

Those varying lightning conditions might make judging contrast a bit difficult as well. Anyway, I appreciate your effort. So thanks!
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Appreciate the effort, but the contrast/color is more impacted here by the changing light than the lenses which makes detailed comparison somewhat pointless.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the problem with outdoor, rather than studio, shots. But it doesn't stop sharpness from being compared.
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Appreciate the effort, but the contrast/color is more impacted here by the changing light than the lenses which makes detailed comparison somewhat pointless.
Click to expand...
 
Digital Nigel said:
Erik Magnuson said:
Appreciate the effort, but the contrast/color is more impacted here by the changing light than the lenses which makes detailed comparison somewhat pointless.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the problem with outdoor, rather than studio, shots. But it doesn't stop sharpness from being compared.
Click to expand...
true to a large extent, but contrast does play a role in perceived sharpness:

MTF - Modulation Transfer Function

OpticalLimits - Lens reviews and beyond!
www.photozone.de www.photozone.de

the biggest problem, tho, was using mismatched aperture settings.

hopefully you didn't use autofocus.
 
osv said:
Digital Nigel said:
Erik Magnuson said:
Appreciate the effort, but the contrast/color is more impacted here by the changing light than the lenses which makes detailed comparison somewhat pointless.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the problem with outdoor, rather than studio, shots. But it doesn't stop sharpness from being compared.
Click to expand...
true to a large extent, but contrast does play a role in perceived sharpness:

http://www.photozone.de/mtf

the biggest problem, tho, was using mismatched aperture settings.

hopefully you didn't use autofocus.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did use autofocus, as I always would in practice. It wasn't exactly a difficult scene to focus on for the camera.
 
osv said:
Digital Nigel said:
pixelpushing said:
Erik Magnuson said:
Appreciate the effort, but the contrast/color is more impacted here by the changing light than the lenses which makes detailed comparison somewhat pointless.

--
Erik
Click to expand...
Have to agree. If you want to replicate 'real world' shooting, you wouldn't use a tripod and shoot the same subject with multiple lenses, anyway.

The point of a comparison like this is to see which lens performs better at the same settings (or as close as possible). Not sure how to respond to 'if a lens opens to f4, why wouldn't I use that?'... :-|
Click to expand...
I could easily have used A or M mode with say, f/8, but then people would say that I was disadvantaging the brighter lenses. In any case, there weren't big aperture differences between the shots.
Click to expand...
shutter speed will make up any exposure differences.

sharpness varies with aperture, not shutter speed, so you must always keep comparable apertures.
Click to expand...
True for any single lens, but not necessarily when comparing different lenses (eg, the 16-70 and 55-210 won't have the same perfect aperture at, say, 60mm). In any case, I think you'll find they all have much the same aperture.
osv said:
autofocus... well, maybe with multiple pics, pick the best, but still dicey.
Click to expand...
I nearly always use autofocus, and these weren't challenging shots for the camera (good light, lots of contrast in the static image).
 
Digital Nigel said:
Digital Nigel said:
shutter speed will make up any exposure differences.

sharpness varies with aperture, not shutter speed, so you must always keep comparable apertures.
Click to expand...
True for any single lens, but not necessarily when comparing different lenses (eg, the 16-70 and 55-210 won't have the same perfect aperture at, say, 60mm). In any case, I think you'll find they all have much the same aperture.
Click to expand...
ok, i see that they all have the same iso and the same shutter.

i agree that aperture is nothing more than what the manufacturer sets it at, but since everything was shot at the same focal length, you need to get as close as you can to the same aperture.

you can't ignore aperture settings.

--
dan
 
Last edited:
osv said:
Digital Nigel said:
osv said:
shutter speed will make up any exposure differences.

sharpness varies with aperture, not shutter speed, so you must always keep comparable apertures.
Click to expand...
True for any single lens, but not necessarily when comparing different lenses (eg, the 16-70 and 55-210 won't have the same perfect aperture at, say, 60mm). In any case, I think you'll find they all have much the same aperture.
Click to expand...
ok, i see that they all have the same iso and the same shutter.

i agree that aperture is nothing more than what the manufacturer sets it at, but since everything was shot at the same focal length, you need to get as close as you can to the same aperture.

you can't ignore aperture settings.
Click to expand...
True, but there weren't big differences in aperture between the zoom images (reflecting the changing light).
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Appreciate the effort, but the contrast/color is more impacted here by the changing light than the lenses which makes detailed comparison somewhat pointless.
Click to expand...
It does make for a nice example of how little the lens actually matters, though.

The picture from the superior 50mm prime looks least appealing because of a slight change of light.
 
Digital Nigel said:
audiobomber said:
Sorry, I don't see any value in your test. You need to maintain the same aperture values, not the same shutter speed, because aperture has a major effect on sharpness. On tripod, shutter speed simply does not matter.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to reproduce what would happen in the real world -- if I have a lens that will open wider, I'll obviously use it. In practice, I'd be using OSS and not a tripod, hence the deliberately high shutter speed in all cases. For example, if the 16-70 has f/4 available, and the telephoto zooms don't, why would I limit myself to the smaller aperture that they can provide?
Digital Nigel said:
There appears to be something seriously wrong with your SEL50F18.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm going to check that out some more, as the quality should be better than it appears. It's a lens I seldom use.
Click to expand...
Here's another one with the SEL50f18, this time as f/5.6:

50mm (50mm prime)
50mm (50mm prime)

I think this one looks a bit better than the f/4.5 one (below):

5f056fc0cf114d13bf067666c0af9cef.jpg
 
imho, that 50mm prime could be hosed up on the right side... nothing at any distance is sharp on that side.

so far it looks like you've identified a couple of lenses with possible issues.

everyone should be doing this.

--
dan
 
Last edited:
osv said:
imho, that 50mm prime could be hosed up on the right side... nothing at any distance is sharp on that side.

so far it looks like you've identified a couple of lenses with possible issues.

everyone should be doing this.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I mentioned, I rarely use the 50mm prime, and assumed it owuld be super sharp, without really testing it. The centre is pretty good, and I didn't look any further.

My ageing (I bought it for my original NEX-5, in about 2011) 18-200 suffers from flare (not evident in these pics), but it's disappointing that it's so easily beaten for sharpness by the cheap 55-210 zoom.
 
Digital Nigel said:
My ageing (I bought it for my original NEX-5, in about 2011) 18-200 suffers from flare (not evident in these pics), but it's disappointing that it's so easily beaten for sharpness by the cheap 55-210 zoom.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is any consolation, but if we're talking about these 55mm sample pictures the 55-210 has the advantage of being stopped down from f/5.6 to f/8 whereas the 18-200 is wide open. Having the 55-210, I know that stopping down increases the IQ of that lens quite a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top