Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

Started Apr 22, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Faketastic Regular Member • Posts: 163
Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

Full link: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/829-sony1018f4oss

But WHY did he test it on the NEX-7 which is known for having problems with WA?

Sony Alpha NEX-7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
captura Forum Pro • Posts: 21,985
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de
1

Faketastic wrote:

Full link: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/829-sony1018f4oss

But WHY did he test it on the NEX-7 which is known for having problems with WA?

Despite criticism, Photozone has been doing that since the 7 came out.

Sample variation> "Unfortunately, and that's a bit of a tradition in the local Sony test history, we experienced significant centering defects in the two samples that we tested. The first sample delivered miserable results throughout the range whereas and the 2nd sample showed a very soft output on the left image side."

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Google Nexus 5
Dennishh Contributing Member • Posts: 545
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de
1

Here we go again. Photozone loves every lens except Sony. I have not experienced anything other than stellar results from the 10-18! Take a look at the review of this lens at Luminous Landscape.

Leica 14-50, lower numbers all around still gets 4 stars?

 Dennishh's gear list:Dennishh's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Sony Alpha 7R II Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
Ralph46
Ralph46 Senior Member • Posts: 1,183
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

I don't have the 10-18 and I doubt that I ever will because of the price. However, I have read many good opinions from posters here and seen many great pictures done with the 10-18. Sony may not be the cheapest brand or have the most outstanding lenses around. But they are surely not as dismal as the Photozone crew (18-55 with 1.5 (!) stars optically, really!) make them out to be. I have bought 2 Sony lenses and am happy with both of them.

 Ralph46's gear list:Ralph46's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +4 more
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,137
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

Dennishh wrote:

Here we go again. Photozone loves every lens except Sony. I have not experienced anything other than stellar results from the 10-18! Take a look at the review of this lens at Luminous Landscape.


Leica 14-50, lower numbers all around still gets 4 stars?

I don't think he really has preference for any lenses.  The lens isn't that great on the NEX 7 unless you consider it an f/5.6 or f/8 lens, maybe due to field curvature, maybe something else.  Sony does a good job of making their lenses look marginal themselves.

Don't compare the actual numbers, they are different bodies, but this is why I generally ignore ranking systems or x/y rankings, because the NEX 7 makes the lens look worse than it is by putting up higher numbers in the center of the frame, but still high in the corners respective of other systems, but it makes the lens look like it performs worse in the corners because it is relatively worse.

I agree, its important to look at multiple reviews, but I can't say I disagree with the conclusion.  I have used other much cheaper ultra wides that perform better than the Sony, but they Sony does plenty good for what it is as long as you stop down the aperture.

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Faketastic OP Regular Member • Posts: 163
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

viking79 wrote:

Dennishh wrote:

Here we go again. Photozone loves every lens except Sony. I have not experienced anything other than stellar results from the 10-18! Take a look at the review of this lens at Luminous Landscape.


Leica 14-50, lower numbers all around still gets 4 stars?

I don't think he really has preference for any lenses.  The lens isn't that great on the NEX 7 unless you consider it an f/5.6 or f/8 lens, maybe due to field curvature, maybe something else.  Sony does a good job of making their lenses look marginal themselves.

Don't compare the actual numbers, they are different bodies, but this is why I generally ignore ranking systems or x/y rankings, because the NEX 7 makes the lens look worse than it is by putting up higher numbers in the center of the frame, but still high in the corners respective of other systems, but it makes the lens look like it performs worse in the corners because it is relatively worse.

I agree, its important to look at multiple reviews, but I can't say I disagree with the conclusion.  I have used other much cheaper ultra wides that perform better than the Sony, but they Sony does plenty good for what it is as long as you stop down the aperture.

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

Which cheap UW zooms can match this?

Keit ll Senior Member • Posts: 3,947
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de
1

I am not sure why they should be criticized for testing this lens on a NEX 7 ? Isn't this supposed to be the flagship camera in the NEX range ?

The price of this lens suggests that it has been designed with more experienced users in mind & is commensurate with the asking price of the 7 when it first came out. If Sony haven't bothered to make this lens fully compatible with their most expensive NEX aren't owners entitled to know this ?

If Sony choose to send untested lenses for review this could be said to indicate faith in their general production quality but for a reviewer site to receive  two defective lenses seems to suggest a QC problem ?

Just noticed that Photozone actually buy their lenses so perhaps Sony didn't have an opportunity to pre-test the lenses ?

-- hide signature --

Keith C

viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,137
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

Faketastic wrote:

Which cheap UW zooms can match this?

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (was around $450 new) is pretty comparable, and I prefer my Samsung 12-24mm f/4-5.6 ($600 or $450 when bought with a camera and if the $150 lens deal is running).  The Samsung doesn't go as wide, but has more range.  I find the 18-24mm range is actually very useful (don't have to change as often).

Tamron 10-24mm seems pretty comparable, Nikkor 10-24mm is about the same price.  The point is the Sony seems to be priced up there with the likes of Nikkor, Canon, etc.  Nothing wrong with it one way or the other, just expensive.  It does well enough stopped down.  My point is I don't disagree with what PZ wrote in the conclusion section, doesn't mean I don't like the lens.

If I were to buy a NEX again I would certainly buy that lens, but it is kind of pricey for a 10-18mm f/5.6.

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
bill hansen Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

Here is Kurt Munger's much more thorough review of the 10-18, with a higher opinion of the lens. http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_10_18mm_f_4_ossid342.html

I'm another one who will probably never be able to justify the price tag of the 10-18 based on my own usage pattern, but II enjoyed reading both of these reviews.

-- hide signature --

Bill Hansen
Ithaca NY, USA

BigG30 Regular Member • Posts: 364
I have a 10-18 and NEX-7 - it's sharp in the corners

Faketastic wrote:

Full link: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/829-sony1018f4oss

But WHY did he test it on the NEX-7 which is known for having problems with WA?

The 10-18 is incredibly sharp, right into the corners on the NEX-7. It's far, far sharper than my Canon 10-22mm especially in the corners.

What I do agree with Klaus on is the QC - my copy of the 10-18mm also showed decentering from 14mm with a softer left than right side particularly at 18mm at f/4. It was only visible when pixel peeping, but for a £700+ lens I would expect it to be nearly perfect. There was no apparent decentering at 10mm to 14mm though.

I've returned mine for another copy.

BigG30 Regular Member • Posts: 364
ePHotozine have a review on the 5r

Faketastic wrote:

Full link: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/829-sony1018f4oss

But WHY did he test it on the NEX-7 which is known for having problems with WA?

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-sel-10-18mm-f-4-oss-lens-review-21763

Brilliant.

jpr2 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,805
Eric: indeed, alsmost ANY lens will perform decently IF stopped down :)

viking79 wrote:

Don't compare the actual numbers, they are different bodies, but this is why I generally ignore ranking systems or x/y rankings, because the NEX 7 makes the lens look worse than it is by putting up higher numbers in the center of the frame, but still high in the corners respective of other systems, but it makes the lens look like it performs worse in the corners because it is relatively worse.

I agree, its important to look at multiple reviews, but I can't say I disagree with the conclusion.  I have used other much cheaper ultra wides that perform better than the Sony, but they Sony does plenty good for what it is as long as you stop down the aperture.

  • Photozone's results can be compared across systems, provided that first their absolute numbers will be converted to a relative scale, say in percents of top resolution for each FL - but this will be a work by necessity done by end-users themselves as PZ doesn't convert their data for easy comparisons;
  • anyway, stopping down an aperture doesn't say much about critical performance, even el cheapo lemons can do pretty good at their best apertures = not a purpose of testing sites for sure !!

jpr2

Keit ll Senior Member • Posts: 3,947
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

bill hansen wrote:

Here is Kurt Munger's much more thorough review of the 10-18, with a higher opinion of the lens. http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_10_18mm_f_4_ossid342.html

I'm another one who will probably never be able to justify the price tag of the 10-18 based on my own usage pattern, but II enjoyed reading both of these reviews.

-- hide signature --

Bill Hansen
Ithaca NY, USA

I read Kurt's review slightly differently. It may have been slightly less direct in its use of language but the sum of the comments & examination of the sample photos adds up to  a similar picture to me.

One issue that is worthy of comment is that reviewers tend not to test lenses using the in-camera correction facilities & as these lenses are produced to be used with Sony cameras perhaps they should test them with & without correction ?

If Sony worked in closer collaboration with Software producers then they might incorporate correction facilities more quickly ?

-- hide signature --

Keith C

Faketastic OP Regular Member • Posts: 163
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de
2

viking79 wrote:

Faketastic wrote:

Which cheap UW zooms can match this?

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (was around $450 new) is pretty comparable, and I prefer my Samsung 12-24mm f/4-5.6 ($600 or $450 when bought with a camera and if the $150 lens deal is running).  The Samsung doesn't go as wide, but has more range.  I find the 18-24mm range is actually very useful (don't have to change as often).

Tamron 10-24mm seems pretty comparable, Nikkor 10-24mm is about the same price.  The point is the Sony seems to be priced up there with the likes of Nikkor, Canon, etc.  Nothing wrong with it one way or the other, just expensive.  It does well enough stopped down.  My point is I don't disagree with what PZ wrote in the conclusion section, doesn't mean I don't like the lens.

If I were to buy a NEX again I would certainly buy that lens, but it is kind of pricey for a 10-18mm f/5.6.

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

None of the lenses you listed are close to the center resolution of the 10-18. And only one can match the wide angle.

jpr2 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,805
re: on the contrary - in-camera corrections MASK a true optical IQ...

Keit ll wrote:

One issue that is worthy of comment is that reviewers tend not to test lenses using the in-camera correction facilities & as these lenses are produced to be used with Sony cameras perhaps they should test them with & without correction ?

  • ...so this is really a least important part of a review process - otherwise it ought to be carefully compared with what might be optimally achievable through judiciously selected PP packages;
  • which, esp. if coupled/combined with plethora of possibilities opened by multitude of cameras [each performing their OOC corrections perhaps a bit differently due to FW and sensor variance]...
  • will open an nightmarishly complex can of worms - a quicksand field to be boggled down by a discord
  • a key to a good and worthwhile a review is to standardize the obs as much as possible

jpr2

Keit ll Senior Member • Posts: 3,947
Re: re: on the contrary - in-camera corrections MASK a true optical IQ...

jpr2 wrote:

Keit ll wrote:

One issue that is worthy of comment is that reviewers tend not to test lenses using the in-camera correction facilities & as these lenses are produced to be used with Sony cameras perhaps they should test them with & without correction ?

  • ...so this is really a least important part of a review process - otherwise it ought to be carefully compared with what might be optimally achievable through judiciously selected PP packages;
  • which, esp. if coupled/combined with plethora of possibilities opened by multitude of cameras [each performing their OOC corrections perhaps a bit differently due to FW and sensor variance]...
  • will open an nightmarishly complex can of worms - a quicksand field to be boggled down by a discord
  • a key to a good and worthwhile a review is to standardize the obs as much as possible

jpr2

I would agree with those comments if Sony did not offer in-camera correction but they do ...

E-mount lenses are not intended to be used on non Sony cameras.

The issue of what is capable with the use of computer software is a totally different consideration but inclusion of such testing would not actually spoil a review ? I raised the matter as it would give Sony less grief if there was not such a long lag before Adobe produced new correction profiles.

Keith C

dellaaa Contributing Member • Posts: 667
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

Hi Eric,

I have read your posts in past and you seem more objective than many who post on here.

I know in past you shot with Sony, but now I see you have made the switch to Fuji.  I have the NEX7 for over a year and still I am not sure whether to keep it.  I have the kit and the 16 with both adapters.

I don't find shooting with the camera enjoyable.  I think Sony tried, unsuccessfully, to reinvent the wheel with the TriNavi. I would much prefer a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring.

I have looked at the Fuji XPRO 1, but it seemed overpriced and their lack of RAW support killed it for me.  I also think a some of the people who shoot it are maybe a bit overly enthusiastic in their appraisal of both it and of the images it produces (that Fuji color magic IMHO is easily reproduced on my Sony files by boosting the saturation and vibrance in ACR.)

If you would, can you tell me what you think of the Fuji, specifically how it compares to the Sony.  How do you think the images compare and what about the ergonomics?  Do you regret the change?

Thanks

 dellaaa's gear list:dellaaa's gear list
Canon PowerShot G10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +1 more
captura Forum Pro • Posts: 21,985
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de

What do you mean? The test results for MTF from Photozone appear to be higher (for the center of the lens,) than those from Luminous Landscape.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Google Nexus 5
dpmaxwell Regular Member • Posts: 466
Re: Review of 10-18 is up at photozone.de
1

viking79 wrote:

Faketastic wrote:

Which cheap UW zooms can match this?

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (was around $450 new) is pretty comparable, and I prefer my Samsung 12-24mm f/4-5.6 ($600 or $450 when bought with a camera and if the $150 lens deal is running).  The Samsung doesn't go as wide, but has more range.  I find the 18-24mm range is actually very useful (don't have to change as often).

Tamron 10-24mm seems pretty comparable, Nikkor 10-24mm is about the same price.  The point is the Sony seems to be priced up there with the likes of Nikkor, Canon, etc.  Nothing wrong with it one way or the other, just expensive.  It does well enough stopped down.  My point is I don't disagree with what PZ wrote in the conclusion section, doesn't mean I don't like the lens.

If I were to buy a NEX again I would certainly buy that lens, but it is kind of pricey for a 10-18mm f/5.6.

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

I don't know about those other lenses you mention,  but the Sigma I have used and it doesn't compare well to the Sony at all IQ wise. Price/value wise it competes well, though.

I agree that the Sony is somewhat expensive, but for what it offers in the absence of other comparable options, I can see why they have priced it where they have. The small size, native mounting and all that entails, OSS, f/4 aperture across the zoom range, coupled with the likely lower sales volume they expect vs. more normal focal lengths. I think it is a solid value. Sure I'd like to see it at $600, or $500. Well not really, since I bought one, now I want the price to stay where it is.  LOL

 dpmaxwell's gear list:dpmaxwell's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony RX100 III Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V Sony RX10 III
bill hansen Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: re: on the contrary - in-camera corrections MASK a true optical IQ...

Keith and jpr - I think we'll all have to learn to use DXO, PT lens, or some other program which corrects lens distortions, CA, etc. Since I shoot RAW almost all the time, I know I'll have to do that. I have skipped over those correction programs during my Canon years, but I'll need them now.

-- hide signature --

Bill Hansen
Ithaca NY, USA

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads