Big set of sharpness charts - updated for 24-105

[JohnNEX]

This is an update to my previous post comparing MTF scores for various lenses as tested by photozone.de (now called "optical limits").

The update is for the 24-105 lens. There is another thread already going which discusses their written conclusions. This thread shows the numbers.

Bottom lines:

At the wide end the 24-105 performs almost as well as the 24-70 GM lens. Its that good.

At longer focal lengths the 24-105 is not quite as strong in the centre but the border performance is still excellent - right up there with the GM lens.

This seems to me to be a very sharp lens, particularly at the wide end and particularly at the borders at all focal lengths, which is where many cheap lenses fall away (compare the 28-70 kit zoom numbers).

On each chart, the solid line shows the centre performance and the dashed line shows the border performance.







--

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Jeff2013]

Thank you for posting.

Just this morning, before seeing your graphs, I superimposed these same graphs for the GM 24-70mm f2.8 and the new FE 24-105mm f4.

I was considering the 24-105 for traveling. After reviewing the charts, I decided to stick with the GM lens and just crop files at the long end.

Roger Cicala/LensRental just posted results for the Sigma 24-105mm f4, where it looks to be outstanding, across the field by f5.6 (yes, he tested the lens stopped-down in addition to wide-open). He is currently testing the Sony lens. He commented on the Fred Miranda forum that he had hoped to publish by last week, so there might be a good chance it will be next week. That should provide a good figure-of-merit for this lens.

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

 

[juanmaasecas]

Does really the cheap 50 1.8 have better edge resolution than the Zeiss 55 1.8 from f2.8 onwards??? Woah!

 

[JohnNEX]

Does really the cheap 50 1.8 have better edge resolution than the Zeiss 55 1.8 from f2.8 onwards??? Woah!

I have never heard any complaints on the sharpness of the 50 1.8. Its ponderously slow AF is another matter ...

Keep in mind that dxomark says that the 55 is sharper all the way than the 50, so it can vary a bit. You should never put enormous weight on any one measure - its all part of the great big data set.

Anyway, either lens should be sharp enough ....

--
https://www.facebook.com/John-Clark-Photography-1035965476487072/

 

[George54898]

This is an update to my previous post comparing MTF scores for various lenses as tested by photozone.de (now called "optical limits").

The update is for the 24-105 lens. There is another thread already going which discusses their written conclusions. This thread shows the numbers.

Bottom lines:

At the wide end the 24-105 performs almost as well as the 24-70 GM lens. Its that good.

At longer focal lengths the 24-105 is not quite as strong in the centre but the border performance is still excellent - right up there with the GM lens.

This seems to me to be a very sharp lens, particularly at the wide end and particularly at the borders at all focal lengths, which is where many cheap lenses fall away (compare the 28-70 kit zoom numbers).

On each chart, the solid line shows the centre performance and the dashed line shows the border performance.







--
https://www.facebook.com/John-Clark-Photography-1035965476487072/

I'd love to see the G Master 85 and the Planar T* 50mm 1.4 ZA plotted against these lenses as well. I think they would also be in consideration for buyers.

 

[Clayton1985]

Does really the cheap 50 1.8 have better edge resolution than the Zeiss 55 1.8 from f2.8 onwards??? Woah!

I can tell you that stopped down the 50 f1.8 is really good so this wouldn't surprise me at all. Of course I don't think the 55 f1.8 was designed to prioritize stopped down edge resolution over other aspects of IQ.

 

[WalterJ1959]

How does the 24-105mm compare to the 16-35mm 2.8 at 24mm and 35mm? Is its performance anywhere close?

 

[paul wassermann]

Total novice at understanding the charts...why does the resolution DECREASE after a couple of stops? I thought performance was enhanced at smaller apertures (up until defraction comes into play at tiny apertures)? These graphs tell me that around 5.6, everything begins to become less sharp. At least most lens reviews seem to identify a "sweet spot" that usually falls around f5.6 to F8 in typical examples. Appreciate some simple clarification here. Thanks!

 

[phynesse]

what exactly do these graphs show?

in 50% of your measurements the value decreases after f5.6, but i have yet to see a single lens where visible sharpness corresponds to that. Especially in the corners, i would expect an increase all the way to around f8ish, then stay the same before dropping after f11ish.

what am i missing here?

 

[paul wassermann]

what exactly do these graphs show?

in 50% of your measurements the value decreases after f5.6, but i have yet to see a single lens where visible sharpness corresponds to that. Especially in the corners, i would expect an increase all the way to around f8ish, then stay the same before dropping after f11ish.

what am i missing here?

That was exactly my question..here is a quote from another source:

"Aperture. Lenses are sharpest at middle apertures (sharpness is limited by abberations at wide apertures and by diffraction at smaller apertures. In fact, by f16, all lenses perform almost the same, which is why I didn’t bother to make measurements at f22). If given the choice, use a middle aperture such as f8"

This is obviously a huge generalization, but again based on the provided charts, expect decrease in performance after f5.6. Only the 28-70 corner sharpness improved beyond 5.6, all others test showed a measurable loss?

 

[PWPhotography]

Thank you for posting.

Just this morning, before seeing your graphs, I superimposed these same graphs for the GM 24-70mm f2.8 and the new FE 24-105mm f4.

I was considering the 24-105 for traveling. After reviewing the charts, I decided to stick with the GM lens and just crop files at the long end.

Roger Cicala/LensRental just posted results for the Sigma 24-105mm f4, where it looks to be outstanding, across the field by f5.6 (yes, he tested the lens stopped-down in addition to wide-open). He is currently testing the Sony lens. He commented on the Fred Miranda forum that he had hoped to publish by last week, so there might be a good chance it will be next week. That should provide a good figure-of-merit for this lens.

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

I might consider the lens in future for light/compact option if I only carry one camera in a trip. However at this moment I still carry two cameras in trips so I'd still keep EF 24-70L II or soon FE 16-35 GM (one of them) on A7r II, FE 70-200G/4.0 OSS on A9 while FE 55 sits between. To me F2.8 in wide side range and edge to edge, entire FL sharpness are more important, and upto 200mm reach is much needed as I also shoot lots from 70-200mm zoom.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums