• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / a7RIV / Sony 20/1.8 vs Loxia 21/2.8 — Siemens Star

Sony 20/1.8 vs Loxia 21/2.8 — Siemens Star

March 11, 2020 JimK 12 Comments

It’s natural to compare the new-kid-on-the-block Sony 20mm f/1.8 to the excellent Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8. Here’s a test with both lenses mounted on an a7RIV aimed at a low-contrast Siemens Star at about 8 meters, with the star in the center and the lower left corner. I used AF-S for the Sony, and manual focusing for the Loxia. In each case I made three shots at each setting, focusing anew for each shot, and picked the best. This method calibrates out focus curvature. Developed in Lightroom with sharpening set to amount 20, radius 1, detail 0, which is quite a bit less than Lr’s default sharpening. White balanced to the gray surround of the target. They are presented at about 250%.

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, center, f/2.8

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, center, f/2.8

The Sony lens is a bit higher in contrast.

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, center, f/4

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, center, f/4

Pretty close to a wash.

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, center, f/5.6

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, center, f/5.6

About the same.

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, center, f/8

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, center, f/8

The same.

In the corner:

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, corner, f/2.8

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, corner, f/2.8

The Loxia is sharper, especially for radial variations. You probably wouldn’t see this difference in noraml photography.

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, corner, f/4

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, corner, f/4

The Loxia is definitely sharper here.

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, corner, f/5.6

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, corner, f/5.6

The Loxia wins again.

Sony 20 mm f/1.8, corner, f/8

 

Zeiss Loxia 21 mm f/2.8, corner, f/8

Now it’s very close.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a7RIV

← Sony 20mm f/1.8 G initial tests Camera differences in color profile making →

Comments

  1. Damian says

    March 11, 2020 at 11:05 am

    I’m curious why you’re using autofocus for the Sony? Why not manual focus for both? If I’m testing autofocus I’ll use AF-S but when testing optics I always use manual focus, especially if I was comparing against a manual focus lens.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 11, 2020 at 11:08 am

      It’s faster, and, with this target, as accurate. And I do shoot three shots in each case, so I can see if there are important differences between them. If there were a lot of scatter in the AF case, I’d see that.

      Reply
      • Damian says

        March 11, 2020 at 11:16 am

        Seems to me it’s adding another variable to what can be a straight forward A/B test. I’m not saying your conclusions are off; they may be totally on point. That said, using manual focus on the exact same point on the star would make it a more apples to apples test and only add a minute or two if you’re popular taking three shots.

        Reply
        • JimK says

          March 11, 2020 at 11:28 am

          Manual focusing is itself a variable. Did you see this:

          https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-batis-af-vs-mf/

          I can tell you that the kinds of shot-to-shot variations I’m seeing are small.

          I don’t know how you could focus on the same point of the star, or of any particular point on the star with these lenses , since the star is so small in the frame. Even at max magnification, it doesn’t fill the finder. You also have to decide which direction (sagittal/tangential) you’re going to optimize in the corners, but that’s not practically a problem with these lenses, although it can be with some wide onoes.

          Reply
    • Erik Kaffehr says

      March 11, 2020 at 1:16 pm

      Makes sense. Why? Because manual focus with AF-lenses is not that easy. Focusing throw tends to be to short om many AF-lenses, just as an example.

      The amount of aliasing is a pretty decent indication on how good focus is.

      Reply
  2. Damian says

    March 11, 2020 at 2:06 pm

    I have a slightly different take on this than you do. I find manually focusing AF lenses difficult in real life settings – and therefore use AF 99% of the time – but very easy when it comes to focusing on a Siemens star or an Imatest test chart. Inevitably I get sharper images using manual focus (except in the real world) with less variation between shots since AF doesn’t always identify the point of optimal focus well.

    I’ll concede your point about focus throw

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 11, 2020 at 2:42 pm

      If you look at how similar the f/4 and f/5.6 center shots are, you can see that the images are critically focused in both the MF and AF cases.

      Reply
      • Damian says

        March 11, 2020 at 5:19 pm

        I wasn’t actually questioning your results. Only asking your thoughts on whether testing a manually focused lens against one using autofocus would give you the cleanest results.

        You asked some questions earlier (where would I focus, sagittal/tangential, etc) and my response to all those questions would be to simply focus the Sony lens the same way you focused the Loxia, since it seems like you had to make those same decisions for the Loxia and had no issues focusing it.

        I’m not trying to debate the pros and cons of manual vs. autofocus or tell you your results are off. I just think using manual focus in a comparison of an AF vs. manual focus lens would be cleaner from a purely theoretical, apples to apples standpoint. If you’re happy with the methodology than so am I.

        Reply
        • JimK says

          March 11, 2020 at 5:26 pm

          I used to focus manually with the a7x cameras, but I’ve determined that I can get the same results faster with AF.

          Reply
  3. Kenneth Sky says

    March 13, 2020 at 6:57 am

    The bottom line seems to be you are not giving up much IQ with the Sony to get a cheaper lens with AF and f/1.8 when you need it. Am I correct, Jim.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 13, 2020 at 7:16 am

      Am I correct, Jim.

      Yep.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor S initial testing says:
    March 27, 2020 at 11:33 am

    […] up for a dress ball in the same outfit.  I’ve already some testing on the Sony lens(here, here, here, and here), but I’ve been holding back a bit, wanting to test both lenses […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.