• 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 / Nikon Z6/7 / Sony 20/1.8 G, 20/1.8 Nikkor S on Nikon Z7 — foliage

Sony 20/1.8 G, 20/1.8 Nikkor S on Nikon Z7 — foliage

March 31, 2020 JimK Leave a Comment

In the previous post, I did a head-to-head test of Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G lens to the Z7 and  the 20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S native lens with a Siemens Star target. Now I’ll do a similar test with a real-world subject. Here it is, with both lenses wide open on a Nikon Z7:

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, center, f/1.8

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, center, f/1.8

Corner falloff is essentially identical.

Here’s the test protocol:

  • Distance: 97 meters
  • ISO 64
  • Manual exposure, ETTR in live histogram.
  • Subject in the center and the lower left corner.
  • Manual focusing.
  • Three shots at each setting, focusing anew for each shot, picking the best. This method calibrates out focus curvature.
  • Developed in Lightroom
  • Sharpening set to amount 20, radius 1, detail 0, which is quite a bit less than Lr’s default sharpening.
  • Daylight white balance
  • Adobe Color Profile
  • Minor exposure adjustments, with same adjustment applied to all images from both lenses, so corner darkening is unaffected.
  • Chromatic aberration correction turned off
  • Everything else at default settings

We’ll look at some tight crops.

If you’ve seen these here before, just jump to the images. If not, I need to spend some time telling you how to interpret them. They’re at roughly  250% magnification, enlarged to 700 pixels high on export from Lightroom. If you just want a rough idea of the differences, just look at the images as displayed in-line in the posts. However, if you wish to compare these images in detail, you should view these images by clicking on them to see the source files, then set your browser for 100% zooming. Even better, download them and make Photoshop stacks.

No matter what you do, these crops are all going to look horrible. I’m blowing them up so much so that they will represent the original file after JPEG’s discrete cosine transform has had its way with them. If you want to get a good idea of what the images would look like printed, get far away from your monitor. No, farther than that. Put a bunch of the images up on the screen and back up until the best one starts to look good. Then look at the others. There’s another reason why these images won’t look like the best thing the camera/lens combination can deliver. They’re demosaiced with Lightroom. Lightroom is not awful, but for a particular image, there are usually better raw processors. I use Lr because it’s a de facto standard, because I know it well, and because it’s got good tools for dealing with groups of images.

Here’s how to use these highly-magnified crops. The dimensions of the Z7 sensor is 8256×5504 pixels. If we make a full-frame print from the Z7 on a printer with 360 pixels per inch native driver-level resolution, like the Epson inkjet printers, we’ll end up with a 26.4×17.6 inch print. The 317×246 pixel crop you’re looking at will end up 0.8×0.68 inches.  Let’s imagine that you or your viewers are critical, and will look at the 27×18 inch print from about 18 inches (conventional wisdom is that the distance would be a little greater than that, or 28 inches (the diagonal), but you did buy a high-resolution camera for a reason, didn’t you?).

The next step is dependent on your monitor pitch, which you may or may not know. Turns out, you don’t have to know it. Just take the 250% crops and view then at 1:1. How high are they? Get out your ruler and measure, or just guess. Let’s say they are 6 inches high. 6 inches is about 7 times 0.8, so in order to view the crops the way they’d look from 18 inches on the print is to view them from 7 times as far away, or 10.5 feet.

Everything here scales proportionately. If the image on your screen is bigger than 6 inches, increase your viewing distance by the ratio of your image height to 6 inches. If you think your viewers are going to almost get their nose to that print and look at it from six inches, divide that 10.5 feet by 3, and look at the image on the monitor from three and a half feet away.

In the center:

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, center, f/1.8

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, center, f/1.8

The Sony is slightly sharper, as we’ve seen in previous testing.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, center, f/2.8

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, center, f/2.8

About the same, and definately crisper than wide open.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, center, f/4

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, center, f/4

Maybe the Sony is sharper.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, center, f/5.6

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, center, f/5.6

Not  much to choose here.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, center, f/8

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, center, f/8

Diffraction wins here.

In the lower right corner:

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, corner, f/1.8

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, corner, f/1.8

Nikon is sharper.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, corner, f/2.8

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, corner, f/2.8

Nikon is still sharper.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, corner, f/4

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, corner, f/4

About the same now.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, corner, f/5.6

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, corner, f/5.6

The Sony may be a bit better. Probably the vicissitudes of the twitchy focusing.

20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S on Z7, corner, f/8

 

Sony 20 mm f/1.8 G on Z7 with TechArt adapter, corner, f/8

At the end of yesterday’s post, I said:

Based on this test, there’s not much to choose between these lenses. If all you’re shooting is at 20 mm, you want a smaller, lighter, less-expensive lens, and have no MILC loyalty, buy the Sony and an a7x. But if you opt for the Nikon, you won’t be getting a materially inferior lens, and you will be getting a camera with, IMHO, better haptics and a better user interface. There are plenty of E-mount lenses around, and Z-mount ones are thin of the ground, but the quality of the few Z-mount lenses out there is outstanding.

Both lenses look excellent here. Both camera systems are very good. You really can’t go wrong.

Now, with another test under my belt, I see no reason to change my opinion.

Nikon Z6/7

← Sony 20/1.8 G, 20/1.8 Nikkor S on Nikon Z7 Sony 20/1.8 G, 20/1.8 Nikkor S sun stars →

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 How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.