the last word

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

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / Technical / Wag the dog, part 5

Wag the dog, part 5

July 9, 2011 JimK Leave a Comment

I decided to complete my testing of Sony and Leica lenses on the Sony NEX-5 by comparing some Leica lenses to the Sony 18-55 mm zoom. I used three Leica lenses for the comparison:

  • The 16-18-21 mm Tri-Elmar, set at 18 mm to match the shortest setting of the Sony zoom
  • The 24 mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH
  • The 50 mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH

My conclusions:

  • The Tri-Elmar is noticeably crisper than the Sony zoom at 18 mm, but the differences are not night and day.
  • At 24 mm, the Sony zoom is starting to soften up quite a bit. On the other hand, the 24 mm Elmarit is substantially sharper than the Tri-Elmar, causing the images produced by the Leica lens to be much better than those produced by the Sony lens.
  • The situation at 50 mm is even more striking. The Sony zoom continues to soften, while the Summilux produces the crispest, most punchy image of all the lenses in this group. The differences are truly spectacular.

Here are some examples, all made with the aperture set to f/4, no sharpening, and the camera pointed so that the image that you are looking at is a 1-to-1 pixel crop about two thirds of the way to the upper left corner. The titles are below the images. As before, the best way to critically view these images is to download them to your computer and look at them under magnification. However, the differences in this series are much less subtle than the ones in the previous post, and you may be able to see what you want to see at 1:1.

Sony 18-55 mm zoom, set to 18 mm

16-18-21 mm Tri-Elmar, set at 18

Sony 18-55 mm zoom, set to 24 mm

24 mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH

Sony 18-55 mm zoom, set to 50 mm

 

50 mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH

 

Technical, The Last Word

← Wag the dog, part 4 Wag the dog, part 6 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

October 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Sep    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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

  • Alan on Fujifilm GFX 100 II — preparing for photon transfer curve testing
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100 II ISO setting vs gain
  • NA on Fujifilm GFX 100 II ISO setting vs gain
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100 II ISO setting vs gain
  • Nikojorj on Fujifilm GFX 100 II ISO setting vs gain
  • Brandon on GFX 100 II read noise in CH drive mode
  • JimK on GFX 100 II EDR summary
  • Denz on GFX 100 II EDR summary
  • Erik Kaffehr on GFX 100 II read noise in CH drive mode
  • UA on More on GFX 100 II electronic shutter speeds

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.