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 / The Last Word / NEX-7 — three 24mm lenses compared

NEX-7 — three 24mm lenses compared

January 15, 2012 JimK Leave a Comment

In this and the next few posts I will give you an informal analysis of the performance of the Sony Zeiss 24 mm f/1.8 E-series lens. I will be comparing it to two other 24 mm lenses: the Leica 24 mm f/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, and the Leica 24 mm f/3.8 Elmar ASPH. I thought about adding the Nikon 24 mm f/1.4 into the mix, but I don’t think many people would use that lens on the NEX-7 because of its size and weight.

This first post will be about performance with low contrast subject matter.

Here’s the scene at f/5.6, first with the Zeiss:

Next with the Elmarit:

and finally with the Elmar:

I will show how each lens performs at a number of f-stops in both the center of the image in the upper left corner. The images are presented at twice the single pixel scale, using nearest neighbor for the upscaling; this produces a 2 x 2 block of identical pixels for each pixel in the original image, and seems to do all right with the JPEG compression necessary for web presentation. The order of the lenses in the group presentations is as follows: the Zeiss at the top, the Elmarit in the middle, and the Elmar at the bottom. Only the Zeiss is capable of making images at f/2, so there’s only one image in that set. Only the Zeiss and the Elmarit can make images at f/2.8, so there are only two images in that set. The ISO was sent to 100 for all the photographs. The images were converted from raw in Lightroom 3.6, with sharpening and noise reduction turned off. I did not correct for corner color errors, but I did change the white point on the magnifications of the upper left corner from 255 to 198 to make the distinctions between the lenses easier to see, and to reflect corrections that might be done to the corners in processing images rate with these lenses.

At f/2, the Zeiss is a little soft in the center, but not unacceptably so:

At f/2.8, the Zeiss is crisping up quite nicely, but the Elmarit is slightly sharper:

At f/4, all three lenses are doing quite well, with the Zeiss a bit ahead of the Elmarit, and the Elmar just a hair behind:

f/5.6 is the sharpest aperture for all three lenses, and there’s really not a lot to choose between them in the center at this aperture:

Contrast and sharpness both suffer at f/8 in all three cases, with the Zeiss giving the worst performance at this aperture, but not to a great degree:

Things continue to go downhill at f/11. All three lenses are substantially identical at this aperture. At f/16 (not shown), the trend continues:

In the upper left corner at f/2 with the Zeiss, the image is softer than at the center, but it’s not bad. It will take further testing to find out if the corner softness is because of field curvature (I focused in the center of the image) or inherent resolving power:

At f/2.8, the Zeiss’s performance has improved substantially, and the Elmarit is looking really soft. The green fringing on the Zeiss image in this and following comparisons is an artifact caused by the conversion of the image to sRGB for the web; it doesn’t occur in the Leica lens images because of the purple corners:

The Zeiss improves marginally at f/4, still besting the Elmarit. The Elmar and the Zeiss offer similar performance:

By the time we get to f/5.6, all the lenses of performing at their best. It’s very close, but I’d give the Elmar a slight edge over the Zeiss, with the Elmarit trailing:

The Zeiss and the Elmar suffer slightly at f/8, and the Elmarit is about the same as it is at f/5.6:

All three images are starting to soften at f/11:

Things are getting pretty blurry by f/16:

All in all, I’m very impressed by the performance of the Zeiss lens in this test, even setting aside the fact that it costs far less than the other two lenses.

 

The Last Word

← NEX-7 — Sony/Zeiss 24mm corner errors NEX-7 — Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 performance →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

January 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Dec    

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

  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality
  • JimK on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.