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 / Zony & Otus 55’s on a7R, D810 — corner sharpness

Zony & Otus 55’s on a7R, D810 — corner sharpness

May 28, 2015 JimK Leave a Comment

This is a continuation of the real-world, informal testing of the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar FE (Zony 55) and the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus ZF.2 lenses on the Sony alpha 7R (a7R) and Nikon D810 cameras. In this post, I’ll present corner captures at various apertures from the Otus on the D810 and the Zony on the a7R.

The overall scene:

_DSC7254

All images were captured on RRS TVC-43 legs and an Arca Swiss D4 head, with RRS L-brackets on the cameras, and developed in Lightroom CC 2015 with ACR 9.0, with white balance set to Daylight and sharpening turned off. I used electronic first-curtain shutter (EFCS) on the D810 pictures at 1/2000 second and below; the D810 EFCS doesn’t work above 1/2000 second.  The a7R does not offer that feature. I used the 2-second self timer on the a7 and a three second shutter delay on the D810. The D810 was set to ISO 64, and the a7R to ISO 100. I used aperture metering mode. The edge crops are enlarged to 300% using Lightroom’s export algorithm with sharpening turned off. To avoid any field flatness problems — which weren’t evident in the first series — I focused both cameras on this corner in live view.

The upper right corner with both lenses wide open:

Otus f/1.4
Otus f/1.4
Zony f/1.8
Zony f/1.8

The Otus is looking pretty good considering the f-stop, and the Zony is just plain soft.

At f/2:

Otus f/2
Otus f/2
Zony f/2
Zony f/2

The Otus is looking better. The Zony is still soft.

At f/2.8:

Otus f/2.8
Otus f/2.8
Zony f/2,8
Zony f/2,8

The Zony is still soft.

At f/4:

Otus f/4
Otus f/4
Zony f/4
Zony f/4

The Otus is crisping up nicely. The Zony struggles.

At f/5.6:

Otus f/5.6
Otus f/5.6
Zony f/5.6
Zony f/5.6

Now the Zony is coming in to its own, but it’s still softer than the Otus.

At f/8:

Otus f/8
Otus f/8
Zony f/8
Zony f/8

Now we’re getting closer performance from both lenses, but the Otus still has more contrast and bite.

At f/11:

Otus f/11
Otus f/11
Zony f/11
Zony f/11

Now the Otus is getting worse. The Sony is slightly better, but it’s still behind the Otus.

At f/16:

Otus f/16
Otus f/16
Zony f/16
Zony f/16

Both are softer. The Sony is still distinctly worse.

This is not bad performance from the Zony 55. In fact, it’s quite good. It’s just that it’s up against a champ.

The Last Word

← Zony & Otus 55’s on a7R, D810 — edge sharpness a7R vs D810 resolution — Lightroom development →

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
  • 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
  • Darrel Crilley on Fuji 100-200/5.6 on GFX, Nikon 70-200/@2.8E, Apo-Sonnar 135 on Z7, revisited

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.