[TanjaSchulte]

i don´t know what´s wrong with your tests or with your test camera.

 

but obviously there is something wrong.

 

your nex7 tests with the sony lenses are pretty much worthless.

if i believe in your tests they are all.... well 80+% of the lenses.... crap.

 

maybe it´s the nex7 which you have used for testing that has issue.

but i have done my own tests with a A6000 and i can only wonder how you come to some of your conclusions.

 

you are pretty much the only website i know that is so negative about the sony lenses.

so i suspect an error in your testing methology or camera.

[Klaus]

We are testing the lenses regarding their raw quality - thus with DEACTIVATED auto-correction in the RAW converter (just as on all other systems except MFT where this is part of the fabric).

If you activate auto-correction some of the flaws are hidden (at expense of some other aspects) - which is probably your point of reference I reckon.

 

Thus your analysis of the situation is crap (to use your words here), not our findings. I would suggest to look at your images without (the OPTIONAL) auto-correction.

 

We tested on two different NEX 7 cameras and it didn't make a difference. Lately I also used an A6000 with very similar (sub-average) results.

We are about to release a test of the Zeiss 16-80mm - with a poor rating - after Sony verified TWICE that the lens is within specs. I don't see how much more we can do here actually (three different camera bodies, frequent lens servicing prior of testing).

 

Sony has some really great lenses in their lineup .... for DSLRs. The mirrorless variants are simply mostly underdesigned as far as I can tell and it just shows. Now you may criticize that we should activate the image auto-correction then. THIS would be a viable question. However, as long as Sony does not enforce this, we believe that we should publish the original findings (again - this applies to all systems except MFT). 

 

We have been criticized to be biased against Sony quite often ... but then why are the ratings of the Sony DSLR lens tests in line with the other manufacturers ? And yes, we are using the very same testing procedure over there.

[JJ_SO]

Tanja, I don't want to offend you. But telling other people what they have to do while not paying them to do it - all of us benefit of the great work of those guys without any fees, 'sides of voluntarily given donations - appears a little bit harsh.

 

But feel free any time to post some test shots of your own with activated "picture improvements" on camera side. After all, it's the result what counts, even if I find it hard to believe digitally "improved" pictures to be better. And most of the time, the improvements only work for JPG, not for RAW. So, if one prefers to get more versatile RAW files, the raw optical performance becomes important.

[Scythels]

Hey Tanja,

 

sony does not have very good optical engineers working for them, or they impose too many restrictions on them.  They consistently under-design lenses.  I would lean towards the former, because the 35mm f/2.8 FE is, frankly, a retarded and inefficient design that makes cost explode for no good reason through the use of multiple double-sided aspheres for a focal length and aperture combination that could be designed with equal performance for half the cost. 

 

Perhaps you could post your own findings, showing good or very good non-center performance of sony APS-C mirrorless lenses.

 

Best,

Scythels

[Lysander]

I have been thinking about buying the Zeiss 16-70, but now...

 

Klaus, you are the gold standard for testing lenses, truly. I have never seen another site that so accurately sums up my feelings about the quality and worth of lenses as you do. For me if a prime has 3/5 stars it is good enough for me and for zooms it needs to be above 3 stars for me to be happy with it.

 

BTW My brother in law has the Sony E 55-210 that you used to own. Its in Sweden now.

[Rainer]

Tanja,

 

you obviously want to visit one of those review-website where

the result is a pretty forseeable "what a brilliant lens". My conclusion

is, PZ is the wrong place for you.

 

Oh ... btw ... your post is about as worthless as you find PZs lenstests,

since you are offering absolutely no hint what you think is wrong. Just

the fact, that the lenses you personally regard as "best of the breed"

do turn out not to be as good as you hoped they were, is certainly

not good enough,

[stoppingdown]

I've moved from Nikon to Sony, and in the end I'm happy, so I don't have any reason to bash Sony. Nevertheless I appreciate a lot PZ and its style of testing; actually it has been the most useful resource to provide some rationale to my decision, because in the end I didn't create false expectations about my new lenses.

 

BTW, it's not true that PZ bashes Sony all the time: for instance, the SEL70200G has got a good review ("highly recommended"), and it's actually one of the best lenses for e-mount. On the other hand, the SEL1670Z and the SEL2470Z have raised eyebrows in many other places.

[huwmorgan]

I'm new to the forum, although a long-term reader. I have a couple of questions:

 

• How do the MTF ratings compare to your overall lens ratings. For example, you rate the Fuji XF 27mm lens as 4 stars and say "In terms of sharpness it plays in the highest league especially when stopping down a bit". The lens resolution is pretty good at around 3,000 lines per picture height in the middle. On the other hand, the Sony E 35mm resolves around 3,500 lines in the middle on the Nex 7 and you rate it 3.5 stars and say "the image quality gets visibly snappier and it's downright superb at medium apertures". At F 2.8, the max aperture of the Fuji lens, the Sony lens is has significantly higher resolution. The two lenses are pretty comparable in price (i.e. inexpensive). How can you rate the sharper one a 3.5 and the less sharp one a 4? Especially when the Sony is stabilized and the Fuji is not. Seems like a bit of bias to me. I've owned both Sony and Fuji gear, so I'm just interested in how you rated one over the other - I'm not a fan boy of either.
  
• When will you test the Zeiss 16-70 for APS-C? For Sony Nex users, this seems to be the only high quality zoom option and the results out there are really mixed. Would like to see your MTF test done on this lens. 
  

Thanks for all your hard work - your site is invaluable despite the niggles over Sony lens rating.

[Scythels]

The 35mm sony lens was tested on a sensor with 50% more pixels than the fujifilm lens.  Maximum possible resolution for its sensor is in the ballpark of 4000-4100lp/ph.  The maximum value for the fujifilm camera is about 3100-3200lp/ph.

 

The fujifilm lens also has much less chromatic aberration. 

[stoppingdown]

The site clearly says that absolute numbers cannot be directly compared when sensor sizes are different.

 

PS I wonder whether it might have sense to "normalise" them... at least to have a gross comparation.