08-01-2013, 06:38 PM
<span>All lenses that I bought in the last few years I checked the opinion of the editors here at PhotoZone. This site is always a reference to me and I always nominate him to my friends. I also always view several examples of photos with camera + lens that I want to buy in http://www.pbase.com and http://www.pixel-peeper.com before to go at shopping. Regarding this lens SEL1018 in particular, I also made several comparisons on http://www.dxomark.com with Wide Angles in Mirrorless system, APS-C and fullframe.</span>
<span>There are many variables to consider, I KNOW, and sharpness is just one of them. But even comparing different platforms I found good values of sharpness and overall average for the 10-18mm OSS. Obviously this lens should have (and had some) lower values compared to distortions such as Barrel, Vignetting, color rendition and chromatic aberrations. But still, It was not so far behind in these comparisons. When I have this lens in my hands I will make a comparison in the real world vs a Sony Alpha with similar characteristics (APS-C using GA lens) and I'll post pictures here. If the numbers can not be compared between different systems, perhaps the images could reveal the difference in quality between Wide Angle Lens with different systems.</span>
<span>I just want to remember that, although they are completely different systems, nothing forbid us to compare results of sharpness, color saturation and </span><span>noise in tests conducted by http://www.dpreview.com between mirrorless cameras versus APS-C versus FullFrames. And it seems completely absurd, but I compared the same image of NEX7 (sony DT 1.8/50mm f / 8) vs Nikon DX3 (f/11 85mm 1.8G) vs Sony SLT-A77 (1.8SAM 50mm f / 8) vs Canon 60D (50mm f/1.4 lens at f / 8) at ISO 800, 1600 and 3200 (all in RAW mode). They are different systems with different lenses, but the final quality is quite next with the advantage of each one in some criterion or other, and with disadvantage in other respects. For us who are photographers concerned about technical items, every detail is important, but for people who are not photographers, only what matters is the quality of the image that a system can deliver.</span>
<span>And sometimes, combinations of lenses and cheaper cameras can surprise delivering image quality better than some more expensive systems. I always thought that ZEISS lenses were the best on the market, but I saw several examples of less expensive lenses are superior to them. When I had made my own tests I will provide </span>the results here and share my conclusion.
Thanks for all your opinions.
<span>There are many variables to consider, I KNOW, and sharpness is just one of them. But even comparing different platforms I found good values of sharpness and overall average for the 10-18mm OSS. Obviously this lens should have (and had some) lower values compared to distortions such as Barrel, Vignetting, color rendition and chromatic aberrations. But still, It was not so far behind in these comparisons. When I have this lens in my hands I will make a comparison in the real world vs a Sony Alpha with similar characteristics (APS-C using GA lens) and I'll post pictures here. If the numbers can not be compared between different systems, perhaps the images could reveal the difference in quality between Wide Angle Lens with different systems.</span>
<span>I just want to remember that, although they are completely different systems, nothing forbid us to compare results of sharpness, color saturation and </span><span>noise in tests conducted by http://www.dpreview.com between mirrorless cameras versus APS-C versus FullFrames. And it seems completely absurd, but I compared the same image of NEX7 (sony DT 1.8/50mm f / 8) vs Nikon DX3 (f/11 85mm 1.8G) vs Sony SLT-A77 (1.8SAM 50mm f / 8) vs Canon 60D (50mm f/1.4 lens at f / 8) at ISO 800, 1600 and 3200 (all in RAW mode). They are different systems with different lenses, but the final quality is quite next with the advantage of each one in some criterion or other, and with disadvantage in other respects. For us who are photographers concerned about technical items, every detail is important, but for people who are not photographers, only what matters is the quality of the image that a system can deliver.</span>
<span>And sometimes, combinations of lenses and cheaper cameras can surprise delivering image quality better than some more expensive systems. I always thought that ZEISS lenses were the best on the market, but I saw several examples of less expensive lenses are superior to them. When I had made my own tests I will provide </span>the results here and share my conclusion.
Thanks for all your opinions.