Getting back to roots. It is kind of calm time here in Prague and while we are waiting for few new items to come, I thought that it might be interesting to take a look at some less mainstream lenses.

One of those rare finds is Angenieux 50mm f/1.8 Type S1 in original Leica LTM mount (m39).

I bought it together with Leica If and both were in quite good condition. While Leica If is beautiful camera itself, real rarity was attached lens.

I spent quite some time searching for information on this particular model and I got some help from MFlenses forum, but I still couldn’t find many info, until I got reply directly from Angenieux company, from Mrs. MALAVIEILLE Christine:

Dear Mr Pavlovic,

Further to your request, you will find enclosed the information we have regarding this old  F50 1.8 lens.

Kind regards,

and here is enclosed information including lens specification.

From enclosed document I was able to identify my lens as type E3 Leica. Searching further on the web, I also come across one note, that this particular version was made in less than 50 samples, but unfortunately I couldn’t get confirmation from Angenieux for that statement.

Because the price of this lens (its older E1 Leica version, I couldn’t find this particular one offered anywhere recently) is very high on the market, I was curious to see what is so special about it…

I couldn’t resist therefore and mounted it promptly on my A7/r. (I really need Leica digital camera, but I never liked to pay much for electronics, so I don’t know what to do…)

With such an old lens, I don’t think that MTF test will make much sense, so I decided to spend few hours with it trying to learn a bit about its rendering.

First what I was curious to see, was as usual – sharpness wide open. Not because I think it’s most important, but because otherwise, most of you won’t read my posts even thus far

What do you think?

I was fairly impressed with center sharpness, and micro contrast of this image. I know few very sharp old 50mm lenses, such as Topcon RE Auto Topcor 58mm f/1.8 or one of my favorite – Zeiss Ultron 50mm f/1.8 (don’t confuse it with Color-Ultron though), but Angenieux seems to go step further.

In the edges, there is some smearing, mostly because of the shallow DOF (in the image above), partially because of the Sony A7/r (thick as my beer belly) sensor cover and slightly because of the possible field curvature, but even so, result is more than acceptable IMHO.

If you ever find good reason to shot with this lens wide open in order to have sharp corners, except to proof your point in forum discussion, please let me know.

Here is another snapshot searching for its majesty sharpness.

This time, at f/5.6.

While center sharpness is outstanding, there is still a bit of corner smearing on the left side, which led me to believe that slight field curvature is probably involved.

But look at the contrast… Amazing for the lens of this age.

If you was only curious how sharp this lens is, I tried to show you that in those two images, so now you can stop reading here (thank you anyway), because no more sharpness will be evaluated in this short review.

I would like to move instead to what I consider much more important – lens character.

Yes, I know… there are many photographers (and pixel poopers, anal-ytics,  and other smart people) who doesn’t believe that lens can have a soul and spirit. They are convinced that lenses are made only of glass and metal (read plastic and composite if you are bellow 30) and that they are only tools. BTW even my therapist tells me the same, before he writes me my medicine, but few of us who went to the dark side already,  we know what it is all about…

Let’s dive-in straight into the bokeh.

I should say however, that I am not sure what to think about Angenieux when it comes to this crucial part of its character. Most of my shots are taken wide open and I usually know what I can expect from my lenses. Angenieux however acts a bit like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. (Similar to what happened to my school mates,  after 15-20 years)

It can be buttery smooth in some situations

In other it gets a bit more structured, but still gentle.

Notice that OOF highlights are rather neutral with tendency to form cat-eyes as a result of mechanical vignetting and just slight SA under-correction can be noticed in pronounced outlines in more contrast areas.

However, it suddenly can turn into rather nervous bokeh for seemingly no reason

This kind of swirly tendency is usually result of under-corrected spherical aberration, but it seems to be the case only in the rather extreme edges. Like if the projection circle will be slightly underestimated (on the other hand, I don’t see much of the light fall wide open). (See the picture bellow)

If you change distances and light angle just a bit, and you slightly crop the edges, you can get back to smooth bokeh easily again.

Probably only aberration that I don’t like in a real life is purple fringing, This axial chromatic aberration can be sometimes hard to remove (unless you like thick gray outlines).

There is very light tendency for it with Angenieux, but overall, lens is very well corrected for all kind of CA. Above is one shot (sugar dose), where lenses like Canon EF 85 f/1.2 L would paint everything in purple, and Angenieux didn’t show any interest. Bellow is another tough situation, where after very close inspection you might see slight color shift in contrast edges, but really nothing to worry about.

Distortion seems to be well corrected too.

Conclusion:

All in all, Angenieux 50mm f/1.8 Type S1 is very interesting lens for sure. certainly hard to swallow its price, drifted due to the collector status, but the simplicity of its construction and respectable performance on 36mpx modern camera with very unique bokeh rendering, good contrast and quite realistic color rendition, are things to be praised. Not to forget proper RF coupling. (I haven’t tried for focus shift yet.)

I own this lens thorough test on film, where I am sure it will shine even more and it might be also holly grail for videographers who are after very charismatic and specific, slightly retro look.

Bellows are few more, (basically just developed from RAW) images.

Finally – one post processed image, taken at f/2.8

If you have more information about this rare lens, please post them bellow. Thank you in advance.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Getting mirror back to my mirrorless camera…

I got lucky to find one of the rare and quite sought after lenses – super telephoto catadioptric mirror lens – Minolta RF Rokkor-X  250mm f/5.6. Introduced in 1979, this lens wasn’t produced in large numbers and thus its prices on eBay can reach levels above 1000 USD.

Unlike the price point, this rare Minolta share many of its characteristics with other mirror lenses. If you are not familiar with this type of lenses, let me write just few words. Bellow is a scheme of Rutten-Maksutov (inventors) catadioptric mirror lens.

Because the light is reflected by mirrors there are two significant benefits – lens can be physically much shorter than its focal length suggests (the light path is doubled thanks to the mirror reflection as seen on the image above), and such lens is almost lacking lateral color fringing (light is reflected not retracted in the large part of its path).

(There are other benefits such as same focus position for standard and infrared photography e.g.)

Catadioptric mirror lenses are also much lighter than their typical counterparts and their production is cheaper because less glass (especially expensive corrective glass) is used.

There is also bunch of shortcomings though. Mirror lenses have fixed (and usually slow – f/5.6 up to f/10 in some cases) aperture, their front element is rotating while focusing and because of the mirror in the middle of the lens (that gets diffused in the images and thus remain invisible), contrast is usually low and circular highlights are rendered as donuts (famous – donut like bokeh). Most mirror lenses have also significant vignetting.

Those lenses were very popular in 70’s and 80′, when their traditional alternatives was extremely large heavy and usually expensive, but they are still produced today, even if their glory is long passed. In fact, there is very small and nice native e mount – Samyang SY300M-E-BK 300mm F6.3 Mirror Lens, which is also much more affordable, but I didn’t have chance/time to try it out.

Back to Minolta RF Rokkor-X 250mm f/5.6, the first thing that you will notice is its very compact size and feather weight. Despite this light weight (247g – bare lens, 261g with lens hood, 278g hood and caps), lens is very nicely built, mainly from metal (most probably aluminum alloy) and glass (well, rather mirrors I should say). It has rubberized focus grip and it comes with screw-in metal lens hood and plastic caps.

Bare lens is 70mm long, with hood it extends to 85mm, while diameter of the front glass is 65mm. To better understand size of this super-tele lens, I made a few comparison shots with some other lenses that you might know.

Left is Rokkor-X 250/5.6 with lens hood and Minolta MD/Sony E adapter, followed by Sony SEL 55210 OSS set at 210mm, Minolta 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 APO D set at 250mm with LA-EA4 adapter and Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS (lens doesn’t extend with zoom).

Of course, in their transport sizes, difference isn’t that remarkable, but it is still noticeable.

Finally, here is Rokkor-X 250mm f/5.6 compared in size with Tokina RMC 500 f/8 in FD mount. (BTW real bargain among mirror lenses)

Minolta RF Rokkor-X 250mm f/5.6 has also protective glass in front, which helps keeping mirror inside in a good shape.

Already mentioned lens hood could be probably deeper, but there are many cheap rubber hoods to fit original 62mm filter thread.

Writing about filters, I should mention that as with any other mirror lens, front element rotates during focusing, so using polarizer is less convenient. There is also rear filter with a thread of a 39mm that can be used for ND filters e.g. (Originally it comes with Minolta Neutral filter on place). Replacing rear screw-in filter is however not very user-friendly, so it is better to do it at home than in a field.

Here are few more lens images.

Why this lens is so expensive today, when most of mirror lenses are rather dirty cheap? Why it is more expensive than its stable mate Minolta AF 500mm f/8 Reflex, the only AF mirror lens commercially available?

Part of its cult status lays in very good IQ for sure.

Take a look at ISO chart

We can see from the chart above, that unlike with most other mirror lenses, there is very good contrast even on the micro level, not so strong light fall off as I would expect, minimum pincushion distortion that is field irrelevant, lack of CA and solid sharpness across the frame.

I wrote solid sharpness, because it can’t rival best in the class, but it is certainly better than any other mirror lens I tried and it does improve a lot at longer subject distances, as you can see in following examples.

Apart of the sharpness and very good contrast, notice the punchy colors with Minolta – warmer look.

One of the expected weaknesses is performance in the back-lit situations and indeed, Minolta loose lot of contrast when turned against the sun,

but on the other hand, it doesn’t show any of those awful digital looking greenish flares, so I can imagine to shot with it in similar situation and get some emotionally tuned images, with appropriate content.

Famous donut Bokeh? Oh yes, plenty. But there is one thing with this bokeh, if you know about it, you might find situations in which it can bring some character to the image. Like it or hate it, this is signature mark of all mirror lenses.

Conclusion:

There are better 250mm lenses on the market, but none of them will be as small and light as Minolta RF Rokkor-X 250mm f/5.6, FF super-tele lens, that weight only approx. 260g. It is elite in the world of mirror lenses and it costs accordingly (or let’s just agree that is very expensive, but quite unique and rare too). It is sharp across the frame (especially on longer distances), basically CA free like APO lenses, it is very well-built and focusing ring is well dampened and joy to use. Colors are saturated, contrast surprisingly high and overall IQ is above any other mirror lens that i ever tried.

On the other hand, it is not easy to acquire critical focus because of the usually shallow DOF, minimum focus distance of 2.5m is nothing to write home about, loss of contrast in back-lit situations is significant and bokeh – is rich on donuts.

It might be interesting solution for Sony A7 MII because of IBIS, that can partially help to deal with lens moderate speed. (I was able to make sharp shots with A7 at as low as 1/125s, but safe margin was at 1/500s and faster.)

All in all, this is one of those special Minolta lenses, that not many people heard or know about. Now if I only can find that VFC for reasonable price

Few more sample images:

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Introduction:

One of the lenses that I always wanted to test, partially because of its great reputation and partially because it represents my favorite focal length for people shots, finally found its way to Verybiglobo.com

Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 in Nikon ZF.2 mount

APO in the name means, that lens is Apochromatically corrected, or in other words – optics of this lens align all three color light components – green, blue and most importantly red into same focus plane. Lenses that are not Apochromatically corrected usually show strong purple (or green) fringing at contrast edges.

APO however is rather generic term. It doesn’t state to which extent lens is apochromatically corrected and especially how large projection area of the lens is corrected. Most lenses would be apochromatically corrected in the center of the frame, but problems starts when we move toward edges.

Marketing experts love this kind of words and thus we can find APO sign on many lenses that are as much apochromatically corrected as our government is willing to reduce taxes. Ok, maybe a bit more…

With modern software capabilities, it is possible to correct CA to certain extent but the problem is not only in removing purple fringing in terms of color, it is sharpness that suffers too (because one part of the light spectra, usually red is slightly out of focus.)

Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 f/2 is supposed to have good apochromatical correction. How good, we are about to see…

BTW I have read that Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 shares same optical concept as Zeiss Otus lenses but was introduced before Otus name was invented. I will try to ask Mr. Nasse to confirm or deny this.  

Mr. Hubert Nasse (Strategic Business Unit Camera Lenses Laboratory, Staff Scientist), one of the most competent people in Zeiss AG, was so kind to reply on above question, making it more clear:

In fact the Apo-Sonnar could have been included in the OTUS line, but at the time of its development the OTUS project was not yet decided. It is at least very near to OTUS in terms of general level of correction, Otus chromatic criteria are still a bit more tight, but nevertheless the 135 deserves the term ‘APO’, since it is clearly different from many other similar lenses.

Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 is manual focus lens, but it has electronic communication with camera allowing for aperture control, all modes exposure functionality including TTL metering and full Exif record. In my LR 5.7 lens is reported as Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 ZF.2.

Manual focusing with Zeiss is usually great experience, but in this case, acquiring critical focus with my Nikon D800E wasn’t easy at all. With a scary thin DOF, you’ll need lot of practice or special viewfinder screens to be able to focus properly. This is not a shortcoming of the lens though, but rather of the digital camera behind it.

I thought that focus is fine in the shot above, but it wasn’t, which is shame because our dog rarely stands still for longer than couple of milliseconds.

This time I did better, but still not perfect.

I am shooting using manual focus quite often, but rarely I do so with such a low DOF in perspective. By shooting more and more with this lens, I become more confident and my keepers rate increased, but if you are not experienced with manual focusing, your learning curve might be very steep.

Using lens on my Nikon FM3a was much nicer experience and keepers rate was fine from the beginning. There is also chance that you consider to use this lens with mirrorless camera using EVF. While EVF will make manual focusing more precise using peeking and/or magnification, EVF’s refresh rate lag and low light noise are not ideal either.On top of that, lens is heavy and won’t balance well on most mirrorless cameras that I know.

Let’s first see as usual – what Zeiss says about this lens:

Apo Sonnar T* 2/135

Turning far to near

Enjoying the evocative atmosphere of dusk against a dreamlike backdrop – as an inconspicuous observer, the tele lens lets you experience this unique moment from the distance. Detached from the background, the Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 enables an incomparable interplay of soft evening light and radiant colors.
Offering the utmost flexibility in a wide diversity of situations, this tele lens can also capture the actor’s emotions on the stage from the third row and take breathtaking portrait photos.

Here is the lens design scheme from Zeiss pages:

Reading further about lens features, there are two most interesting things IMHO:

 

1. APO Design (as written above)

Apochromat

Because this lens is an apochromat, chromatic aberrations (axial chromatic aberrations) are corrected with elements of special glass with anomalous partial dispersion. The chromatic aberrations are therefore significantly below the defined limits. Bright-dark transitions in the image, and especially highlights, are reproduced almost completely free of color artifacts.

2. Close minimum focus distance

Close focusing distance

The lens design ensures consistent imaging performance throughout the entire focusing range as well as sharpness to the periphery of the image. The asphere’s more complex surface profile can reduce or eliminate spherical aberration and also reduce other optical aberrations compared to a simple lens.

When we look at Apochromat description, we might notice that “CA are significantly bellow the defined limits” formulation. As I wrote, there is no standard according which we can now what this exactly means, so we’ll need to see it in practice. Regarding minimum focus distance, it is very welcomed addition, allowing some tight close-ups at very solid 1:4 magnification ratio. Need more? APO lenses are in theory very good for macro, so just add macro tubes and 135 APO Sonnar can become powerful macro lens too.

Here is full technical specification:

In the box:

Lens comes in paper box, typical for most Zeiss lenses. Blue logo, black print and famous red *T on white semi glossy background, looks elegant and minimalistic.

In the box, well protected with polystyrene filling are lens with caps, lens hood, and papers including user manual, 3 years warranty card promotion, warranty card itself, quality control certificate (hand signed) and suggested accessories.

Appearance and build quality:

The first thought is – this lens is big and heavy. In reality however, compared to its competitors, it’s not that bad. Unlike most of its competitors Zeiss APO Sonnar extracts when focused to 0.8m so it doesn’t feature internal focusing. Being a manual focus lens, I think this is clever decision, because it can be more compact for transport as we will see in the following comparison images.

(Click on and keep pressing directional arrows button and move slider left or right to reveal corresponding image)

As you can see, when focused to infinity, Zeiss is shortest among its peers (Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC on the left and Nikkor 135mm f/2 AF DC on the right), but when focused to MFD, it becomes longest.

With hoods mounted on, situation changes a bit, because of the Zeiss rather deep all metal hood construction. (Nikkor 135/2 AF DC has short built in hood)

But as I said, size is most important for transport reasons and for that, Zeiss is actually quite small in comparison.

Lets look at some other comparative lenses and respective sizes as well as weight.

From left to right: Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2, Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM, Sony-Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/1.8 ZA, Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC, Nikkor 135mm f/2 AF DC

With hoods mounted and focused to MFD, Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2 is longest in this comparison. But with hood reversed, collapsed for transport it is the shortest one.

From left to right: Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM, Nikkor 135mm f/2 AF DC, Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC, Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2, Sony-Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/1.8 ZA

When it comes to weight, Zeiss APO 135mm f/2 is second heaviest though.

Built quality is exceptional as with other Zeiss lenses made in Cosina factory. Glass and metal. There isn’t any kind of visible protection against dust or moisture, such as rubber gasket on the mount e.g.

Handling:

On my Nikon D800E, despite being large and heavy lens, it balances very nicely. Due to slightly thicker body and well positioned focus ring, lens nicely fits in the palm of my left hand and with a buttery smooth focus ring it is easy to fine tune the focus using finger tips. Very long focusing throw of almost 270° however, requires full hand involvement to bring focus near the focus plane zone. On the other hand, long focus thread allow for super precise focus adjustments, which certainly help to deal with thin DOF.

When I mounted lens on my Sony A7 camera using Novoflex adapter, it becomes significantly front heavy combo and overall feeling was not so pleasing. I am sure one can get used to it, but it simply fits much better to larger  DSLR body.

Please help support this page and upcomming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Adorama: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Amazon: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount BEST OFFER!

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Here are official   data:

MTF:

Looking at the MTF chart above we can notice one interesting lens behavior. While at f/2 both Sagital and Tangential lines are keeping close together (indicating low CA), at f/4 they gets apart toward the edges.

On the other hand, considering that those charts are result of real life measuring, it is amazing to see how even contrast and resolution are kept across the frame straight from f/2. By stopping lens down to f/4 we can notice increase of resolution while contrast shows only light boost. Considering that at R10 lens achieve over 95% MTF in almost entire projection and that even at R40 it never really drops bellow 60%, we should be ready to witness breathtaking sharpness in a real life. Razor sharp can’t look much better than this according to this results.

Vignetting and Distortion:

At wide open aperture lens shows some light fall off toward edges (approx. 2/3rd of EV) but good thing is that vignetting is very linear so you should not notice transition areas. Stopped down to f/2.8 drastically improves performance and at f/4 vignetting becomes non issue. Distortion is hardly noticeable which is to be expected from high quality 135mm lens.

Let’s take a look how those data manifests visually.

(In this review I used Nikon D800E to test the lens, which is probably not the best option because of possible shutter shake issues, but I shot in LCD – mirror up mode with shutter delay. I will also make shoot out with Sony A7 camera that has EFC, just to be sure.)

This is test chart and red squares indicate respective zones of 100% crops that will follow.

Here are 100% crops of respective zones at aperture stops from left to right – f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6

and from f/8 to f/22

By clicking on those images you should be able to open them to original size, where each presented crop (zone) is shown at pixel level of 800x600px. If you prefer to look at original size files, you should find them all on my Flickr Service Album – Nikon D800E + Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 ZF.2

Visually judging contrast and resolution of this lens is unique experience IMHO. Just as MTF results suggest, lens is sharp from f/2 up to the extreme corners. Both resolution and contrast are probably highest that I have ever seen in my tests. Stopping lens down improves sharpness further up to f/5.6 (at pixel level), but this is one of the rare lenses that I would probably feel confident to use wide open even for the landscape shots (if I ever experience the need to do so). Simply outstanding results.

Diffraction starts to affect resolution (start to be notable at a pixel level) from f/8 on and considering how clean and crisp image is at f/5.6, I would consider this f-stop to be optimal for the lens (unless you need extreme DOF).

Here are few comparisons between apertures for your consideration, but don’t forget that you are looking at basically unprocessed RAW files (just standard processing in LR 5.7 without applied lens profiles of course) at pixel level.

f/2 vs f/5.6 – sharpness zone

And f/8 vs f/22 – Diffraction zone

While f/5.6 might look much better than f/2 and f/22 might look unusable, I would say that this lens is perfectly fine at all apertures varying from insanely good to great or very good. I would like to know if there is theoretical (or real life tested) maximum resolution for this lens, because I believe that it can easily out resolve recently announced 50mpx and up sensors.

Let’s make it simple – this is sharpest lens that I have tested in person so far (I still have to find time for Otus line and Sigma Art).

However, for the price balancing at 2000 USD edge, it is to be expected, considering Zeiss experience and knowledge, but…

On the other side of our gray (formerly known as blue) planet, more precisely in South Korea, company that I first heard about related to lens business just few years ago, originally named Samyang (but also known under many other private label brands – Bower, Rokinon e.g.), planted on the market few great lenses especially considering price/performance ratio.

I remember than when I bought my first Samyang lens – 14mm f/2.8 and I went out with my photo friends, they looked at me with compassion as to someone who can’t afford quality optics. One of them wasn’t able to remember the producer name for the whole weekend, calling it all possible variations such as Samtex, Pingpong etc. so it ended with a nice and simple nick – Sam.

When they saw results however, many of them went with Sam and are happily shooting all around.

Samyang lenses are not sexy, they don’t have 3D pop neither 4D corn, built quality is functional at best and QC in Korean probably means Quantifying capitalization, but who ever was responsible for development of already mentioned 14mm/2.8, 35mm/1.4, 85mm f/1.4 or APS-C line (12/2, 16/2.8, 8/2.8 fisheye) is or are very, very talented optician.

Why so much writing about Samyang?

First I really think they deserve more publicity and second, they just introduced new 135mm f/2 on the market and first shy reviews were almost all raving.

Their (theoretical) MTF looks quite amazing and surprisingly similar to Zeiss but it is measured at R10 and R30 while Zeiss is at R10 and R20, but most importantly, Zeiss results (above) are real life tests, while Samyang is theoretical.

(Theoretical MTF basically mean, that as many other producers, Samyang shows the result that would apply to ideal conditions – vacuum, 100% even illumination, perfectly crafted and assembled lens, honest politicians, etc. In comparison to the real life test, theoretical (or computerized) is similar to what I expected my life to be when I was 6 y.o. and what it is in reality today. Or there about…)

Well dear Zeiss APO Sonnar (every word in its lens name sounds pricey don’t you think :-)), it seems that you won’t have easy life…

Seriously though, I had to buy Samyang lens from UK in order to get it for this review, but it cost me 500 USD, so almost 4 time less than Zeiss price point.

Challenge was born, but I decided to include also one of my favorite 135mm lenses in the contest – Oldie but Goldie Nikkor 135mm f/2 AF DC.

All tests were performed using Nikon D800E (Studio tripod, laser aligning, professional target, even permanent illumination etc.)

Following comparison zone crops are related to the same zones listed above, but I am posting it here once more, so that you don’t have to scroll up and down.

To use our slider comparison tool, click and hold with cursor on the circle with arrows in the middle of the image and move it left or right to reveal image bellow. Color bars on the top with lens name and tested aperture, as well with zones listed from left to right and from top to bottom, should help you in orientation.

1. Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC ZF.2

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

f/8

In this Test chart comparison, shot from a close distance of about 1.5m, Zeiss is winner at all apertures. But in real life tests at medium and long distances, Samyang often surpassed Zeiss in center sharpness. Different focus plane optimization?

Beside differences in sharpness, you might notice different rendering of white/gray color. While Zeiss is neutral, Samyang has quite strong shift toward warm tones. This proved to be true in a real life as you will see in the following parts of the review – difference is quite significant in that regard.

Finally, while aligning test chart I noticed that Samyang has somewhat wider FOV than Zeiss and Nikkor.

If you want to see original size files, they are available on my Flickr Service Albums:

Zeiss

Samyang

But don’t be fooled, Samyang still performs well wide open when compared with older Nikkor e.g.

And I am not talking about lack of CA, we will come to this later…

2. Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikkor 135mm f/2 AF DC (DC set to neutral)

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

f/8

You can find original size Nikkor files by clicking here.

There is no doubt that Zeiss APO Sonnar in this studio test is a clear winner. However even if I would stop review here, I can still see many reasons to go with other two lenses, because their performance is still very good. I am not worried about Samyang center sharpness result here, because in a real life situations it often surpassed Zeiss in the center, but extreme corners could be a tad better. On the other hand, if you look carefully to those crops, you might notice a very tinny bit of persisting purple fringing in Zeiss APO Sonnar samples, while Samyang is absolutely CA free in my eyes, despite lacking fancy APO sign.

Nikkor despite its age is still capable of excellent results, beside very strong purple fringing wide open. Stopped down to just f/2.8 cures most of it and Nikkors power is hidden in DC feature, allowing it to create very smooth foreground/background blurriness and dreamy softness on the subject at the same time.

But yeah… Zeiss wins this one!

Please help support this page and upcoming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Adorama: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Amazon: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount BEST OFFER!

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Vignetting:

Vignetting in particular is most notable on Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2 wide open. Normally I would trust Zeiss data and wouldn’t bother to repeat tests, but in order to compare it with other two lenses, I simply had to make equal conditions.

Following graphs show relative fall off toward edges for all three lenses as we measured it here.

Zeiss shows most pronounced vignetting wide open, while Nikkor and Samyang are almost equal in that respect. I have to say that I noticed vignetting on Zeiss in a real life (shooting mostly wide open) and while it is certainly not a big problem, it could be less pronounced. Stopping lens to f/2.8 already get rid most of it, while at f/4 and smaller, vignetting is virtually non-existent.

While Samyang performed very well in terms of vignetting, it was consistently “darkest” lens of the three. I found Nikkor to be the brightest lens with a T-number of around 2.1, Zeiss is lagging behind with T-number around 2.2, but Samyang is significantly slower at T-stop approaching 2.4. (Samyang claims T number to be 2.2)

If you are not familiar with f stops and T numbers, let me put it this way – if Nikkor let you shot at f/2 and 1/250s, Zeiss will need to slow down to 1/200s, While Samyang will need to go to 1/160s approx. assuming same aperture and ISO settings (for approx. same exposure values).

This is bigger issue than vignetting IMHO, but still not a deal breaker.

Field Of View:

On paper, all three lenses should have similar FOV (Nikkor 18°, Zeiss 18.7°and Samyang 18.8°). But on paper, we should trust our government too.

Thing is that either something with my Samyang lens is very wrong, or it lost some of its angle tightness. While testing all three lenses I simply realized that Samyang is quite a bit wider than Nikkor, and Nikkor is somewhat wider than Zeiss.

Samyang and Zeiss are proud of their minimum focusing distance of just 0.8m, Nikkor is ashamed with 30cm longer one. (Rare case, where shorter is better). But when the field of view is wider, closer MFD isn’t always benefit for possible tighter framing.

Thinking how to best show you framing differences I decided to use real head model, because at the end, those are mainly portrait lenses.

Unfortunately it was 3 a.m. when I started to work on it and all my models were happily sleeping. I could use some of my lovely dolls, but none of them has size of the head of an adult (well I have one doll with such a large head, but I am afraid that it is faulty and will blow the air…) so I needed to find different solution.

Finally, I decided to make selfie. Who can better show you framing differences, than Verybiglobo in person, right?

So here I am in a T-shirt that we all use in our family when we support our son Max on his tennis matches. (I mean we all have our own T-shirts, not that we share this particular one).

I was a bit tired, so please take my apologize for a little grumpy face expression.

This is framing that I got with Zeiss from approx. 2m distance. Because Nikon can go closest to 1.1m in order to focus properly, I moved the camera to around 1.2m and compared all three lenses.

Ups! As you can see, obviously 18° is not always 18°, similar as 20cm is not always 20cm.

I don’t want to blame Samyang though, what if Zeiss and Nikkor are simply longer?

In any case, while for portrait it is not a big deal to have super tight close-up, if you consider to use one of those lenses for smaller subjects, such as flower e.g., Zeiss will certainly let you get closer.

Mr. Hubert Nasse was kind to respond on this subject too and here is his statement:

The field size of the Samyang at close distance is larger, because in this design the focal length decreases a lot with focusing to shorter distance.

Color Rendition:

During testing I noticed another specific of Samyang lens. Its color rendering is considerably warmer than Zeiss, but Zeiss is still warmer than Nikkor.

In all respect to Zeiss famous colors and 3D Pop, I found old Nikon to deliver closest to reality and most pleasing colors to my eye.

Here is a comparison between the three with a small color chart. My Minolta color meter showed 4811 K for the following scene:

When set to 4811K in LR 5.7 following results are obtained…

Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2

Samyang 135/2

Nikkor 135/2 DC

When WB picker was used on gray square on the chart (third from right), following results were obtained:

Zeiss went to 4650K

Samyang jumped to 4400K

And Nikkor was almost there at 4750 K

Strong Samyang shift toward yellow tones was very apparent in the field testing too as you would be able to see later.

CA control:

Last test which I would like to show you here is related to CA. Here are 100% crops from small target which serves well the purpose…

In order to show differences between CA correction I boosted saturation in those shots. This is however black and white target only, so all colors that we can see here, are related to CA.

It is clear that Nikkor suffers most from CA, especially wide open. Stopped down to f/4, CA shouldn’t be a field relevant problem any more (with normal saturation setting) except in some most critical situations. While lack of CA should be main selling point of the Zeiss APO design, in reality (and I noticed that in a real life shooting too), lens rendering is not entirely CA free. It shouldn’t be a problem in 99.9% scenarios, but non APO Samyang is in fact slightly better in that regard.

To end this chapter in a positive manner, distortion is virtually non-existent on any of those three lenses.

I think that it was enough of looking at the charts and studio set-ups. In the following chapters we will move outside and test the lenses in most common situations. (Paparazzi etc…)

Please help support this page and upcoming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Adorama: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Amazon: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount BEST OFFER!

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

As written many times before, MTF charts are usually based on close to minimum focusing distance of the lens. Changing focus plane might influence “sharpness” significantly, almost like stopping lens down one or more stops.

Testing lens for medium and infinity distance in a field, is however very tricky, and such tests should be always taken with a grain of salt.

In the following example I would like to show you why this is so tricky and why you should be careful, making any conclusion based on real life shots.

Bellows are two shots taken with two different lenses in en effort to compare sharpness at infinity. Because infinity mark on the lens doesn’t correspond with actual focus plane on neither lens I had to focus using magnification on LCD screen.

Lens A

Lens B

While they both looks acceptably sharp at this size, it is enough to shift the focus for less than 1° and results at pixel level will be compromised. Outside in the direct day light, even using hood loop for LCD makes critical focusing… critically difficult. While closest subjects in the images are over 70m far and further around 100m and that should be well into DOF for those lenses in theory, when looking at pixel level… forget about theory.

Maybe less than 1°caused those differences in 100% crops. Left is lens A, right is lens B.

Critical focus is just one of the problems that can be expected. Focus breathing and related difference in FOV, lighting conditions that keeps changing during test, temperature, humidity and other aspects that can affect visibility at longer distances and many other variables are just some of the reasons why real life tests shouldn’t be taken too seriously, when judging or comparing “sharpness”.

On the other hand, when there is time to repeat enough different tests, there will be good chance to minimize those variables in order to come to conclusion if the lens is rather sharp or not.

Among three lenses that I compared so far – Zeiss, Samyang and Nikkor, only Nikkor stays slightly behind in terms of sharpness at medium to infinity distances and rather in contrast than resolution itself. Adding much more pronounced CA in Nikkor 135/2 AF DC, makes this older design somewhat insufficient for large resolution modern sensors at its widest aperture, but on the other hand, those lenses are mainly portrait lenses and as we would be able to see in one of the following chapters, slight softness wide open is not always bad thing.

Stopping Nikkor down to just f/2.8 significantly improves its sharpness perception, and from f/8 it is hard to tell lenses apart in both resolution and contrast.

When it comes to sharpness differences between Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 ZF.2 and Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC ZF.2, I have to say that they are field irrelevant IMHO. Zeiss kept slight edge wide open in most of my tests, especially moving further from the center, but that edge is really very thin and resulting sharpness will be much more affected with other things mentioned above (critical focus, visibility conditions, lighting).

As I wrote at the very beginning of this review, Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 is one of few lenses that can be used wide open even for landscape shots e.g. without sacrificing much sharpness.

Let’s look at this image e.g.

I made 100% crops from related zones (A,B,C,D) in the large composite image bellow, to show how little differences in sharpness can be observed through the whole aperture range.

You will notice that from f/16 diffraction starts to affect sharpness, but believe me, even f/22 can be used with additional sharpening for very large prints. In this case however, there won’t be many situations, where you will need more than f/5.6 for usual landscape composition and that (and f/4) is at the peak of lens performance anyway.

Bellow is set of comparable images between tested lenses.

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2.8

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2.8

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/5.6

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/5.6

Original size files of test posted above are in this Flickr collection – https://www.flickr.com/photos/97543230@N02/collections/72157651629343231/ if you wish to explore them more in detail.

This test images were focused at near to infinity distance. While at close distance Zeiss had narrower FOV, at medium and infinity distances it seems that some focus breathing enter the game, because it gets closer to original Samyangs FOV, while Nikkor keeps its real FOV best of the three and become narrower among them (larger magnification).

I am lazy to measure focus breathing because it is not significant, so I am happy just to know about it. It shouldn’t make any difference in a real life shooting though. (It also make sense to get largest magnification possible at close distances while at infinity it shouldn’t matter).

In another of many comparative tests that I did, I tried to compare sharpness at infinity. Here is test image with marked zones.

Bellows are 100% crops compared directly between lenses.

At f/2

At f/2.8

At f/11

Similar pattern can be observed on those images. Zeiss has slight edge wide open and Nikkor lags behind both. Already at f/2.8 Nikkor improves a lot while Zeiss and Samyang are hard to tell apart. At f/11, I really don’t see much differences in terms of sharpness among those three lenses.

At medium distance, I checked only for mid frame sharpness and conclusion is basically same as with long and infinity focus distances.

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/5.6

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/5.6

To check for diffraction at smallest aperture I compared Zeiss and Samyang at f/22 (Nikkor goes only to f/16)

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/22

There are of course many more 135mm lenses. Together with 50mm and 35mm FL, 135mm is probably most represented focal length for 35mm format and there are often at least two models from most producers.

From those interesting lenses that I would suggest to think about, I picked another three for a simple f/8 landscape shot.

Additional lenses are Sony Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8, amazing lens available only in Sony A mount, even more charismatic and not often mentioned Sony (original Minolta design) 135mm f/2.8 STF (T4.5), and mighty Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM, living legend among 135mm lenses. To make such a comparison bit more fair, I tested lenses on Sony A7 camera with appropriate adapters. Following image shows 100% crops from respective zones.

In a conclusion, from all tested lenses only Nikkor 135 f/2 AF DC stay a bit behind at wide open apertures, but where Zeiss and Samyang takes a lead is in CA department. Stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller almost erase sharpness differences among tested lenses and at those apertures each one of them will deliver superb results.

Advantage of Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2 and Samyang 135/2 ED UMC is in their optimization for wide apertures, which makes them attractive alternative for all shots were sharpness across frame is required but light level is rather low. This and brilliant control of CA, makes those two lenses standing above the others by some margin in this respect.

There is of course much more than lens sharpness. In the next chapter we will take look at flare resistance and bokeh.

Please help support this page and upcoming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Adorama: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Amazon: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount BEST OFFER!

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Flare:

Zeiss is well-known for many things, some of them are documented such as build quality, some are rather mythical, such as famous Zeiss look, but if there is one thing that Zeiss really deserves credit for, its obligatory T* coating.

I have been on few presentation where company experts demonstrated great flare resistance of Zeiss lenses and I experienced that myself in many occasions. With the boom of digital photography however, legacy lenses become more vulnerable because of the sensor reflections.

To fight against sensor reflection is really difficult and most of the flares that we actually see in our images, are more or less related to this phenomenon.

Nikon D800E is not as bad in that respect as e.g. Sony A7, but it is just matter of slight changes in the angle toward sun, to reveal nasty flares with almost any lens….

Following test images are thus rather informative – what can be expected under similar conditions, but because they were taken from the hand (to compensate for sun position), situations are not identical and thus lenses are not directly comparable. (We could use studio light to simulate sun position and make identical set-up for all lenses, but distance to such a light source is much smaller than toward sun, and results obtained that way, might not correspond with a real life experience).

Here are few shots that you can open in gallery view and check the relative lens behavior in sunlight coming from the top right corner at f/2 and f/8, and sun coming directly at f/4 and f/8.

 Zeiss have a clear edge in this test, but as I wrote above, if you change angle just a little bit, results might be slightly different. From many other shots that I took however, I feel confident to say, that Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 lens does great job when it comes to flare resistance, especially in terms of keeping contrast high. Samyang is less predictable when it comes to flaring, but slight change of the position might bring him very close to Zeiss in terms of contrast. More pronounced rainbow like flares are visible in almost all situations where flare appears. Nikkor shows its age (in terms of coatings in this case) and the loss of contrast in back-lit situations is notable.

There is only one thing that I’d like to mention… I like flares and loss of contrast in back-lit situations for portraits Nevertheless I have to admit that Zeiss engineers did splendid job with recent T* coatings and most users will love it.

Bokeh:

Have you ever noticed how clever advertising is hidden in this magic word? (Well done KEH.com)

There are few reasons why you might consider lens with such a fast aperture (at this focal length). Either because you think that BIF means Bat In Fly so you need your lens to gather as much light as possible, or you take “sharp as a pin” literally, so that everything behind pin top should be out of focus, or you have heard that fast lens is cool to have or number 2 is your lucky number.

In this part I’d like to focus on the Pin pals… I already wrote that Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2 is sharp as a pin, but how’s about the rest of the image? What about BoKEH?

I’d like first to show you two sets of images with Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2 at all apertures from f/2 to f/22

Here is the first one:

Both – blur quantity and blur quality can be observed on those images. There is one thing to consider though. When shooting dominant subject such as model outside e.g., I am always trying to ask myself – how important is surrounding for resulting image. In other words – in many cases I’d like to bring my subject in relation to the background (or foreground), but on the other side I’d also like to isolate it so that viewer attention goes to the right direction. Choosing proper aperture for the desired interaction between subject and background is thus important part of creative process and it depends on many variables, such as structure, color, lighting, distance, content importance etc. In the simulated scenario above, I’d pick aperture of f/5.6 because it gives me nice relation between sharp and blurred areas.

When your subject is smaller and background closer though, wide open aperture and thin DOF often gives most pleasing results. (This is for sure very subjective).

Here is another set of all apertures showing situation described above:

In this scenario I’d pick f/2 as the preferred aperture.

I wrote about this because I am often confronted with the opinion that Bokeh is quantity of the blur. While this might be true according to Wikipedia, I like to think of it purely as a quality of the blur. What we have seen above in those two sets, has more to do with the quantity than quality.

In order to discuss quality of the blurred (and transition to the blurred) areas, it is good to see how lenses render highlights.

Here is set of images of Zeiss APO Sonnar, focused to MFD with a night city lights at infinity distance. This time, aperture was moved by 1/3rd of the stop up to f/5.6, from where it goes by full stops all the way to the f/22.

We might see that circular highlights have tendency to form elliptical shape instead of circle. This, so-called cat-eye shape, gradually increases toward edges and is caused by mechanical vignetting of the lens. To be honest, this was slightly disappointing for me but expected to certain extent when I saw light fall off at widest aperture. Stopped down just 2/3rd of the f-stop, highlight shapes improve to almost regular circles, but aperture blades starts to be visible.

While shape of bokeh is not perfectly rounded wide open, distribution of the light is very smooth and this is one of the most important attributes related to the quality (character) of the bokeh.

Samyang 135/2 ED UMC however excels in both categories. Let’s take a look at following direct comparisons at f/2 and f/2.8

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2.8

As you can see, Samyang has almost perfect circular shape of the blurred highlights across the image and both lenses with their 9 aperture blades creates regular shapes wt f/2.8. Both lenses also show very smooth light distribution with almost invisible outline. At this point we might say that because of less pronounced mechanical vignetting Samyang has smoother bokeh, but that won’t be entirely true in practice.

There is another thing coming into play  – defocus magnification.

As you can see from above comparisons, from the same position and at the same subject distance, with both lenses focused to MFD, Zeiss creates larger highlight circles (visible at f/2.8) and in effect we might enjoy “more blurred look of the background”.

It won’t be fair to forget about Nikkor at this point. Nikkor has specially designed feature called Defocus Control (thus DC in the lens name). What it does is allowing user to increase spherical aberration either toward front focus or rear focus, in order to create smoother bokeh (improve light distribution and increase defocus magnification).

Increased spherical aberration will soften image in effect, but unfortunately also in the focus plane.

Images will explain this better than I am able to do with my poor English…

Here we have both lenses at f/2 with Nikon DC at neutral position.

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (DC Neutral)

You might notice slight CA at the highlight edges with Nikkor, slightly lower mechanical vignetting and as you can see,

slightly smaller circles.

In the following comparison we can see what happen when Nikkor is Defocused using Control ring, to its maximum value toward rear.

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (DC Rear Max)

While there are still traces of CA, light distribution is much smoother with Nikkor lens now, and circles are larger than with Zeiss.

I thought that it would be interesting to compare Zeiss with few other 135mm lenses from our collection, including another very interesting Bokeh master – Sony 135mm f/2.8 (T4.5) STF.

In the following test shots, street lamps were much closer to the lens (closest is approx. 5m), so you’ll be able to better compare magnification aspect.

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (DC Neutral)

Zeiss vs Sony Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/1.8 at f/2 vs f/1.8

(There is mistake in the image description above, Sony lens is at f/1.8. Beautiful bokeh isn’t it?)

Next comparison shows Zeiss at f/2 against Sony 135/2.8 (T4.5) STF. This is very special lens which uses built in apodizing filter in order to create smooth gradient of light distribution in the highlights. Sony lens (originally Minolta design) is on f/2.8, but it let only T4.5 light in.

Zeiss vs Sony 135/2.8 (T4.5) STF at f/2 vs f/2.8

That’s what I would call, super smooth bokeh

Finally we shouldn’t forget strongest player in the field. I am pretty sure that Canon’s EF 135mm f/2 L USM is among those lenses, clear champion in sale figures. It is also most popular 135mm fast lens recently IMHO.

Zeiss vs Canon EF 135/2 L USMat f/2

That is lot of images captured, just to show bokeh characteristics. After making such an effort to compare those lenses in one of the vital aspects of this focal length, we decided to make another two tests with subjects in daylight. Differences in bokeh rendering won’t be as significant as with night lamps, but they will be closer to what most will experience in real life shooting. You can use gallery mode to scroll through.

Set 1:

Set 2:

This is basically it. We tried to show you all aspects of this phenomenal Zeiss lens, comparing it to the best in its class. It’s time to move to the final part of our review, part where we will write a summary/conclusion and show you some people portraits and sample images.

Please help support this page and upcoming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Adorama: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Amazon: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount BEST OFFER!

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Portrait:

135mm was one of the most popular longer focal lengths for many years. It makes a good relation between reach, size, speed and magnification. Today, with different size sensors, very fast tele-zooms and large resolution allowing more aggressive cropping, it is slightly less attractive, and should I say, less versatile.

At the beginning of this review, I mentioned that it is my favorite focal length for people shots, but at the same time there are not many other situation where I would grab one of my 135’s. Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2, due to short minimum focus distance and nice magnification, opens new possibilities.

Getting back to portraits, I was impressed with Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 during testing period, but as usual with such a fast and long lens, manual focusing is very demanding. DOF is so shallow, that it is hard to get eye in perfect focus and to have both eyes sharp, model should stand parallel to the focus plane.

Somewhat easier was to focus on Sony A7 cameras, because of the focus magnification, but acquiring focus is not the only challenge there… Even slightest movement of the subject, will cause blur problems.

Here is an example how shallow DOF is

You probably know all this, but following comparisons are thus rather informative than exact, because in order to give at least basic idea about how those lenses compare, I had to shot hand-held in variable lighting conditions and my dear models weren’t always stone still.

Normally, I would also post process all models photo (just like one above), because girls deserves it, being so kind to fit and make-up themselves on set and to work hard all day for just symbolic fee, in order to help verybiglobo.com and its readers.

They are professional models and they expect their images to be professionally retouched.

In this case however, I will make an exception and show you unprocessed comparative images, because both girls are very nice and have solid, smooth skin.

Here is first set of comparison images:

Nikon D800E + Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 at f/2

Nikon D800E + Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC at f/2

Nikon D800E + Nikkor DC AF-D 135mm f/2 at f/2

At the first sight, we can notice that Zeiss and Samyang looks very similar at this image size, while Nikkor seems to be less sharp but also has smoothest bokeh. Nikkor was indeed set to defocus of f/2.8 toward rear.

Let’s take a look at the focus zone crops

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (Nikkor set to DC 2.8 Rear)

Zeiss and Samyang are very close IMHO, with Zeiss having barely notable advantage in terms of sharpness. (This could be also due to the slightly missed focus or movement of the model. In any case, difference is field irrelevant). Nikkor is significantly softer at the focus zone, but on the other hand, model has dreamy look, soft skin and pleasing tones without any post processing.

Now let’s take a look at the bokeh zone crops

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (Nikkor set to DC 2.8 Rear)

Nikkor has smoothest bokeh but also most pronounced CA, namely LoCA. Samyang has slightly smoother bokeh than Zeiss in this situation, but both lenses are very similar in that respect.

Here is another set of comparisons with Nikkor set to neutral DC.

Nikon D800E + Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 at f/2

Nikon D800E + Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC at f/2

Nikon D800E + Nikkor DC AF-D 135mm f/2 at f/2

We can see again that Zeiss and Samyang are visibly sharper wide open at focus area

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (Nikkor set to DC 0)

While difference is clearly visible, RAW files from Nikon D800E have good latency for computed sharpening. If you have good sharpening technique, Nikkor image can be sharpened to the extent where it would be hard to distinguish between lenses.

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (Nikkor set to DC 0) Both lenses sharpened using sophisticated tools and techniques.

There is of course DOF dependent blurriness, but otherwise both images are very close after sharpening.

Last set of portrait images was made under fast changing light (running clouds), but I would post it because framing is much tighter than in above examples.

Nikon D800E + Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 at f/2

Nikon D800E + Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC at f/2

Nikon D800E + Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC AF-D at f/2

At this distance, DOF is so thin, that you might often get sharp eyebrows instead of the iris e.g. Achieving critical focus is essential for the good result in this case…

Zeiss vs Samyang at f/2

Zeiss vs Nikkor at f/2 (Nikkor set to DC 0)

Conclusion:

We tried to present you lot of images, and direct comparisons in this review, in order to make your lens choice easier and mainly in order to help you to create your own opinion about those lenses.

I was impressed by Zeiss performance, but I didn’t expect nothing less. I was impressed with Samyang too and while it was a little surprise, I already get used to see great lenses from Korean producer. Both lenses are one of the sharpest optics that I had chance to test so far, and both will be great portrait lenses for many years to come.

Zeiss has slight edge in sharpness, but it also shows more CA, despite APO construction. There are however few reasons why you should favor Zeiss lens.

+

– Larger magnification at MFD.

– Better, much better built quality. Manual focusing is as usual very smooth and precise with long enough focus throw.

– Somewhat smaller size when focused to infinity. Good for transport.

– Better and more predictable flare resistance.

– More neutral color rendering.

– Better QC.

–

– Price. It is very expensive lens for standard 135mm.

– Vignetting could be smaller.

– Blurred highlights wide open have irregular shape (cat-eye), making bokeh slightly more nervous than it could be.

Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 is very well designed and constructed lens, that will make its owner not only happy with superb images, cutting sharpness, punchy contrast and almost non-existent CA and distortion, but also with kind of emotional satisfaction of using high precision instrument.

If you are often shooting portraits, and you want one of the best lenses on the market in 135mm focal length, Zeiss is right choice IMHO.

Alternatives:

Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 has many competitors and most of them are excelling in one or other category. Competition in this range is really tough. Samyang is almost as sharp, and has even better corrected CA, especially LoCA. Nikkor is also sharp enough in DC neutral position, especially if you are used to post process RAW images and apply smart sharpening and there is that DC option when soft, dreamy look is preferred.

Probably strongest competitor though is partially from its own stable – Sony Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8. This lens is also very sharp wide open, and it can open even wider than its APO brother. Build quality is comparable, and it has AF and smoother bokeh. It is made only in Sony A mount though and it is also very expensive lens.

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM is logical choice if you are in Canon system. No matter what was written about this lens, and fact that it is as old design as Nikkor probably, Canon is great lens IMHO. At recent price point, especially for used lenses in mint condition, it is very interesting option for sure.

Finally, my personnel choice for 135mm portrait lens was and will remain after this test – Sony 135mm f/2.8 (T4.5) STF. This  Minolta lens is simply special in its own way, and as you could see in the samples above, f/2.8 (even f/4 and smaller) are usually enough for good subject separation, while preserving useful DOF to keep whole face in focus.

Zeiss should be great lens for night scene – cityscapes, night sky, evening concerts, theater etc. due to best flare resistance from tested lenses, brilliant accutance and contrast in challenging lighting conditions and sturdy built quality to survive one or two direct hits in crowd. It will serve well in studio or fashion show photography.

It might sound that I like every Zeiss lens that was tested in the last couple of months. I can assure you that we don’t have any financial interest in Zeiss, not even simple advertising on our pages, but they simply make great lenses, their only disadvantage is that I can’t have them all

Thank you for reading, and if you have any questions, use comments bellow or open forum thread (I am checking it regularly).

Please help support this page and upcoming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Adorama: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount

Buy on Amazon: 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount BEST OFFER!

I would like to thank all of you who sent us a donation so far. It really helps to finance content and design development of verybiglobo.com and to keep us independent. Thank you guys, you are part of our small team, and you are all Verybigfriends!

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Sample Images (most shot at f/2 and Nikon D800E or Sony A7r or Sony A7):

ALL IMAGES IN THE SAMPLE GALLERY WERE POST PROCESSED!

Just a short notice that new firmware 1.20 for Sony A6000 and A7 models (A7, A7r, A7s and A7 MII) was released.

You can download it from the following links:

Sony ILCE-7 (Sony A7) – http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/product/ILCE-7

Sony ILCE-7r (Sony A7r) – http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/product/ILCE-7R

Sony ILCE-7s (Sony A7s) – http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/product/ILCE-7S

Sony ILCE-7MII (Sony A 7 Mark II) – http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/product/ILCE-7M2

Sony ILCE-6000 (Sony A6000) – http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/product/ILCE-6000

New firmware is mainly adding improved support for new Sony FE lenses and reducing start-up time when Smart Remote Play Memories application is installed.

Name: Firmware update Ver.1.20 for ILCE-7 (Windows)

Release date: 26/03/2015
Benefits and improvements:
Picture improvement for SEL24240, SEL28F20, SEL35F14Z and SEL90M28G lenses
Improved power ON time when Play Memories Camera Application “Smart Remote Control” is used

If you find any additional improvements, or any cavets with download or installation of the new firmware, please leave comments bellow.

Introduction:

On October 16, 2013, Sony made a small revolution in photographic community by announcing their A7 (ILCE-7) and A7r (ILCE-7r) cameras.

While not being first to introduce full frame sensor in small, compact mirror-less body (this primacy belongs to Leica), Sony A7 was clearly smallest and most importantly affordable FF camera, while Sony A7r was smallest FF camera with highest resolution at the time of announcement.

Few months later, Sony lifted the bar even higher by bringing to the market A7S – smallest FF digital camera capable of 4K output (with external recorder) and amazing low light sensitivity rated at 409 600 ISO.

Finally, approx. one year after introduction of Sony A7, its follower – Sony A7 Mark II come to the market, being first camera to bring in body image stabilization in the full frame mirror less world.

We were quite critical in our initial 9 part review of Sony A7 and A7r – http://www.verybiglobo.com/sony-alpha-a7-ilce-7-and-sony-alpha-a7r-ilce-7r-vs-rest-of-theworld-part-1/, mainly because of slower auto-focus incapable of fast-moving subject tracking, compressed RAW format, problematic corner performance with many wide-angle legacy lenses (especially symmetrical design range finder ones), sensor reflection (Sony A7) and Shutter Shock induced blur (Sony A7r).

After over 1 year of use and more than 70000 images on Sony A7 and 12000 on Sony A7r, we are still standing behind those critics, but we should also say that Sony A7 proofed to be lovely camera in most situation, making our initial complains, marginally field relevant. We admit that our initial critics was based on short time usage and it should be treated as something that was/is true, but not essential for most photo enthusiasts.

When it comes to Sony A7r, unfortunately we can’t change our former conclusion, mainly because of shutter shock induced blur. This is in our experience serious problem and it can occur in many real life situations.  (We don’t want to claim that it happens always, quite in contrary it happens occasionally. Problem is that it can happen with lenses as wide as 28mm (in our experience) and in the wide range of shutter speeds. We were not able to find the pattern for this behavior and thus we can’t rely on perfect output in every situation. This makes A7r camera unpredictable and unreliable in our opinion.)

We had Sony A7s in our office for around 2 months when it become available, but because we don’t shot and test for video, we couldn’t find a reason to review that camera and we sold it.

When Sony A7 M II was announced, we couldn’t get testing sample fast enough to compete with other review sites, so we didn’t review that camera either. Several readers and friends asked us – what Sony A7 camera to choose though, and we were inconclusive in that regard, because we didn’t have enough data to compare.

Thanks to Mrs. Brochova from Bison&Rose Prague, we got Sony A7s and A7M II for two weeks, and we decided to make a short comparable review within A7 family.

At the very beginning, we should repeat that verybiglobo.com don’t test video functions, nor it will in the future. We are dedicated to photography and there are many more erudite sites for video to learn from. In the following comparisons we will focus purely on photography side of all four Sony A7 cameras.

Specification:

If you are interested in detail specifications, you can click on related links bellow:

Sony A7 – http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7-body-kit#product_details_default

Sony A7 M II – http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7m2-body-kit/specifications

Sony A7R – http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7r/specifications

Sony A7S – http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7s/specifications

Be aware however, that there are still some misinformation in those official specifications such as Touch Screen on Sony A7 and A7r, which never existed.

For the purpose of this review we would like to pick most important specifics of each camera in our opinion. In Blue color is always best parameter, while the worst is colored in red. Black are somewhere between.

There are of course many other differences that might be more important for you, such as XAVC-S or S-Log2 tone curve for video available only in A7 MII and A7S, possibility of live view tethered shooting (using Capture One) which again only A7 MII and A7S allows, or slight but important improvements related to external applications, such as possibility to record lens name and max. aperture with “Lens Compensation” application and Sony A7 MII only.

(BTW using Multi Frame Noise reduction application, Max. ISO on Sony A7, A7r and A7 MII can be lifted up to 51200 ISO.)

Build Quality:

All 4 cameras looks very similar with only Sony A7 MII differing more significantly. Other three cameras have same dimensions and vary a little bit in the construction and weight.

While all 4 cameras have magnesium alloy body construction (or skeleton), A7 is the only one to feature plastic front panel. A7 and A7r have less robust mount too, which has plastic spacer between mount and body. Newer models – A7s and A7 MII have full metal mount and are supposed to carry heavier lenses without possible wobbling or even braking of the mount. In our experience, we didn’t have the problem with original “soft” mounts on either Sony A7 and A7r and if you are following us, you’ll know that we put some very heavy lenses in the past, without using tripod foot (Such as Nikkor 14-24/2.8 G e.g.) and without problems.

While Sony A7 M II is supposed to have most robust build, we liked more Sony A7S and A7R, both in terms of tactile feeling and surface finish. All metal control wheels on Sony A7S and A7R, brings that quality feeling to the upper level, no matter that this is rather irrational and subjective.

Sony A7M II on the other hand, at the price of larger size and heavier weight, brings better ergonomic and functionality, especially because of larger grip and shutter button moved forward for more natural position. This makes Sony A7M II camera possible to use with a single hand (with light lens such as Sony FE 35/2.8 ZA).

Bellows are few comparable images showing Sony A7 MII and Sony A7 (representing other three models).

All four cameras are in our opinion built very well, but they lack one important thing – any kind of weather protection. While Sony at the very beginning claimed weather protection in the specification, which was later replaced with moisture protection, and recently completely removed, we find this feature to be very important for most photographers and Sony should seriously consider improvement in that regard.

In the next chapter we will take a closer look at one of the key differences between those 4 cameras – resolution and what it means in a real life.

(If you have any questions related to those 4 cameras, please use our forum to post them. Forum engine is better suited for longer discussions and it gives possibility to embed images if needed. It can also keep more replies than comments section. You can find related forum link here – http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/sony-alpha-a7-family-which-one-to-choose/)

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Please consider to help VERYBIGLOBO to bring more reviews, by using these affiliate links to buy anything from your favorite seller. It won’t cost you single penny, but we should receive small contribution from the seller. Thank you in advance.

Number of pixels had been for a while one of the key attributes for photographers, especially amateur.
From marketing perspective this is certainly a golden mine territory, because consumers usually don’t want to learn how large resolution is necessary for their purpose and more importantly isn’t sometimes to high-resolution ineffective? Bigger is better, right?

Without going deeply into technical explanation of how light is collected and converted to electrons, think of our human eyes instead. When we have a lot of light, we are able to recognize tiny details even at the larger distances. But if we enter dark room at the moment and our IRIS stays close, we won’t see much, because our eye doesn’t get enough light. Smaller photo cell means less collected light. And this won’t change even if thousands or million of eyes comes with us…

One more thing to mention – larger photo cell can collect more light. In theory it means that it can be exposed to the light either longer or under stronger source before light overflow and highlights gets burned. In practice this should mean that there is potential for wider dynamic range (range between full black (no light at all – no recorded info) and full white (too much light – all info lost)) with larger photo cells. This however is only partially true with Sony A7 cameras, because at the base ISO (where there is a lot of light), Sony A7R has slightly larger dynamic range than other three. At higher ISO though, Sony A7s clearly pulls apart.

Trying to show in practice what differences in nominated resolution means for photographer, we published few articles before, but it is nice opportunity to get back to it with those 4 Sony A7 cameras…

Image above are showing differences in file sizes between Sony A7s, A7/A7 MII and A7R.

Let’s take a look at few crops, made with different normalization methods.

If we down-sample all files to original Sony A7s file size (using “bi-cubic sharper” algorithm in PS CC), here is what we will get in terms of fine detail. (Click on the arrows on the slider, hold mouse button and move slider left or right to reveal image bellow).

Sony A7M II(A7) vs Sony A7S

This difference will be even more significant when we compare 36M to 12M

Sony A7R vs Sony A7S

Finally at pixel level (100% crop), difference is not so significant between 24M and 36M

With test like this, slight difference in position of the focus plane can affect the result. Bellows are therefore similar comparison shots, captured in the studio under controlled conditions.

When we compare those cameras at pixel level, it become clear that Sony A7S shows less detail from the same scene, under same conditions (FL, aperture, lens etc.). More important question however is – what we are going to do with our images.

If we will use them on web only, difference won’t be much visible at standard resolution up to 1920 x 1280 (HD resolution).

Bellows are images from A7MII,A7S and A7R at resolution (1920 x 1280 px) and without looking at their description or EXIF, it would be hard to say which was taken with which camera.

 

Even at 4K resolution, differences won’t be too significant. If final output is supposed to be large print, than the importance of resolution differences will become much more significant.

On the other hand, larger resolution allows for more aggressive cropping. This can be important for wildlife shooters and for those who need to correct composition after taking shot (journalists, street photographers etc.)

To put this in perspective, bellows are images from Sony A7S at its standard size 4240 x 2832 px, Sony A7 MII where respective crop of 4240 x 2832 px were made and finally same size crop from Sony A7R. (All images were further down-sampled to 1200 px wide for presentation purpose)

Sony A7S – full size view

Sony A7 MII – crop of the original image at the size of A7S (4240 x2832 px)

Sony A7R – crop of the original image at Sony A7S size (4240 x 2832 px)

Think of it also in terms of reach. While on A7S – 200mm lens will remain 200mm, on Sony A7/MII you’ll be able to crop the image to the FOV corresponding to approx. 280mm and up to 340mm with Sony A7R. (70-200mm lens will have flexibility of being 70-280mm on A7/MII or even 70-340mm on A7R, if the Sony A7S resolution is enough for desired output).

What does it all mean for us users?

1. If you are posting images on web only and you don’t need to crop excessively, you won’t see much of a difference in a resolution among those 4 cameras in practice.2. If you plan to print larger than A4 (297 x 210mm) or if you often need to crop your images, higher resolution of Sony A7/MII and A7R will be very useful at least at lower ISO (we’ll come to this relation later in the review).

3. Difference in resolution between Sony A7/MII and A7S is more significant than between Sony A7/MII and Sony A7R. This is to be expected because in percentage it is 41% difference between A7S and A7MII but only around 23% between A7MII and A7R. In other words, 12M increase of sensor resolution is not linear in effect.

In a conclusion, if you have realistic need for high-resolution files, Sony A7R should win in this category by slight margin over Sony A7/MII. Sony A7S won’t allow larger crops and very large prints without visible loss in quality, but at higher ISOs this will change. Don’t forget that higher resolution means also larger files and more computing power for post processing and space for archiving.

We should also mention again problems with Sony A7R shutter shock induced blur that can significantly reduce output resolution. (You can read and see some examples in the following article, if you scroll down to “discovered problems” section – http://www.verybiglobo.com/sony-alpha-a7-ilce-7-and-sony-alpha-a7r-ilce-7r-part-9-finalshowdown/

On the other hand, we should also mention that in our experience Sony A7r offers widest dynamic range at ISO up to 400, followed by Sony A7, than Sony A7S and finally A7M II. Differences are however very small and in most situations field irrelevant.

(If you have any questions related to those 4 cameras, please use our forum to post them. Forum engine is better suited for longer discussions and it gives possibility to embed images if needed. It can also keep more replies than comments section. You can find related forum link here – http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/sony-alpha-a7-family-which-one-to-choose/)

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Please consider to help VERYBIGLOBO to bring more reviews, by using these affiliate links to buy anything from your favorite seller. It won’t cost you single penny, but we should receive small contribution from the seller. Thank you in advance.

If the number of pixels is marketing trump No. 1, high ISO performance is certainly No. 2.

When it comes to comparison in regard to sensor sensitivity, it is very hard to create proper methodology. There is no standard accepted by all producers which will define ISO sensitivity, and we might experience different exposure at same aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings with different cameras, but it doesn’t always mean that producer “cheated ISO” by stating higher value than in reality is.

Slight difference in shutter speeds and mainly differences in T-Stop of used lens should be equally suspected when it comes to conclusion – which camera is better in low light. (There are many other variables such as software lens corrections, critical focus at low low light, perfectly flat test target in order to eliminate DOF differences etc.)

It is also important to clarify why we are looking at those ISO test results and how relevant they are for our photography. High ISO should be used when there is not enough light to expose properly at needed shutter speed and possible aperture.

We made few tests bellow, first in controlled environment and later in a real life situation. All shots were take at M mode and exactly same exposure settings. We did lift the ISO by prolonging shutter speed and keeping aperture closed enough to make DOF sufficient for tested area. We shot in RAW and used LR 5.7 for de-mosaicing and basic adjustments (standard LR settings).Sony FE 55/1.8 ZA lens was used on each camera.

We do have RAW files, but we have no dedicated server space where we could offer them for download.

After shooting ISO tests we resized all images to smallest comparable size – 4240 x 2832 px. and made 100 % crops.

Here is tested chart and exposure reading.

And here are crops at 6400 ISO and A7S image size (4240 x 2832 px)

12800 ISO (4240 x 3832 px)

25600 ISO (4240 x 3832 px)

You might notice that brightness value differ between those cameras. This information is recorded in EXIF metadata and it should represent APEX average scene luminance. In other words it should tell you which camera at same exposure values got more light on sensor.

Bellow ISO 6400, differences in noise appearance and structure are rather small and hard to tell apart. At ISO 6400 and above, we can follow trend of Sony A7S pulling apart while Sony A7R has slight advantage (approx. 1/3rd EV over Sony A7 and 2/3rd EV over A7 MII. Sony A7 is slightly better (around 1/3 EV) than Sony A7 MII but also marginally lower brightness value.

Sony A7S of course go up to 409600 px.

In a real life, you will most probably have less light then in our studio test (if you’d need to lift the ISO above 3200).Following test was thus made in the night time situation with very long exposure times, exposed correctly only for small part of the frame, to give you an idea of what high ISO performance means in practice. We also made comparable crops at all 3 image sizes this time, to avoid critics of being unfair toward one or other camera.

This was a test scene

And here are crop comparisons first at Sony A7S resolution (4240 x 2832 px)

Sony A7/MII resolution (6000 x 4000 px)

Sony A7R resolution (7360 x 4912 px)

The ranking that we made after studio test remain the same, but in practice it will really depend on the output size of your files, when it comes to usability of high ISO settings. While Sony A7S has lowest noise already from ISO 800, it also shows less detail because of the smaller resolution. From ISO 6400 (vs A7/MII) and 12800 (vs A7R) Sony A7S starts to show not only less noise but also more detail despite its smaller initial resolution.

We think that all four cameras have very good sensor sensitivity in regard to recent sensor technology. Sony A7S is definitely camera that you should choose, if you are planning to shot often above ISO 6400. A7R is nice compromise. Due to its massive resolution it holds its own against A7S up to the ISO 12800 or so. There is more noise but also more details bellow. Sony A7 seems to be slightly ahead of Sony A7M II but that shouldn’t have notable effect in practice.

One of the reasons why Sony A7 M II might have slightly worse high ISO performance than its predecessor, is maybe due to the changes of coating on sensor topping. This was necessary change in order to reduce very significant sensor reflection of A7, which we wrote about in our initial review – http://www.verybiglobo.com/sony-alpha-a7-ilce-7-and-sony-alpha-a7r-ilce-7r-part-7-a7-sensor-flare-problems/ . We will check how Sony succeeded in reducing sensor flaring in the next chapter.

(If you have any questions related to those 4 cameras, please use our forum to post them. Forum engine is better suited for longer discussions and it gives possibility to embed images if needed. It can also keep more replies than comments section. You can find related forum link here – http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/sony-alpha-a7-family-which-one-to-choose/)

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Please consider to help VERYBIGLOBO to bring more reviews, by using these affiliate links to buy anything from your favorite seller. It won’t cost you single penny, but we should receive small contribution from the seller. Thank you in advance.

Sensor Reflection/Flaring

When we tested Sony A7 we noticed excessive flaring in some situations, especially when light sources such as night lamps were near edges of the frame. First we suspected lenses, but later we found that most of that flaring is caused by reflections from sensor, respectively – layers on top of the sensor.

This problem was one of our key critics toward Sony A7 camera and we are glad that Sony reacted by improving coatings in the new model – Sony A7 MII.

Take a look

As you can see, flaring is not completely removed, and Sony A7 MII still lags behind A7R and A7S in that respect, but it is much better than original A7 and I think that most photographers won’t have significant problems with newer camera. Sony A7S sensor is almost reflection free.

OSS vs IBIS vs IBIS + OSS

Mysterious coded name of this chapter has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. This is just another way how to name different image stabilization technologies.

As we already know, Sony A7M II is the first FF mirrorless camera to feature in body image stabilization by moving sensor to compensate for hands shake. Sony however already have several lenses with optical stabilization (OSS) built-in. We were curious to see how much improvement this new technology brings in comparison to usage of the stabilized lens on non stabilized body.

In theory, we should benefit of 5 axis stabilization with Sony A7M II and native Sony lenses and 3 axis stabilization with other (adapted) lenses.

Best way to see if there is difference between lens based stabilization and lens + sensor based stabilization, would be to use them together and then to switch the lens stabilization off. That however is not possible with Sony A7M II. It is possible either to use both stabilization or to switch them both off.

We used thus Sony A7MII and Sony A7 instead, both with Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS lens. We made 10 shots at different shutter speeds, all at 200mm and f/8 at the same distance and same focus target.

We analyzed sharpness of those shots related to the same shot taken from sturdy tripod, which represented 100% value. However, we weren’t able to see any differences in performance between those two cameras when Super steady shot was selected to ON. Maybe we would need to make many more test shots, or to make different testing set-up (macro e.g.) in order to recognize additional help of sensor stabilization, but so far we can say that (at least with Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS at 200mm and 5m distance) we couldn’t notice measurable difference between two stabilization systems.

(There are many reasons why such test might not reflect your own experience. We all have different tremble in our hands and shooting in continuation for hundreds of shots, will result in increased shaking due to fatigues. Weather condition, technique even surface or size of the target, all that can affect resulting data.)

Interesting however was to compare results without and with stabilization engaged.

In the following two charts you can see those results.

We tested Super Steady Shot in practice much more of course and in our experience, stabilization gives between 3-4 EV in regard to shutter speed. On the other hand, we were able to achieve highest measured sharpness without stabilization in a few shots.

We also tested Sony A7M II with Super Steady Shot off and on (on tripod), to see if there is advantage of switching stabilization off as Sony recommends.

We made several shots at different shutter speeds (over 300 shots) of similar type as bellow

Following related crops are at 200% magnification in order to show better otherwise very small difference.

Under very close inspection, we noticed that images with stabilization from tripod were slightly blurred in comparison to those captured without stabilization. This was true for almost all compared images at wide range of shutter speeds.

In a conclusion, we would suggest stabilization to be switched off when camera is on a tripod, but if you forget to do so, it most probably won’t ruin your photo.

In the next chapter we will take a look at AF comparison among those 4 cameras. It will take a little while until we finish our data evaluation though. stay tuned.

(If you have any questions related to those 4 cameras, please use our forum to post them. Forum engine is better suited for longer discussions and it gives possibility to embed images if needed. It can also keep more replies than comments section. You can find related forum link here – http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/sony-alpha-a7-family-which-one-to-choose/)

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Please consider to help VERYBIGLOBO to bring more reviews, by using these affiliate links to buy anything from your favorite seller. It won’t cost you single penny, but we should receive small contribution from the seller. Thank you in advance.

AF speed comparison

To finish this review, we were trying to compare AF systems. This was very ambitious task and we had to develop new routines in order to make useful comparisons.

Disclaimer:

We were using only one lens for those tests – Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS and only at its maximum FL of 200mm, so absolute figures are rather irrelevant in terms of comparison with official Sony AF speed data. Our intention was to see how cameras differ in AF speed, accuracy and possible hunting in low light, when used in real life situation. (Of course we needed to find the way to control this “real life” conditions to the extent to make comparison useful).

Many more tests would be necessary to evaluate full potential (and discover all caveats) of the Sony AF systems, which differ between those cameras from CDAF only (Sony A7R and A7S) to hybrid – combining contrast and phase detection (Sony A7 and A7M II).

Continuous AF and subject tracking were not tested at all. We did few tests of subject tracking and AF-C in the past, using “4D” Hybrid AF of Sony A6000, but results were very inconsistent and while we are working on new methodology to put those AF tests together, I am afraid that without dedicated project backup (financial and time wise), we won’t make any breakthrough soon.

Following tests are thus supposed to give you just an rough idea of what you can expect in similar situation and settings with those 4 cameras and how they differed between each other.

1.st AF Test – Full focus throw

In this test we focused cameras close to the lens minimum focus distance (at 200mm), where high contrast target was placed. Using DMF focus mode, we moved focus to infinity and finally half pressed shutter once again to initiate full focus throw of FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS at 200mm (from infinity to mfd).

We repeated this test several times using different focus area setting, but we couldn’t find many variation, so we’ll present you “Wide” focus area only. Out of 10 full focus efforts with each camera (at wide angle area), we selected one shot, closest to the average time for enclosed video. With this set-up and solid lighting conditions (daylight, overcast), all 4 cameras were rather consistent in focusing, varying to max 0,06s between the efforts.

Focus accuracy was also very good, and we can’t see any field relevant deviation that would worth mentioning (slight differences in per pixel sharpness can be seen, but they are very small and could be related to other factors).

Camera and lens (as in all other tests here) were fixed on a special heavy duty Gitzo Systematic tripod and we were using custom made counterweight for Sony A7R to minimize effect of shutter shock.

Here is our target and indication of available light

We obtained following results:

Camera	Time
Sony A7MII	0,68s
Sony A7S	0,72s
Sony A7	0,78s
Sony A7R	0,84s

In our opinion, all 4 cameras performed well and as expected. Sony A7M II was fastest of the 4, with A7S and A7M II just a tad slower, while A7R was slowest. In reality, those differences could have effect if continuous mode would be tested, but for Single shot AF, they shouldn’t make big difference. However, in a single shot mode, Sony A7R needs much longer time to get ready for the next shot (larger files), and A7S is fastest in this regard, and this might cause loss of the right moment in certain situations.

2nd. AF Test – Refocusing at 15M distance

The idea of this test was to see how much it takes cameras to refocus from the distance of approx. 20M to the distance of 5M and back. This kind of refocusing might occur when camera is in wide or zone focus area, and it decide to refocus from the object that is close to us to the object that is distant and back. (Imagine soccer game and switch of action from back to front and back again).

Following test is simulation of this behavior and we used video editing tools to measure the time. Reason for that is simple – we weren’t able to control camera AF algorithm responsible for refocusing decision, so we needed to simulate it using two focus attempts and bringing them together in the edit room. To make the test more accurate we placed two high contrast targets at the distance of 15M from each other and performed the test as following:

a) We set Flexible (Medium) spot on the distant target and acquired focus.

b) We moved the flexible focus to the close range target and started to record video.

c) We half pressed the shutter to let the camera refocus to the close range target.

d) We moved flexible spot focus to the distant target and half press the shutter to let the camera refocus.

e) We cut both sequences bringing them together using green square box confirmation and time code to measure whole (joint) process.

Here are our two targets for better orientation

We obtained following results:

Camera	Time
Sony A7MII	0,76s
Sony A7	0,76s
Sony A7S	0,80s
Sony A7R	1s

Please don’t consider those results relevant in terms of absolute numbers. We are just trying to show how cameras differ in AF speed and accuracy. We can see, that Sony A7 and A7M II are slightly ahead of A7S, but Sony A7R stands clearly behind in this case (approx. 25% slower)

3rd. AF Test – Low Light

We finally moved to the studio to try AF in low light conditions.

You can try to emulate how much light we had, if you set your camera to 1/100s, f/4 and 5000 ISO. You should obtain something like this:

(You can also put your ISO three stop lower to 1280 ISO and it should be almost dark on LCD (when exposure effect is set to ON)

Just to give you the idea about light level.

This time we will show you 4 attempts using 3 slightly different focus settings for each camera separately.

1.st – Flexible spot area, placed at dolls eye

2nd. Wide AF area

3.rd Wide AF area with AF Illuminator set to Auto

In order to keep those tests comparable we let the same shutter speed (as on day session), but we also let the camera to correct aperture of needed to normalize for EV. (We already wrote about differences in EV at same settings) Camera were usually using f/4.5 with very few exceptions at f/4.

At the end of each sequence, we measured average time that will be shown later in the table. Take a look please at the time code window in the image that indicates time measured for each attempt.

Sony A7

Sony A7 MII

Sony A7S

Sony A7R

 

Camera	Flexible Spot (Average Time)	Wide AF Area (Average Time)	Wide AF Area, AF Illuminator ON (average Time)	Average Total
Sony A7S	0,61s	0,63s	0,60s	0,61s
Sony A7 MII	0,80s	0,95s	0,88s	0,88s
Sony A7	1,06s	1,12s	1,10s	1,09s
Sony A7R	1,32s	1,21s	1,24s	1,26s

What we conclude about AF speed out of those tests?

• In the day light, cameras with hybrid AF (phase detection + contrast detection) A7 MII and A7, are able to lock focus slightly faster than A7S and notable faster then A7R.
• In the low light, advantage of phase detection is neglected and Sony A7S shows its strength, leaving A7 and A7M II  behind. Sony A7R in low light is very slow.
• All four cameras had shown very good accuracy in all situations. This relates to our specific conditions and AF-S mode.
• We can’t really say, that one or other AF area mode or usage of AF Illuminator support, had any significant effect in our measurement. Slight differences could be observed from the table above though, so you might consider them as indication of suggested settings in similar conditions.

Butterfly test:

We can keep testing those cameras all day long, but we would never be able to cover all possible aspects of use.

My colleagues who helped me with the testing, are all great photographers, but none of them is using mirror less bodies for their regular work.Therefore I wanted to include one subjective test, based on a specific assignment, just to see which camera I would like most for that particular task.

While I am also not using mirror less cameras for my paid projects, I do shot often with Sony A7 either for the purpose of verybiglobo blog or for myself. This makes me familiar with most of the settings and specifics related to those cameras (but I admit that there are much more experienced users of those bodies, as well as much more talented photographers then I would ever be).

Because there were so called “butterfly time” in our local botanical garden, I took all four cameras there, planning to spend equal time with each and see which one was most pleasing to work with and which one captured most keepers.

I used two lenses – Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS and Minolta AF 100mm f/2,8 Macro (with LA-EA4).I tried to benefit from the strongest selling points of each camera during this test. (Sony A7S will let me shot at highest ISO without much noise penalty, Sony A7R will allow me to shot from larger distances, so I could stay further from butterflies or even using fence or other support to stabilize myself, Sony A7 M II si supposed to have 5 axis stabilization which should show its strength especially at close distances, Sony A7 is the camera that I use the most and know best).

This little table bellow shows result in absolute figures, after spending 45 minutes with each camera, combining two lenses randomly:

Camera	Sony A7S	Sony A7R	Sony A7M II	Sony A7
Total shots taken	78	64	128	86
Acceptable focus	28	21	64	32
Critical focus	8	2	36	17
Keepers (artistic value :-))	1	x	3	x

As being written above, this is subjective test at very specific conditions and your results might (and will) vary.

It was crowded on location and very hot and I wasn’t in the best mood for the task, so that certainly took its part on lower keepers rate than I would expect.

The very last column (shots that I kind of liked) is influenced significantly with used lens. I liked much more Minolta 100/2.8 Macro outputs than Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS which is to be expected, and thus in body image stabilization of Sony A7 M II helped a lot. I also used Sony A7 M II as the first camera to walk around, and fresh inspiration helped to discover more original angles and POV.

At the end, I enjoyed working with Sony A7 MII for this type of shooting most, followed by Sony A7 and A7S. But the image that I liked most (image of the day was captured with Sony A7S.

I can’t really comment on Sony A7R, because I again experienced very inconsistent output, probably affected with shutter shock induced blur, or my wrong selection of shutter speed/aperture combination.

Bellow are 4 representative shots from each cameras:

Sony A7 MII

Sony A7S

Sony A7R

Sony A7

At the beginning of this article, we weren’t sure what we want to find out, testing all 4 Sony FF mirror less cameras, recently available on the market. (BTW there is an important announcement coming shortly as far as we were informed. Best source to follow news about Sony is Sonyalpharumors site – http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/ We appreciate all hard work that Andreas put in it.)

Many would expect to see some kind of ranking, score, winners and losers, but in reality all four Sony cameras are very good, and most importantly all of them have their strong and weak sides.

This article should therefore give an basic guide for consideration which type of camera would work best for different shooting scenarios and we won’t give any prizes for winners nor blame for losers.
Sony A7

 

 

This camera was the first (together with A7R) affordable FF mirror less camera on the market and it comes slowly to the end of its life cycle. However, this also means that you can find it now for very good prices, and that makes it best bang for the buck in the overall FF world recently.

 

This is great multi purpose camera and when you learn to live with its biggest caveats (sensor reflection, lossy RAW compression, no protection sealing of any kind, slow initiating from power off, short battery life, problematic AF for fast moving subjects and somewhat less convincing build quality than its peers – plastic front panel and mount spacer) it will reward you with outstanding IQ up to the ISO 3200, small and light body, lot of fun with using almost any lens ever made with appropriate adapter and as already mentioned – affordable price.

 

Most of those shortcomings listed above, can be worked around to certain extent – you can avoid direct light sources in the night scenes, you can carry more batteries (they are quite small), you can learn to put its focus abilities to its best (at the end of the day, it’s not so long ago when this level of AF would be considered as a miracle), lossy compression will stay probably unnoticed by vast majority of users etc.

 

We would recommend Sony A7 to anyone who wants to try FF, wants to try mirror less or is looking for a great back-up camera for landscape, travel or portrait photography.

 

 

Sony A7M II

 

Without a doubt, Sony A7 MII is in our opinion most versatile Sony A7 type camera recently. While resulting image quality is almost same as with cheaper Sony A7, it brings many improvements above its predecessor. In body image stabilization (IBIS) is great acquisition, especially for legacy lens lovers, but also for two remarkable lenses from Sony native E line – FE 35/2.8 ZA (I don’t really like this lens because of its significant vignetting, but it is modern, very sharp lens that rightfully has many proud owners), and Sony FE 55/1.8 ZA.

 

At the price of a larger form (and slightly heavier weight), ergonomics were improved (at least in our opinion) with larger grip and shutter placed at more convenient position. Additional customizable button is also valuable.

Possibility to transfer live view image, when using tethered shooting from computer is another great improvement for many.

 

There are several other small improvements such as reduced sensor reflection, improved AF in low light, advanced features for video shooters, and many other for the still reasonable price in comparison to FF DSLRs.

 

We would recommend Sony A7M II to anyone who loves to shot with manual and legacy lenses, for family, holiday, multi-purpose photography, for hand held macro shooting (it should be great with the Sony Macro 90/2.8 lens which we unfortunately couldn’t get for testing yet) and even for studio work.

 

 

Sony A7S

Most expensive of Sony A7 bodies, Sony A7S is also most specialized camera, originally targeted mainly at videographers.

It has great tactile feeling in hands, with cold magnesium body, all metal mount, metal control wheels and classy blue “S” in the name Its super sensitive sensor is at the same time main advantage and main disadvantage, depending from which side you look at it.

At only 12 Mpx, it is more than enough for 4K video, but not really enough for landscape or wildlife photography at recent standards. We don’t consider its low resolution to be limiting for most uses however, especially if you don’t need to crop by much, or you don’t need to print big. On the other hand, we also don’t see much benefit of its super sensitive sensor up to 6400 and more.

If you need to shot at higher ISOs, Sony A7S becomes clear recommendation and with stabilized lens such as Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS or 16-70 f/4 OSS ZA, it opens new shooting possibilities in situations where most other photographers would rather go to the pub for beer or two (if they find their way in the dark). (With such a Mitakon 50/0,95, Sony A7S become night visor, that can capture things that you can’t even see with bare eye).

We shouldn’t forget to mention one of the biggest feature of Sony A7S – silent shutter. That is amazing feature for many situation where shutter sound will disturb your surrounding. (One of my colleagues works as feature film official photographer and he has to build sophisticated and clumsy sound blimp for its Canon, in order to be able to shot during filming. When he asked me about new cameras that I can recommend, Sony A7S was first to mention. Not that he will switch soon, there are many issues to be solved, especially in AF department, but the future looks bright…)

 

We would recommend Sony A7S to videographers who still wants to make a still shot or two, for experienced photographers who are shooting often in low light conditions or need silent operation. Great for event/party photographers (night concerts e.g.), certainly worth considering for wedding photographers at least as a second body, and in my opinion, great street photography camera.

It is also good proposition for astro-photography (with proper modification) if the resolution is not limiting factor.

Sony A7R

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. That is in short our opinion about this Sony A7 camera.

We feel that from the beginning it was most compromised mirrorless camera introduced by Sony, all in an effort to bring the ultimate IQ machine to the market. Sensor itself is still one of the best recently and it compares favorable with its Nikon peer in D800E in most of the tests that I performed over years.

However, shutter shock issue can induce the blur in resulting images and neglect the advantage of high resolution.

This is typical for Sony A7R – there is lot of good but something that puts it back at the same time…

High resolution but possible shutter shock and possible issues with lossy RAW compression (not that your every image will suffer from both, far from that, but especially shutter shock is something that most users will experience, would they want to admit it or not).

– Great build quality but lens mount with plastic spacer and no signs of any kind of environmental sealing.

– Sophisticated AF functions, but overall rather slow performer.

– Superb for landscape (in theory) but problematic corner performance with many UWA lenses.

We still believe that Sony A7R deserves your attention though. In right hands with a bit of patience, it will give you best IQ not only within Sony A7 family but within most recently available FF cameras (that will most probably soon change with higher resolution sensors announced by Canon and to be announced by.. :-))

We would recommend Sony A7R to experienced photographers, mainly for static subjects such as landscape or astro-photography. It works well with Sony FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA lens for those purposes.
It can serve also as a great studio camera for table top or product photography, (even if used rather as digital back for multi-exposures). We can’t recommend Sony A7R for casual photographers who are looking for multi purpose camera to capture their kids, pats and other family members. To be fair, it was probably never meant to be used that way and that’s why Sony has many models available.

It took as lot of work and time to put this review together, so we hope that you’ll find it useful. While new Sony A7 cameras are around the corner, we still believe that this little comparable article could remain attractive for many, because some sort of target group segmentation will remain.

(If you have any questions related to those 4 cameras, please use our forum to post them. Forum engine is better suited for longer discussions and it gives possibility to embed images if needed. It can also keep more replies than comments section. You can find related forum link here – http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/sony-alpha-a7-family-which-one-to-choose/)

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Please consider to help VERYBIGLOBO to bring more reviews, by using these affiliate links to buy anything from your favorite seller. It won’t cost you single penny, but we should receive small contribution from the seller. Thank you in advance.

I had opportunity to briefly play with new full frame lenses for Sony E mount cameras – Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2 and Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8.

On a local Zeiss promotion here in Prague, both lenses were available for photographers and journalists, but we were informed that they are still prototypes, not final production versions, so we might expect some IQ differences in comparison to existing sample images on the web.

Therefore I took only two fast snapshots, which is something like taking a sniff from the recently opened bottle of Petrus Pomerol.

The first hint of the image quality is very promising though, especially in terms of CA and corner crispness.

I would like to share with you few thoughts about Batis, and some informations that I collected on occasion.

Look and feel (and built quality):

The fast ZEISS Batis 1.8/85 lens produces attractive portraits with harmonious bokeh.

The ZEISS Batis 2/25 is a compact wide-angle lens with an 82° image angle (diagonal).

Traditional Zeiss lens fans will have hard time to get used to Batis lens design and tactile feeling IMHO. Not because they are cheaply made, but because they are made in line with modern trends. In fact, they go even beyond recent trends, introducing at least one feature not seen before – OLED display with a distance and DOF scale.

Lens are supposed to have high quality aluminum skeleton, covered by polycarbonate with a soft rubber coated focus ring, and sealing that should prevent moisture and dust to enter the lens and camera.  Zeiss representative confirmed that everywhere where there is a small gap in construction (between body and focus ring e.g.) there is sealing bellow (except on the front element which is always the case and thus filter is recommended to complete sealing). GREAT, well done Zeiss!

Both lenses reminds Zeiss Touit in appearance and quality feeling. That is good news for many and not so exciting for few, who still consider that only metal and glass should be allowed in a pro lens design.

Both lenses balance nicely on Sony A7 camera (I assume that balance will be even better with Sony A7MII, but didn’t tried it yet).

In a conclusion – I had mixed feeling at a first glance regarding design and build quality of Batis lenses. There is nothing wrong with look or feel of them, but also nothing that will cut that nostalgic string in me, which still wants me to believe, that purity in design and sheer quality and solidness of used materials are necessary in order to make me enjoy, working with the lens.

On the other hand, Batis design was inspired by Otus line, (they look very similar, but they are much smaller and lighter of course) and whatever I think about it, Otus are top notch lenses in their categories, made for professionals at the first place.

So my dear ego, stop being so conservative!

BTW I was just thinking how hard it probably was for Zeiss management to go in this direction.

Zeiss was known for ultimate optical and build quality of their lenses, but they were also considered as a conservative brand, not willing to put even AF in their lenses. (You could find lot of PR materials, explaining why Zeiss prefer manual focus.) Optical image stabilization in the lens? Common, you got a be kidding! That’s for mainstream brands and lenses, not Zeiss optical instruments. But as we know from fairy tails – time is passing, as is his wont, relentlessly and incessantly…

Suddenly, not only AF and image stabilization went into Batis, but even the fancy OLED display showing focus distance and depth of field. Will Zeiss shift its image from quality to innovation or will they succeed in merging both, remains to be seen.

Features:

Much more important for users will be image quality and convenience of the new features…

There are four key features with Batis lenses:

a) weather sealing that I mentioned above. Great!

b) AF. We should see how fast and reliable it will be from the start. Both lenses should be optimized for hybrid autofocus  (Touits needed firmware upgrade for PDAF), so I hope that AF will be at the same level as with native Sony lenses.

c) Batis 85/1.8 has optical image stabilization. What wasn’t really clear is how it will work with A7MII (and presuming newer Sony cameras) with IBIS. I was trying to find out who helped Zeiss with AF and image stabilization, but this information is either confidential, or representatives simply didn’t know the answer. Best I could get is that Zeiss cooperates with a large number of third party suppliers, and they also have close relation with Sony. Most frequent opinion on the web is that it is Tamron who stands behind OSS at least. I doubt that Zeiss had much to do with IS development anyway, so I would expect similar effectiveness as with other recent OIS systems. (3-4 stops)

d) OLED. Is it fancy marketing gadget or useful feature? Batis are, just like Touits (and unlike great Loxia lenses), equipped with electronically driven focus (focus by wire). This is important to consider when we think about OLED, because the problem with all Sony recent AF E mount lenses is that they don’t have hard stop and focus scale. Only way to see focus distance is to read EXIF after you take he shot. In that context, Zeiss certainly deserve all the credits for trying to improve and solve one of the serious issue of the fly by wire technology – preset focusing or focusing in a low light conditions.

How useful OLED will be, we should see in practice, but as Zeiss representative mentioned, don’t expect ultimate precision. “You can’t use it to measure distance between the walls in the room. It’s not that precise” Zeiss representative said, “but it still can be very helpful in many situations”.

For the first time, zone focusing should be realistic with focus by wire  Sony E mount lenses and it remains to be seen, if it will be precise enough. While focus ring will keep rotating endlessly, just like with other E mount AF lenses, OLED will show the symbol (infinity and arrow) to let the user know, that turning focus further will not affect focusing from certain position.

Infinity hard stop remain big unknown though. Problem with infinity stop are production tolerances (on the lens and the camera) and we shell see how they will work together once the production starts.

Zeiss representative even mentioned the possibility of individual adjustment for the infinity hard stop, if they find it effective and economical. (Send the lens and camera to the service for perfect (manual) calibration). If that ever happen and infinity mark on OLED become reliable (at least at some temperature range), it will be huge help for astro-photography or low light photography in general.

Price:

Price is lower that I expected, but still high for most. Batis 85/1.8 will go for just above 1000 EUR (1069 I think), while 25/2 will be around 100 EUR above it.

We are looking to receive both lenses for testing very soon, so if you have any questions in advance, I am opening the Batis forum here – Zeiss Batis Lenses. While you are welcome to post comments bellow this article, forum engine is better suited for longer discussion and image embedding.

There are more!

Apart of Batis lenses, we are looking forward to September, when Zeiss will celebrate 125 years. We were told that there will be new Otus and new Loxia lens/lenses, among many other surprises. We should visit Oberkochen in September, to share with you all news. Exciting times are coming…

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Introduction:

We were among first reviewers to post full res samples from Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar T* lens announced just before Photokina 2014.

Unfortunately we weren’t able to get testing sample of the lens soon enough after release and thus we lost interest to make a full review, but since we finally got one from the local Sony PR agency (Bison&Rose Prague), we decided to make at least very brief comparison between it and another Sony WA zoom made for APS-C sensor size – Sony 10-18mm f/4,0 OSS SEL which we reviewed some time ago – http://www.verybiglobo.com/sony-sel-1018-f4-oss-sony-nex-7-rolling-review-part-i/

Before FE 16-35 was announced, many users have been relying on its smaller brother – SEL 10-18 even on Sony full frame A7 camera bodies, because it covered larger sensor from 14-18mm or so about, without significant vignetting. That seems to be good reason to compare those two lenses at least in the overlapping range.

Another reason for this comparison is existence of two systems – Sony A7 with FE 16-35 vs Sony A6000 with SEL 10-18, which in theory should give us same resolution at comparable field of view.

In other words – is there a good reason to pay more and carry larger combo (A7 + FE 16-35) when there is smaller and cheaper alternative (A6000 with SEL 10-18) which at least for landscape or travel purpose can serve equally well. Or not?

Because we had FE 16-35 together with other Sony equipment for only 14 days, we didn’t have enough time to think over this comparison well and in reality we got only two and a half days to collect some test data. Anyway, even if this comparable review is going to be bellow Verybiglobo.com standards, it still can give you few answers…

Specification:

Build quality:

Comparing both lenses, we can follow similar design pattern – lightweight metal body, precise assembling, modern design. Both lenses are nice instruments in hand and they both communicate premium quality. Being twice as heavy, Sony FE 1635Z feels more reliable for heavy use in comparison to SEL 1018 that is rather fragile, but that probably hasn’t nothing to do with a real life use.

It is interesting to note that SEL 1018 balances nicely on Sony NEX 7 and A6000, while the same can be said about SEL 1635Z and Sony A7/MII/R/S, but not when lenses are used in opposite combination. SEL 1018 on Sony A7 cameras is too light and system is slightly back weighted, while SEL 1635Z is front weighted on APS-C bodies. This makes perfect sense, but it is worth considering, if you are planning to use either lens on its non native sensor size body.

SEL 1018 on FF? Yes, you can use this APS-C lens on Sony A7 cameras with some limitation, because it renders large projection circle, and many Sony A7 early adopters didn’t really have better option for UWA zoom till new FE 1635 wasn’t introduced. However it was always heavily compromised solution, no matter how some company promoters (read pro photographers) tried to convince you otherwise. If you are interested, you can check projection of SEL 1018 on Sony A7 in our old review – http://www.verybiglobo.com/sony-alpha-a7-ilce-7-and-sony-alpha-a7r-ilce-7r-vs-rest-of-theworld-part-1/ (Scroll down to the middle of the article)

MTF (theoretical, from Sony site)

Using Imatest based tests (computing MTF and aberrations from captured chart) for UWA and WA lenses is always tricky and I am not sure how much relevant obtained data are for a regular users.

Anyway, here are official data from Sony (those are theoretical, computer generated and real life figures would be quite different).

We can’t directly compare those charts, because of different inputs, (only 10 lines pairs/mm are somehow comparable, and focal lengths are different anyway), but we can see the tendency characteristics of both lenses.

a) Wider end is overall better than longer end (10 and 16mm are slightly sharper than 18 and 35mm FL setting)

b) SEL 1635 seems to have somewhat less CA wide open, especially at 16mm

c) Center performance doesn’t improve by much when lenses are stopped down (it is already excellent wide open), and corner performance does improve, leaving weaker only extreme corners.

All those readings are rather typical for this type of modern lenses and in my honest opinion, we are at the point when UWA zooms are perfectly usable for professional work, no matter which one you choose. In comparison to my old Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II zoom, both of Sony lenses are more evenly sharp across the frame and sharper in the center, which is great improvement.

Distortion and vignetting:

UWA and WA lenses have usually more issues with distortion at the first place, followed by vignetting, flare resistance, spherical and chromatic aberrations. In most shooting scenarios that I have experience in my career, those attributes were much more important than absolute sharpness (smeared corners could represent a problem though).

When it comes to distortion and vignetting, we have to consider that most modern lenses are designed with in camera (or external post processing) software corrections in the mind. Sony apply some of those corrections during file processing in camera, as we have been writing here for long time already, so it is hard to speak about optical qualities of the lenses when it comes to those values. Many people rightfully argue, that it doesn’t make sense to test those lenses without software corrections (some of them can’t be disengaged anyway), while others argue, that every single software correction results in loss of resolution.

Without lens correction applied, Sony SEL 1635Z has pronounced barrel distortion at 16mm of above 3% in our measurement, while with correction set to on, distortion stays bellow 1% (around 0,7%) which is great result. Sony SEL 1018 shows lower distortion uncorrected of around 2%, and with correction applied it comes to similar values as its bigger brother (0.8%). In both cases, we can notice slight loss of resolution in the middle part of the image, but really nothing that should affect your images in any way, until some very specific purpose.

At longer end, both lenses shows light pincushion distortion but it stays, even uncorrected, in a very reasonable range of around 1%.

Bellow is a set of the images where you can see uncorrected and corrected version next to each other, just use the slider in the middle to swap between images.

Sony FE 1635 at 16mm

Sony FE 1635 at 20mm

Sony FE 1635 at 24mm

Sony FE 1635 at 28mm

and Finally – Sony FE 1635 at 35mm

We can follow how pronounced barrel distortion change toward pincushion distortion with increasing focal length. Corrected files looks good and the only remaining question is  – how much we lose of the original resolution with software correction.

Simply said – basically nothing for most users.

Only in the very critical applications we might notice IQ loss on the pixel level.

(This is valid for low ISO shots, where dynamic range is very wide and tone transitions are smooth. Going toward high ISO settings we might notice some artifacts in certain circumstances though.)

While every software developer would apply different algorithm in the lens profile, they are never linear, so resolution loss might not be visible in the extreme corners but in the zone before them e.g.

Nevertheless bellow are two 100% crops of extreme corner and mid frame to give you better idea – how much (distortion) software correction cost in terms of IQ at 100 ISO. We stroked red circles to map areas where differences are most visible.

Similar pattern can be seen with Sony SEL 1018 lens.

Sony SEL 1018 at 10mm

Sony SEL 1018 at 12mm

Sony SEL 1018 at 14mm

Sony SEL 1018 at 16mm

And finally – Sony SEL 1018 at 18mm

Toward longer zoom ends (18 and 35mm), both lenses improves in terms of distortion, ending up bellow 1% (approx.) of pincushion distortion after correction. At 14mm (SEL 1018) and 24mm (SEL 1635Z) we measured lowest distortion without corrections.

Vignetting is one of the issues with both lenses that we are not really happy about. Both lenses, without software correction, shows very strong vignetting at wide ends – SEL 1635Z around 3 EV, and SEL 1018 just slightly less. With correction enabled, they both comes to more reasonable -2 EV and while this is more typical for UWA zoom lenses, we already have applied some software correction to match the results. This mean that if you apply further corrections to get rid of remaining vignetting, noise will be increased in corrected parts. Not exactly right, but for better interpretation imagine that your sky in the landscape shot taken at 100 ISO, will have after correction noise at the corners corresponding to 800 ISO! This can affect resulting image quality, depending on the particular shot. (Even more if you are planning to stitch images together, in panorama mode e.g.)

On top of rather strong vignetting, Sony E mount cameras are dealing with color shifts in the corners from the day one. Part of the problem is in the sensor topping construction, but main reason remains very short flange distance, forcing outer parts of the sensor to collect light under very steep angles. Sony is applying color shift corrections in their ARW (lossy RAW format) files and we can’t really influence it. Depending on the situation, this color correction can further reduce IQ in the corners of the image, especially on the wide end.

Probably for the reasons listed above, Sony produce lenses with wider field of view than officially nominated (and wider projection circle too) and crop them within processing pipeline in order to deal with short flange distance. This might be a reason why SEL 1018 covers even full frame from around 14mm.

While distortion improves toward longer end of the zoom, with vignetting is not that good, because even at longer ends, it is still hefty at above 1% after correction.

Good news is that by stopping aperture down to f/5.6 and smaller, vignetting (and color shift) significantly improves and at f/8 it comes down to around 1EV uncorrected, which is more than acceptable. Considering intended use of those lenses, vignetting become less of the problem then it seemed initially.

Real life comparison:

As we wrote at the beginning, we didn’t have SEL 1635Z long enough to collect all data for full review. We focused rather on direct comparison in few situations between two camera systems – A6000 with SEL 1018 and A7MII with SEL 1635.

The first scenario is the favorite – wall shot.

Yes, we know how stupid those shots are, but because we are not presenting you here our usual ISO chart comparison, we needed to find something where we will be able to compare relative sharpness across the frame. Because of the differences in DOF we also tried to look for the rather flat target, but on the other hand not too flat to be deadly boring.

So it’s wall… At least, we tried to find nice legacy wall

Following image shows selected zones (A,B,C,D) from which we further present 100% crops.

For this test we used ARW files corrected in Lightroom CC with Adobe lens profile.

Uncorrected files will show more distortion and vignetting but because those lenses can’t be used on any other system than Sony E (so far), it won’t make much sense to compare them uncorrected.

Here are respective 100% crop comparisons, at different focal lengths.

Sony A7 + FE 1635 at 16mm vs Sony A6000 + SEL 1018 at 10 (15mm FF equivalent)

In the last row, we added Sony A7 + SEl 1018 at 16mm. As we wrote in the introduction, this combination was used by many owners of A7 bodies prior to FE 16-35 release, because it was only wide option with AF and image stabilization at the time.

Looking at above comparison, it can be seen that Sony A7 + FE 1635 has slight advantage over A6000 + SEL 1018, at widest aperture but not as much as some might have been expected. This is not because FE 1635 is not good, but because SEL 1018 is exceptional little lens.

Last option however shows significant decrease of image quality, especially toward corners but stopped down to f/8 and smaller, it actually come close to other two alternatives.

Sony A7 + FE 1635 at 20mm vs Sony A6000 + SEL 1018 at 13 (approx. 20mm FF equivalent)

This time we included also one of the best wide-angle primes, recently available on the market – famous Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (in ZE – Canon mount with Metabones Smart adapter).

While in the center of the frame, Zeiss has slight edge over other two lenses wide open (Zeiss at f/4), toward edges it clearly stays behind them, with FE 1635 ZA being most evenly sharp across the frame.

(Of course, Zeiss will perform much better on its native body, so this test is certainly not representative in terms of its optical qualities).

At f/8 Zeiss pulls apart, but zooms keep their own and in a real life scenario, it would be hard to see any differences (in the resolution).

Sony A7 + FE 1635 at 24mm vs Sony A6000 + SEL 1018 at 16 (approx. 24mm FF equivalent)

In this comparison we included also A6000 with Sony FE 1635 (at 16mm which gives effectively 24mm FF equivalent on APS-C), and this combination is very good. For some, focal range of 24-50mm is the most used one, and FE 1635 on APS-C gives great IQ in that range. (Better in corners than Sony SEL 1670Z or FE 2470Z)

This combination can be also attractive for those who are considering movement to FF in the near future.

At this focal length all above presented systems deliver crisp, great quality images all the way to the extreme corners and differences between them are field irrelevant (in terms of resolution).

Sony A7 + FE 1635 at 28mm vs Sony A6000 + SEL 1018 at 18 (approx. 27mm FF equivalent)

This was last focal length where we could directly compare both systems (FF and APS-C). We added also Sony FE 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens at its widest focal length.

18mm is near strongest FL for FE 1635 and certainly weakest for SEL 1018, but differences are still rather small.

FE 2870 holds its own in the mid frame, showing declining image quality toward edges and corners at f/4 but improving a lot already at f/5.6. It never gets clarity of other two lenses in the extreme corners, but otherwise it shows its surprising rendering qualities (considering that it is cheap kit lens).

Sony A7 + FE 1635 at 35mm vs Sony A6000 + SEL 1018 at 18 (approx. 27mm FF equivalent)

SEL 1018 can’t zoom to 35mm, so we included FE 2870 again and added Sony FE 3528 ZA in the mix.

While Sony FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA is sharpest of the three, even at this focal length (that is clearly weakest for FE 1635), it is quite hard to notice significant differences, except at the extreme corner. FE 28-70mm shows very strong performance at 35mm too, standing just close third in comparison with other two much more expensive options.

Flare resistance

We didn’t have time to provide controlled test of flare resistance, but we can say that FE 1635 has very effective coatings, especially when used on other than Sony A7 camera (there are problems with sensor reflection with original A7).

Bellows are just two shots with Sony A7MII and FE 1635 in a direct back-lit situation, showing no flare and very little contrast loss. (results for Sony SEL 1018 were presented in our original review of that lens)

AF and OSS

AF was very fast with both lenses, but we experienced some problems with accuracy in low light conditions. (Especially with A6000 and SEL 1018). Lenses themselves are silent, fast and snappy and the AF performance is more dependent on camera body capabilities.

In our experience we would rate image stabilization effectiveness at around 3 EV in average. We didn’t notice any further improvement of hybrid 5 axis stabilization (A7MII) vs standard in lens optical stabilization. We do recommend to switch stabilization off, when you use lenses on tripod.

Conclusion:

Looking at all those results, we can only confirm what we already know from our long-term real life experience with Sony SEL 1018 f/4 OSS. It is outstanding little WA zoom, such a great addition to Sony E mount APS-C program.

On the other hand, Sony FE 1635 f/4 ZA OSS, is equally good and in most areas even slightly better WA zoom but most significant difference between the two are their different sensor size belonging.

On one hand you have full frame system of the exceptional image quality, but you have to pay for it in terms of purchase price, size and weight. On the other hand you have smaller and cheaper APS-C alternative that comes very close in resulting IQ, so close that sometimes we have a problem to tell them apart.

Difference in IQ will start to be more visible with increasing ISO, while even at base ISO, you might notice slightly wider dynamic range of the full frame system.

We also feels that Sony – Zeiss FE 1635 lens, has somewhat puncher colors and slightly better flare resistance. (could be also character of the sensor though).

How tinny differences we are talking about are best represented by following pairs of the images that we took on intention to see for ourselves. We took them all hand-held, trying to simply simulate real life situation of potential user of those systems, testing so not only resolution, but also OSS, auto focusing accuracy, colors, contrast etc. We did post process images to certain extent, trying to get best for both systems, same as we will do with real photos.

We won’t tell you which image was taken with which camera + lens combination. If you’ll be able to tell them apart, you will know which system you really need, if not… well… GAS will make that decision for you.

You can go to our forum section to share your thought and guesses if you like and to discuss this article. We might there also post once a key to used systems.

Here is the forum link: http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/sony-fe-16-35mm-f4-za-oss-vs-sony-sel-10-18mm-f4-oss/

UPDATE!

You can find the correct answer which camera + lens took which image (bellow) on the related forum (link above). There is also link to two full size images on the Flickr for pixel peepers.

(Only A7 + FE 1635 and A6000 + SEL 1018 were used for following images)

Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Set 4

Set 5

Set 6

Sample gallery of Sony A7 and FE 1635/4 ZA OSS

Please help support this page and upcoming reviews and buy through Amazon affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Sony 16-35mm Vario-Tessar T FE F4 ZA OSS E-Mount Lens

Sony SEL1018 10-18mm Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

Sony a7 Full-Frame Mirrorless Digital Camera – Body Only

Sony ILCE7M2/B ILCE7 Mii ILCE7M2/B Mark II Alpha a7II Camera (Body) w/ Sony 55mm F1.8 Sonnar T* FE ZA Full Frame…

Sony a7R Full-Frame Mirrorless Digital Camera – Body Only

Sony Alpha a6000 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 16-50mm Power Zoom Lens
To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

We are proud to welcome on verybiglobo.com our dear friend, great photographer and very skilled DIY equipment inventor – Petr Machan – http://machan.tumblr.com/

Within our tradition, Petr will get very special title – Verybigmachan, which can be interpreted like – very big mac, very big macho or very big Genghis Khan.

We hope to see his articles more often here, because they represent great free support for photographic community. Check it for yourself…

by Verybigmachan:

Transforming Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 lens into very sharp macro lens, preserving full AF functionality.

Did you ever wanted to shoot macro past 1x magnification with AF but didn’t want to pay astronomic prices? There are several solutions, including screw mount magnification filters, extension tubes (AF only with electric contacts) and of course bellows (without AF). Here is however super cheap and super easy solution that you might consider!

All you need is this lens:

The dirt cheap canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6. To convert it to macro lense you need to remove its front lens group.

It might sound complicated, but it is not. The front lens group is held on by three small Phillips screws.

Now after removing the three screws the front of the lens is loose and you can pull it out easily.

This is how the lens looks like without the front lens group

You can test the lens on something small, like those three screws. (It’s good idea to put the screws in the plastic bag, together with removed parts and write the name of the lens on the bag.)

Now you can enjoy your new macro AF zoom lens with magnification larger than 1:1

If you have any related questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

Disclaimer:

Please understand that what you’ll do with your own equipment is purely on your responsibility and verybiglobo.com can’t be responsible for any damage or malfunction that can happen. Your modified lens won’t focus to infinity anymore, unless you put front element back to its original position.

Thank you for understanding.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

I should tell you first – why I decided to make this post.

One month ago, we were eagerly waiting for promised Zeiss Batis lenses, here in verybiglobo.com and we were also trying to find any source to get the new Sony A7R MII body as well as few few other novelties.

Unfortunately, Batis didn’t make it into our office till today (really disappointing, because we really hoped to test them), while A7R MII remained untouchable for us…

Therefore we just felt onto silly season, having no real inspiration or subject to write about.

Fortunately I have planned workshop in the Julian Alps, so there was something to look forward, but I wanted to use this trip to make little “real life experience” review of appropriate device.

We asked Sony local PR agency for help us and they offered Sony RX100 Mark III. Oh well… Mark IV was already on the market, and we really hoped to get it or at least new RX 10 MII, probably even FE 28/2 would do it, but nope… All we could get was RX 100 M III.

Knowing how hard local PR agency is trying, how professional and nice they are, we can only blame Sony for not taking our little market seriously enough, and ourselves for not being able to get into Sony International viewfinder. We’ll keep trying…

Sony RX 100 Mark III it should be than.

Because it is not the latest model, this small reflection will be more oriented toward concept of Sony RX 100 cameras in general, rather than evaluation of the image quality of this particular model or its specific features.

How I met Sony RX 100

This was not my first encounter with RX 100 cameras. I briefly owned both previous models – original RX 100 and later RX 100 Mark II.

While I never really needed compact, whenever I passed around RX100, I was strongly attracted by its miniature size, clean minimalistic design and fascinating set of features packed inside. It reminds me of the legends such as Motorola V3 Razr, Original Apple McIntosh or Swiss Army Knife.

When I bought first model however, I realized how difficult for me is to shot using only rear LCD and I sold it right away.

Then I tried again when Mark II appeared, but probably for the same reason I didn’t use it much, so it had to go as well.

Finally, when Mark III, with built-in viewfinder was announced I… probably lost initial excitement and decided to wait till the prices go down. When that finally happened, mark IV was announced…

Borrowing RX 100 Mark III from Sony, was therefore great opportunity to check, should I consider mark IV or there was more beside EVF, that forced me to sell my models earlier.

After few days of intensive use on location, here are my impressions…

It is sexy!

Orthodox gear-heads would simply fall in love with the look and build quality of this little gem. Remember Canon Ixus? Sony RX 100 is in the same design league but at the same time it has much more technical novelties, bells and whistles that makes us (orthodox gear heads and gear addicts) so thrilled.

Little knobs and buttons, all manufactured at tight tolerances from high quality materials, Zeiss lens, high resolution LCD that can twist 180° for all those selfie(sh) maniacs with short and long sticks (BTW it is useful also for ladies who forgot their pocket mirror, to fix make-up as well as for shooting celebrities on the nudist beach, pretending that you are just taking selfie…), cold and solid aluminum body and then that pop-up EVF and flash – makes it just as what Transformer Primus Optimus is for our kids. (Well I probably play with Primus more often then my 7 y.o. son, but that’s another story.)

If you believe in technical art and if you ever tried to have sex with your shiny toaster, you’ll certainly fall in love with RX 100, no matter which model you choose.

It is handy!

Your smartphone is smaller, but almost anything else around is bigger. Compact size with top technology inside, is the main selling point of Sony RX 100. I actually don’t really understand, why people are so attracted with small mirrorless cameras when they anyway can’t put them in the jeans pocket? Does 200-400 grams really matter, if the camera has to be carried in the bag? Think of Sony A6000 with its kit lens. It is small, but you still can’t put it in the jeans. (If you can, you probably need to buy smaller confection number next time, or to find some fashion advisor). And now, think of Sony A6000 with 16-70 f/4 lens.

Sony RX 100 is a real pocket camera. However, this is true mainly for the original version I. From version II, RX 100 started to grow up and it ends with a slightly fat figure of 41mm (in comparison to original 36mm) wide. You can still put it in the pocket of your pants, but shirt pocket will already be a bit of the problem (also due to the increased weight).

But still, Sony RX 100 is small, very small, while feature loaded camera, that can satisfy not only occasional photographers, but also advanced enthusiasts and professionals.

What it can do better than iPhone and what lacks from mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.

It all depends on what you expect from your camera, or what kind of images you are after…

Let’s face it – vast majority of photographs are made today with smart phones. Even more of those photographs, will never see printer and will proudly contribute to endless exhibition of our beloved social networks.

Sony RX 100 camera will allow higher image quality and most of all – versatility to capture moments of importance.

First of all, there is a lens with an equivalent range of  24 – 70mm, and second – larger sensor that have better SNR than those in smart phones, which should allow better IQ in low light conditions.

On the other hand, while Sony RX 100 M3 is really small, smartphone is even smaller and is always with you. This puts RX 100 in the kind of a gray zone IMHO.

It is not likely that you will carry Sony RX 100 everywhere with you, like you do with your smartphone, and if you already plan to take some better IQ shots, you might as well take a little larger cameras, such as Sony A6000, Nikon V1, Sony RX10 or Olympus/Panasonic MFTs.

What I am trying to say is, that with main selling point of Sony RX 100 being high image quality in compact package, compactness is still lacking behind smartphones and image quality… while very good, it’s not as good as A6000 e.g.

At the end, as with any other photographic equipment, it is all about priorities and compromises. RX 100 M3 is not an exception in that regard.

RX 100 – Perfect travel camera?

Posting this question in the title of this post, I have to look for the answers reflecting my needs and style of work.

For me, it can serve two purposes:

a) for short trips, it can be just an all around compact camera, with the potential to take some high quality landscape images, if the occasion arise.

b) for longer trips, it can serve as visual diary, snapshot machine that is always ready to react and doesn’t pick much attention.

To test it, I took the camera with me, for a 3 day photo workshop trip to Julian Alps, together with my Sony A6000 with SEL 1018 f/4 OSS  and FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS.

Sony RX 100 Mark 3, ISO 400, f/9, 1/160s, 11,22mm (31mm equivalent)

Here is a little summary of my findings.

Disclaimer: Everything written here is related to my style of shooting and my particular needs.

Image quality:

At ISO bellow 800 image quality is very good. It is almost comparable in similar condition/composition to Sony A6000, at least for most screen purposes.

Take a look at a brief comparison between two cameras. (Nothing scientific, just trying to take similar shot with both cameras at best settings for the situation)

If we push ISO above 800, I can see noticeable drop in dynamic range and  increasing noise. This is to be expected, considering sensor size.

At 1000 ISO, image can still be used for most web based presentations, but at the pixel level, quality is decreasing rapidly.

At the base ISO however, shadow pull out latency is outstanding, just like with other Sony sensors. Bellow are two images – first is underexposed RAW and second is same image processed with pulling up the exposure for over 2 EV and shadows at + 50%.

Handling in the field:

I believe that for people who are used to compose and shot using real LCD screen, RX 100 will be pleasing to use. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, my creativity drops tremendously if I am forced to compose using screen instead of viewfinder. It probably has something to do with the sheer focus on the framing and composing, and elimination of the distracting surroundings. Anyway, I need to use viewfinder for my shooting style.

Sony engineers deserve huge respect for the way they incorporated EVF into RX100 body, but for permanent use I found it rather annoying, because of the 2 steps engaging process.

I believe that viewfinder was designed for occasional use and it wasn’t intended to be used permanently. For me, it was rather big letdown, because whenever I wanted to take an image, I needed to press the button for EVF to pop-up and then to hold the camera in one hand, in order to pull back the eye piece with the other hand…

Buttons are small but I didn’t have problem to use them. I can’t imagine however to use this camera in winter gloves. That would be mission impossible. For this type of camera I will really welcome touch screen and I don’t really understand why Sony didn’t include it.

Otherwise I didn’t have much problems to set-up the camera, because I am already using Sony E mount bodies and RX 100 has similar interface.

For those who encounter Sony UI for the first time, I can only advise to train on Playstation prior to the purchase. Seriously, if you are coming from Canon or Nikon, expect to spend quite some time until you’ll become familiar with – where is what.

On the other hand, you will certainly be less conspicuous than those CaNikon boys with a sexy small RX 100.

How Swift is RX 100 Mark III?

If you know how to just point and shot using rear LCD, it is fast enough. In many occasions I just turned around, lift it from my jacket pocket, switch it on and took a snapshot. Not that many were keepers though, but camera did OK, it was my problem with composing at the arm length… (You probably won’t believe me, but I found myself putting camera LCD straight on my eye, before I realized that I need to pop-up viewfinder.)

Auto focus is also OK for most uses, which you might experience on a standard tourist trip (meaning most of static subjects), but it is not blasting fast as one would desire.

Rowboats were ok to track

Running dogs usually won’t be…

Beside the speed of AF (there is only CDAF), there is also problem with focusing area. In the wide zone, camera will often focus on the background instead of the subject in foreground and using selective AF is rather clumsy and time consuming.

Mounting camera on the tripod was easier and worked better than I expected (because of the very tinny base).

Using self timer was most convenient way to prevent shaking on the tripod, but when tripod wasn’t possible, image stabilization did very impressive job.

Bellows are few images taken at rather long exposure times hand held:

1/30s

1/20s

1/15s

and even 1/8s

In this regard, Sony RX 100 M3 was very convenient to use. I could keep it in most situations in my favorite A mode with ISO between 100-400 without need to worry about shutter speed.

For moving subjects I needed to switch on S mode though.

Features:

There are lot of useful features in this small body, and if that is not enough, there are Playmemories camera applications that can be installed additionally. (If you live in one of lucky countries that was acknowledged by Sony, which are only few… otherwise you can forget about applications or find some alternative way to install them – illegally.Sony should reconsider this policy IMHO.)

One of the great feature for landscape photographers is built in ND filter.

ND filter is my bread and butter in the field and I can’t imagine shooting landscape without it. Because there is no filter thread on the lens of RX 100 Mark III (there is accessory ring that can be glued on the front of the lens though) I found this feature very useful. While it can’t give you more than 2-3 EV stops, even that can really help in some situations.

f/11 and 1/0,5s exposure with built in ND filter on max.

f/9 and 1/0,6s with built in ND filter at max

With A6000 and my LEE ND filters I managed to get much longer exposures, but results are not so much different as one would expect.

Another Sony feature that I get used to and really like, is Sweep panorama. While it allows only JPEG output and final image size is rather limited, I still like to use it from time to time, when I need informative, fast to make panorama shot, or when I want to scare my friends with a sound of machine gun).

Implementation of Sweep panorama in RX 100 Mark III is same as with other Sony cameras – easy and straight forward. You stand with legs stretched to improve stability (try to twist one foot on the leg which is in the rotation direction, to improve smoothness of rotation.)

Hera are two of those – panorama snapshots.

Few other notes:

While I understand the need of collapsible zoom with collapsible lens cover, I don’t like it.

It looks too fragile for my liking. Indeed it happened few times that blades which serves as lens cap when camera is switched off, ended slightly sticked and didn’t want to open when I restarted it.  I needed to carefully touch them by finger in order to open the lens.

Battery life wasn’t bad as I initially expected. My A6000 batteries (they are older and have more recharging cycles though) lasts actually slightly less than RX 100 battery. Considering the power zoom and smaller battery capacity, this is very good energy management.

However, if you want to use camera without limitations, you will need 1 or 2 spares for heavy daily use. I would also appreciate if Sony starts to deliver wall charger with camera again. Recharging battery in camera should be emergency practice and not regular behavior IMHO.

Lens is fine, but nothing exceptional. there is quite some purple fringing in back lit situations, distortion at the wide end could be smaller and I would like to have wider end than 24mm equivalent (but I understand limitations of the design).

I also didn’t find pleasing to use RX 100 Mark III for macro shots. You can get close to the subject at the lens wide end, but not so at its long end (where it would make more sense). This makes subject isolation problematic and I basically ended up without keeper from several macro flower attempts.

My biggest complain however is lack of GPS. I would really welcome easy geotagging for the images from this camera, because it will widen up the usability range, allowing me to map and remember locations. I can also imagine lot f usable features related to GPS, such as light tracker, star tracker etc.

Conclusion:

After I returned RX100 Mark III to PR agency, I had a chance to try Mark IV. Mark IV improvements are mainly about processing speed, but otherwise both cameras looks very similar and image quality is similar too. For a while I was tempted to buy new model, but than I made absolutely unexpected decision (for me at least) and I bought Sony RX 10 Mark II instead!

Main reasons why RX 100 is not camera for me…

If I don’t want to carry large camera, I am more likely to stick with my iPhone. It has GPS and it can serve as well as my visual notebook while being much smaller and lighter.

If I want to carry small camera, Sony E mounts are small enough for me. I can’t imagine to carry RX 100 in my shirt pocket (it is too heavy for that) and I don’t carry cameras in my jeans.

Collapsible lens zoom is too fragile for my usage. On top of that, I would like to have at least basic weather protection.

I would like to have standard filter thread instead of glue mounted one.

Who should consider RX 100?

Former compact camera users

If you used compact cameras in the past and you want to improve your photography without changing your shooting style, RX 100 is probably best option right now. It will give you all those creative options that you might want in a small and compact body that you were used to have.

Those who admire design and style

will simply love RX 100. It is recent technological wonder in terms of construction, build quality, design and features. You can take it on company meetings, travel weekends, fancy dinners, and no one will question your taste. (Unless you wear socks with sandals.)

While there are much more capable cameras for low light levels, typical for night parties, theater, concerts etc., only few can come as close in terms of balance between low noise, size and style. (Yes, there is built-in flash too.)

Travelers and tourists

who doesn’t travel because of photography, but wants to have quality and versatile device to capture monuments, architecture and landscapes. I can imagine to travel only with RX 100, especially if I would have to go to the places where public exposure of photographic equipment is equivalent of tickling tiger with a bamboo stick.

Enthusiast and professionals

who are looking for capable and compact back-up camera and visual notebook that will be always nearby. The only caveat is the ability to use mainly rear LCD instead of viewfinder if fast reaction is needed. If that is OK with you, and you don’t need geotagging, RX 100 might be one of the best options there.

Families

who need high quality compact camera for occasional use. I won’t recommend it for running kids or dogs (snails and turtles are OK), but for most other purposes it should serve fine. From birthday parties, to selfies, each family member will find something great about it.

Which RX 100 is best for you?

If you are not sure about the concept of Sony RX 100 cameras, or if the size and weight are most important, you should look for original RX 100 Mark I. It is smallest and recently cheapest RX 100 (if you can find some old stock) and it still delivers 99% of IQ of later models.

For those who want the ability to use external accessories such as EVF e.g. (which is by the way more expensive than camera), or who need WiFi (not particularly well implemented), RX 100 Mark II should be better choice. It also offers back illuminated sensor, but difference in IQ in a real life isn’t that significant. RX 100 Mark ii is also somewhat faster and AF is marginally improved too.

RX 100 mark III is clearly the choice for those who needs occasionally EVF and at recent discounts it might be overall best bang for the bucks.

Finally, if video and speed in general are priority, RX 100 Mark IV is a clear winner. Ability to shot video in 4K at 30 fps, implementation of S-Log2 and image styles, high frame rate and improved EVF, puts Mark IV above its predecessors, but so does its significantly higher price.

And why did I buy RX 10 Mark II?

Oh well… If I find out, I’ll let you know

Sony RX 100 Mark III sample images

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

We are heading to Oberkochen, to the Zeiss Camera Lenses Press Event, where we were told to expect several new lens announcements.

Among others, we expect to see at least one new Otus and one Loxia, so stay tuned and keep checking this rolling report.

We also hope to get the chance to talk to Zeiss experts, so if you have any questions, post them in  the comments bellow and we will try to find  answers for you.

You probably already know, but here they are – full set of new Zeiss lenses – line cold Milvus

This come as surprise to me, especially to see the full range presented at once.

In short, Milvus is a new DSLR dedicated line (Canon and Nikon mount), where 6 lenses are presented with Milvus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 being completely new designs, while other 4 are rather re-designs from existing “Zeiss Classic DSLR line”.

We were able to take some shots with a full line and I will try to give you more info and post images as soon as I get to my home computer. First impression is overall very positive though…

We will have more chances to try lenses tomorrow, so again – if you have any questions, this is best time to post it here!!!

Milvus was certainly the most important announce that Zeiss made today, but there was more…

Unfortunately, we were asked to keep silent for about 1 month, so you might refer to the rumor sites. I am sure, they will tell you all you need to know

Here is official Zeiss PR with a link to the product site:

New ZEISS SLR Lens Family for ZE and ZF.2 Mounts

Six new focal lengths: manual focus lenses optimized for high-resolution cameras

OBERKOCHEN, GERMANY – 10 September 2015
The new ZEISS Milvus SLR lens family contains six focal lengths with ZE or ZF.2 mounts for DSLR cameras from Canon and Nikoni. The ZEISS Milvus lens family with precise manual focusoffers high and consistent image performance across all focal lengths. The new lenses are the ZEISS answer to the current trend toward sensors with increasingly high resolution which, in turn, require higher and higher image quality. They are therefore ideal for current DSLR cameras and also for mirrorless system cameras of the Sony α7 series via an adapter solution and offer the customer excellent value for the money for professional applications. An equally important benefit: their high contrast rendition and low level of stray light ensure that the lenses meet the latest video standards such as HDR (High Dynamic Range) and resolutions of 6K and more. For the user, they open up the field of professional video and cine applications. The ZEISS Milvus lenses will be delivered to dealers in October 2015.

You can find further information here:
http://www.zeiss.com/pr?id=zeiss-milvus-lenses_2015

Here are two promised low res images from Milvus 85/1.4 and 50/1.4,  but consider that I am sending them from my iPad without any pp.

Milvus 85/1.4 (wide open)

and 50/1.4

There is much more to come, but I’ll need a day or two to organize all notes and images.

Stay tuned…

On 10th of September, in the group headquarter in Oberkochen, around 40 journalists mainly from Europe, have been introduced to the new Zeiss lens line called Milvus.

Milvus Milvus is a Latin name for the Red Kite, medium-sized bird of prey, with largest population in… Germany (around 12000 pairs)

By Tony Hisgett from Birmingham, UK (Red Kite 16 Uploaded by Magnus Manske) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

I don’t find it strange, I am finding it terrible in fact – pathetic and without any empathic potential, not to speak about possible catastrophe, when someone on the forum discussion mixes Otus with Gallus Gallus.

Anyway, maybe there are not most creative name givers in Zeiss, but when they start to talk about optics, you can almost feel the passion behind every word. Therefore I am ready to learn to like Milvus word, because the products behind it are certainly worth the effort.

But lets start from the beginning…

Museum and Zeiss Ultra Primes

After lovely brunch and coffee, we were taken for the Guided tour of the Zeiss Museum and part of the production plant, where Zeiss is making their famous cine lenses. Our guide, Mr. Botta with over 30 year career in Zeiss, had shown the impressive combination of knowledge, empathy and passion.

Mr.Botta is gentleman in the dark suite, closest to the camera.

I’ve been working in marketing whole my life and met in person the legends such as Lee Iacocca, but I never visited headquarter of the large corporation nor I met top managers who would show this level of likable, honest, open talk behavior and relaxed relations like with Zeiss experts. Whatever company culture guideline stands behind it, I must admit that I am impressed.

We haven’t seen much of cine lenses production, apart that most of it is done manual as expected and each lens is rigorously tested before it will be offered (for astronomic price) to the market. However in the museum, we have seen the proof that astronomic price of Zeiss cine glasses, might pay off from time to time…

Museum itself is nice, and they are certainly few artifacts that picked my attention, such as Galileo Galilei telescope

which surprisingly wasn’t made by Zeiss

same as Napoleons mono-scope

Wooden hammer and some original optics

belong to the legacy of Mr. Carl Zeiss himself.

I assume that he used this hammer for QC from the very beginning. Question is, was he hitting with it bad glass, or workers who were responsible? )

Cameras used on famous USA Lunar mission, which according to Mr. Botta proves that Americans really landed on the moon.

Sorry Mr. Botta, if that is supposed to prove anything, than I still don’t believe it. I can make such a fancy looking device using two empty soda bottles, shiny towel sticks from the hotel bathroom and one of my old Zenit cameras…

Several slides from the same mission, which were most probably made in some secret dark room near Hollywood, using primitive tricks such as double exposure and under supervision of Jack Bauer himself!

And for me – the most exciting exhibition of some famous Zeiss cameras. (I hope you know that Zeiss was one of the largest camera producers, before Japanese strikes with Canons (and other brands of course)).

Such a Contarex Bulls eye, was probably mechanically most complicated and difficult to produce 35mm camera ever made. (That’s why it wasn’t made for long, and I have to pay now outrageous prices for samples in great condition, for my private collection Well… thank you Zeiss…)

But at the end of the day, I was very disappointed because two of the exhibits that I hopped to see – Zeiss Planar 50/0.7 which Stanley Kubrick used to shot Barry Lyndon movie (ok NASA used couple of those too, but that’s not so exciting), and Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 4/1700, (which I wanted to borrow to make couple of shots of my pretty neighbor through the window) aren’t there.

Gali and Nap stuff and all that fake “Lunar” items are nice to have, but two listed above are MUST!!!!

Seriously, Zeiss museum of optics is a nice place to visit (they even have smallest planetarium in the world, where you can take a short nap during presentation), and you can learn more about it using this link – http://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en_de/innovation-and-technology/zeiss-museum-of-optics.html

Milvus gets nested!

It is very unusual for any company to introduce a whole line of the products at once.

Imagine that Audi marketers will call journalists, lift the white sheets from several cars in the showroom and say – here they are – new A1, A2, A4, A6,A7 and A8 and all new A10. BTW, we have also Q7 and A8 solar, but wait for month or so before you report about them! Now after great lunch and before even better dinner, pick the model you like and have a test drive. That’s it, do you have any questions?

Crazy huh… It has the effect of thrown tennis balls trick. (I learned about this smart demonstration when listening some even smarter presenter, who were trying to impress us with a power of a “single-minded idea”. Throw someone one tennis ball and he/she will most probably catch it easily. Do the same with 5-6 balls at once and person wouldn’t catch a single one. It should work like charm, unless you pick Novak Djokovic to catch the balls).

Before Milvus were thrown on us, we have seen few other lenses that we can’t report about yet (embargo), and listen few words about Zeiss history, dedication, and other marketing mandatory, that we all learned to ignore, but have to listen, to make our bosses happy.

That part of presentation wasn’t most exciting, but at least it was short and kudos to Zeiss for that.

Anyway, by a simple reveal of the white fabrics, all new Milvuses hatched from eggs at once!

Meet Milvus

From left to right – Milvus 50/1.4, Milvus Macro 50/2, 85/1.4, Milvus Macro 100/2, Distagon 35/2 and Distagon 21/2.8. If the line is familiar to you, it is rightfully so.

In general, Milvus is supposed to replace existing “Classic” Zeiss line, consisting of DSLR lenses for Canon and Nikon mount. Things are getting a bit confusing here, so lets proceed slowly.

Recent “Classic” line has another few gems that weren’t transformed into Milvus yet.

15/2.8, 18/3.5, 25/2, 25/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4, and 135/2.

If you check the official Zeiss web – http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/distagont2815.html, you should notice two things:

a) 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 macro, and 100/2 macro are not listed in this “Classic” line any more (they are now available only as Milvus version)

b) there are still 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 listed, but those two are also in the Milvus line.

Explanation is rather simple. Zeiss will slowly move its entire classic line to the Milvus nest, (but that will take some time), while Planar 50/1.4 Classic and Planar 85/1.4 Classic will remain in production, because their Milvus counterparts are entirely different and completely new lens designs!

To make things easier, let me resume:

1. Zeiss Milvus is the name for the new Zeiss DSLR lens line, that will be produced in Canon and Nikon mount and is supposed to slowly replace so-called Classic Zeiss DSLR lenses, except for Planars 50 and 85 f/1.4, which will remain in offer as long as there will be market interest for them.
2. Recently, Zeiss Milvus line consist of 6 lenses – 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/2 Macro, 85/1.4 and 100/2 Macro.
3. Other lenses from Classic line will be slowly moved under Milvus wings.

Dear Santa, this little suitcase with few glasses is all I want under X-mass tree. I am humble by nature…

There is one important thing to notice though… While most of the Milvus lenses are optically same as their predecessors in the “Classic” line, they got the next generation of famous T* coatings. This means that their color interpretation is supposed to be slightly different now. Color calibration among the lens line is very important for professionals, and film makers and thus for certain amount of time, they will be limited in offer, having the choice of most used focal lengths in the Milvus line, or rather specialized lenses in the classic line. Combining both might involve slight color inconsistency. I would try to ask Mr. Nasse, how big problem this could be in practice.

New age, new look!

Well… I am probably not the right person to write about the cosmetic design of new Zeiss lenses. Or taking it from another perspective, I am probably too old already…

This new Latin bird design is modern.

Smooth curved bodies made usually of lightweight but sturdy metal, with a slick rubber ring, lot of color engraving, anodized dark gray body color, weather sealing emphasized by blue (company color) gasket ring, lens hood that fits perfectly with minimal gap between the body and substantial tactile feeling. What’s not to like?

The look. You either like it or not. I might be nostalgic, but I prefer traditional Rolex, Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin look and feel, above Movado or Rado contemporary one. It’s pure personnel preference without any rationals, so let’s move on.

Real stars in the Milvus family – Milvus 50mm f/1.4 and Milvus 85mm f/1.4

As written above, 4 out of 6 new Milvus lenses – 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 Macro and 100/2 Macro, are optically same lenses as they were, but in the new coat (barrel) and featuring next generation of T* coatings.
Because all of those lenses were reviewed in detail by many testers already, I will try to focus on two new optically designed lenses – 50/1.4 and 85/1.4.

Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4

New Milvus 50/1.4 is indeed completely different from old Planar 50/1.4 ZE/ZF.2. It is based on Distagon design (well, I am not sure that this traditional Planar, Sonnar, Tessar etc. designation has a lot to do with new designs, but since Zeiss keeps using it…) with 10 elements in 8 groups in comparison to Classic Planar 7/6. Floating elements design allow equally good performance at difference focal plane distances. This is very important improvement in a real life performance where standard design lenses would drop in performance  when focused closer or further of their optimized distance focal plane. New coatings seems to be very effective in a direct back-light too.

One aspherical and 4 extra low distortion elements (Zeiss call it – special glass with anomalous partial dispersion) helped fighting aberrations and improving resolving power, especially wide open.

Looking at the MTF figures (you can find old Planar MTF here – http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_slr/planart1450.pdf  ) we can notice few things – resolution is significantly improved at f/1.4 across the field, in comparison to the older design and spherical and CA aberration are significantly decreased. According to Zeiss, all Milvus lenses are ready for new generation of digital sensors with ultra high-resolution (no problems up to 60 Mpx and even more). Added protection against environmental influences (rain/dust) is additional and very important benefit.

What could be better?

Light fall off is notable at f/1.4 but much improved at f/4 (BTW I think that Zeiss has mistake in their chart, showing opposite values in the legend). Slightly disappointing is also rather high pincushion distortion for the 50mm lens, attacking 2%.

However all those improvements didn’t come cheap. Price had to be paid in terms of size and weight. New Milvus 50/1.4 weight 875 g Nikon /922 g Canon!!!
In comparison to the old Planar 50/1.4 (330 g /380 g) this is whooping 2.5 x increase! Once again, compromise had to be made somewhere and encouraged by good reception of large Otus lenses, Zeiss decided to sacrifice compactness for maximum image quality at wide aperture. This could probably be one of the reasons, why Zeiss kept original Planars in the game, giving thus option to photographers to prefer property, more important for their intended use.

Considering that at f/4, difference in resolution is not so significant (CA and SA are still better corrected with Milvus though) and that for standard portrait applications, certain level of softness wide open could be of a benefit, it makes a lot of sense to keep older lenses in the offer.

When it comes to the price, other Milvus lenses are approx. just 5% more expensive than Classic ones when they were introduced, but in the case of 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, price difference is rather substantial. Recently Planar 50/1.4 ZE/ZF.2 can be bought for 625 USD, while Milvus 50/1.4 starts at 1199 USD.

Bellow is a little gallery of the product images (both – ZE and ZF.2 versions)

Gallery of a real life sample images from Zeiss photographers

and finally few images that I took on the event with Milvus 50/1.4 and Nikon or Sony bodies

Nikon D610 + Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.2

Nikon D610 + Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 at 1.4

Sony A7 + Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 – bokeh

Sony A7 + Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 bokeh

Sony A7 + Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 at f/8

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4

New portrait lens from Zeiss is probably even more interesting than 50/1.4. It’s specification contain more than one surprise, so let’s take a look at data sheets first

While Otus 85/1.4 is based on Distagon design (as is new Milvus 50/1.4), Milvus 85/1.4 stayed loyal to its Planar roots. What’s even more intriguing is the fact, that new Milvus 85/1.4 has no single aspherical element, which is highly unusual in todays age.

Mr. Hubert Nasse explained, that lack of molded aspherical element was deliberate designers decision, in order to eliminate possibility of so-called “onion rings” effect in the blurred specular highlights (bokeh). To ensure creamy bokeh, while preserving high-resolution and level of aberration corrections, Zeiss engineers used lot of special glass with anomalous partial dispersion in the lens construction. From 11 elements (in 9 groups) if I counted correctly, 8 elements are made of this extra low dispersion glass.

Comparing Milvus MTF with Classic Planar (link – http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_slr/planart1485.pdf) shows significant improvement in the resolution at f/1.4. In combination with creamy bokeh and high contrast preserved by improved T* coatings, resulting image should deliver unique possibilities for subject isolation and so-called 3D pop-up effect. MTF shows a possibility of some LoCA at the edges, but I haven’t seen much of it in a brief tests that I have done, so either my interpretation is wrong, or I haven’t challenge lens hard enough.

This very original design brought however really big increase in size and weight 1210 Nikon/1280g Canon versions are twice as heavy as Classic Planar and much larger too. In fact Milvus 85/1.4 is even heavier than Otus 85/1.4 by small margin. (1110 /1200g)

We should also notice that minimum focusing distance was decreased to 0.8m (from 1m), which is great.

I spent most time on the press event trying this particular Milvus. As a regular lens freak, I found its optical design to be most interesting, showing touch of old school designs, were thinking about complex image character was more important than marketing driven figures, such as MTF. Bokeh that I experienced so far e.g., reminds me by its quality and aesthetic – famous Minolta 135/2.8, but Milvus is as sharp at 1.4 as Minolta at f/2.8. I am very excited to receive Milvus 85/1.4 for the proper testing.

Bellow is a gallery of product shots (Canon and Nikon versions)

and two official sample shots from Zeiss

Finally, there are few shots that I managed to take during press event with several bodies -D800E, D610, Sony A7…

Nikon D800E + Milvus 85/1.4, f/1.4, ISO 400

On the image above, you can see that loCA isn’t problem at all, especially not in the center and mid zone area

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4, f/1.4 ISO 400

Another example of great LoCA correction. If you look hard enough, you might find little traces of the red/green fringing on the grass, but this might be problem only for extreme pixel peepers.

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 f/5.6, ISO 200, studio flash

Focus was on model left eye, but even at f/5.6, right eye was out of focus which kind of surprised me a bit…

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 at f/1.64, ISO 400, ambient light

Focus now moved to the models right eye and there is little shake at 1/100s, either because of me or famous shutter shake.  Still impressive sharpness in this conditions and at wide open aperture.

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 at f/1.4, ISO 400, ambient light

This time there is no significant shake, it’s a razor-thin DOF that causes blurriness in models right eye. But look closely at her left eye. It is super crisp considering ISO 400 and hand-held camera.

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 at f/5.6, ISO 100, system filling flash

Shooting portraits wide open is not something what most professionals would do, unless they are forced to, (or for specific artistic reasons), but what makes this Milvus great IMHO is that bokeh remains smooth and creamy even at f/5.6, while subject sharpness and definition is breath-taking.

Nikon D800E + Milvus 85/1.4 at f/1.4, ISO 100

Even wide open, Milvus deliver great sharpness, while background is exceptionally smooth. As I said, it reminds me bokeh of a famous Minolta 135/2.8 STF

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 at f/2.5

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 f/5.6, fill flash

Great contrast preservation and no flare problems in almost direct back-light. Strange yellowish/green casting is caused by reflection of nearby objects and since I took this shot in JPEG, I didn’t want to spend hours to repair it, so bellow is it’s BW version

Nikon D800E + Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 f/5.6, fill flash

Finally few bokeh tests

All bokeh shots were taken at f/1.4, but at different background distances and focus plane.

Milvus Epilogus

There are 4 more lenses in the Milvus line, but as have been written above, they are optically same as previous versions, and they share most features with 50/1.4 and 85/1.4

Bellow is complete price list for the recent Milvus lenses. Availability is announced for October 2015.

We have new birds in the garden and Zeiss lovers have a lot of reasons to be excited. While some might feel slightly bitter-sweet taste regarding new design and naming policy (we are surely in minority), everything else seems as a well thought, carefully designed and brilliantly executed product innovation.

No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t get the answers who is actually producing new Zeiss lenses. For some reason, I am in doubt that those were produced in Cosina, at least not in the way, classic Zeisses were.
All I can hear is – “we are cooperating with large number of suppliers and partners from Asia”.

I also tried to find out if Batis is original Zeiss design, considering similarities with new Tamron 85/1.8 patent – http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/now-we-can-be-almost-sure-of-it-the-batis-85mm-has-been-designed-by-tamron/ but the official answer of product manager was… official – “We are not commenting on this, Zeiss is not willing to react on any rumors or speculations. Mr. Nasse told me that Batis is original Zeiss design and I decided to trust him. He also admitted that Zeiss is licensing AF and OSS from third-party supplier.

At the end it doesn’t really matter who did what. I was just curious to see, where and how recent cooperation in the lens industry is heading. Those doors remained (rightfully) closed to my curiosity though.

With the introduction of Milvus line, one thing is clear IMHO. Gin was released from the bottle. While 2 Otus lenses, Touit, Batis and Loxia lines were somehow considered as kind of experimental or specialized products, it is clear that they were successful experiments and Zeiss is moving toward innovation. BTW – ZM line is on hold for now, and as far as I have been told, no new lenses in this line are in perspective.

Brand core values such as tradition, experience, high quality, conservative design and precision are slightly shifting toward innovation. Such a move is always a risk, because it takes ages to build reputation and brand core values. Zeiss needs to keep high quality, superior QC, and enough IQ differentiation in order to preserve higher profit margin. On the other hand, traditional photographic market is shrinking and they also need to penetrate mainstream segment. Batis is first move in that direction, but I believe that we can expect even more Latin bird names in the future.

Bonam Fortunam Zeiss!

Milvus products gallery:

New Zeiss Loxia is here. Third in the line (just like in fairy tail, the third son is usually the winner :-)), but first to introduce new, original design.

Loxia 21/2.8 is based on the Distagon construction and doesn’t follow Zeiss ZM line like it was the case with Loxia 35/2 (Biogon) and 50/2 (Planar).

If there is one Zeiss lens to be considered as a landscape No.1 choice, I believe it was Distagon 21/2.8 within classic line (now Milvus).

Now we have new, much smaller, but probably even more powerful Distagon 21/2.8 exclusively for the hottest platform on the 35mm digital photo market – Sony Full Frame mirrorless cameras. (A7 family for now :-))

Put this new Loxia 21/2.8 on the Sony A7r MII and the world of sceneries will open to your fantasy. Small, light, weather protected combo with super high resolution sensor and lens to die for.

While we have seen new Loxia in Oberkochen a month ago, we weren’t able to touch it and thus we are eagerly waiting for the sample to come in our hands.

But since we still haven’t got even Batis 85/1.8 and 25/2, it is hard to give any promises. (Except that we will try our best to get the lens for review asap.)

Recommended retail prices? Well, it’s Zeiss, what did we expect…

USD 1,499 (excl. VAT) or EUR 1,259.66 (excl. VAT).

Bellow is the full Zeiss Press release, together with the lens images:

All images, charts tables, specification and tests in this article are Courtesy of ZEISS

Technical data ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21

* Status 12.10.2015

**refers to 24x36mm format

Welcome to the age of software corrections!

(Look at the difference in distortion correction when in camera corrections are switched to on and off)

ZEISS broadens lens horizon for E-mount full-frame cameras

With the new ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 the company is expanding its family of compact lenses for compact Sony full-frame cameras with E-mount with a super wide angle.

OBERKOCHEN/Germany, 12 October 2015
The latest member of the ZEISS Loxia family is called ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21. It is a super wide angle, developed for compact full-frame cameras with E-mount and with a new optical design based on the ZEISS Distagon. The ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 supplements the ZEISS Loxia 2/35 and ZEISS Loxia 2/50 lenses, which were presented last year at photokina. Especially practical for cinematographers, the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 has the mechanical aperture setting and the de-activation of the aperture click stop, both found on all ZEISS Loxia lenses.

“Since the Sony α7 series came out, the market has been waiting for a powerful super wide-angle lens for compact full-frame cameras. For many photographers such a lens was the missing tool in their gear. ZEISS is now meeting that demand with the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21,” said Christophe Casenave, Product Manager at ZEISS Camera Lenses.

As the latest member in the compact, light-weight family of ZEISS Loxia lenses, the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 offers trusted features that combine traditional photography and modern technology. The electronic interface transmits lens data (EXIF) as well as the focus movements and – if desired by the photographer – activates the magnifying function of the camera. For the sophisticated photographer who does not want to leave all the work to the camera, there are many opportunities to compose thanks to the lens’s precise manual focusing with end stop and the mechanical setting of the aperture (aperture priority mode for the working aperture). As a result, photographers can take advantage of all the possibilities offered by modern compact system cameras with an electronic viewfinder.

Optimal for different types of use

With an angular field exceeding 91 degrees (diagonal) on a full-frame camera, the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 is well suited for nature, landscape and architectural photography. In landscape photography in particular, an exact infinity setting is a critical factor. Here, the precise manual focusing of the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 supports the user enormously. Furthermore, the lens enables creative, naturally proportioned images with a low minimum object distance of just 0.25 meters (9.84”). The ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 is extremely compact and light, making it the perfect choice for travel and street photography.

ZEISS Loxia lenses for video

Ambitious videographers will also discover once again that the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 is a tool that offers optimum creative potential. The mechanical deactivation of the aperture click stop for infinite aperture settings (de-click), which already came with the ZEISS Loxia 2/35 and ZEISS Loxia 2/50, is also found in the new ZEISS Loxia super wide angle. The smooth focus operation with a rotation angle of 90 degrees of the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 allows for the finest variations when focusing video cameras with E-mount, such as the Sony PXW-FS7 or PXW-FS5. “In addition, the identical external diameter of the ZEISS Loxia lenses across all focal lengths simplifies the changing of lenses during shoots, so accessories like a follow focus don’t need to be readjusted,” added Casenave.

Newest optical design with robust construction

The ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 has been specially developed for digital sensors. The newly calculated lenses consist of 11 lens elements in nine groups. The underlying optical design is a ZEISS Distagon. High resolution along the entire image field, low distortion and color fringing, and an appealing bokeh – especially at the maximum aperture of f/2.8 – round out the exceptional features of this lens. “It’s a small jewel offering outstanding optical performance,” said Casenave, summarizing the optical qualities of the ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21. Other qualities include its impressive mechanical quality and robust barrel. Made entirely of metal, the barrel protects the lens and can withstand the rugged everyday situations that professional photographers face, thereby ensuring a long product life. Like the other ZEISS Loxia lenses, the filter diameter is 52 mm. Finally, a special weather protection on the lens mount protects the lens from spray getting between the camera and lens.

Price and availability

The ZEISS Loxia 2.8/21 will be available worldwide starting December 2015. The lens shade is included with delivery. The recommended retail price is USD 1,499 (excl. VAT) or EUR 1,259.66 (excl. VAT).*

6 new Milvuse lenses weren’t enough, not even new Loxia 21/2.8 filled the glass. Zeiss announced another stellar lens, (making it 8 in approx. 1 month) new 28mm f/1.4 from their stellar Otus line.

Lens is supposed to come to the shelves in the second quarter of 2016, so we will have to wait for testing samples, but at least we can study MTF charts and I am sure that first images, will leak soon.

From the enclosed charts, I am certainly not impressed by vignetting. Distortion is acceptable at -1% approx., but for 28mm top line lens, one would expect even better, however I am sure that in camera correction will get rid of it. On the other hand, MTF especially at f/4 looks really impressive.

Otus lenses are targeted mainly to professionals, people who are not willing (or rather can’t afford) to spend much time in front of the computer, post processing every single capture. One of the main goal was to bring optical corrections to the maximum, allowing photographers to send the images to their employees or Internet, basically straight from the camera. At the price of big size, heavy weight and hard to digest price tag, Otus 55/1.4 and 85/1.4 didn’t disappoint in that regard. Zeiss went wider with Otus (and we all know that going wider involve more aberration to deal with), but as with 55 they didn’t go to standard and probably expected FL of 24mm or even 21mm but rather to the more conservative 28mm. It also creates one interesting line of 28, 55 and 85, which is not often represented in the bag of all around photographers, but on the other hand it gives new distinction to the Otus line.

The price is not known yet, but we all know in which range it will probably end…

Bellow is the full Zeiss Press release, together with the lens images:

All images, charts tables, specification and tests in this article are Courtesy of ZEISS

Technical data ZEISS Otus 1.4/28

OBERKOCHEN/Germany, 14 October 2015

With the new ZEISS Otus 1.4/28, users of shorter focal lengths can now also take advantage of the uncompromising quality of the ZEISS Otus family, whether for landscapes, architectural photography or any other images they take with a wide-angle lens. Where details count, the ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 with ZE or ZF.2 mount for DSLR cameras from Canon¹⁾ and Nikon¹⁾ is the lens of choice. When used with modern, high-resolution DSLR cameras, it offers unrivalled image quality unseen until now in wide-angle photography, even with a wide-open aperture.

The ZEISS Otus 1.4/28, a moderate wide-angle lens, particularly shows off its strengths in landscape photography. Even with a maximum aperture, the corners of the image are completely usable, so there are no limits to composition. In poor light combined with fast-moving objects, the lens also excels due to its high speed of f/1.4. While other lenses reveal their shortcomings in correction in night photography, especially when lots of open light sources dominate an image, the ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 boasts a stellar performance. Finally, the latest member of the ZEISS Otus family is excellent for taking pictures of image elements in the foreground, as they take on a greater feeling of depth to the scene due to the wide background and the open aperture; here, the lens’s harmonious bokeh ensures a 3D effect.

For professional photographers

Developed to meet the high demands of professional photographers, the ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 has – like the two other focal lengths in the ZEISS Otus family – inner focusing, a dial window and the well-known yellow labeling of the dials for easy legibility, all of which are already known from professional cine lenses (for example ARRI/ZEISS Master Prime).

The ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 also stands out for its mechanical quality: the soft focus operation with the large rotation angle allows for the finest variations when focusing – something that is only possible with a metal construction. In every focusing situation, the user is given freedom to compose – one of the most important creative factors in photography. An artistic tool is literally put in the photographer’s hands. The robust all-metal barrel with its easy-to-grip focus ring is well suited for a photographer’s demanding everyday work; this ensures a long product life. The optical performance of the ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 is outstanding thanks to its high image contrast all the way into the edges of the image – already at an open aperture. Its consistent performance at all distances (minimum working distance of 0.15 m or 5.19”), the highly detailed images it creates without any bothersome artifacts, and the neutral bokeh in the background round out the excellent image quality of the ZEISS Otus 1.4/28. “With these features the ZEISS Otus lenses set themselves apart from the other ZEISS SLR lenses, such as the ZEISS Milvus family, which we recently presented,” said Christophe Casenave, Product Manager with ZEISS Camera Lenses.

Thanks to these characteristics, the ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 offers users who use a modern high-resolution 35-mm DSLR camera a quality that corresponds to the level of the medium format – without having to invest in large and expensive medium-format equipment.

Intricate construction for uncompromising imaging performance

The lens consists of 16 elements in 13 groups. One of the lens elements has an aspheric optical surface and one element is aspheric on both sides. Eight other lens elements are made of special glass. The basis of the optical design is a Distagon. The special glass has anomalous partial dispersion, as is typical for an apochromatic lens. This corrects the longitudinal chromatic aberrations superbly, which therefore lie considerably below the tightly defined boundaries. Bright-dark transitions in the image, in particular highlights, are depicted almost completely free of color artifacts. The floating elements design (the change of distances between certain lens elements when focusing) allows for unrivalled imaging performance along the entire focusing range, from 0.3 m (11.81”) to infinity.

The ZEISS Otus lens family

When ZEISS introduced the ZEISS Otus 1.4/55 in 2013, creating a new family of high-end SLR lenses, the trade press and users alike were enthusiastic. The ZEISS Otus 1.4/55 has exceeded its promises up to this day. The second member of the family, the ZEISS Otus 1.4/85, which was presented at photokina 2014, continued this success story in the short telephoto range. It enables photographers to express their creativity in a unique way – and that with the unsurpassed high imaging performance for which the lenses in the ZEISS Otus family are known. “The ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 continues the tradition of its lens family. It is the best wide-angle that has ever existed. Now we can offer three outstanding lenses for the widest variety of applications,” added Casenave.

Price and availability

The ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 ZF.2 and ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 ZE will be available worldwide starting in the second quarter of 2016. The lens shade is included with delivery. The retail sales price is unknown to date.

¹⁾ Nikon is a registered trademark of Nikon Corporation. Canon is a trademark or registered trademark of Canon Inc. and/or other members of the Canon Group.

²⁾ relates to 24x36mm format

We finally made it!

It took us over 2 months to complete and organize all images for this comparative review.

I would like to thanks following people for their unselfish help and support in making it possible:

• Ales Mejdrech – Carl Zeiss s r.o. – camera lens marketing and sales manager for the Czech Republic.
  Thank you Mr. Mejdrech for renting us new Milvus and Otus lenses for this review. Because of your kind support, I ended shorter for the price of Otus 85/1.4, which I certainly didn’t need, but after seeing test results, I figured out that I can’t live without it. You are great sales manager, I hate you sir!

• Radek alias VerysmallLobo, man who makes whole verybiglobo project possible by designing pages and investing time and money into it.
  No words to thank you enough.

• Martin Zeljak, my friend, great father and talented photographer.
  Thank you Martin for borrowing us Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ZF for this test. I own you couple of beers mate!

• Vladimir who recently joined our team.
  He is trying to help with the mess that I managed to create in the back-end of our web editing platform.

• James, Anthony, Melvin, David, Michael and many others who sent us donation. Your contribution is very much appreciated!

• Pavel Sinagl – www.pavelsinagl.com Great photographer who helped me in parallel shooting of our models, beneficiary giving this review his talent and precious time.
  The only problem is that his images are much nicer than mine, so please take that in consideration, before you make final conclusion about lenses. It’s a photographer, not the lens.

• Our models – Petra, Viktorie and Anne Nicole
  Thank you ladies for your patience (and beauty, that makes us slightly more excited about testing lenses for free in the freezing Prague winter).

• My dear wife Rozalie for her understanding and support that goes far beyond sanity.
  You my dear, are my biggest inspiration and motivation.

Before we start

Few months ago, I was able to briefly test new Milvus lenses in Oberkochen, Germany. Most interesting ones were of course completely new designed Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4. (Rest of Milvus line has same optics as their predecessors, so I don’t expect any significant shift from already published reviews).

Getting back home and talking to my friends and colleagues, we decided to put in the schedule comparative review of Otus vs Milvus vs Planar at 85 and 50(55)mm.

On Verybiglobo, we are focusing on comparative, field test based reviews, rather than pure LAB tests. Here is short attempt to explain why we do so.

LAB tests are certainly better (more reliable) indicator of absolute optical performance than field tests, but at the same time they are strictly and carefully controlled tests, relying on professional testing devices, targets and software analyzes. For many, those tests will remain main indicator of particular lens quality (even if that is mostly wrongly interpreted, because they are usually system performance indicators, not the lenses alone).

On the other hand, we are evaluating our images (the main purpose why we are buying lenses if you forgot it, as I do sometimes) by our eyes. So in case that you are not genius who can see mathematical formulas as beautiful pictures, visual representation of the MTF charts is not bad contribution to overall lens performance presentation.

Understanding lens testing and related limitations

Even with the LAB tests, it is almost impossible to create 100% fair playground for all candidates, because of too many variables involved in the image processing, including optical deviations caused by sensor covers, camera chamber reflections, micro-lenses, production tolerances, in camera RAW software corrections etc.

With the field tests, this is just more complicated, because we have to deal with change of light, lack of large monitors for focus control and last but not least – live subjects that are permanently moving.

Lenses might be also tested on the optical bench or other, sensor independent measuring device, or their performance figures could be synthetically created, but even if the first method will give most reliable results in terms of optical qualities, same might have little impact on a real life pictures, because cameras those lenses will be used on, will contribute (in good and bad) to the final results.

Respected review sites are giving us (lens/camera) system achieved results but that’s why cross-platform comparisons are hardly relevant, no matter how fancy awarding and evaluation method is created and presented.

On top of system based results, most resolution chart based tests are performed at close to minimum focus distances, where another bunch of limitations arise, not to speak about lens optimization for a certain focal length, usually closer to the infinity (While with floating element lens design, focal plane distance deviations are minimized, they are still present, especially with the zoom lenses).

100% even lighting on the test chart (very difficult to achieve), 100% exact alignment (nightmare), 100% elimination of possible shutter shake and 100% accuracy in achieving critical focus are all necessary if we want to get closer to “absolute” comparison between two systems.

Even if all that is accomplished successfully, proper test should include representative number of production samples, in order to eliminate production variations.

All that being said, I know that almost every lens that I ever tested was somehow different, has stronger and weaker sides and is certainly unique enough to represent specific view to the captured scene. This is why comparing lenses make sense, but it is very important to clarify what are we comparing and what we want to find out with such a comparison.

This review is attempting to compare 3 Zeiss DSLR lenses, of the same focal length and same maximum aperture, not to find which one is best, but to give our readers different point of view on obtained data and images, in order to help them decide, which one will serve better their purpose.

We did our best to give you comparable results, but keep in mind, that with super shallow DOF, high-resolution sensors, breathing subjects, inability to check for critical focus etc., field test results shouldn’t be considered as a merit for absolute sharpness e.g. They are serving purpose of indicating rendering characteristics, (such as field curvature, highlight rendering, CA, spherical aberration, practical importance of distortion, flare resistance etc.)

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Specification and Zeiss data comparison

Using data from the official Zeiss.com pages, we tried to create comparative specification table

Looking at those figures, we might notice few things.

a) Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4, while slightly shorter and with a smaller front element diameter is actually slightly heavier than Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. In comparison, Planar 85/1.4 looks like a… almost pancake lens.

b) Entrance pupil position on Otus 85/1.4 is much further (almost twice as far) from the image plane than with other two lenses.

c) Otus and Milvus have minimum focus distance of 0,8m in comparison to Planar 1m. At the first sight this doesn’t look like a huge thing, but it might be if you need real close-ups. With magnification ratio of only 1:10, Planar is notably behind Otus and Milvus.

d) Not only smaller, but you can have 2 Planars for the price of 1 Milvus (almost) and 4 for the price of Otus. We will write about prices in our final word section.

Let’s take a look at lens construction diagrams. All data and images were taken from the official www.Zeiss.com

All three lenses are based on Planar design. This is actually very surprising for me, because I would expect at least one of traditional Zeiss portrait lenses to be Sonnar based. If we look at the differences between those three lenses, we can basically sum them as following.

Otus and Milvus have both 11 elements in 9 groups, while Planar has “only” 6 elements in 5 groups.

Milvus have no less than 7 lens elements made of special glass with anomalous partial dispersion (Nikon will call it ED) while Otus only 6, but Otus is the only one to feature also aspheric lens element. Planar is relying on high quality standard glass elements.

Different lens design result in different LAB figures. If we are to say which MTF results are most reliable in the industry, we would name Zeiss hands down. Not only they test many samples, they are also testing lenses at infinity and on a high quality testing device. On top of that, man who is performing those tests, Mr. Nasse, is one of the best professionals in the industry.

We tried here to put together MTF, vignetting and distortion charts, obtained from www.zeiss.com, in order to make their comparison easier.

Looking at those results, we will expect to see following performance characteristics (wide open) in our test chart shots

a) Otus 85/1.4 should be sharpest across the frame. Very slightly sharper than Milvus in the center, but notably better in the corners. However we would expect to see some nonlinearity in the corners especially resolution wise, but contrast should remain high. (Ghost image)

b) Milvus should be very close to Otus, in the largest part of the image. Only extreme corners will show light drop in contrast and resolution.

c) Planar should be softer across the frame, there is nonlinearity visible in the large portion of the frame.

Let’s take a look if our estimation will be reflected in visual evaluation of the test chart.

Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 at f/1.4 (Nikon D800E)

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 at f/1.4 (Nikon D800E)

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 at f/1.4 (Nikon D800E)

100% crop of the mid part.

• Otus at f/1.4CenterMilvus at f/1.4

• Planar at f/1.4CenterOtus at f/1.4

• Milvus at f/1.4CenterPlanar at f/1.4

Otus 85/1.4 ZF.2 is very sharp and virtually CA free in the mid zone. Toward edges and especially in the extreme corners, we can see light traces of astigmatism, but CA correction is close to perfect on entire frame.

Milvus 85/1.4 ZF.2 is almost as sharp as Otus in the mid frame zone, but it shows significantly more CA in the form of purple color around contrast edges. Toward edges, Milvus shows less linear correction with areas where it comes close or even surpass Otus (left top corner) but also areas where it clearly stays behind. Because of slightly more pronounced SA toward edges, the character of blurring (smearing) is somewhat different in comparison to Otus. The slight de-centering might be also result of user error, despite our best effort to align target properly. Another possibility would be production tolerance. Both lenses are however among best ones that we ever tested on ISO 12333 chart.

Planar 85/1.4 ZF is clearly loosing this battle, mainly because of pronounced spherical and chromatic aberration across the frame. SA cause glow that is reducing contrast and together with purple fringing it creates softer image. Being the only lens among the three without floating elements, performance of this Planar is also affected by short focus plane distance, used for this test.

At f/4 and smaller, resulting images are difficult to differentiate (speaking about test chart). Planar remain to be slightly less sharp only in the extreme corners, while Otus is really hard to tell from Milvus.

Our visual results thus match the official MTF charts, and what is even more important, our field tests also shows similar behavior in most situations.

If you want to open images in full resolution and/or to see other aperture results, you can visit related Flickr albums. Click on the link with the particular lens bellow:

Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 ISO 12333

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 ISO 12333

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ISO 12333

(If you don’t want to read whole review, but you’d like to evaluate comparative images, you can visit our review image collection by clicking here – Flickr Otus VS Milvus VS Planar Collection)

In order to open image in its original size, you will need to have valid account on Flickr (free to register) and to follow 4 simple steps described bellow:

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Build Quality

All three Zeiss lenses are exceptionally well manufactured. Build quality is among best in the industry, but there are few important differences to mention. The brief look on all three lenses will tell us probably most important thing to know – Planar is significantly smaller (and lighter) than other two lenses.

For some, this difference might be decisive, because size and weight are often one of the key priorities. Beside much more complex optical design with almost double glass elements, other two lenses have their own advantages of course. Let’s take a look on each of them.

1 Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 ZF.2

Otus 55/1.4 was first to introduce new Zeiss DSLR lens design, and Otus 85/1.4 is following in the same direction.

Made of metal and glass mostly, lens feature rubberized focus and aperture ring (Only ZF.2 version). That makes lens handling somewhat more convenient, especially in the cold weather, but on the other side, rubber itself is very prone to fingerprints, light scratches and dust.

Using lens just a couple of days will leave marks on the rubberized parts and probably influence its resale value. On top of that, used rubber doesn’t really look and feel very solid (it feels rather pleasing and soft) and the big question is its durability in time. I don’t want to even think, how much will Zeiss charge for replacing it.

This image is property of Zeiss a.g. Original is published here – http://lenspire.zeiss.com/en/otus-1-485-the-new-world-class-lens/

At the rear side of the lens, we will find 30mm glass element (aspherical) which is positioned almost in line with the contacts at infinity focus settings. Shifting focus toward close range will pull back rear lens element for approx. 1 cm inside the lens, leaving only black tube around. This construction should insure inner reflection free performance. On the Nikon (ZF.2) version we can find rubberized aperture ring above the mount, followed by distance scale in both feet and meters. There is also DOF scale. All numbers and letters are engraved and colored in yellow. The mount itself looks very solid, but Otus doesn’t have weather sealing protection (gasket ring) around the mount, which is shame for the lens in its price category.

This image is property of Zeiss a.g. Original is published here – http://lenspire.zeiss.com/en/otus-1-485-the-new-world-class-lens/

Focus ring, is approx. 30mm wide, which in combination with super smooth focusing ring, delivers unique and excellent manual focusing experience. 270° focusing throw ensures outstanding precision when critical focus is needed. Getting back to focusing, I think that it might have bearings inside, because such an even dampening in its whole range is really incredible construction achievement. Maybe only most expensive Leica or old Contarex lenses would come close to this manual focus enjoyment.

Front of the lens feature massive filter thread of no less than 86mm!!! If you plan to put filters on this lens, another significant investment should be expected.

Lens comes in nice and big paper box, together with all metal Lens hood and both caps. However, you won’t find any carrying box or at least pouch for transporting or storing the lens, which is slightly hard to digest considering the price.

All in all, Otus 85/1.4 is big, heavy, extremely well made, with amazingly smooth and precise manual focusing, huge filter diameter and no weather sealing. Love or hate its “new” design, it says at the first touch – I am professional optical instrument!

2 Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 ZF.2

Milvus lens line, went in the Otus direction. Both lines have similar design, and I believe they are made from similar materials.

One of the key differences between Otus and Milvus is that Milvus lenses are moisture and dust protected (to complete protection, clear front filter is needed). To ensure weather sealing, there is insulation bellow each moving element and also blue rubber ring around the mount. Zeiss sometimes makes moves that is hard to understand. Why their flagship – Otus line lack weather sealing is beyond my understanding, but the fact that Milvus has this feature, is great plus for potential buyers, especially professional field photographers.

31mm rear element is protruding at the infinity settings, while it hides for approx. 1cm inside the lens when focused to 0,8m. (Above image is showing only sealing, the lens is not Milvus 85/1.4)
On the bottom of the lens, we can also find de-clicking aperture switch – which upon selected position allow click-less aperture feature, very useful for video shooting. This feature was first presented in Zeiss Loxia line.

Moving above, we will find rubberized aperture ring, which is rather thin and being close to the camera body when lens is mounted, it might be slightly harder to adjust for people with strong fingers. Further above, there is distance scale in feet and meters and DOF scale. All letters are engraved, so they should be better protected from paint peeling.

Distance scale is engraved on the manual focus ring which extends to the very edge of the lens. Part of that ring is rubberized with a 20mm wide strip, which improves grip. Rubber seems to be the same as on Otus lens, soft and pleasing but very prone to collect dirt and light scratches. The huge focus ring turns up to almost 270° slightly more than Otus, allowing very precise manual focusing. However focusing feels different from the Otus. It is well dampened but not as smooth and fluent as with Otus. Overall, I liked Milvus manual focusing least from all three lenses, but it might loosen a bit with more usage.

On the front we will find 60mm diameter anomalous partial dispersion glass element, that is moving inside-outside with change of focus. 77mm screw mount filter thread is outlined with the lens hood bayonet mount. Lens hood is all metal and it fits perfectly on the lens, making hardly visible spacing distance. With a lens hood, Milvus looks like nice (but huge) monolith device.

Milvus 85/1.4 feels and look really good. In comparison to Otus, with which it shares same number of elements and groups (11/9), it is slightly shorter, but also slightly heavier. Build quality is exceptional but it feels just a little behind Otus when you hold them both in hand. I am not sure why, it could be slightly different paint, metal or probably different focus helicoid construction, most probably is just my personnel imagination.

Lens comes in slightly smaller paper box than Otus, together with both caps and lens hood.

Being weather sealed with large and precise manual focus ring, 270° focus throw and de-clicking aperture, it actually beats Otus by specification. On the other hand, I would like to see somewhat smoother focusing.

3 Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ZF

We got Planar 85/1.4 ZF for test from my friend Martin Zeljak. Lens wasn’t new, but in a perfect condition as you can see from the above image. The difference between ZF and ZF.2 version is in existence of electronic communication with camera for the ZF.2 version. Optically, they are supposed to be same. Planar is very compact in comparison to other two lenses, but its build quality is as good as it gets for traditional design. Metal and glass, no rubber, no fancy features such as de-clicking.

All metal focus ring with fine ribbing, wide just enough for finger grip, has a throw of approx. 245°, which is maybe not as generous as the other two, but more than enough for very precise focusing. Focus scale is engraved in meters and feet, and there is also DOF scale.

Aperture ring (only ZK, ZF and ZF.2 version), is bellow the focus ring and being very thin, it’s sometimes hard to find it without looking at the lens, but it is far enough from the mount for comfortable operation.

72mm filter thread surrounded by lens hood bayonet is the only silver part on the black barrel. Lens hood is also metal and it fits well, but far from Milvus or Otus precision.

Lens comes in much smaller paper box with the caps and hood included.

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ZF is traditional looking lens. It’s a testament of precise craftsmanship, high quality materials and functional design. I love how the lens looks and feels in hand, much more than Otus or Milvus but than, I am old school photographer…

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Vignetting and Distortion Data Comparison

Let’ take a look at light fall off comparison charts

Those data, taken from www.zeiss.com are not directly comparable, because Planar 85/1.8 at f/4 figures weren’t published, but looking at f/1.4, we can confirm that Planar vignettes least from all three lenses wide open. While Otus and Milvus look almost identical, we had a feeling that Otus was slightly worse in this regard. Stopped down, Otus did improve and from f/2.8 vignetting wasn’t notable, but Milvus needed f/4 to get “almost clean”.

At wide open apertures, vignetting is not such a bad thing for environmental portrait e.g, but that is of course individual opinion, and we should say that vignetting of almost 2.5 EV is just too much for professional graded lenses. Considering the diameter of front glass of both Otus and Milvus, it is surprising that smallest Planar has visible better performance in this regard.

We should however also say, that this amount of vignetting, especially on Otus, could have been deliberate design decision, even if Zeiss is known to have weakest optical correction for this aberration across their entire DSLR line.

Distortion

All three lenses have negligible level of distortion, simply nothing that should bother anyone in a real life.

We tested lenses on several live subject and distortion was never an issue.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Field Test – CA Control

We are now approaching territory, where main differences between all three lenses could be noticed. You might have been thinking – why Otus and Milvus has to be so huge in comparison with Planar, what is that extra level of IQ that can justify such a huge difference in price, do I really need to have Otus. Well, after comparing most of official specification data, we could say, that Milvus and Otus are sharper than Planar wide open, mainly because very good control of spherical aberration, but where is difference between Otus and Milvus? Remember, Milvus is slightly heavier than Otus, has similar optical construction 11/9, is weather sealed, have de-clicking aperture ring, and is almost two-time cheaper! So why should anyone consider Otus than?

Zeiss is presenting Otus line as lenses for those professionals who need to get right picture straight from the camera. Apochromatic design is what should distinguish them from the others. CA free.

It is hard to believe, but Otus 85/1.4 ZF.2 is really almost CA free. One of the very few lenses that I have chance to try, where you have to look extremely hard and to push the image to the exposure limits in order to see any form of chromatic aberration. Even when you push it to those extremes, CA is so negligible, that it certainly won’t affect artistic impression, nor it will shift tonality perception of the certain image areas. Is that worth 1300 USD difference in comparison to Milvus? Never ending debate…

In the following images we made few attempts to show you level of CA (mainly purple fringing) around the high contrast edges in the type of images that you might use this lens for.

Scene 01 image is representing background in the park. Very cloudy day with almost white sky.

(Please use your mouse to hover over image to reveal left or right crop. Use arrows bellow the window to switch to the other pair of images. Usually there are three comparative pairs – Otus vs Milvus, Otus vs Planar, Milvus vs Planar.)

Scene 01 f/1.4

While Milvus shows much better correction than Planar, it is still inferior to Otus. Otus is practically CA free in this very harsh contrast situation.

Scene 01 f/2.8

At f/2.8 Milvus improves significantly, leaving only light traces of purple fringing in the most problematic areas. Planar however still shows rather lot of chromatic aberration.

To get completely rid of purple fringing, we stopped the lenses to f/7.1, where also Planar finally get clean contrast edges.

Scene 01 f/7.1

Scene 02 is representing dark contrast on the blue sky. Sunny day, late sun.

Scene 02 at f/1.4

In this situation, difference between Otus and Milvus is even more visible, not to speak about Planar. You might notice very slight remaining spherical aberration on Milvus too, but nowhere near to Planar. Otus remains almost perfect IMHO.

Scene 02 at f/5.6

At f/5.6 all aberrations are almost gone with Planar showing just very light traces of remaining PF.

We would like to remind you, that field tests are not about sharpness. In the scene 02, we might experience slight hand or camera shake with Milvus at f/5.6 and Planar was underexposed you we lifted exposure in pp. For the sharpness (of the system) refer to Zeiss MTF data, or our visual ISO 12333 tests above.

Finally, let’s take a look at the small test target that is good for axial CA correction level indication.

LensCal at f/1.4

LensCal at f/2.8

Spherical aberration on Planar makes the appearance of axial CA less pronounced at short focus distance than it really is. Difference between Otus and Milvus correspond to our field tests.

Field Test – Flare Resistance

Zeiss is known for its famous anti-reflective coatings and on every product presentation that I visited, their representatives don’t forget to mention it. Famous red T* is present on all their products, but we should understand that same letter that repeats for the last 5 or 6 decades, doesn’t mean that coatings beyond didn’t evolve. Quite in contrary, Zeiss is most probably still world leader, when it comes to the efficiency of anti reflective coatings.

Effective anti reflective coating has primarily function to preserve high contrast in the back-lit lighting situations. Secondary purpose is to reduce or eliminate all those nasty flares, that “artsy” photographers love. World of image makers is so strange, that people are paying lot of money for lenses with that Hollywood like cinemascope anamorphic “horizontal” flare across the whole image. At the same time, other companies including Zeiss are striving to eliminate those flares. Our test bellow is trying to give you an idea of the system (Lens on Nikon D800E) behavior in the back-lit situations.

(Click on the images in gallery to open larger sizes)

Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 at f/1.4

Zeiss Milvus 85 f/1.4 at f/1.4

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 at f/1.4

Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 at f/5.6

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 at f/5.6

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 at f/5.6

Otus and Milvus comes very close in controlling flaring and contrast in back-lit situation. Planar is just slightly behind. Overall all three lenses are outstanding in this regard, but of course, none of them is absolutely flare resistant.

Simply said, looking to all those results Otus is basically CA free lens, including very complicated to eliminate – Axial CA. Purple fringing, form of axial CA, which has been problem with many fast and ultra fast lenses (am I right Mr. Canon 85/1.2 L?), is also incredible well corrected. Milvus has very good correction of monochromatic aberrations, almost on the Otus level, but it suffers from purple fringing to certain extent.

However, such a correction of CA by Otus doesn’t come for free. Beside the price of the lens, Otus is using aspherical element that creates “onion rings” in the bokeh highlights. We will talk about this shortcoming later, but it just confirms that there are not better or worse lenses, just different ones.

Planar is worst in terms of optical aberration correction from all three tested lenses. Beside its much smaller size and more affordable price however, we will see that in a real life, its shortcomings are usually hard to notice and special conditions or photographers demands are needed to hit those limits.

>To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Field test – Distant Focus Plane

With following tests we wanted to see how lens performs at distant focus plane. Unfortunately, weather conditions weren’t good at all for this type of testing, because visibility was very limited due to inversion and resulting haze.

As a result, we will present you two scenes and related crops, but don’t make conclusion about absolute sharpness based on this test. What can be evaluated to certain extent is flatness of the field, monochromatic and spherical aberration and its influence to the sharpness perception and amount of corner smearing with distant subjects. As we wrote in the previous chapter, for sharpness detection, please use official MTF charts or our studio ISO 12333 visual tests.

Scene 04 – focus distance is close to infinity, heavy clouds, haze

Scene 04 at f/1.4

We can see from the above image, outstanding flatness of the field of Otus lens and very good monochromatic aberration correction from Milvus lens. That only illustrate what we have seen at short distance studio chart test. Similar performance on two different focus plane is possible because of the floating element lens design. Planar is very soft in this comparison, again, mainly due to the pronounced spherical aberration.

Scene like this shouldn’t be considered at wide open aperture in the real life. Photographer will most probably stop the lens to f/5.6, f/8 or even f/16. At f/8, all lenses improves to the level that is hard to tell them apart.

Scene 04 at f/8

The following scene was shot with Sony A7r and Novoflex Nikon G to Sony E mount adapter. With Sony we were able to better control critical focus, but the whole combination was very unbalanced.

Results are now presented in slightly different form, all 100% are next to each other. You can either hover with mouse in order to zoom to original size, or click on the image to open it in the lightbox. By turning the wheel on your mouse, you should be able to change zoom ratio.

Scene 06 at f/1.4 – Zones

While the haze in the air was most serious limit to achieve better resolution, once again it shows the slight differences between Otus and Milvus and Planar staying behind at wide open aperture.

Stopped down to f/5.6 this time, lenses are again hard to tell apart.

Scene 06 at f/5.6 – Zones

From the above tests, we can draw certain conclusion regarding lenses performance at distant focus plane. Zeiss Otus not only seems to have flattest field projection, it shows highest micro contrast and aberration free rendering even wide open. Milvus is right behind Otus, showing only very little of remaining spherical aberration which affects extreme corner performance. Planar wide open is not highly usable for distant scenes if resolution and contrast are required. Stopped down to standard apertures for this type of scenes, all lenses are so good, that it is hard to say which is better. Considering flare resistance mentioned in previous chapter, we might say, that Otus 85/1.4 will be best landscape lens by only very small margin in comparison to Milvus and Planar, and if size and weight is priority, Planar will serve the purpose more than well stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller.

>To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Field Test – Bokeh

One of the key features of portrait lens is the way it renders blurred areas. Character of that blur, usually refereed as bokeh is source of endless discussions and opinions. There are some qualitative aspects that are possible to identify in the blurred areas, but there is no aesthetic rule that will say that this bokeh is nicer than that one. Standard triplet lenses, such as old MOG Trioplan 100/2.8 are creating bubble bokeh that is all but smooth, however many choose this lens just because of that specific look. To understand what is bokeh and how you can define its look, I encourage you to check this brilliant article from Jakub Travnik – http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/#what_is_bokeh

Very often however, people are confusing quality of bokeh with amount of blur. Both of this aspects serves one purpose – subject isolation (or integration) from the background, but amount of blur doesn’t have much to do with the lens optical formula, it is related to depth of field.

Because all three tested lenses are considered as mainly portrait lenses, we were trying to find out, how they differ when it comes to OOF rendering.

Subject isolation that we mentioned above, depends not only on the amount of blur and quality of it, but also on a difference between sharp area and blurred area. In other words, smooth bokeh is not enough to create pop-up subject isolation if high micro-contrast and satisfying resolution aren’t present in the focus plane.

The following scene might give you idea about difference between area in focus and blurred areas, as well as look of transition areas and blurred areas themselves. While we made few crops here, it’s maybe better idea to look at associated Flickr album page for original size files – Scene 01 – Bokeh 85

Scene 05 Bokeh at f/1.4 – Zones

Another image shows just blurred areas at two different focus planes

Scene 06 Bokeh at f/1.4

Differences in OOF rendering above are not significant, but we agreed in the office that smoothest images comes from Otus, with Milvus being almost indistinguishable, while Planar has less smooth but probably most interesting rendering. There are no circular highlights in the image above, where differences will be more visible.

Following image might give you idea about rendering of OOF areas in front and behind subject in focus.

Scene 07 Bokeh at f/1.4

Again, without strong highlights, differences might not be so explicit, but once again, we felt that Otus rendering was smoothest from the three with Milvus being almost there. Planar in this scene has rather nervous bokeh in comparison to other two lenses. Less sharp focused flower with small halo around edges rendered by Planar 85/1.4 ZF doesn’t help subject isolation either in this particular scene.

Another two scene are using larger subjects at close distance. We compared only Otus with Milvus bellow, because we often couldn’t differentiate between the two without looking to EXIF files or side notes. They are indeed very close in most situations, and if there is soft light with lower contrast which doesn’t reveal purple fringing, it is hard to say which one rendered what. I still liked Otus better in the scenes bellow, but my friends from office told me that I am either biased or half blind.

Scene 08 Bokeh at f/1.4

All those scenes shown above are lacking circular highlights, where differences should be more visible. That’s because we had bad luck on weather in the winter time and we didn’t manage yet to build test wall with small lights. (We are working on it).

Therefore I had to spend couple of hours in the very cold night, trying to pick some city lights. It’s not perfectly even test for all three lenses, but it should give record of the most significant differences…

The first shot is with lenses fully de-focused on the distant city lights. For some reason, Planar shots looks like being from some other place, but they were not, unless guy who sold me bottle of water in a local supermarket, didn’t replace it with vodka.

Scene 09 Bokeh at f/1.4 – full de-focus – zones

Main differences can be seen in the amount of green outlines, results of spherochromatic aberration and “Onion Ring” effect in the highlights of Otus lens (we mentioned this earlier in the review). This effect (most visible in the Zone C of Otus lens) is the result of modern Precision Molded Optics (PMO) technology which is used in production of aspheric lens elements.

Scene 09 Bokeh at f/1.4 – partial de-focus – zones

Mechanical vignetting, causing “cat eye” effect on the highlights toward edges of the frame is comparable between all three.

What conclusion can we make?

When it comes to quality of the blur areas, all three lenses are outstanding in my opinion. While Milvus and Planar suffers a bit from spherochromatic aberration, Otus perfect optical correction is punished by onion ring effect.

In the last part of our review, we will show you several portrait applications, where you might find more indication, which lens renders OOF areas to your best liking.

>To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Field Test – Portrait

All three lenses reviewed here are considered to be mainly portrait lenses. In this chapter, we tried to bring you few environmental portraits and one “budoir” session, captured with all three or at least two lenses. In order to keep things at least partially comparable, I asked another experienced photographer – Pavel Sinagl (www.pavelsinagl.com), who is shooting with Nikon D810 to help me. We worked in parallel by first setting the scene and then shooting with each of three lenses in continuity. Because we simultaneously tested also three 50-55mm lenses (Otus 55 vs Milvus 50 vs Planar 50), we split the scenes by focal lengths. So i.e., when I was shooting with 85mm lens, Pavel re-shoot same scene with 50mm lenses and vice versa.

Weather was cloudy and colors are dull, but for the outdoor portrait it was actually blessing.

Because of the size of original files, that will make loading of this page difficult or even impossible if posted as originals, we had to reduce image size to only 1200px wide. However, in the following Flickr album, you should find all images in the original size (look at the chapter 1 for instructions how to view original size images on Flickr) – Portrait with Zeiss 85mm lenses

Please note, that it is impossible to compare sharpness on 1 or 2 images from this series. There are too many variables to ensure proper sharpness comparison, and it wasn’t intention to do so with this test. What you might follow is very simple – do I like images taken with one lens, more than with other or I can’t hardly see any differences? Technical and optical qualities are one side of the story, but as soon as lenses are used for taking images they were invented for, it’s only result that matters.

Session 1 – Model Viktoria, photo by Viktor

Scene 01 – Portrait

Scene 02 – Portrait

Scene 03 – Portrait

Scene 04 – Portrait

Session 2 – Model Petra, photo by Pavel (www.pavelsinagl.com)

Scene 05 – Portrait

Scene 06 – Portrait

Scene 07 – Portrait

Session 3 – Budoir, Model Anne-Nicole, photo by me (Only Otus and Milvus were compared in this session. Otus was used with Nikon D800E, whuile Milvus was used on Sony A7r)

Scene 08 – Budoir

Scene 09 – Budoir

Scene 10 – Budoir

Scene 11 – Budoir

All images presented here are shot in RAW, developed in LR CC and exported as JPEG without excessive post processing. White balance was adjusted and when needed exposure was slightly corrected. No additional sharpening or blurring was applied. Please, be generous to our models. We had little time and resources to work on make-up and for the purpose of this review we didn’t retouch skin to remove blemishes or smooth the skin. I would never let any of those images as a final output, without making proper lighting, styling and post processing if not for the review.

From all those portrait application comparisons, we are not afraid to draw one conclusion. All three Zeiss lenses are outstanding optical instruments, and differences in the real life usage (at least in the type of scene captured above) are rather minor.
>To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Conclusion

Before we come to the final word of this review, there is one thing, really important to mention – focusing.

Simply said, it is enormously hard to focus this lenses, especially wide open in order to achieve critical sharpness. This applies mainly for the native bodies we tested lenses on – Nikon D800E and Nikon D810. Those modern digital cameras were not made for manual focus lenses and this creates biggest limitation for practical usage. Why should one pay almost 4000 EUR for the “perfect” lens, if he won’t be able to get most of it because of inability to acquire “perfect” focus?

Zeiss have nice article on the focusing topic – http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/website/photography/what_makes_the_difference/manual_focusing.html. They suggest to use LCD and magnification for the applications where critical sharpness is needed. In practice, using system for the portrait and holding camera in front of you just like a smart-phone is very uncomfortable and any sense of intimacy is lost. (Hoodman type viewfinder and similar devices doesn’t really help, they are rather cumbersome and shooting experience is closer to video recording).

This is not problem of Zeiss, it is the problem of DSLR producers or maybe even DSLR concept recently. Question is, if special focusing screens used in old – manual focus cameras will really help. The tolerance with recent hi-res sensors is so thin at pixel level, that even using LCD and magnification might lead to small focus shift and loss of full resolution potential.

Don’t be confused however, AF is not always best solution either. We are simply approaching the point where technology is going step ahead of human capability to control it and this might be very frustrating from time to time.

Both, Pavel and me were insecure most of the time during portrait session, if we managed to focus properly. Reviewing images on the LCD doesn’t really help, as the resolution of the display is limited. We are not talking here about missing focus completely, but it’s enough to shift it for just 0,1mm and output image of Otus will have similar sharpness as perfectly focused Planar.

Best solution that I was able to find, which gives me more keepers and more confident control of the focus, is using lenses on Sony A7x cameras. However, by using this system I lost beauty of optical viewfinder (for me it is big thing to look through optical viewfinder when talking to my models, because I have entirely different feeling of intimacy and fluent interaction, than when using EVF) and with Otus and Milvus on rather small A7 body, balance was entirely front weighted.

Point of this writing about focusing issues is not to blame anyone, it’s just to raise the question – why do we need all that resolving power of lens and camera, if we are not really able to control it in most situations (unless shooting static subjects in LAB conditions).

Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 ZF.2 – Final Word

Otus 85/1.4 is incredible lens. It is best optically corrected lens that I ever tested. Extremely sharp (when you hit the focus) across almost whole frame from f/1.4, this lens is great tool for shooting in low light or when shallow DOF is required.

Build quality is top-notch, except for the rubberized parts, which could be improved IMHO (collecting all sorts of dirt and scratches and questionable durability) and lack of weather protection. Focusing Otus lens is experience of its own and is something that every enthusiast should try once (at least in the shop :-))

Lack of any sort of chromatic aberration together with great control of most other aberration, mainly spherical, Otus creates strongest pop-up effect of all three lenses at comparable settings. Great micro-contrast and superb flare resistance, help the lens to deliver top quality images in most if not all conditions.

Bokeh is very smooth and creamy both in front and behind subject, but if there are strong circular highlights, “onion rings” effect could be noticed. This effect however showed up in really extreme situations and for most of our tests, Otus had smoothest Bokeh feeling. Otus also suffers from rather heavy vignetting wide open and mechanical vignetting causing “cat eye” highlights shaping toward image edges.

The biggest disadvantage is its price of course. Not only that lens itself cost almost as a small car, but even (quality) filters at 86mm are not cheap.

During this review, I felt in love with this lens, and while Milvus is very close in most aspects and in some even better, I had to buy Otus for myself. That wasn’t rational, but almost entirely emotional decision, and little bit of great sales tactics from Mr. Mejdrech.

If you want the sharpest lens with best controlled aberrations and amazing feeling of manual focus, and money is not the issue, Otus 85/1.4 is still unbeaten in this focal length.

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 ZF.2 – Final Word

Milvus 85/1.4 beats its almost two-time more expensive rival Otus in several categories. It is weather protected, it has de-clicking aperture, it is much cheaper, it has smaller and much more common filter thread, it doesn’t show “onion rings” in the highlights because it doesn’t use aspheric lens.

Milvus 85/1.4 is as close to Otus 85/1.4 when sharpness is in question, as it only can be. In the center of the frame, they are almost on par (actually indistinguishable in a real life usage) with only slightly worse performance in the corners.

Where Milvus is lagging is chromatic aberration control. Axial CA is not corrected nowhere near Otus level, but final rendition is much improved in comparison to old Planar. (Part of it could be that Planar has other aberrations in the mix, so resulting image looks much worse wide open)

I was slightly disappointed with Milvus focusing mechanism. Is it because the focus ring is basically whole lens barrel, or because too heavy glass elements are moving, or because weather protection sealing used in the gaps of the moving parts, I was missing the super smooth tactile feeling known from other Zeiss lenses (not to speak about Otus). Maybe this will improve with use, but out from the box, Milvus focusing experience was nothing to rave about. (Don’t get me wrong, it is still great and very precise, and it will done the job with perfection, it’s only feeling that I am talking about).

I would say, that Milvus 85/1.4 ZF.2 is much more reasonable purchase than Otus 85/1.4, mainly because the price difference. With Milvus you will get professional lens, beating in optical corrections most of other lenses in this focal length, and staying behind Otus just a tinny bit. If yu are processing your images, or if you are planning to use in camera lens profile correction, I bet that large part of color fringing will be successfully removed. At that point, there is really no reason to go with Otus.

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ZF – Final Word

The cheapest lens of the three lags behind in the optical corrections in comparison to the other two. It suffers from Axial chromatic aberration and spherical aberration at the first place, but on the other hand, spherical aberration ads to its specific rendering. Together with its (rather) small size and affordable price, its character and popularity among portrait photographers were main reasons why Zeiss decided to keep it in production as one of only two Classic DSLR lenses.

Stopped down to f/2.8 and smaller it comes actually very close to Otus and Milvus, and most professional photographers won’t shot portraits at wide open aperture anyway. Build quality is top-notch and design is timeless classic. I am almost sure than in couple of years, both Otus and Milvus will look like funny Sci-fi from 60′ while this little Planar will still look like a cool lens.

Focus is smooth and precise, vignetting smallest in this comparison, colors are consistent with other two lenses, flare resistance give nice mixture of control and flaring, bokeh, while not smoothest is very specific.

If you look on our portrait scenes posted above, you might agree with us, that in the real life, Classic Planar has still lot to offer and is sometimes hard to tell apart from Otus or Milvus.

My friend Pavel, actually liked Planar the most, but he is shooting lot on film and thus it makes even more sense.

As we already wrote, all three lenses are great tools, and we can’t say which one is better. We tried to give you as many comparable images as was possible for us to prepare in order to help you draw your own conclusion in case that you are considering purchase of one of them. If we will be forced to give our recommendation, for most universal mixture of all benefits and shortcomings, we agreed that Milvus 85/1.4 will be the one.

Don’t forget that following link – Flickr Collection Of Zeiss Otus vs Milvus vs Planar will take you to the Flickr albums, where you can explore most of the images posted here in full resolution.

If you like our reviews, please consider to send us small donation.
>To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

If you think that you can help us with writing reviews, making language corrections, or technically improving our site, please send me PM.

Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 just started to reach its customers. While there is lot of complains about delivery shortage, I was happy to grab one of those beauties soon enough to be motivated to write a post about it.

In my previous Loxia 21/2.8 announcement article – Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8, another good reason to go with Sony A7 cameras! you will find most technical details. In this review, I will focus more on field usage and some comparisons with other lenses.

It’s winter time in Prague and it means that most days are short, gray and sad. On the other hand, there is a lot of fog and smoke is billowing from numerous old chimneys, cars and trucks in the endless X-mass traffic jams are adding more smog so that overall atmosphere is rather… nostalgic. This can be good for mood photography, but not so great for testing lenses, because visibility is affected by haze, inversion, smoke, and my affinity to look at the problems through the bottom of my beer mug.
In general, it’s not so cool to wear all that coats, caps, scarfs and gloves (to protect your hands of melting with tripod), to leave kids at home and to go to test some new lens in that freaking cold winter.

Standing somewhere for few hours, changing lenses in those fat gloves, trying to keep tracking on all the shots and settings, cursing myself for leaving flask with tea at home and knowing that my only reward will be most probably heavy flu, is as exciting as watching parliamentary discussion on the TV (Ok I am exaggerating a bit, hardly something can be more stupid than that).

Therefore, my first brief test is reflecting above described excitement in this period of the year , showing you… damn, whatever was closest to my car on my way home.

BTW, we are trying some new “tools” on our site. It seems that we might have finally found IT manager, who will be able to help us with something that I can hardly spell – htmmmll. (Vlado, please stay with us, you are our verybig hope!!!)), In this rolling review we would like to try those new tools, so sorry for annoying bugs and crashes if they happen. (Firefox has some serious issues with zooming tool e.g.).

Our first little improvement is the plug-in called Before and After. (No, it’s not what you mean!!!)

By moving your cursor across the image from left to right, you should reveal other image bellow. We had something similar before, but this time, you can click bellow on the arrows, to move to the next pair of images in the same window. It should make navigation and crop comparison (hopefully) easier.

First comparison is between Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 and my old and trusty Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 ZE (recently known as Milvus 21/2.8) on Sony A7 MII. Distagon ZE is mounted on Sony using Metabones III adapter (I am still lazy to replace it for the latest version). Because of the used adapter, there are at least two possible reasons which might significantly affect resulting images – inner flaring and flange distance. I always had and even after many efforts still have doubts, that my Zeiss ZE lenses can’t really reach infinity with Metabones adapters.

First scene at f/2.8

100% comparison crops are representing only f/2.8 images.

Distagon 21/2.8 ZE was one of the few UWA lenses that did rather OK in the edges of the original Sony A7, A7r and later A7 MII cameras, but it still needed to be stopped down to f/5.6 and more in order to get “clean” image across the frame. Even from this very brief test, it is visible that Loxia corner performance at wide open aperture is much improved! Apart of solving corner smearing problems, Loxia seems to control very well vignetting at f/2.8, certainly better than classic Distagon. I will have to run more tests to be sure, but from this initial set-up, it doesn’t seem that light fall off will be a huge issue.

Bellow is another tool that we are trying now, where you can take a look at the images in full resolution by moving wheel on your mouse when cursor is over the image. However, we tested this plug-in successfully only with Chrome browser, in other browsers you might experience problems, including browser crash, so try it on your own risk.

Similar pattern can be seen in the Scene 02.

Let’s take a look at 100% crops

Looking at the crop No. 4 you can notice different (color) aberrations. While Loxia shows typical purple fringing, classic Distagon has a mix of some sort of blue fringing, blended with a touch of spherical aberration and some extra blooming. Those strange aberrations are not present when lens is used on its native body (at least not this much), so it remains to blame adapter reflections, and/or sensor cover glass system.

My first impression is that Loxia 21/2.8 is very promising UWA match for Sony A7x cameras. Vignetting (aberration that most Zeiss lenses are suffering from), seems improved in comparison to standard Distagon. Corner smearing at wide aperture is gone. Rendering has very nice micro contrast, better than older Zeiss, but that might be due to the inner reflection of my adapter. We might expect some purple fringing in high contrast areas, but it is not followed by blooming (glow) so it should be possible to fix it in pp.

Probably the only issue that I can see so far is distortion, but that will need more testing to quantify. Oh, not to forget, among disadvantages we should count also limited availability and somewhat higher price. But, it’s Zeiss, so I think we are used to both of those “issues”.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Loxia build quality, ergonomic function, distortion, corner smearing and when it matter…

Yesterday was finally sunny day and most importantly – very good visibility (for Prague), so I took Loxia with me. But I forgot tripod at home. Damn. I had to buy cheapest tripod I could find and it was approx. 7 USD Chinese wonder branded – Marell.

I tried one in the shop and it could held steady (so,so) A7MII and Loxia 21/2.8 mounted, but the new in box which I got after payment, wasn’t that lucky. Therefore, most of the shots I took yesterday were hand held, but at the end, I am glad they were. I noticed one issue that I won’t, if using tripod.

Let’s start from the beginning…

Few days ago, I received email from a dear friend, highly respected professional in optics and lens testing. He asked me what do I think about Loxia 21/2.8 barrel design, because in his opinion there were some concerns.

Here is what he wrote:

“For my taste the lens is too “slippery”, I miss a grip during mounting.”

On my brief experience so far, somehow I overlooked this limitation. Truth is that this is quite noticeable shortage in the lens design. Problem is that almost whole barrel is actually focus ring that rotates and there is also aperture ring that rotates too. Remaining grip space is so thin, that is virtually impossible to hold the lens not touching rotating parts. In a result, when you want to mount lens, you will most probably rotate focus and/or aperture ring at the same time. You’ll need to hit focus (and/or) aperture ring hard stops, if you want to apply enough pressure to lock the lens in camera mount.

Most efficient technique that I came too, is to hold the lens from the front (over lens cap) and catch the mount ring with a tips of my thumb and index finger. Just as with pliers, I apply pressure on the finger tips in order to grip the lens, but because the space is really very small, I usually ends up with aperture being shifted from its original position.

Situation is slightly different when hood is mounted.

To lock the lens you can hold the hood, but don’t do that when you want to remove it, because hood can release (it’s twisted in its own removable direction) and lens can drop. You might try to hold the lens with the thumb and middle finger as a pliers from bellow, but it is very cumbersome operation.

His second remark was even more disturbing:

“The torque of the focus ring is very low – this would be nice for a long focal length, where frequent focus fine tuning is essential. But for a super-wide with a very steep slope of the focus ring, the danger of accidentally loosing once carefully adjusted focus is quite high. The only fix area to hold the lens during shooting without interfering with the focus is the sunshade – and there you need discipline with your fingers.)”

He is right again. In my experience, focus ring of Loxia 21/2.8 is nicely dampened and not too free as he indicated, but free enough to be accidentally shifted.

In a result, you might lock the focus, but when you press the shutter trigger, you can easily slightly shift it. Here is one example of how this can manifest in practice (for the tripod shot I used cheap Marell, so don’t look for maximal sharpness please).

All that being said, I can live with both limitations, but it is good to know about them. I think that Zeiss designers probably paid more attention to the fancy look of the lens than to ergonomic convenience, but that’s a trend that we can follow recently in most technological applications.

Following forums and reading some other initial reviews, I noticed concern about Loxia 21/2.8 corner performance. I was surprised to see it, because if anything, this little Loxia seems to have very good sharpness across the frame from wide open. There are few things to mention though.

I have seen many comments about smeared corners (for other lenses), supporting that claim with a similar images like the one bellow:

Looking at 100% crops will reveal corner blurriness

This blurriness is however result of shallow DOF, not optical aberration of the lens. To test super wide-angle lens for it’s intended and optimized focal plane, we have to consider its real life usage. If you want to achieve better corner performance and more even sharpness across the frame with Loxia 21/2.8 wide open, distance of the focal plane should be much larger or aperture has to be stopped down. (Not because of the lens, but because of the physics).

This might be extreme example, but there are also users who would go with brick wall test in order to draw the conclusion. Bellow is an example of similar shot (I couldn’t find brick wall nearby, but it serves the purpose), taken from approx. 2m from the focal plane.

In theory, both center and corner area should fall well within DOF, but distance from the camera of corner area is 40% larger. Because DOF concept is defined for the 20x25cm prints and viewing distance of approx. 30cm. CoC smaller than 0,25mm is considered negligible when enlarged and viewed from above distance. In reality, most people (with good eyes) can resolve 1/3rd of this size (33% of it). As written in above example, our corner area is 40% more distant, and if alignment is not perfect (or target flat) it can be even more. Observing results from the example above, will highly depend on your sight and viewing distance, so we still shouldn’t consider them as 100% reliable.

While results in the corners are already much better, they will further improve in a more probable scenario for this lens, even if shooting wide scenes at wide open apertures is rather an exception than rule.

In the situation above, we are in a safety zone of DOF concept and looking at corners at pixel level (if you have reason to do so), will reveal perfect extreme corner performance IMHO, level of SA and astigmatism correction that I haven’t experienced with my other super-wides. (Nikon 14-24 at 21mm on Nikon and Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 ZE on Canon, are coming very close though).

Remember, those are extreme corners at wide open aperture, from the image taken from the hand.

I hope that you might find those samples and explanation useful when reading about corner smearing complains.

While I really like Loxia 21/2.8 even frame resolution from wide open, I don’t like it’s wavy distortion character (mustache distortion), very similar to my old Distagon 21/2.8 ZE. Image bellow is not perfectly aligned with the target, but I shot it this way on intention, so that you can better see bending of the straight lines (building is straight, projection is distorted).

Click on the image to open larger size and spent some time looking at it. You will see very irregular bending of the straight lines. I can’t say for sure, but I have feeling that lens producers are changing optical correction priorities toward more popular ones, such as corner performance wide open e.g. While we have many (older) super wide lenses with soft corners, they usually have regular barrel or pincushion distortion, which is much easier to correct in post processing. Many enthusiasts and professionals will use this type of lenses at apertures between f/8 and f/22 anyway, where most of them are becoming sharp across the frame. Loxia 21/2.8 is sharp from f/2.8, but it’s distortion won’t disappear at smaller apertures.

To correct complex distortion in the picture above, advanced post processing skills and significant amount of time is needed. Lens profiles will help, but the amount of distortion will vary depending on the complexity/distance/magnification/perspective of the captured subjects.

Not that always Loxia distortion will harm the image though. There are situations where you will hardly notice it.

However, it’s very hard to predict it and thus I will think twice before taking Loxia 21/2.8 for my architectural projects. (I use Canon TS-E 17/4 L for that type of work almost exclusively. )

Axial chromatic aberration is also not perfect, but it is on par (or even slightly better) with my Distagon (Milvus) 21/2.8 ZE.

Here are two crops from the image above, showing purple fringing. .CA doesn’t worry me nowhere near distortion does. I will rarely use this lens wide open (PF is almost gone at f/4 and completely gone at f/5.6 and smaller, for most situations) and even if I need to, this level of aberration is usually very easy to remove in pp.

Where it seems that Loxia 21/2.8 really excels (I will have to make much more tests, but so far it looks very good), is flare resistance. I have to say that I am impressed with the efficiency of recent Zeiss coatings in both – contrast preservation and flare artifacts reduction.

Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 at f/8.0

Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 at f/2.8

Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 at f2.8

That was it for the day 2 with Loxia. More is coming soon. If you have any questions, you can use following forum link for discussion:

http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/zeiss-loxia-212-8/

Bookmark this page if you want to follow-up this review.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Thank you James, Melvin, Anthony, David, Michael and all of you who sent us some cash. We really appreciate it and it really helps. You are all our verybigheroes!

During testing of three Zeiss 85mm lenses – http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-milvus-851-4-vs-zeiss-otus-851-4-vs-zeiss-planar-851-4-comparative-lens-review-2/2/ we spent some time with their 50(55)mm versions too. Large portion of our findings from already mentioned – 85mm review, can be simply copy pasted here, with exception of Milvus 55/1.4 bokeh, which does show some onion ring effect, because it have aspherical element in its optical design (unlike its 85 counterpart).

Before we start with the review, we’d like to write few words about lens testing in general. If you don’t want to read it, just go to the 2nd. page in the above navigator.

Understanding lens testing and related limitations

Even with the LAB tests, it is almost impossible to create 100% fair playground for all candidates, because of too many variables involved in the image processing, including optical deviations caused by sensor covers, camera chamber reflections, micro-lenses, production tolerances, in camera RAW software corrections etc.

With the field tests, this is just more complicated, because we have to deal with change of light, lack of large monitors for focus control and last but not least – live subjects that are permanently moving.

Lenses might be also tested on the optical bench or other, sensor independent measuring device, or their performance figures could be synthetically created, but even if the first method will give most reliable results in terms of optical qualities, same might have little impact on a real life pictures, because cameras those lenses will be used on, will contribute (in good and bad) to the final results.

Respected review sites are giving us (lens/camera) system achieved results but that’s why cross-platform comparisons are hardly relevant, no matter how fancy awarding and evaluation method is created and presented.

On top of system based results, most resolution chart based tests are performed at close to minimum focus distances, where another bunch of limitations arise, not to speak about lens optimization for a certain focal length, usually closer to the infinity (While with floating element lens design, focal plane distance deviations are minimized, they are still present, especially with the zoom lenses).

100% even lighting on the test chart (very difficult to achieve), 100% exact alignment (nightmare), 100% elimination of possible shutter shake and 100% accuracy in achieving critical focus are all necessary if we want to get closer to “absolute” comparison between two systems.

Even if all that is accomplished successfully, proper test should include representative number of production samples, in order to eliminate production variations.

All that being said, I know that almost every lens that I ever tested was somehow different, has stronger and weaker sides and is certainly unique enough to represent specific view to the captured scene. This is why comparing lenses make sense, but it is very important to clarify what are we comparing and what we want to find out with such a comparison.

This review is attempting to compare 3 Zeiss DSLR lenses, of the same focal length and same maximum aperture, not to find which one is best, but to give our readers different point of view on obtained data and images, in order to help them decide, which one will serve better their purpose.

We did our best to give you comparable results, but keep in mind, that with super shallow DOF, high-resolution sensors, breathing subjects, inability to check for critical focus etc., field test results shouldn’t be considered as a merit for absolute sharpness e.g. They are serving purpose of indicating rendering characteristics, (such as field curvature, highlight rendering, CA, spherical aberration, practical importance of distortion, flare resistance etc.)
>To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.

Let’s start with official specification comparison.