Sony Zoom Comparisons - DXOMark

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by Amamba, Mar 11, 2017.

  1. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 3
  2. Nexnut

    Nexnut TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Looks like they were lucky enough to get their hands on some decently centered copies :biggrin:
     
  3. Nino Xerri

    Nino Xerri TalkEmount Veteran

    207
    Jun 13, 2016
    Nino Xerri
    Whilst I understand that you prefer not to make any conclusions Amamba, however what were DXOMark's conclusions?
     
  4. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    They didn't directly compare the lenses. These are three different tests, combined.

    The way I read these, 1670 and 18105 are extremely close in sharpness, with each having their own sweet spots and weak spots. But then there are other things that matter - focal range, size, color / contrast, etc. And of course sample variations. E.g. my 1650 is very sharp at 50mm although according to the tested sample it shouldn't be.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    Back awhile ago, when looking for an all-in-one zoom, and about the time DxO's review of the 18-105 was published, I posted about it in another thread and noted something very interesting. In the review, they included an image apparently taken from a screenshot of their lens review database showing their scores for the range of Sony E APS-C zooms. The 16-70 beat out the 18-105 by overall score, but placed behind on sharpness.

    But perhaps the most interesting thing to me was the presence of the venerable 18-55 on the list in that image. It tied the 18-105 and 10-18 in overall score, tied the 18-105 for best overall sharpness, and beat the 16-70 and 10-18 on sharpness. What is even more interesting is that this image appears to be the only place on their site where you can actually FIND these test "results" for the 18-55 - they never released a review or official test data for it. sony_e_pz_18_105mm_f4_g_oss__score__920-.17997.

    Here's a link to that post/thread: Recommendations for APS-C Travel Zoom
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    Agreed... sample variation is the big bad boogeyman of lens tests on the web. Most test are just one copy, which may not be very representative to all or to the copy you end up buying.
     
  7. JMM

    JMM TalkEmount Regular

    128
    Jul 29, 2016
    John
    Sel1650 beating 18105 in distortion is another reason i "trust" dxo tests very much. Also that Pmpx is as clear as overall score... ie check whatever lens on sony a77 and a77 mkII (both having same matrix)

    I like this site much better. It doesnt have those cute DxO numbers, but is about equally scientific...
    Lens reviews
     
  8. fractal

    fractal TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    Southeastern PA
    Chris
    I was always pleased with the sharpness of my 18-55 zoom. It does not render like the 16-70 as it gives a more digital/harsh look but as a cheap carry around to snap daytime pics, it's very good. A nice lens for family vacations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. fractal

    fractal TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    Southeastern PA
    Chris

    Agree with you about Kurt Munger. He's actually moved his stuff to a new site. Home - Photo Jottings
    while still keeping the old site up.

    The Sigma 30mm 2.8 fans would not like his review of that lens.
     
  10. JMM

    JMM TalkEmount Regular

    128
    Jul 29, 2016
    John
    I think most users here wouldnt like this article:
    Larger, heavier, and less portable - Photo Jottings

    I was suprized how much smaller (FF) minolta 50/1.4 is compared to SEL50/1.8 OSS (APS-C) and i realized that E-mount is not compact system, so im dumping a6000 for a7II.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    But Minolta doesn't really have an internal focus drive, does it ? I believe it relies on the drive in LA-EA.

    I had at least three different versions of it's sibling 50/1.7, and while a decent lens, imho it is not even on the same level as the older MF version, let alone SEL50
     
  12. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Yes, 1855 is very sharp. Especially in the center. However just like 1650 it has a somewhat dull rendering, particularly in the background.
     
  13. fractal

    fractal TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    Southeastern PA
    Chris
    The SEL50mm 1.8 was the world's first stabilized 50mm lens, which added some size. All in all, however it's still a light lens - just a tad big.
     
  14. JMM

    JMM TalkEmount Regular

    128
    Jul 29, 2016
    John
    You still get stabilisation with minolta 50 1.4! And about motor... i added one LA-EA4 in my bag, and changed E to A mount lenses. Now my bag is lighter and got some spare room... Only thing i hate is that AF is loud, and 100 macro lens extends a lot.
     
  15. Mus Aziz

    Mus Aziz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    806
    Sep 3, 2015
    Mus
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    I know you are trying to be sarcastic, so I just want to point out that I have had both lenses and while the 18-105 is far superior to the SEL1650, it does have more distortion. It has more distortion than any lens I have ever used by far. In this regard DXO is correct.
    That said, I am not "old school" so I really don't care about distortion that much because it was corrected in camera or in post just fine. If not for the distortion the 18-105 would beat the 1670Z and any other APS-C Emount zoom.
     
  17. Nino Xerri

    Nino Xerri TalkEmount Veteran

    207
    Jun 13, 2016
    Nino Xerri
    Chris, I have the Sigma 30mm f2.8 and as much as I am a novice compared to the expertise of Kurt Munger, I do not have any issues with mine.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I have used the Sigma 2.8/30 a lot on my NEX-6, it was my standard lens for it and I don't agree with his opinion that "this lens really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense". I suspect he has tested a fairly bad sample; either that or my sample is unusually good. He says that sharpness in the corners needs f/8 to get good and that is definitely not my experience. Once a picture looked strange: it was sharp across the frame but some features in the background were blurred much more than I expected. Ah, I forgot I had set the aperture at f/2.8 instead of f/8! He also complains about flare; maybe he's right, I usually don't shoot in critical situations which would provoke it but it also never occurred to me that there was a problem.

    While Kurt Munger seems like a serious guy to me, I think this review is not really balanced. IMHO this is another illustration why reviews can only point you in a direction but that relying on it may cause disappointments. These days I just check full-res sample images on the 'net and I always have tested a sample in one way or another before I buy it.
     
  19. fractal

    fractal TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    Southeastern PA
    Chris
    I had the Sigma 30mm 2.8 and for the money is a decent lens. Conversely I've heard other owners of the lens proclaim it's a wonder of modern optics and try to compared it to the Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8. There really is no comparison. The sigma is slow to focus (can not use phase detect), does flare badly, has a rather far focusing distance and not the most pleasant bokeh. Sharpness is it's strength but I never really liked the look of the images. f/2.8 on apsc is not particularly fast, especially for a prime lens.

    For landscape it's useful as long as you don't include too much sun. I guess as a carry-around it can be adequate but you have to deal with slower focus and a somewhat harsh rendering.

    For $200 it's good, but why would you spend $800 and more on a camera with a state of the art sensor to match it with an average piece of glass? Spend a few $hundred more and buy a used ZA 24mm 1.8. jmo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. JMM

    JMM TalkEmount Regular

    128
    Jul 29, 2016
    John
    So happens that i STILL HAVE both lenses! You ever seen UNCORRECTED SEL1650.
    Sony is doing some tricks, even ACR is doing some tricks without you knowing it, and without allowing you to diable it.

    They did it right:
    "7,66% barrel vs 6,73% pinc" on extremes
    Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ (SEL-1650) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
    Sony E 18-105mm f/4 G OSS ( SEL18105G ) - Review / Test - Analysis
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017