dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I had read a few comments about this lens here (and elsewhere). I know what my experience was and was surprised to read people claiming that the lens is "soft" etc.
While I don't always bother with review sites I do trust proper testing over someone's eye (sometimes even my own eye
).
Now DxOMark has stated that this lens is second only to the Zeiss Distagon Otus 55mm lens with an overall score of 42.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-FE-55mm-f1.8-ZA-lens-review-Exemplary-performance
Now I wonder how it would compare to some of the Fuji lenses which haven't been tested via DxOMark...
Cheers,
Dave
While I don't always bother with review sites I do trust proper testing over someone's eye (sometimes even my own eye
). Now DxOMark has stated that this lens is second only to the Zeiss Distagon Otus 55mm lens with an overall score of 42.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-FE-55mm-f1.8-ZA-lens-review-Exemplary-performance
Now I wonder how it would compare to some of the Fuji lenses which haven't been tested via DxOMark...
Cheers,
Dave
lam
Well-known
*internet sarcasm* Clearly Fuji's lens would be 41.9 and thousands of replies on the internet would say that is because with APS-C you only need 41.9 for all your needs.*internet sarcasm*
In seriousness though, that is amazing, can't wait to try this lens out.
In seriousness though, that is amazing, can't wait to try this lens out.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
So awesome that a single number can summarize a lens's performance. Those guys at DxO must be super smart.
NicoM
Well-known
I'm not surprised. This is Zeiss we're talking about. They've been on top of their lens game since the start. I'm excited to see what's next to come in the FF E-mount prime lens lineup.
venchka
Veteran
In a Benefit/Cost analysis, the 55/1.8 lens would crush Otis hands down.
Wayne
Wayne
aeturnum
Established
We all judge our lenses by a single number at least once - when we buy them. At least the DxO number has its components clearly enumerated.
I'm pretty happy with my collection of 50s, but Zeiss looks like it's built a really solid performer.
YYV_146
Well-known
I think the data makes a lot of sense, broken down.
T1.8 = no light loss compared to claimed aperture of F1.8. The Zeiss is a Distagon which means more elements, more glass-air surfaces and a lower (comparative) T-stop of 1.7.
Wide-open sharpness is superb, good enough for the A7r's sensor. Falloff is well contained, but distortion is moderate (0.4%) for a 50mm prime.
Note that DXO does not take bokeh into consideration, so there's still that factor out there...
It is rather meaningless to judge a lens by the aggregate DXO score. To some degree, the sharpness score is sensor-dependent and shouldn't be taken too seriously. However, the T-stop, corner falloff and distortion is not sensor-related, and should be the same across all bodies.
T1.8 = no light loss compared to claimed aperture of F1.8. The Zeiss is a Distagon which means more elements, more glass-air surfaces and a lower (comparative) T-stop of 1.7.
Wide-open sharpness is superb, good enough for the A7r's sensor. Falloff is well contained, but distortion is moderate (0.4%) for a 50mm prime.
Note that DXO does not take bokeh into consideration, so there's still that factor out there...
It is rather meaningless to judge a lens by the aggregate DXO score. To some degree, the sharpness score is sensor-dependent and shouldn't be taken too seriously. However, the T-stop, corner falloff and distortion is not sensor-related, and should be the same across all bodies.
Turtle
Veteran
IMO, it's quite simple: the DxO score is an evaluation of quantifiable aspects of performance. This cannot be argued with, but does not in any way suggest that you will 'like it'.
The 'liking it' part is up to you and YMMV. For some, knowing their own preferences, the DxO score will mean they are likely to 'like it' and for others, it may cause a similar degree of repulsion.
The 'liking it' part is up to you and YMMV. For some, knowing their own preferences, the DxO score will mean they are likely to 'like it' and for others, it may cause a similar degree of repulsion.
GaryLH
Veteran
Whatever u use, whether the dxo eval, mtf charts, resolution charts, they are just ways of evaluating a lens..but it does not mean the lens u personally buy will be as good as the evaluated one from whatever site..
Manufacturing tolerences and quality control play a key role here. Unless someone is willing to test samples of that specific lens using different batches over time and provide a feel for the average, best and worst case, all u are seeing is a single representation in most cases. In fact, if the manufacturer provided the sample, it could have been cherry picked.
Of course w/ modern manufacturing, things have gotten better, but still tolerences and quality control still come into play. The tighter the tolerences and quality control, the higher the cost..
When u read the lens reviews at lensrental, they do a good job of showing u the variations in performance in a specific lens like a brand xx 35f1.4 when they test through samples of the lenses they have for rent (brand xx 35f1.4 they have 30 lenses that they can test). They have even have done work to tune a lens to get better performance.
We are the other hand, are stuck buying whatever from a vender and it is luck of the draw if it is as good as the so called test site even say your specific lens is. All u can do is say is this lens good enough for u.. And as Turtle has said, there are aspects that are hard to evaluate, such as bokeh, which puts it back to ymmv.
Gary
Ps here are some links
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/inspecting-an-in-spec-lens
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/there-is-no-perfect-lens-test-either
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation
Manufacturing tolerences and quality control play a key role here. Unless someone is willing to test samples of that specific lens using different batches over time and provide a feel for the average, best and worst case, all u are seeing is a single representation in most cases. In fact, if the manufacturer provided the sample, it could have been cherry picked.
Of course w/ modern manufacturing, things have gotten better, but still tolerences and quality control still come into play. The tighter the tolerences and quality control, the higher the cost..
When u read the lens reviews at lensrental, they do a good job of showing u the variations in performance in a specific lens like a brand xx 35f1.4 when they test through samples of the lenses they have for rent (brand xx 35f1.4 they have 30 lenses that they can test). They have even have done work to tune a lens to get better performance.
We are the other hand, are stuck buying whatever from a vender and it is luck of the draw if it is as good as the so called test site even say your specific lens is. All u can do is say is this lens good enough for u.. And as Turtle has said, there are aspects that are hard to evaluate, such as bokeh, which puts it back to ymmv.
Gary
Ps here are some links
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/inspecting-an-in-spec-lens
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/there-is-no-perfect-lens-test-either
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation
Last edited: