Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7

Author Topic: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion  (Read 16679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Simon [aka springtide]

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« on: January 17, 2009, 03:49:52 PM »

OK, I thought I'd start a thread for sample images with the A900 + various lenses.

As we all know, the lenses for the A900 to get the most out of the camera now cost >£1000 each.

There are cheaper alternatives, but how they perform on the A900 is still an unknown. Post in this thread sample images with links to the full size images so that people can take a look at how different lenses perform on the A900.

The images themselves are not really important (or for discussion), but more the IQ and how the lens performs in different conditions.  All lens samples are welcome, whether it's the latest CZ, an old KM or a budget 3rd party lens.

Requests an also be made in this thread for tests, and obviously the lens performance should be discussed.

The idea is that we'll understand how the lenses perform on the a900 to help people make informed decisions regarding lens upgrades and what they can expect from different lenses etc

I hope this is OK with the mods.  If not, feel free to make modifications/suggestions :)
Logged
NEX-7

flickr

Offline Simon [aka springtide]

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2009, 03:55:52 PM »
OK, sorry for the samples... not the best images but we decided to start potty training our youngest (2 1/2yrs) today.  All handheld, and there might be a change the focus was out with the f2.8 shots (due to subject movement)!!!

All images shot in RAW and converted in LR (no adjustments).  Jpegs are full size but 90% quality (otherwise they are too large for Flickr)


A900 + KM 17-35


FULL@ http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3463/3203187641_2424befc7f_o.jpg
Exposure: 0.008 sec (1/125), Aperture: f/8, Focal Length: 17 mm



FULL@ http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3203191155_7be841078c_o.jpg
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60), Aperture: f/11, Focal Length: 17 mm



FULL@ http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/3203194467_f27f523997_o.jpg
Exposure: 0.033 sec (1/30), Aperture: f/16, Focal Length: 17 mm



FULL@ http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3204055946_5d79274750_o.jpg
Exposure: 0.013 sec (1/80), Aperture: f/11, Focal Length: 17 mm



FULL@ http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3323/3204049500_a72e037fb1_o.jpg
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500), Aperture: f/2.8, Focal Length: 17 mm



FULL@ http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/3204052628_9a19aa8256_o.jpg
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320), Aperture: f/2.8, Focal Length: 17 mm
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 04:07:28 PM by Simon [aka springtide] »
Logged
NEX-7

flickr

Offline Simon [aka springtide]

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2009, 06:06:50 PM »
Just to try and compare to what the A700 would output, the image above resized in LR to the same size as the standard A700 output.  Also cleaned up the CA's in LR.


Resized FULL @ http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3492/3204367324_4913faf905_o.jpg
Exposure: 0.013 sec (1/80), Aperture: f/11, Focal Length: 17 mm


Will make some of my own comments later, as I'm interested in how it compared to my A700 + 11-18.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 06:08:34 PM by Simon [aka springtide] »
Logged
NEX-7

flickr

Offline dominicall

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Visible Pixels
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2009, 06:36:53 PM »
Well my biggest worry had been the CAs as they were pretty poor before cleaned up (as posted in the 16-35 thread) - but they have cleaned up nicely in LR. At f11 edge sharpness is not to bad at all and again something that can be improved in LR/ACR/other.

Distortion I'm not that worried about as I can fix that with PT Lens if I want. Looks much better.

Now that's got me thinking...

Thanks again Simon.

Dominic

Logged
a900+VG + A700
CZ24-70, Sony 70-200G, Sony 70-300G, Sony 135 STF, CZ85mm, KM 20mm, KM 24mm RS, KM 17-35G, KM 400/4.5G HS, Tamron 90mm Macro, Sony 50 1.4, Sony 16mm Fisheye
Sony HVLF58AM, HVLF42AM
-------------
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

Alan

  • Guest
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2009, 06:53:18 PM »
I've already posted photos in the a900 discussion from the Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro that show this $600 or so lens performing to perfection on the a900.

While I haven't done sharpness evaluations, the Minolta 28-70 f/2.8 G appears to acquit itself very well.

The CZ 135 f/1.8 is superb (not sure what the UK price is, but at the time I bought it, it was CAD$1400, less than 1000 Sterling) and I've posted a variety of phots here with that combo as well.

Cheers,
Alan.
Logged

Offline Simon [aka springtide]

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2009, 08:35:49 PM »

OK my thoughts....

The KM 17-35 isn't that great.  CA's are really poor, probably has the worst CA's of any lens I've owned.
Centre sharpness is fine, but does drop off on the corners.

I guess we are seeing the same as seen in the MTF50 figures at::
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/288-tamron-af-17-35mm-f28-4-di-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-lab-test-report--review?start=1

OK thats the bad news over.

The good news is that the A900 is FF and High Resolution, so even though the per pixel sharpness is pretty poor - once the image is scaled down to the same resolution as the A700 (to compare the IQ 'like for like') then actually the sharpness isn't that bad.  It's still not fantastic, but this is an UWA which are known for being pretty soft.  I've been looking through my A700+11-18 files and for sharpness I think the A900+17-35 is ahead by a reasonable margin.  Also the CA's cleaned up well well, much better than I expected, making in my mind this lens acceptable.

One thing to note is that my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is much much better on the A900.  It is a little soft at f2.8, but does get much better after f4.  I will do some similar tests again with that lens for comparison.

Off topic...
As I would like the higher resolution for Landscapes, I would guess that the KM 17-35 will be replaced before the Tam 28-75.  I know the Tam is on the camera more, but to be honest I don't need that high resolution. I've just ordered the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I have the CZ85 for portraits (and have been wondering about a 35mm prime!)

I'd be interested in someone with the A700+UWA combo to comment on the last image, since I don't have any similar test images in my catalogue (I tend to delete them!) - the A700 images I do have usually have a stack of Lee filters in front of the lens - so not exactly idea for comparing!!!
Logged
NEX-7

flickr

Offline Rob aka [minolta mad]

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9932
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1260183143#!/profile.php?id=1494244129
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/robkendall/
    • http://www.redbubble.com/people/minoltamad
    • View Profile
    • Westcountry Photographic
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2009, 11:05:00 PM »
Quote from: Simon [aka springtide] on January 17, 2009, 08:35:49 PM
I'd be interested in someone with the A700+UWA combo to comment on the last image, since I don't have any similar test images in my catalogue (I tend to delete them!) - the A700 images I do have usually have a stack of Lee filters in front of the lens - so not exactly idea for comparing!!!

The distortions are about the same as my 11-18 as i have some unadjusted shots of wells cathedrall that i have just looked at.
The CA's on the 11-18 are alot better i would say.

Thanks for taking the time to do this Simon, very much appreciated.


Rob


Logged

Offline Simon [aka springtide]

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2009, 11:25:32 PM »
Quote from: Rob  aka  [minolta mad] on January 17, 2009, 11:05:00 PM
Quote from: Simon [aka springtide] on January 17, 2009, 08:35:49 PM
I'd be interested in someone with the A700+UWA combo to comment on the last image, since I don't have any similar test images in my catalogue (I tend to delete them!) - the A700 images I do have usually have a stack of Lee filters in front of the lens - so not exactly idea for comparing!!!

The distortions are about the same as my 11-18 as i have some unadjusted shots of wells cathedrall that i have just looked at.
The CA's on the 11-18 are alot better i would say.

Thanks for taking the time to do this Simon, very much appreciated.

Rob


Thanks Rob for replying....  thought you might!  :)

Just wondering... how does the sharpness compare to the 11-18 would you say?  As I said, I don't really have any 'un-filtered' sample images to to compare it too - which makes it hard to really compare apples to apples (and as you know, the long exposure shots always appear very soft)

Logged
NEX-7

flickr

Offline dominicall

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Visible Pixels
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2009, 07:08:31 AM »
Rob/Simon

Based on what you've seen from the samples (thanks again Simon), especially the cleaned up image, if you didn't have the KM17-35 and were considering one (since the CZ16-35 is pretty much out of reach price wise right now) would you go for it?

I have the opportunity to pick one up at a good price (really clean lens). Based on the first set of samples before the CAs were cleaned up I was definitely in the 'No camp'. Having seen the cleaned up image I'm veering towards getting it.

Would be interested in your perspective.

Talking of perspective, I downloaded the corrected image and ran it through PT Lens for the distortion - result below:




Cheers

Dominic
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 08:37:27 AM by dominicall »
Logged
a900+VG + A700
CZ24-70, Sony 70-200G, Sony 70-300G, Sony 135 STF, CZ85mm, KM 20mm, KM 24mm RS, KM 17-35G, KM 400/4.5G HS, Tamron 90mm Macro, Sony 50 1.4, Sony 16mm Fisheye
Sony HVLF58AM, HVLF42AM
-------------
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

Offline Rob aka [minolta mad]

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9932
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1260183143#!/profile.php?id=1494244129
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/robkendall/
    • http://www.redbubble.com/people/minoltamad
    • View Profile
    • Westcountry Photographic
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2009, 05:39:43 PM »
Simon,
I would say that my 11-18 is probably a bit sharper than the images above with the 17-35, but then i feel i have got a good one, as i know you weren't too happy with your copy.

Would i go for the 17-35 ???
Boy thats a tough decision, i suppose its down to what ultimately you want to do with the images and how you feel about having a lens in you line up that is way below everything else. The question is if you are selling images or intending to get them onto stock agencies would the 17-35 prevent you from doing this ??? If you are just taking images for yourself and aren't ever going to print them over A3 then it will be fine.

I don't know what to do with regards to getting one.

The other thing is, do we really know how good the CZ16-35 actually is yet ???


Rob
Logged

Offline dominicall

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Visible Pixels
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2009, 05:44:41 PM »
Quote from: Rob  aka  [minolta mad] on January 18, 2009, 05:39:43 PM
Simon,
I would say that my 11-18 is probably a bit sharper than the images above with the 17-35, but then i feel i have got a good one, as i know you weren't too happy with your copy.

Would i go for the 17-35 ???
Boy thats a tough decision, i suppose its down to what ultimately you want to do with the images and how you feel about having a lens in you line up that is way below everything else. The question is if you are selling images or intending to get them onto stock agencies would the 17-35 prevent you from doing this ??? If you are just taking images for yourself and aren't ever going to print them over A3 then it will be fine.

I don't know what to do with regards to getting one.

The other thing is, do we really know how good the CZ16-35 actually is yet ???


Rob

I'm thinking that if I do go for it I'll always be thinking that it just doesn't match the CZ for quality. I don't know yet whether I'll be selling any images (although it would be nice) but I now find that I tend to print bigger most of the time anyway.

I saw some sample shots of the CZ16-35 over on Dyxum.  Only taken indoors but from what I could see looked sharp.

Patience I think is the key... and probably saving for the 16-35.

Thanks for your input guys.

Dominic
Logged
a900+VG + A700
CZ24-70, Sony 70-200G, Sony 70-300G, Sony 135 STF, CZ85mm, KM 20mm, KM 24mm RS, KM 17-35G, KM 400/4.5G HS, Tamron 90mm Macro, Sony 50 1.4, Sony 16mm Fisheye
Sony HVLF58AM, HVLF42AM
-------------
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

Offline Simon [aka springtide]

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2009, 06:16:20 PM »
Quote from: dominicall on January 18, 2009, 05:44:41 PM
Quote from: Rob  aka  [minolta mad] on January 18, 2009, 05:39:43 PM
Simon,
I would say that my 11-18 is probably a bit sharper than the images above with the 17-35, but then i feel i have got a good one, as i know you weren't too happy with your copy.

Would i go for the 17-35 ???
Boy thats a tough decision, i suppose its down to what ultimately you want to do with the images and how you feel about having a lens in you line up that is way below everything else. The question is if you are selling images or intending to get them onto stock agencies would the 17-35 prevent you from doing this ??? If you are just taking images for yourself and aren't ever going to print them over A3 then it will be fine.

I don't know what to do with regards to getting one.

The other thing is, do we really know how good the CZ16-35 actually is yet ???


Rob

I'm thinking that if I do go for it I'll always be thinking that it just doesn't match the CZ for quality. I don't know yet whether I'll be selling any images (although it would be nice) but I now find that I tend to print bigger most of the time anyway.

I saw some sample shots of the CZ16-35 over on Dyxum.  Only taken indoors but from what I could see looked sharp.

Patience I think is the key... and probably saving for the 16-35.

Thanks for your input guys.

Dominic

I'd agree with you both.  I got the 17-35 as I swapped it here for my 11-18.  I think the 17-35 is OK and it will do, but the 16-35 is high on my shopping list.
If you could get the 17-35 for £200, then this might be OK while you get the funds for the 16-35 - as you could sell pretty easily - as a short term stop gap.

Haven't seen any reviews of the CZ, but the samples looked great and there hasn't been a poor CZ yet AFAIK.
Logged
NEX-7

flickr

Offline Stef.

  • Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 10767
    • View Profile
    • Stef's photographs
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2009, 06:46:46 PM »
Here is the Sony 50mm f1.4 lens. All shot with tripod. ISO200; AWB; converted in ACR; resampled and saved; no sharpening at all unless indicated with the 100% crops. Exif included.

@ f1.4


@f1.7


@ f2.8


@ f5.6


@ f8


Part II follows in the next thread.
Stef.

Logged
Stef.'s photographs
flickr

"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline Stef.

  • Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 10767
    • View Profile
    • Stef's photographs
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2009, 06:50:37 PM »
@ f11


100% crops




Apologies for the different sizes of the samples in the 100% crops but at least they are 100% and show about the same area of focus. I have also all f stops in between but guess the above is enough. Keep in mind there was quite some strong back lighting from the window.

Here is another example with the above lens shot @ f1.4- just look at the out of focus area!

I am not sure about the performance of the Sony 50mm f1.4 on the A900!

Stef.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 07:45:07 PM by Stef. »
Logged
Stef.'s photographs
flickr

"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline Bill

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a fat guy married to a stunning beauty
    • View Profile
Re: A900 - Lens IQ Sample Images and Discussion
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2009, 07:53:56 PM »
Quote:

"I am not sure about the performance of the Sony 50mm f1.4 on the A900!"

Stef

You know,  I loved my 28/2, 50/1.4 RS and 100/2.8 Macro RS primes.  On film, they were killer lenses.  Honestly though, on the a700 they are no better than the 2 zooms I have now.  The zooms give much more flexibility and performance that is just as good at all apertures f/2.8 and smaller.  I miss the added speed the 28 and 50mm primes gave me, but the performance is just as good with the zooms.

I still can't believe I think this way...two years ago I was a lifelong prime shooter and only kept a beercan for the cheap reach and good optics.  Now I own the two zooms and am totally happy.  Well, almost...if I had the money I would be looking at a 200-400 or 500mm zoom that was at least fairly fast.

Bill
Logged
Sony a700 + vertical control grip,  24-70/2.8 SSM ZA,  70-200/2.8 SSM G,  HVL-F42AM flash
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7