[clackers]

I love both Pentax and Sony.....I also use Polaroid cameras(is that ok?). I didn't make the decision to troll a perfectly benign news thread with Sony hate Propaganda. Why do people like you even come into the Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc part of the forum unless to be a troll. Go take some pictures and chill out.

Like you, I shoot both brands, Sliver-Surfer, but a troll like Osv does his stuff all over threads in this forum, despite his Pentax experience being limited to having an old K-10D somewhere in his house.

[Rondec]

I could of swore I read good things about their primes, at least the expensive Zeiss lineup. Could you elaborate on the poor engineering and required software manipulation?

They just vary a lot. The FE 35mm f2.8 has 2.6 stops of vignetting wide open. Which is a lot, considering that wide open is only f2.8. Border sharpness really isn't great. The Zeiss FE 24-70 f4 has fiercesome distortion throughout and pretty bad vignetting at 24mm and f4. My perception from the reviews is that a lot of these lenses rely pretty heavily on software manipulation to make them usable.

People have told me that this is the wave of the future and that they would rather have a smaller, cheaper lens and use software to correct them, but I have always felt that if you could have a decently corrected lens, then you don't have to manipulate it as much in post.

[Sliver-Surfer]

That's fine. Ergonomics are very person specific. I wouldn't shoot for an extended period with a 70-200 f2.8 without a full sized SLR with grip, but that's just me (well and my wife too).

I think the one thing that is pretty clear is that once you get a decent sized lens, then the small size of the mirrorless camera ceases to be a significant advantage versus an SLR model with a similar lens.

Advantage of Sony: All the camera controls can be operated with my right hand(and seen through the VF while my left hand works the lens

[Rondec]

Advantage Sony: All the camera controls can be operated with my right hand(and seen through the VF while my left hand works the lens

I get that you like it. Do you understand that some folks might prefer a bigger camera with more sizable grip?

[Winder]

My experience with the DA *55 on film has that it is some vignetting in the corners wide open, but no distortion to speak of.

When I was looking at buying the A7II I found a website where the DA*55 was tested on the A7 and it definitely needed correction for the FF sensor. Obviously people shooting FE bodies with K-mount glass don't have lens profiles, so there is a lot of talk among Sony users on which lenses don't need correction.

I don't have a problem with lens correction. I kind of like the look of the uncorrected Zeiss 55mm F/1.8. I'm already adjusting sharpness, contrast, & saturation to get the look that I want. I have a friend who shoots with old non-coated Super-Taks to get the lower contrast, lower saturation look you get from vintage glass. I don't mind adjusting for a little distortion or vignetting any more than I mind adding sharpness, contrast, or saturation.

---------- Post added 02-04-16 at 03:03 PM ----------

I have always felt that if you could have a decently corrected lens, then you don't have to manipulate it as much in post.

Zeiss makes the Otus line if you really want optically correct lens. Most people don't want to pay for that level of performance, so its all a compromise. The Zeiss 85mm Otus is better than the Zeiss 85mm Batis, but you really have to pixel peep to see it and printing on rag or canvas makes it impossible to tell what lens was used.

[rawr]

required software manipulation?

Look into the reviews and user experience reports of the first Sony G series lens released for NEX/E-mount - the 18-105 f4 OSS, where it is clear that the lens really depends on in-camera software corrections to perform OK. Eg the ePhotozine review:

Those shooting stills may be wary of the poor performance towards the edges of the frame at the telephoto end of the zoom, and the wild distortion that is present, as well as the high levels of fringing present. These issues make the lens difficult to recommend to those who may shoot stills with this lens, unless shooting JPEG only.

[clackers]

When I was looking at buying the A7II I found a website where the DA*55 was tested on the A7 and it definitely needed correction for the FF sensor.

"The DA* 55mm 1.4 on the Sony a7 is just WOW"

@Nick52 did not say anything about that with his pictures:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/73997-da-club-258.html#ixzz3zEz5vR6x

The native lenses possibly have lots of RAW correction, just like m43s, and especially for wider angles, for distortion, vignetting and sharpness. That means less latitude in post processing - it's already been done, like it or not.

[Digitalis]

it's very easy to find the G-spot on these lenses.

...easy to please.

[osv]

Look into the reviews and user experience reports of the first Sony G series lens released for NEX/E-mount - the 18-105 f4 OSS, where it is clear that the lens really depends on in-camera software corrections to perform OK. Eg the ePhotozine review:

that "g" crop lens is two years old, these are all "g master" ff lenses: Unveiled: High-Resolution Sony G Master Full-Frame E-Mount Lens Line | explora

a better example would be the fe24-70, which has serious distortion on the wide end with some people claiming that at least the vignetting corrections were being written to the raw file.

most camera companies depend on in-camera correction these days, the 6d and the 5dmkiii for instance can be programmed for autocorrection lists for up to 40 old lenses... that's been around for years.

[normhead]

OK so the 24-70 comes in at $2200, that's over $3000 to us Canadians. The Pentax 24-70 is $1600. That is double the price, for those with math problems. And what you get is Silver Surfer says he likes the way it handles better, but you might not.

Now you can go on and on all you like, better, shake reduction blah blah blah, but it's double the price, and I bet I can get as good images with my K-3 and 16-50 as you can get with a 24-70 and A7. At least for what i do. I can get a K-3 and 16-50 for less than the cost of just the Sony lens. Personally, I just don't have that kind of money to throw around, and if I did, I'd be looking at a 645 D or Z, depending on how much money Ihad to throw around. But I guess if you have it, you can throw it at whatever you want.

We don't know what the ergonomics will be like on the Pentax FF, but we do know, ergonomic is more than being able to do all the camera control with one hand. When I'm shooting, using one hand to mess around with settings is too much.

I am constantly amazed at folks who want to compare their expensive system with someone else's system that costs half the price. Sounds like people with no self esteem trying to prop themselves up to me.

[Winder]

"The DA* 55mm 1.4 on the Sony a7 is just WOW"

@Nick52 did not say anything about that with his pictures:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/73997-da-club-258.html#ixzz3zEz5vR6x

The native lenses possibly have lots of RAW correction, just like m43s, and especially for wider angles, for distortion, vignetting and sharpness. That means less latitude in post processing - it's already been done, like it or not.

When shooting wide open the background is so OOF that distortion really doesn't matter. Vignetting really doesn't matter for that type of work. This is why I said I only use correction on my Zeiss 55mm F/1.8 50% of the time.

[clackers]

When shooting wide open the background is so OOF that distortion really doesn't matter. Vignetting really doesn't matter for that type of work. This is why I said I only use correction on my Zeiss 55mm F/1.8 50% of the time.

True dat. Fast fifties with sharp centres but dodgy edges wide open still make great portraits.

[Sliver-Surfer]

OK so the 24-70 comes in at $2200, that's over $3000 to us Canadians. The Pentax 24-70 is $1600. That is double the price, for those with math problems. And what you get is Silver Surfer says he likes the way it handles better, but you might not.

Now you can go on and on all you like, better, shake reduction blah blah blah, but it's double the price, and I bet I can get as good images with my K-3 and 16-50 as you can get with a 24-70 and A7. At least for what i do. I can get a K-3 and 16-50 for less than the cost of just the Sony lens. Personally, I just don't have that kind of money to throw around, and if I did, I'd be looking at a 645 D or Z, depending on how much money Ihad to throw around. But I guess if you have it, you can throw it at whatever you want.

We don't know what the ergonomics will be like on the Pentax FF, but we do know, ergonomic is more than being able to do all the camera control with one hand. When I'm shooting, using one hand to mess around with settings is too much.

I am constantly amazed at folks who want to compare their expensive system with someone else's system that costs half the price. Sounds like people with no self esteem trying to prop themselves up to me.

Dear Mr. Constantly Amazed. Relax. This part of the forum is for Other brands.

[Digitalis]

The Zeiss 85mm Otus is better than the Zeiss 85mm Batis, but you really have to pixel peep to see it and printing on rag or canvas makes it impossible to tell what lens was used.

if you print on gloss*, that would make which lens was used much more visible. I have only had three clients in the past two years ask for canvas prints.

*yeah, I know, don't get me started. But I do get some clients that ask for gloss print media that stuff shows up optical faults all too well.

[Rondec]

When I was looking at buying the A7II I found a website where the DA*55 was tested on the A7 and it definitely needed correction for the FF sensor. Obviously people shooting FE bodies with K-mount glass don't have lens profiles, so there is a lot of talk among Sony users on which lenses don't need correction.

I don't have a problem with lens correction. I kind of like the look of the uncorrected Zeiss 55mm F/1.8. I'm already adjusting sharpness, contrast, & saturation to get the look that I want. I have a friend who shoots with old non-coated Super-Taks to get the lower contrast, lower saturation look you get from vintage glass. I don't mind adjusting for a little distortion or vignetting any more than I mind adding sharpness, contrast, or saturation.

---------- Post added 02-04-16 at 03:03 PM ----------



Zeiss makes the Otus line if you really want optically correct lens. Most people don't want to pay for that level of performance, so its all a compromise. The Zeiss 85mm Otus is better than the Zeiss 85mm Batis, but you really have to pixel peep to see it and printing on rag or canvas makes it impossible to tell what lens was used.

My understanding is that Sony is baking lens corrections, even into the RAW data. The only person I have seen look at it was Roger Cicala, with his optical bench (LensRentals.com - Sony E Mount Lens Optical Bench Tests) and he said the 55 was pretty decent, but none of his copies of the 35 f1.4 had consistent corners and the 90mm macros was OK, but not great, considering that it was a macro lens and all 90-100mm macros are supposed to be sharp.

I really don't care much. I'm not particularly interested in Sony. They don't make gear that clicks particularly for me and their expensive stuff makes Pentax's expensive gear look cheap in comparison. My impression is that an awful lot of folks buy Sony cameras to mount whatever other brand lenses they own -- K mount, EOS, Leica, whatever -- rather than purchasing FE mount lenses.