Some New Wide Angle Lens MTF Tests: Sony 24mm f1.4 GM; Sony 35mm f/1.8; Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP
Most of you MTF junkies are aware that I’ve published all of our prime lens MTF curves in a series of articles by brand, and that I said I would just add new lenses to those articles. I recently tested a series of new prime lenses, though, and thought they were also worth putting up together because I think it’s a good illustration of recent trends.
Of course, the Sony Fanpeoples have already launched their usual conspiracy theories about “Roger won’t publish the 24mm test results because he doesn’t want to acknowledge how it kicks everyone else’s 24mm ass.” Wrong, oh ye internet conspiracy theorists. The Sony 24mm f1.4 GM has been available for a while, but honestly, we’ve had trouble keeping enough in stock for me to test it.
I was able to grab the first shipment of Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens right before they shipped out. The Tamron 35mm f/1.4 SP was kind of lost in the shuffle; we’ve had some but it took a while to rotate 10 copies over to the lab to test. And, full disclosure, I wasn’t banging on tables to test it because Tamron always makes good, but not best-in-class, lenses.
A Quick How to on Reading MTF ChartsIf you’re new here, you’ll see we have a scientific methodology to our approach, and use MTF charts to measure lens resolution and sharpness. All of our MTF charts test ten of the same lenses, and then we average out the results. MTF (or (or Modulation Transfer Function) Charts measure the optical potential of a lens by plotting the contrast and resolution of the lens from the center to the outer corners of the frame. An MTF chart has two axis, the y-axis (vertical) and the x-axis (horizontal). The y-axis (vertical) measures how accurately the lens reproduces the object (sharpness), where 1.0 would be the theoretical “perfect lens.” The x-axis (horizontal) measures the distance from the center of a lens to the edges (measured in millimeters where 0mm represents the center, and 20mm represents the corner point). Generally, a lens has the greatest theoretical sharpness in the center, with the sharpness being reduced in the corners. Tangential & Sagittal LinesThe graph then plots two sets of five different ranges. These sets are broken down into Tangential lines (solid lines on our graphs) and Sagittal (dotted lines on our graphs). Sagittal lines are a pattern where the lines are oriented parallel to a line through the center of the image. Tangential (or Meridonial) lines are tested where the lines are aligned perpendicular to a line through the center of the image. From there, the Sagittal and Tangential tests are done in 5 sets, started at 10 lines per millimeter (lp/mm), all the way up to 50 lines per millimeter (lp/mm). To put this in layman’s terms, the higher lp/mm measure how well the lens resolves fine detail. So, higher MTF is better than lower, and less separation of the sagittal and tangential lines are better than a lot of separation. Please keep in mind this is a simple introduction to MTF charts, for a more scientific explanation, feel free to read this article. |
Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM
From the moment this lens was released, Sony shooters have lost their usual understated decorum and declared loudly it was the best 24mm lens ever made in the history of the universe.

At first glance, you may be a little underwhelmed by the MTF, but let me point out that 24mm f/1.4 lenses are almost always the most difficult primes to design and make and don’t generally have great MTF curves. So I think some comparisons are appropriate here.
Here is the Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM compared to the Canon 24mm f/1.4L Mk II, for example. (The 24mm is not the sharpest prime in Canon’s toolbox, but still, this is pretty much a butt whipping.)

Even comparing the Sony to the Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art, the Sony is clearly better. This is the best 24mm lens we’ve tested.

Just for a reality check, though, let’s remember the Canon is a pretty old design, and the Sigma, while not quite that old, was one of the first Art lenses. There has been a lot of improvement in lens design in the last few years, especially with regards to aspheric elements. For that reason, I would like to compare the new Sony to a new 24mm, but really there aren’t any. I did a comparison with the Sigma 28mm Art instead, which is a recent design. Let’s remember, though, that a 28mm lens is expected to be significantly better than a 24mm lens, because of optics and stuff.

The Sigma is better, but I would call it ‘the difference between a great 24mm and a great 28mm better’. And to be really clear, the Sigma 28mm Art and Zeiss 28mm Otus are the best wide-angles, period. Overall, I have to say the Sony 24mm f1.4 GM is the best 24mm made right now and really a world-class optic. I must also point out that the price of the GM is lower than the Canon and about the same as the Sigma. No Sony Price Penalty here; this is a great lens at a reasonable price.
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Next up is the new Sony 35mm f/1.8. For an f/1.8 prime, it’s what I call ‘fully priced’ at $750, but if it’s exceptionally good, that wouldn’t be a ridiculous price.

At a glance, that is obviously a pretty good MTF chart, but let’s do some comparisons again. First up we’ll compare it to the Canon 35mm f/2 (and remember for MTF f/2 is an advantage over f/1.8). The Canon has a lower price, but the Sony is better at f/1.8 than the Canon is at f/2.

For the next comparison, we’ll match the Sony 35mm to one of my favorite bargain lenses, the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC. Again, the Sony lens is clearly better.

Like the 24mm, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is exceptionally good. There’s no question that Sony has been cranking out one excellent lens after another lately, and this is coming from someone who ravaged the first, and many of the second, generation Sony FE lenses.
Speaking of first-generation FE lenses I despise (nice segue, eh?) let’s compare the f/1.8 with the Sony 35mm f1.4 ZA, the lens that probably sold more Canon-to-Sony FE adapters than any other. Sure, f/1.8 has an MTF advantage over f/1.4. But what you have here is a clearly superior $700 lens kicking the crap out of an inferior $1,500 lens. Also please realize if you leave a comment about how awesome your 35mm ZA is, we will all realize you mean ‘because I don’t have to use an Instagram filter to smooth my skin before I post my 800-pixel selfies’.

Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP Di USD
OK, well so far, we’ve seen Sony kick the crap out of the competition (even when the competition is Sony), but it’s time to look at the lens I expected to be ‘pretty good at an excellent price’. The Tamron wins at most initials in the name, which I know is important to them, but other than that I expected this portion of the post to be about ‘worth the money’.

What I got, though, was DAMN THAT’S GOOD! Great center sharpness, maintains sharpness well out to the edges, very little separation between sagittal and tangential lines. So I put up a quick comparison to the excellent Canon 35mm f1.4L Mk II lens. The $900 Tamron is clearly a bit better than the $1,500 Canon, which makes it better than the Nikon 35mm f1.4 G or Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art.

Since I’d just sung the praises of the Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens, I decided I’d compare those two, even though the Tamron isn’t available in FE mount. As always, the f/1.8 lens has an advantage over the f/1.4 lens. Despite that advantage, it’s absolutely a draw in the center, but the Tamron is a bit better in the outer half of the image. So move over Sony, you were the 35mm king for about a day and a half; the time it took to run the Tamron tests.

Roger’s Conclusions
As always, what I present you is just resolution testing. I don’t check the bokeh, how well it autofocuses, or anything else that really matters. Just resolution.
As is so often the case, my expectations were, uhm, less correct than they might have been. I expected the Tamron to be a nice lens at a good price. Instead, it is, for the moment, optically the best 35mm lens you can get, and at a price that should make you want to get it.
I thought the Sony 35mm would be better than the old 35mm f/1.4 ZA lens, mostly because that bar was set so low. It was better than that, it’s a superb little lens. Even though it sets new price highs for an f/1.8 prime, I’d definitely say it’s worth the money.
The Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM was as expected. It’s the best 24mm on the market for any brand and it’s priced reasonably for what it is.
Roger’s Speculusions
Yes, I made up that word since I’m concluding the conclusions with some speculations. Feel free to use it, though, I think it’s a great word.
For the last 2 years or so, we’ve been seeing a number of lens manufacturers make some amazing jumps in image quality. Sigma’s 28mm and 40mm Art lenses are far better than the older 24mm and 35mm Arts. It seems every Sony lens made recently is leaps and bounds better than what they turned out a few years ago. Tamron is suddenly tossing out world-class lenses. (I’m not going to bring Canon R and Nikon Z lenses into the discussion because of different mounts.)
We know some strides have been made in creating better and more complex aspheric lenses in larger sizes and with more accuracy. I would assume the improvements in aspherics are also reflected in more accurate shaping and polishing of non-aspheric glass. And I know that there have been strides made in optomechanics; placing the elements more accurately and refining how to adjust those elements for the best optical quality.
The bottom line is that you can generally be fairly sure, at this moment in time, that a lens designed more recently is going to be optically superior to one designed a decade or more ago. In 2010 we were all waiting for the next sensor with higher resolution. Those sensor resolution jumps seem to be slowing down now; but perhaps lens resolution jumps are going to take their place.
Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz
Lenrentals.com
September, 2019

97 Comments
Max Manzan ·
Great and extremely useful stuff, Roger, thanks a whole lot to you and your team for sharing these very valuable results!
The MTF of the Sony 24mm doesn’t look underwhelming to me, on the contrary. BUT what about consinstency, Roger?
Roger Cicala ·
Max, both of the Sony’s (and the Tamron) had good consistency. I’ll put the graphs up as an appendix over the weekend. Far better than the 35mm f1.4 ZA or 70-200 f/2.8 GM.
Roger Cicala ·
Max, both of the Sony’s (and the Tamron) had good consistency. I’ll put the graphs up as an appendix over the weekend. Far better than the 35mm f1.4 ZA or 70-200 f/2.8 GM.
Matti6950 . ·
I sorta believe you in that the 70-200mm GM isn’t world class lens, (the internet is a bit silent about it, wich is just not case for world class lenses like nikon 70-200mm VR FL ED.
However the 100-400mm GM (not tested by you) gets raving reviews everywhere (some negative ofc, but every lens has that). But people just love it, and IQ keeps coming back, like corner sharpness keeps getting praise. (no telezoom for Sony beats it, and competition probably neither). Still i wonder if it’s a secret ‘failing’ lens, like the 70-200gm, cause that would be bummer (100-400mm GM is an incredible tempting lens to build a trinity around (with 24-105mm F4 oss, or 24-70mm GM, and then sigma 14-24mm art as uwa.
JordanCS13 ·
Thanks for the test. I’d be curious how the venerable Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and the new Sigma 35mm f/1.2 for Sony fare as well.
Roger Cicala ·
Jordan, the Art for Sony is exactly the same MTF as the Art for Canon. The 35mm f1.2 is up for testing in the next week or so.
Roger Cicala ·
Jordan, the Art for Sony is exactly the same MTF as the Art for Canon. The 35mm f1.2 is up for testing in the next week or so.
Andy ·
Can’t wait for the one! I bet we have a new king based on my copy. ?
JoeInIowa ·
Very curious about that one too!
CryptoLover ·
Your tests are so helpful and professional, I wish there was a way to see an organized list of all of them…I am clicking through many pages of blogs trying to find any test you posted and I am not sure what I am missing. Please consider possibly adding a list of lenses that can be sorted/filtered, something like DXOmark had…DXO is dead now because they stopped testing lenses almost and their tests were not very good anyways
Dave Hachey ·
Yep, pretty clear to me that we are in the golden age for digital photography. Manufacturers have been upping their game for a few years now, and we are all beneficiaries of their efforts. Thanks for posting the new MTF charts.
decentrist ·
we are in the golden age of heavy primes
PJ Smith ·
I agree to a point, because there have always been fantastic lenses at least for 25 years. Sure wide angle lenses have really improved in the last decade, but once you get to about 35mm and above there have been less important “leaps.” Nikon and Canon have always made excellent 50mm lenses and above, especially 200mm and above which are known as super-tele lenses of course. Although sharpness has increased in almost every type of lens, sharpness is not everything. Most people only care about how sharp a lens it, but that is a very stupid thing to only worry about. You can grab any old 300mm 2.8 or even 135mm f2 lens and they will be amazing, even 20 year old lenses. So people don’t know everything else a lens needs to be awesome! I however do know what to look at, besides sharpness.
Dave Hachey ·
The number of excellent to outstanding optics from almost all manufacturers has increased in recent years, just read Roger’s blog posts here to follow the trends. Competition is a great thing. I agree, sharpness isn’t everything, but if you don’t have it you won’t have a great lens. I own a couple of ‘Big white lenses’ from Canon, and they have always been great. The improvements at the lower end of the focal length spectrum has come from a variety of factors (new optical glass formulae, new coating techniques, new lens manufacturing techniques, new electro-mechanical designs, etc.) BTW, I own a 85mm F1.4 lens (for Sony) that is so sharp I have to soften images in post to get an acceptable portrait. I still maintain that we are in a golden age for photography, at least with respect to gear, the vast majority of which is better than the person behind the lens.
PJ Smith ·
You’re right and all I was saying is that there have always been great lenses, at least for the 25 years I have been doing photography, but the wider angle lenses have come a long way. I too have owned multiple Canon super-tele lenses like the 400mm 2.8 IS and 500mm f4 IS and now I own the Nikon 400mm 2.8 VR lens and I too own the 85mm 1.4 lens. All I was saying is that the big two Nikon and Canon have always had great lenses and there is so much more to lenses than their sharpness. So I’m pretty sure we agree with each other lol!
decentrist ·
I beg to differ. The Nikkor 105 F2 DC is a God lens for it’s intended purpose. It has the attributes that make it the best choice for portraiture at it’s focal length. Rendering before sharpness is key.
longzoom ·
With all due respect, but the very first really excellent Nikkor 50mm is 50 S one. The most of the older 50mm Nikkors are not bad, even good, but no way “excellent”.
CameraCrazy ·
Dave, youre wrong. period
Dave Hachey ·
Really? About what?
Phillip Reeve ·
Thanks for your work, Roger. Now I am really curious if the Tamron can keep their newly won 35mm-MTF-crown until after you have the Art 1.2/35 MTFs.
thepaulbrown ·
Yes thanks Roger. I too would be curious even though none of them are on my radar as i’m still very happy using my Zeiss ZM 35mm 1.4 on my Sony.
NRKStudio ·
It’s certain though the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM is the 35mm king, regardless of mount.
NRKStudio ·
We all know the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM is the real MTF king. Unfortunately Roger’s rangefinder MTF tests included only Leica lenses that surpassed Otus and Sigma competition.
Mike Aubrey ·
I eagerly look forward to your MTF posts! Thanks!
Neal G ·
Wow, the Sony 35mm f1.4 appears to be quite worse than the 1.8.
Roger Cicala ·
Yep. In every way.
Mark Harris ·
Its a terrible lens in many ways which I have been saying for a long time but its impossible to argue that with Zeiss fanboys lol
What the chart does not show is the horrible onion rings and bad CA
Jack Chan ·
It’s got fast AF and nice rendering but so many bad copies out there.
People always want to defend their purchases.
I’d rather take my lumps and then move on to something better except there wasn’t much better out there until the Sony FE 35/1.8 and Sigma Art FE 35/1.2
Federico Ferreres ·
A bad C.A. that doesn’t even go away after aggressive in camera CA kens auto correction, nor when stopped down to f11. Half a stop slower, with noticeable onion rings, the only thing good is what Roger measure, and the lens was designed for MTF tests. It has quite horrible Longitudinal CA as well, so any high contrast will visibly shift in hue. On the bokeh side, it looks nervous and run of the mill at best.
Matti6950 . ·
You guys were on ‘MTF test holiday’, it seemed (with i respect, you guys probably have lot of work, not just on MTF. So this came as positive surprise, especially the tamron so fast after release, while being a relative niche lens (bit like sigma 28mm art).
Sony GM: probably will be equalled/superseeded by something nikon offers, but it’s still amazing (and more so, small!). still a big candidate for me.
Sony 35mm F1.8 surprises me, sharper then i expected for a 240 gram? lens. Though it has been shown in multiple reviews that because of 0 aspherical element, it has huge purple fringing (lateral CA), sometimes 7 pixels. Wich is bummer. But realizing it’s weight, it’s still good lens i think, especially if it drops to 600$ over time.
Atm i’m drooling at the Sigma F.2 35mm art and 14-24mm art (wich seems better then F-mount lenses, and almost as good as F-mount prime 14mm F1.8.
And that Sigma love i have, is pushing me to Sony. But not yet decided fully. I holding off on all DSLR purchases until i decide if and wich mirrorless system i buy. The biggest reasons i no ‘ultra sharp’ 24mm for DSLR. But now tamron/sigma are tempting with their 35mm /28mm prime scores. But they arent 24mm, wich is by far my most used focal length.
Difficult decisions, wich are always aided by your tests and articles. Thanks Roger and Aaron.
Roger Cicala ·
I’m in the same boat, and also considering the L mount for the same reason. Haven’t pulled the trigger on anything yet.
Pedro Silva ·
Another great analysis, thank you!
Nikon Z lenses have been getting great reviews, especially the 50 1.8 and 24-70 2.8. Are you planning on doing something with Z glass as well?
Roger Cicala ·
I have to have special mounts made; that’s expensive and time consuming. We are planning them for both the Z and R lenses but it’s taking a while.
bdbender4 ·
I understand about needing the new test mounts. However, if I may indulge in a little speculusionism, the Nikon Z system will emerge as the best compromise between weight, size, and MTF. It’s gotta, because it’s the system I went to late last year. 😉 I would expect the Canon R system lenses to knock MTF stuff outa the park, but look at the size and weight and prices. Tsk, tsk.
Kidding aside, I have the Z 50mm f/1.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 and they are very nice. The f/4 24-70 is no slouch, either. In keeping with the general theme of this thread, there seem to be a lot of nice lenses out there these days, in every system.
Roger ·
I’m stunned, Tamron 35 is spectacular.
PJ Smith ·
Also it has all of the excellent qualities he did not test for, because I know I just bought one. It has excellent AF speed and reliability as well as very good bokeh and rendering. This lens really has it all and I although I knew it was sharper than my Nikon 35mm 1.4G, which I sold, I didn’t know it would match it in other area’s. I thought well I will buy the Tamron and see if I want to keep it or my Nikon 35mm. I quickly decided that it beat the Nikon in every way, except maybe build quality and finish. Sure the Tamron is made extremely well, but the Nikon is still made better in my opinion. I know most people do not care about that much, but I am a photojournalist and use my gear as tools, not expensive objects lol. However I didn’t have any real reason to doubt the Tamron but I guess well see in 5-10 years if it will hold up like I know the Nikon has and would continue to!
decentrist ·
it has a 6 year warranty. lol
iKonOkLasT ·
Roger, when will you be testing the Milvus 25?
Roger Cicala ·
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/just-mtf-charts-zeiss-slr-lenses/
iKonOkLasT ·
The Milvus 25 1.4. I’m aware you’ve already tested the Distagon 25 2.0.
Roger Cicala ·
Sorry, I should have looked closer; Lensrentals hasn’t had much interest in it so it’s going to take a good while for me to access 10 copies.
Yair ·
Thank you very much for the great article as always.
My Copy of Milvus 25 1.4 is stunning , huge upgrade from the Sigma ART it replaced.
very interesting to see MTF of it.
the_ownage ·
Well now let’s see the battle of the 50 mm, and see where the RF 50 falls on.
Andreas Werle ·
“but let me point out that 24mm f/1.4 lenses are almost always the most difficult primes to design and make and don’t generally have great MTF curves.” Why? What the hell is the problem with 24 mm? 🙂
Sorry, Roger – thanks for sharing your data with us. Always a pleasure to read your Blog-Posts!
Greetings Andy
Roger Cicala ·
Wider is harder in general, 24mm seems to be where it really starts to get difficult.
Nick Podrebarac ·
Which is unfortunate, because it’s an awesome focal length for a prime lens, IMO, and a great companion for a 50mm.
Neil P ·
Does this mean that an APS-C camera system is automatically at a disadvantage due to the need for wider lenses? Or does the smaller imaging circle help out here?
Dark_wizzie ·
Long focal lenses tend to be sharper, especially in the corners than shorter focal lenses, right? How far does this rule extend?
Roger Cicala ·
They do. 135mm and up generally are very flat for side-to-side sharpness, with 85mm and up nearly that good. 24mm and wider generally have more center-to-edge drop off.
hyh ·
Is this true for APS-C and m4/3 too – without converting to “equivalent” focal length? In other words, is designing 24mm and wider lenses for APS-C or m4/3 as difficult as for 24mm FF?
Samuel H ·
Three very interesting lenses. Thanks for testing them and sharing the results here!
I will add that I think the modern culture of researching lenses to death before buying them, of which you are a key part, is an important factor making brands work so much harder in improving their lenses. 30 years ago they could bring out a dud and it would still sell because it said “Zeiss” on the tin. Now Roger Cicala won’t let that happen. OK there’s more people involved here, but hey: thanks a lot for your very important contribution.
sala.nimi ·
With new small pixel size sensors lenses must perform well at or near full aperture.
geekyrocketguy ·
Thank you, Roger. I’ve been waiting for you to affirm my 24 GM purchase. :-p
The next astoundingly good lens you should test is the new Sigma FE 14-24 f/2.8. In my corner sharpness tests, at identical apertures and focal lengths, it beats the Sigma 14 1.8 and matches the Sony 24 1.4 GM. I can only assume that Sigma utilizes black magic in the construction of the 14-24 to get it to beat the two best primes in this genre.
Ryan Stone ·
While I’m sure your testing is the best in the blogosphere, maybe you had a bad copy (copies) of the 35L II, I found (in unscientific) testing that it was crazy sharp wide open and the blue good virtually eliminated chromatic aberration, adding to perceived sharpness.
Roger Cicala ·
30 bad copies?
lwestfall ·
Amazing these two new “light” 35mm lenses from Sony and Tamron barely beat even the venerable but beastly Sigma 40mm f/1.4 in the center, although the 40mm is sharper in the mid and outer parts of the frame.
It would also be nice to include the Samyang AF FE 35mm f/1.4 for comparison.
Thanks again for all your great work!
Jack Chan ·
I had the Samyang and it was just as bad as my Sony Distagon 35/1.4
Some have had good copies so it appears that sample variation is a problem with the Samyang 35/1.4 as well.
Kers ·
Very nice to see Tamron made such a good lens!
Another high end competitor has arrived.
Jack Chan ·
Too bad it’s for DSLRs only but Tamron is definitely putting more of their resources into mirrorless, going forward
Chik Sum ·
Thanks for the great work roger, but if this is a MTF machine version problem or aperture problem? coz when I just compared the numbers in the MTF charts in the old EF 24-70 F2.8L II @24mm it seems the center resolution was even better than this sony?
thepaulbrown ·
It’s at f/2.8 that’s why. In the article he makes reference to higher apertures resolving better by their nature
Stanislaw Zolczynski ·
What about Leica
Elena Hanak ·
Thank you very much for the article. How Tamron 35mm 1.4 is compared to Milvus 35mm 1.4 ? Is there some MFT for Milvus? I cannot decide between these two… However, Milvus should be an artistic lens. That is what I need it for. Closeups, landscapes, nature. AF is not important. Which lens is better?
Roger Cicala ·
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/just-mtf-charts-zeiss-slr-lenses/
joe pepik ·
Wow now that is impressive i thought that the milvus lens is at the top of 35mmlenses
Michael Hickey ·
Slightly off topic…..do you ever examine for micro-contrast performance? And can you tell how well a lens performs with micro-contrast by looking at the MTF?
Roger Cicala ·
Michael, “microcontrast” is like “organic”. It originally had a scientific meaning (high MTF at higher frequencies) but now has become a poorly defined term that means very different things to different people. Using the original, scientific, definition, yes we do, the 40 and 50 lp/mm data are microcontrast.
That doesn’t mean we’re detecting what various internet experts claim as their definition of microcontrast.
CameraCrazy ·
utterly nonsensical. “microcontrast” (image fidelity) is low-gain SNR inter-tonal detail that adds dimensionality to any and all images. Also of course a visual aesthetic.
Signal SNR (low-gain in this case) is both “scientific” and empirically palpable
……Maybe you should consider putting a true Monochrome camera on the bench and seeing for yourself the low-gain light that makes its way to the sensor with the removal of the CFA (color filter array)
Roger Cicala ·
Uhm, well, because the bench already has a true Monochrome camera and no CFA. Which is why Dr. Nasse’s definition of high MTF at higher frequencies, which I have adopted, would be monochrome signal to noise ratio.
CameraCrazy ·
you just contradicted yourself who said “microcontrast” is like “organic”. It originally had a scientific meaning”…..
It still does.
Roger Cicala ·
Sigh, must be Ken again?
CameraCrazy ·
I quoted you exactly and thats your response? Saaaaaaaad.
JP ·
https://media1.giphy.com/media/BCdiBnJBwTFKdUl0y8/giphy-downsized-medium.gif
InRussetShadows ·
Ok, some chick riding around on a white horse means what? *shrugs*
Ashley Pomeroy ·
As any fule kno, that’s a clip from Kacey Musgraves’ “High Horse”.
The lyrics are extremely apposite. “If you’re too good for us, you’ll be good riding solo“
FauxTog ·
Rockwell or Wheeler? Both deprecated now.
barmalini ·
Rockwell is polite and friendly, and I am sure he changes his underwear frequently
RandomCameraInfo ·
you just contradicted yourself who said "microcontrast" is like "organic". It originally had a scientific meaning".....
It still does......however your last is incorrect, "microcontrast" is low-gain SNR at any frequency translational to the image, and NOT just in monochrome.
Carleton Foxx ·
And what about 3-D pop!!?!??!? There must be a button somewhere on OLAF to test 3-D pop….
RandomCameraInfo ·
utterly nonsensical. "microcontrast" (image fidelity) is low-gain SNR inter-tonal detail that adds dimensionality to any and all images. Also of course a visual aesthetic.
Signal SNR (low-gain in this case) is both "scientific" and empirically palpable
......Maybe you should consider putting a true Monochrome camera on the bench and seeing for yourself the low-gain light that makes its way to the sensor with the removal of the CFA (color filter array)
James Sarrett ·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Refurb7 ·
Why not compare the new Sony FE 35/1.8 to the new Canon RF 35/1.8, instead of to the old Canon EF 35/2?
Roger Cicala ·
Because I don’t have data on the RF 35mm f1.8.
Fred ·
One can now safely go out and buy BOTH the TAMRON (IF it comes out in E mount….) and Sony lenses – one as a casual walk around, do everything and the other for specific short session uses. Time will tell ( about that e-mount release) YMMV.
Brian Smith ·
Thanks again for you work, Roger.
I noticed that you didn’t test any Fuji lenses for MTF charts, is this just due to low volume/number of copies available? I remember you saying back in the 55-200 tear down you tend not to mess with Fuji’s stock.
Astro Landscapes ·
Dear Tamron,
SP 24mm f/1.4, please.
Also, I really hope they are trying as hard as they can to figure out the protocols for RF and Z. Because if they can accomplish this for the now “ancient” Nikon F mount, I can only imagine what is possible on Z and RF. (Although they might theoretically be held back by the FE mount diameter, but we won’t open that can of worms lest the Sony fanboys descend upon us like a plague of Las Vegas locusts…)
T N Args ·
Thanks Roger. The Nikon Z is the obvious contemporary competitor for the Sony 35mm f/1.8. You don’t have one yet?
Ivo de Man ·
The Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP lens is good, but not as good as the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 Art…
decentrist ·
you mean that clinical, hideously overweight cinderblock mutant of a lens?
Ivo de Man ·
ha ha ha yeah… This one… but for shooting environmental portraits wide open, there is no equivalent lens… It’s my preferred one for Sony 😀 … Here an example shot at f/1.4 1/8000 with an Elinchrom ELB 500 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/069f296f57dced3289281c47d42848f9df09c2f19c8667e8907906a14cfecd0f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/270ae19a70c5b918b971e6b4c198d56ff0d6399942409a0b3fabafc191415819.jpg
hjwulff ·
I’d be interested to see how the Leica Apo-Summicron 35mm/2 for L mount does. The Leica published MTF curves look amazing. I don’t have and don’t intend to get an L mount body unless maybe Sigma makes a decent Foveon sensored one, but I do think that this lens could prove interesting. It’s not super fast, so that gives it an advantage, but it’s also not super sized, so it has another advantage.
Rob ·
Roger, do you think there would be a noticeable difference in image quality between the Sigma 40mm f1.4 and the Tamron 35mm f1.4 stopped down a couple f-stops (5.6 maybe)? They both show remarkable results at f1.4 The Sigma seems to be stronger in the middle and outer regions. I guess what I?m wondering, is there a big enough difference that one could actually see. What is your educated guess?
decentrist ·
I’ve noticed a huge difference on my backyard IMAX.
JDCole101 ·
Your testing showed the Nikon 28 1.4E was sharper than Zeiss 28 and on par with the Sigma.
dav ·
Thanks for your work, Roger! Do you have any idea/assumption, how the Sony 35mm 1.8 compares to the almost pancake Sony-Zeiss 35mm F2.8 ZA?
the_real_jt ·
Roger,
What do u think of the new contemporsry Sigma 35mm f.2 vs this Sony 35mm 1.8?
Which one would u pick up as I believe they are roughly the same price.
Dexter Legaspi ·
does the Tamron SP f1.4 have a floating element in their lens design. it’s not mentioned in their website nor in any specs listed where it is sold.