Many people are wondering how the Sony Carl Zeiss 24mm F/2 prime lens performs when compared
directly to the Sony Carl Zeiss zooms at 24mm. Below is a direct comparison, but you should not use the outcome here
solely when making a purchasing decision. There are other factors that are sometimes far more important than sharpness
or distortion. Heft, flare/ghosting control, focusing speeds and fast apertures are all very important too, it all depends
on what works best for the photographer.
Distortion comps
|
| Sony Carl Zeiss 24mm, minor to moderate barrel distortion. |
|
| Sony Carl Zeiss 16-35mm at 24mm, almost flat |
|
| Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70mm @24mm, moderate to heavy barrel distortion. |
|
| Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80mm @16mm, with Sony A580, moderate to heavy barrel distortion |
Distortion is flattest with the CZ 16-35mm zoom, mostly because the 24mm length comes in the middle
of the zoom. I see moderate levels of barrel distortion with the 24-70mm, and (APS-C only) 16-80mm, both have similar,
slightly wave-type distortion signatures that don't straighten completely with standard distortion correction tools.
The CZ 24mm prime has minimal distortion, and needs little or no post processing adjustments, unless straight lines are near
edges of the image. Center crops
Below
are crops taken from the centers of the images. White balance was manually set to 5400k, manual focusing used, and bracketed
to the best possible sharpness tested at both wide open and F/5.6 to guard against focus shift inaccuracies. The house
front is approximately 400' (122m) away. Additionally, the house is not crooked, my eyes are, sorry. You'll notice
the leveling device on the A580 (CZ 16-80mm crops) works good, to bad the A900 doesn't have it! The
Sony CZ 24mm image crops are exactly the same as I used in the full frame section of the review. The image crops from
the other lenses were taken at the same time.
|
Sony CZ24mm F/2 SSM lens
F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 16-35mm SSM F/2.8 lens F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 24-70mm SSM F/2.8 F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 16-80mm F/3.5-4.5 APS-C lens F/2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see much, if any sharpness differences in the crops above, at any aperture. It looks like
the CZ 16-80mm has a little less contrast than the more expensive full frame lenses. Don't judge the CZ 16-80mm by the
color, I left the default color settings alone, and that seems a little dull, and no, it wasn't shot in adobe RGB. Of
course the CZ 16-80mm crops are not as detailed, but they come from a 16mp APS-C sensor, instead of the 24mp full frame sensor
of the A900. Mid sections below
|
Sony CZ24mm F/2 SSM lens
F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 16-35mm SSM F/2.8 lens F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 24-70mm SSM F/2.8 F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 16-80mm F/3.5-4.5 APS-C lens F/2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mid-sections show a far different story. The CZ 24mm is soft unless stopped down hard.
the two zooms are quite sharp, even wide open. Actually, the CZ 16-80mm crops are probably just as detailed as the CZ
24mm if you upsized them to match the other crop areas, that's just plain crazy! Corners
next
|
Sony CZ24mm F/2 SSM lens
F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 16-35mm SSM F/2.8 lens F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 24-70mm SSM F/2.8 F/2.8
|
Sony CZ 16-80mm F/3.5-4.5 APS-C lens F/2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
F/4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
F/8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
F/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
The corners look very similar to each other, that is, they're soft at large apertures, but sharpen up
pretty well at F/8-11. Color fringing is strong on the CZ 16-80mm, much more so than the other lenses. To
sum up the results; the centers look similar in all the zooms, although let's not forget the CZ 24mm is a stop wider at F/2,
which I didn't show. If you do a lot of hand-held, low light shooting, it offers a very useful, and important full stop
of light. The mid-sections are really soft at wide apertures with the CZ 24mm; that's the result of strong field curvature,
and the only fix is stopping down the aperture. Thankfully, the zooms don't have that problem. The corners are
about the same on all the lenses, at all apertures. Contrast seems about the same on all the lenses, bar the just-for-fun
CZ 16-80mm, which seems a little flat when compared to the other lenses that cost much, much more. Is my
copy of the Sony Carl Zeiss 24mm F/2 good, or would it flunk quality control? Based on the fact that the lens is very
sharp in the centers wide open, and other areas sharpen up by F/8 or so, I have to believe my sample is good. I only
tested one copy of the other lenses, and have never had a bad Sony lens, their quality control is pretty good. However,
there could be sample variations, but until I somehow get another copy to test, the results above will stand. Here
is the full reference image for the center crops, the other crops come from repositioning the subject in the frame accordingly.
|
| Sony Carl Zeiss 24mm F/2, @F/8 |
|
