Sony 70-200G f4 compared to Leica 90mm f2.8

[Guest all8]

For the sake of sharing, the first image is from a mid 2000 Leica 90mm Elmarit at f4.0 (on an A7mk2)

 

 

[Guest all8]

And the second image is from the Sony 70-200 at 90mm at f4.0

 

 

[Austerror]

I can't see any difference...

[Guest all8]

No, they are almost identical, to the pixel. For the whole range f4-22 no real difference between them, up to and including f11 no change or loss in sharpness. Corners might be different ...?

[Cheatah]

The only difference are, the Leica lens is an fairly old lens design, from the past analogue time , and the Sony 70-200mm is an modern, much more usable excellent compact zoom lens!

 

At least for me, no doubts, I would always choose this excellent Sony lens!

[Michael_j]

I had the Elmarit for my Leica M6 and used it on the A7 until recently. Nice compact, sharp lens but prone to flare. I found it difficult to use in backlit studio work for example.

[Guest all8]

Knowing that the Sony G lens is as good as the Leica f2.8 I don't expect to have too much use for the Leica lens on the A7 (the Macro 90 is however interesting because its so compact). The Sony lens is much easier to use and more versatile.

 

However, the Leica is 1 stop faster and ...

 

 

 

... significantly smaller.

[Cheatah]

Knowing that the Sony G lens is as good as the Leica f2.8 I don't expect to have too much use for the Leica lens on the A7 (the Macro 90 is however interesting because its so compact). The Sony lens is much easier to use and more versatile.

 

However, the Leica is 1 stop faster and ...

 

DSC08775.jpg

 

... significantly smaller.[/

 

Smaller is the only excuse, but the one f/stop faster is not an important argument!

[Cheatah]

The other difference is, the SONY G FE 4/70-200mm OSS is especially designed for the E-mount SONY A7x cameras, while the 90mm f/2.8 is an quiet old representative of the analogue Leica family!

 

Please don't misunderstand, that doesn't mean that the Leica glass is bad, but compared to the much more modern Sony lens, it is an "yesterday glass", as many others Leica M lenses too!

[Guest all8]

In this case they were identical which suggests that the Sensor was the limiting factor, edge/corner performance might be different. But to be honest I would expect the Leica to be better because it is less complex and thus requires less in-camera processing to get a good result. In some specific cases the more modern Sony lens might have better performance due to updated coatings.

 

I have an idea for comparing the edges, just need some time to try it.

[Cheatah]

In this case they were identical which suggests that the Sensor was the limiting factor, edge/corner performance might be different. But to be honest I would expect the Leica to be better because it is less complex and thus requires less in-camera processing to get a good result. In some specific cases the more modern Sony lens might have better performance due to updated coatings.

 

I have an idea for comparing the edges, just need some time to try it.

There are so many plus and minus in the WWW, and an roofer can reach the roof top always from two sides!

 

Optic experts stating that the middle range of an zoom lens, has the same optical qualities as an similar excellent single lens. In case of the SONY 70-200mm, it would be the 135mm focal length!

[Max the Dog]

This is a non-sensical comparison.  The files are only 93kb.  Nothing.  NOTHING can be determined from this.     

 

Given the mush of a nearly 20 year old Leica lens, the mush of the Sony 70-200 and the mush of Sony's astigmatism there's likely nothing to be learned from 100% crops. 

 

Read Test # 3 and Test # 1 to learn more. 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/ 

[mahatma63]

I own both lenses and my tests are quite different. The 3D rendering of the Leica lens in unbeatable, but as someone before already said, it's the difference in weight and size that definitely makes the difference.

The Leica lens is outstanding for travel purposes and, if I am not obliged by specific needs (AF, stabilization), the 70-200 always stays safe at home

[dancook]

I can see a difference in the colour between the images, the first image appears to have better contrast - 

[Guest all8]

Here is a crop of the crop ...

 

edit: sorry the file is getting compressed during upload. If anyone cares I can upload them to an album ...

[Periblog]

I am personally using the 90mm Carl Zeiss lens f2.8 that used to be sold with the Contax G analog cameras in 2000 or thereabout. I am very pleased with it, but I can't compare it with anything else as this is the only lens I own with it's 45mm f2 brother which is as good.

I am going to try to attach a link to my galery (already post-processed I am afraid)

Camera is a Sony NEX-7 (and a metabones adaptor) however and I know this is a forum for full frames...

 

[iul]

Hi

 

As I recently had my hands on the Sony 70-200 G f4, I was wondering how it behaves when compared to my 40 years old Minolta MD 135 f2 on the Sony A7.

 

Here is the result, the sony zoomed to 135, both at f 4.0 and the focus adjusted manually to the crane cabin in both cases: Sharpness of the Sony is only a little bit less than the Minolta. Regarding the chromatic aberrations, the Sony is much better (no corrections applied) as you can see in the cropped details. No observable vignetting at all for the Minolta, considerable at the Sony.

 

The Sony:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

and the Minolta:

 

 

All in all, I like the Sony zoom quite a lot.

[Guest all8]

I can see a difference in the colour between the images, the first image appears to have better contrast - 

 

In the interest of (my) self improvement, is that a general observation for the image or is there a particular place to look?