 Dyxum website
|
|
Filter posts | 
|
SONY Carl Zeiss DT 16-80 vs MAF 24-105 vs KM 28-75 |
| Page 123 6> |
| Author | |
Szabla 
Groupie 
Joined: 29 January 2007 Location: Poland Online Status: Offline Posts: 135 |
 Post Options
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: SONY Carl Zeiss DT 16-80 vs MAF 24-105 vs KM 28-75Posted: 13 March 2007 at 20:01 |
|
All shots taken with A100 mounted on Manfrotto tripod. 2-s self-timer (MLU). Resized in FastStone Viewer - it's great :-)
F=28 mm, f/4,5. JPEG Fine, originals 3,5-4,1 MB from the left CZ DT 16-80/3,5-4,5 ; Minolta AF 24-105/3,5-4,5 oraz KM 28-75/2,8  ___ ___
F=28 mm, f/8. JPEG Fine, originals 3,1-3,4 MB  ___ ___
F=35 mm, f/4,5. JPEG Fine, originals 3,4-3,7 MB  ___ ___
F=35 mm, f/8. JPEG Fine, originals 3,7-3,8 MB  ___ ___
F=50 mm, f/4,5. JPEG Fine, originals 3,2-3,5 MB  ___ ___
F=50 mm, f/8. JPEG Fine, originals 3,5-3,7 MB  ___ ___
F=70 mm, f/4,5. JPEG Fine, originals 3,1-3,4 MB  ___ ___
F=70 mm, f/8. JPEG Fine, originals 3,4-3,6 MB  ___ ___
Edited by brettania - 18 March 2007 at 15:50 |
|
 |
|
|
Kiklop
Admin Group 
Dyxum.com owner Joined: 14 July 2005 Location: Croatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 8210 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 20:20 |
|
Once again, thank you very much.
Your inputs are really appreciated ! |
|
|
----
Have you reviewed your lenses? |
|
|
Stueyman
Senior Member 
Joined: 01 March 2007 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 195 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 20:46 |
|
Thanks for the post. Looks like the 16-80 performs admirably to me.
Certainly swaying me towards it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Szabla
Groupie
Joined: 29 January 2007 Location: Poland Online Status: Offline Posts: 135 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 20:48 |
|
Your Welcome :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kiklop
Admin Group
Dyxum.com owner Joined: 14 July 2005 Location: Croatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 8210 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 20:49 |
|
I have one question; did you had any problems with your 28-75D?
Performance at 28mm is quite surprising for me since i'm not used to get this softness stopped down to F4.5 based on these samples i would say that the new 16-80 lens certainly looks promising. |
|
|
----
Have you reviewed your lenses? |
|
|
Szabla
Groupie
Joined: 29 January 2007 Location: Poland Online Status: Offline Posts: 135 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 21:50 |
|
No, I have many impressive shots taken with 28-75, but not often at full aperture.
Zeiss is very compact and well built. It's not as massive like 28-75, but turns very smoothly. Good construction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Turerkan
Emeritus group 
Moderator emeritus Joined: 11 February 2006 Location: Turkey Online Status: Offline Posts: 6347 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 21:58 |
|
anyone who has looked at all the images? (lazy to do so:P)
whats the verdict? Edited by Turerkan - 13 March 2007 at 21:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Szabla
Groupie
Joined: 29 January 2007 Location: Poland Online Status: Offline Posts: 135 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 22:14 |
|
Zeiss rules :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christel
Groupie
Joined: 04 January 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 35 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 22:22 |
|
on first sight the CZ seems to be the sharpest one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maurus
Senior Member
Joined: 23 June 2006 Location: Germany Online Status: Offline Posts: 620 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 22:27 |
|
I agree with Kiklop; KM 28-75 at f4.5 usually performs much better (look at the left side of the image). - On the whole CZ 16-80 looks great, though.
Edited by Maurus - 13 March 2007 at 22:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Szabla
Groupie
Joined: 29 January 2007 Location: Poland Online Status: Offline Posts: 135 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 22:40 |
|
It seems that my 28-75 isn't perfect. Maybe it can be fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DyJohnnY
Groupie
Joined: 28 March 2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 132 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 23:08 |
|
Thanks for the images.
I don't know about the two minolta lenses, but they are rather suprising....can the 24-105 be that soft?, leaving aside the 28-75 that is also too soft from what i pictured it to be, but sharpens up nicely at 50mm, the 24-105 is awful by comparison..., accros the board. I'd like to see this test with the kit lens, just for fun, maybe this would reset the boundaries for "lowness" |
|
|
Trying to creep back into my photo hobby.
Ignorance is bliss |
|
|
mtiller
Senior Member
Joined: 10 February 2007 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 757 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 March 2007 at 23:08 |
|
Zeiss looks excellent, but I thought that at 50mm f4.5 the 28-75 was sharper on the left of the image. But the Zeiss is going to be easier to get hold of :-)
Edited by mtiller - 13 March 2007 at 23:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
ckphoto
Senior Member
Joined: 29 December 2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 434 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 March 2007 at 01:31 |
|
The Zeiss did look sharper, with a touch more contrast throughout the range. One thing I did notice, the KM has a more marked barrel distortion at the wide end - the CZ is non-existent.
|
|
|
X-700 (MD28/2.8, MD50/1.4,Celtic 50/3.5 Macro, MD135/2.8) Maxxum 7,9,a100, a700 (KM17-35/2.8-4, KM28-75/2.8, 50/1.7, 70-210/4)
my flickr page |
|
 > Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens talk area
|
Page 123 6> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0,125 seconds.
Dyxum.com - Home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer.
Feel free to contact us if needed. You can support future development by making a donation.
The time now is 20:04
Dyxum recommendations
(not commercial banners)
Alpha Lens Rental
(not commercial banners)
Alpha Lens Rental
