Nikon Z6 and Z7 mirrorless

Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
Apparently they have fixed it now! lol
I'll believe it when I use it :p
Well the gen 3's are massively better than the previous gens in that the grip actually feels like a grip and not a piece of brick, it's just the lack of space now for me (y)

Anyway, I'm invested in the Z system now and I'm convinced that they'll match Sony soon.
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
There are cameras that don't have a grip at all and people seem to manage.

I've noticed that my A7 feels bigger with a half case fitted but I had no problems with it before fitting the case either.

I'm not sure about Nikon matching Sony. I may be wrong but I think the future of photography products probably belongs to the larger electronic companies and I do worry if Nikon can stand the financial pressure as the likes of Sony and maybe Panasonic could view cameras as a loss leader, Nikon can't really.
 
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
There are cameras that don't have a grip at all and people seem to manage.
They do, but I was saying why I've not swapped to Sony (y)

I'm not sure about Nikon matching Sony. I may be wrong but I think the future of photography products probably belongs to the larger electronic companies and I do worry if Nikon can stand the financial pressure as the likes of Sony and maybe Panasonic could view cameras as a loss leader, Nikon can't really.
If Nikon do continue to pursue the camera market then I think they can match Sony tbh. Their first attempt isn't that far off Sony's Gen 3's, and certainly better than the Gen 1's and 2's, no reason not to think that their gen 2's won't be better than Sony's Gen 3's and maybe Gen 4's.

As for Nikon's financial pressure I thought that Nikon made their money elsewhere such as medical optical equipment etc so I'm not sure whether these can sustain the camera department or not. I keep hearing stories of Olympus making losses in the camera market too but their other branches appear to be keeping the camera side going.
 
Messages
1,624
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
It’s obviously going to be better than gen 1-2 Sony as they were release years before and were the first to use said tech.
They only have to copy Sony for the majority of tech and use there sensors, there’s little for them to actually do.

And by this I mean not just Nikon, all mirrorless makers..you fallow the market leader and try and surpass them.

None have brought out anything new that Sony hadn’t already designed or implemented first.
 
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
It’s obviously going to be better than gen 1-2 Sony as they were release years before and were the first to use said tech.
They only have to copy Sony for the majority of tech and use there sensors, there’s little for them to actually do.

And by this I mean not just Nikon, all mirrorless makers..you fallow the market leader and try and surpass them.

None have brought out anything new that Sony hadn’t already designed or implemented first.
Very true, but that still doesn't mean that Nikon can't match Sony with the next gen. Sony have been pioneering over the past few years, whereas Canikon don't appear to have brought out anything groundbreaking or original. I don't think we should underestimate how much Olympus and Panasonic have done for the Mirrorless market though, I'm sure Sony have 'stolen' ideas from them too ;)
 
Messages
847
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
None have brought out anything new that Sony hadn’t already designed or implemented first.
Nikon had an MILC two years before Sony did, and the Z6 and Z7 look very much like a big Nikon V2 to me, rather than a copy of an A7. The Nikon 1 had hybrid AF, 60fps stills, and at the time the only AF considered good enough to work for video.

The concept of image stabilisation (OIS) was first introduced by Nikon and IBIS introduced by Minolta. Nikon was also the first to think of adding video to a stills camera. I could go on, and in no way am I disputing that Sony aren't doing great things to drive camera technology forward, but the idea that they have done all the innovation and every one else is just copying them, isn't correct.

EDIT: actually I forgot about the NEX series which were out before the Nikon 1s, but probably under development at the the same time. The Nikon 1s were 5 years in development. It doesn't detract from the basic argument that not everything is simply copied from Sony.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,624
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
I was talking about ff mirrorless in this, yes they brought out the V2 but that was a tiny sensor though the AF was ment to be good they obviously didn’t implement it the same in the Z series.

But I still believe Sony have been leading the way far ahead of the pack in the mirrorless game.
Nikon haven’t even made there own sensor in god knows how many year.

It doesn’t always need to be a taken as an attack I know everyone loves to have brand loyalty and defend there brand.
I used nikon for 10years but jumped to Sony when they released the Z.
I had been watching Sony for a while and the Z and it’s road plan just want enough to keep me, plus after all the issues with there past cameras I didn’t want to take another risk that it would be a similar issue.

I do hope they bring something impressive out with there next Z though.
 
Messages
847
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
But I still believe Sony have been leading the way far ahead of the pack in the mirrorless game.
That's probably true when reading the spec sheet, though I'm not sure that this means exactly the same as suggesting every other maker is simply copying things that Sony designed and implemented first, which was the only thing I was questioning.
 
Messages
1,848
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
All this competition is great though for us, the consumer.

Whilst I’ve never even handled a Sony ILC the one thing you have to be grateful for, is that if Sony hadn’t made their way into full frame mirrorless cameras and kept pushing the boundaries of what was possible, I’m not sure that companies like the ultra conservative Nikon and Canon would have been forced to look into mirrorless systems themselves, instead relying on their huge DSLR user base to keep them going (which would have been a huge mistake).

I also agree that developments by the like of Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji, whilst primarily themselves not FF (except the new Panny S series), have also contributed to allowing us all to have our pick of these great mirrorless systems and different price, size and weight points to suit everyone.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
But I still believe Sony have been leading the way far ahead of the pack in the mirrorless game.
That's true if you're purely talking about FF mirrorless, but I don't think it's fair to segregate the market like that, in terms of tech mirrorless work the same regardless of sensor size. Of course larger sensors and high MP require more processing power and maybe more 'fine tuning' of some of the tech, but I'm not convinced it requires anything different in terms of innovation. If you consider it this way then Olympus and Panasonic have been extremely pioneering in this genre. AFAIK Olympus had hybrid AF (or at least on sensor PDAF) before Sony (unless the Nex had it?), hi-res pixel shift before Sony, they still have the inbuilt ND filter and live composite modes that Sony don't have, Panasonic have their depth by defocus or whatever it's called and they are developing their TOF focus system which could be the next 'game changer'.

Now I'm not bagging on Sony here, I think Sony have been great for the photography world and have certainly pushed things forward and have themselves innovated (more so than Canikon) but I think it's important to realise what other manufacturers have brought to the market, it's not just Sony driving it forward (y)
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
One thing that does worry me about Sony is that all this pushing the boundaries is all well and good for us at the moment but what if at some point in the future someone gets pushed out of the market?

We've seen Samsung bow out and I would be genuinely sorry if someone else (Nikon?) folded or even was just acquired by one of the giants.
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Anyway, one question I've been meaning to ask but don't think I have yet...

Is anyone using film era manual lenses?

I have three lovely Nippon Kogaku's that'd look lovely on a Nikon mirrorless... Here's one (50mm f2) on my Sony...



One thing about these lenses is that if you're happy to mf they're basically a lens for life as they'll last for decades and you can take them with you if you change systems.
 
Messages
847
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyway, one question I've been meaning to ask but don't think I have yet...

Is anyone using film era manual lenses?
I use a 55mm f2.8 micro-nikkor (bought new 37 years ago) and 105mm f2.8 micro-nikkor regularly on my Nikon DSLRs, and have used them on Fuji, Pansonic and Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras. I also used several other Nikon mf lenses (from 24mm to 300mm f4.5 IF-ED) but traded them in for a 35mm f2 Milvus, leaving me with just the 35, 55 and 105 MF set. I used to use a 20mm f2,8 AIs lens back in the film days, but was never happy with its performance and have not been tempted to buy one for digital. But I've never been all that happy with older Nikon Wide angle lenses.

I had problems with difficult to fix purple fringing using the 300, and had already replaced it with a Nikon 300mm f4 pf, but the 55mm was a bit of a revelation when I tested it against a new 60mm f2.8 micro-nikkor. I had made up my mind to bring myself up to date and buy the 60mm, but although it was vastly better than the 55mm wide open, from 5.6 the 55mm was easily sharper than the 60mm, and I couldn't see much difference in contrast. Like the 300mm, there is an occasional, but still rare, tendency to purple fringing with the 55. The 105 doesn't seem to suffer from this.

I like using MF lenses, and it was really nice to use them with IBIS/focussing aids on the Panasonic, and I'm looking forward to using them with IBIS on a Z camera, when I get one. Especially as I'm getting older and shakier, and less and less inclined to carry a tripod !
 
Messages
81
Edit My Images
Yes
One thing about these lenses is that if you're happy to mf they're basically a lens for life as they'll last for decades and you can take them with you if you change systems.
I'm so sad that I sold off my Takumar lens collection and several Pentax MF primes when switching systems all those years ago from Pentax to Nikon. They would be really handy now. The one dearest to me was the 105mm/f2.8....
 
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
One thing that does worry me about Sony is that all this pushing the boundaries is all well and good for us at the moment but what if at some point in the future someone gets pushed out of the market?

We've seen Samsung bow out and I would be genuinely sorry if someone else (Nikon?) folded or even was just acquired by one of the giants.
It would definitely be a shame, but I'd be very surprised if we see Nikon disappear anytime soon. According to the latest stats I saw they still have more of the camera market than Sony (can't find said article again) and they've just committed to a whole new system. If they had any doubts about the future of their camera department I'm not sure they would invest so much money into designing something new. I hope I'm right anyway ;)
 
Messages
81
Edit My Images
Yes
It would definitely be a shame, but I'd be very surprised if we see Nikon disappear anytime soon. According to the latest stats I saw they still have more of the camera market than Sony (can't find said article again) and they've just committed to a whole new system. If they had any doubts about the future of their camera department I'm not sure they would invest so much money into designing something new. I hope I'm right anyway ;)
Here's to hoping you're right from me as well :) I feel it would take a lot more to make Nikon disappear than Sony pushing their releases...Nikon still has a very large user base, but they need to be smart about the route to take now...they shouldn't abandon their F mount like Sony did to their SLT Alpha line, but they should revisit the idea behind it. I think they should keep only their top models in F mount....namely the D850, D500 and D5....everything else should be relegated to mirrorless. But they should incorporate some of the mirrorless tech back to F mount...especially live view focusing...
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I know Nikon are number 2 in the market or there abouts but if we believe Thom Hogan and others they're possibly not in the best of financial health.

Companies either ceasing trading or withdrawing from the market is one thing that I do worry about as the market is contracting, there's fierce competition and I don't suppose that anyone is making a killing from cameras there days.
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I like using MF lenses, and it was really nice to use them with IBIS/focussing aids on the Panasonic, and I'm looking forward to using them with IBIS on a Z camera, when I get one. Especially as I'm getting older and shakier, and less and less inclined to carry a tripod !
I only have three Nikon lenses but have more Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko and Canon FD's. The build of the Nikons is lovely.
 
Messages
847
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I only have three Nikon lenses but have more Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko and Canon FD's. The build of the Nikons is lovely.
I loved my Minolta and lenses. In their day they were considered the lenses that came closest to getting a "Leica" look. At one time Leica and Minolta collaborated. I've also had a few periods with Canon (film) cameras, most of the time running Canon and Nikon systems together , but at one time Canon was my main 35mm system. But in the end I decided I just preferred the image quality Nikon gave me, and became 100% Nikon (at least in terms of 35mm).

I'm not sure I have ever even touched an Olympus camera, actually that's no true, I have used a TG4, but not sure that counts in terms of this discussion on MF lenses.

Needless to say the Milvus has a lovely build quality :)
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I do believe Nikon are #3 now. https://petapixel.com/2019/05/28/sony-overtakes-nikon-for-the-2-spot-behind-canon/

Despite being heavily invested in F mount, I am loathe to stick with Nikon as the Sony system is far more fleshed out and getting better all the time. The mk4 announcement doesn’t help either when the mk3 is already better than Nikon’s offerings.
"While announcing plans in 2018 to invest about $9 billion in mostly image sensors over the next few years, Sony stated that one of its mid-range initiatives during that span is to “be the top brand in the overall camera market,” a spot that has been securely held by Canon for many years. Sony’s cameras have continued to make waves, and now the Canon/Nikon duopoly has been broken."

How many companies can compete with that and not only compete but go on competing year after year if Sony (or Panasonic or some other electronic giant) keeps up the pace and commitment? My worry is that in a shrinking market why would they even bother. I suppose a company finding it difficult to compete in the market as a whole could just do lenses, I gather that there's a bigger mark up on lenses than bodies.
 
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
I know Nikon are number 2 in the market or there abouts but if we believe Thom Hogan and others they're possibly not in the best of financial health.

Companies either ceasing trading or withdrawing from the market is one thing that I do worry about as the market is contracting, there's fierce competition and I don't suppose that anyone is making a killing from cameras there days.
They're definitely not in the best financial health, the camera dept has been losing a lot of money according to their financial reports. However, I'm not sure that the camera dept is Nikon's big money maker anyway, and think as a parent company they are fine, plus they have put provisions in place to try and improve the profitability of the camera department.

I personally don't worry about camera companies going under, but it would be a shame that they did and of course if Nikon and/or Olympus did I could end up seriously out of pocket.
I do believe Nikon are #3 now. https://petapixel.com/2019/05/28/sony-overtakes-nikon-for-the-2-spot-behind-canon/

Despite being heavily invested in F mount, I am loathe to stick with Nikon as the Sony system is far more fleshed out and getting better all the time. The mk4 announcement doesn’t help either when the mk3 is already better than Nikon’s offerings.
Depends on what you read, this suggests that Nikon are quite a bit ahead of Sony still, at least in Japanese sales which is where it matters for these companies I believe
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/japanese-camera-market-shares-between-april-2018-to-march-2019/

This also suggests Nikon are second, but not by so big a margin
https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/ca...in-2018-but-camera-market-continues-to-bleed/

Sony definitely has the better system right now, but so it should as it's been around for much longer. I'm confident both Nikon and Canon will develop very good mirrorless systems and instead of asking the old age question of which is best, Canon or Nikon, we'll instead be asking which is best Canon, Nikon or Sony. I personally prefer the Nikon and Canon bodies over the Sony, but some of the Sony lenses are stellar. My problem with all three is that lens prices are just crazy now.
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I loved my Minolta and lenses. In their day they were considered the lenses that came closest to getting a "Leica" look. At one time Leica and Minolta collaborated. I've also had a few periods with Canon (film) cameras, most of the time running Canon and Nikon systems together , but at one time Canon was my main 35mm system. But in the end I decided I just preferred the image quality Nikon gave me, and became 100% Nikon (at least in terms of 35mm).

I'm not sure I have ever even touched an Olympus camera, actually that's no true, I have used a TG4, but not sure that counts in terms of this discussion on MF lenses.

Needless to say the Milvus has a lovely build quality :)
One of the reasons I went for Rokkors was the reputation of the 24mm f2.8 which I think was bought in and badged by Leica. I'd describe the lenses I have as mass market lenses with nothing too exotic or expensive but of those I have the Rokkors are usually the best if there's any splitting them as stopped down there's often maybe nothing in it. Next would be the FD's and then the Zuiko's one or two of which maybe suffer a bit from being more compact. Actually although I placed the FD's ahead of the Zuiko's I probably prefer the Zuiko's as it's more about the look than which I think is the better lens and I'd say that the FD's lack a bit of the excellence and character of the Rokkors and Zuiko's and are rather just competent lenses with no great character. Apologies if I've upset any FD fans there. I do like the Nikons but in my little collection they score highly for character and less so for optical excellence, all in MVHO, possibly because they're amongst the oldest lenses I have.

I do think the Nippon Kogaku's would look nice on a Nikon though :D
 
Messages
17,363
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I do believe Nikon are #3 now. https://petapixel.com/2019/05/28/sony-overtakes-nikon-for-the-2-spot-behind-canon/

Despite being heavily invested in F mount, I am loathe to stick with Nikon as the Sony system is far more fleshed out and getting better all the time. The mk4 announcement doesn’t help either when the mk3 is already better than Nikon’s offerings.
I get this thinking - as I am too. You can get an adapter to make G and E F mount lens work on the Z bodies and bodies with F mount's are available. I picked up a low count D810 today off these classifieds. Spread out the use with my other 3 F mount bodies and my system will last a decade - and I can look at the thing with fresh eyes once Sony etc really are established.
 
Messages
847
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
of those I have the Rokkors are usually the best if there's any splitting them as stopped down there's often maybe nothing in it.
That doesn't surprise me, and I'm kind of looking forward to trying to pick up some older lenses once I settle on a mirrorless system, which will almost certainly be a NikonZ.

And I think I agree with your ranking, and with the suggestion that you should replace your Sony, with a Nikon Z, just so your Nikkor can be fitted to a more appropriate body :)
 
Messages
1,361
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
I still have some ai-s lenses. My favourite has always been the 135mm 2.8 Ai. It weighs only 400gms, small enough to fit into a pocket, is 135 mm and is 2.8. My plan is to use it as an add on to the 24-70 F4. Must start doing this.
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
As I said above, one advantage of these lenses is that you can use them on just about any mirrorless camera even if you swap systems. I especially like the ones that are almost two lenses in one... characterful and giving a distinctive look when used at their widest apertures and when stopped down maybe less characterful and more just nice and competent lenses being reasonably sharp across the frame etc. In this sense the lenses I like best are the Rokkor MD 50mm f1.2, 35mm f2.8 MC and 55mm f1.7 MC and all three of my Nikons.

I have many pictures which to be honest are nothing special but I just love the look and the way the DoF and sharpness falls away throughout the frame.

I use Novoflex adapters which cost from £90 or so and up for my Minolta, Olympus and Canon lenses on my A7 but I have to be honest and say that I see no advantage in them and the cheap ones I've bought from evil bay for £10-20 work just as well for my Nikon lenses on my Sony camera and for my Minolta, Olympus and Canon lenses on my Panasonic MFT cameras.

I really enjoy getting interested in a lens, finding a good one at a good price, putting it through its paces and learning about it and then once I think I've got to grips with it just using it to make nice pictures.
 
Last edited:
Messages
847
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I use Novoflex adapters which cost from £90 or so and up for my Minolta, Olympus and Canon lenses on my A7 but I have to be honest and say that I see no advantage in them and the cheap ones I've bought from evil bay for £10-20 work just as well for my Nikon lenses on my Sony camera and for my Minolta, Olympus and Canon lenses on my Panasonic MFT cameras.
I've got K&F Concept adaptors to put my Nikon lenses on my Fuji and Panasonic cameras (the a latter now sold) and they seem to work fine.
 
Messages
571
Name
Amanda
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey, I’m on my way to Farne Islands hopefully this Friday to take puffin pics (as if the world needs any more!), with the z and 200-500mm.
I’ve never really tried any bird pics before - what would you say is the best focus mode for a flying bird‽
Not sure birds in flight is quite within my capabilities but got a few with the Z7 in the hour on Staple Island:
Puffins - Staple Island
by amanda benson, on Flickr
Puffins - Staple Island
by amanda benson, on Flickr
Puffins - Staple Island
by amanda benson, on Flickr
 
Messages
3,824
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
Messages
571
Name
Amanda
Edit My Images
Yes
Great pics. Just had a look at your photo stream, looks like you've met (or at least photographed) some truly amazing people. Did you get chance to properly meet any of them?
Nope, not really. For example, one of them I looked at the info afterwards and I’d only had 12 seconds to get a range of images of them. Fairly typical; I only get people in a hurry! :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
Also posted in the Sony thread but after this discussion earlier though it might be of some interest or to see what people though.

I know these are member written but an Interesting take on Sony.

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/19/is-sonys-pace-of-innovation-actually-hurting-the-photo-industry/
I just responded on the Sony thread, here's a copy and paste

I agree with the article in part, but I like everyone else cannot predict what will happen to other manufacturers. I personally prefer the approach of Olympus, not churning out body after body but offering seriously impressive firmware upgrades on its existing lines. However, I also realise that this isn't the best business model and Sony are a big business trying to make as much profit as possible. As the article suggests their business model is more akin to Apple and Samsung, and let's be honest that's been pretty successful for them.

Where I don't agree with the article is their comment about Sony's lack lustre approach to colour science. Now I"m the first to say that I'm not the biggest fan of Sony's colours and prefer Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji and Leica over Sony in this regard, however there's no doubt that Sony's colours have massively improved since the original A7 so clearly they are addressing this. Ergonomics, well that's very personal, and menus, well that's another issue ;)

What I always find interesting though is the comments that Sony have a lot of heritage in that they were formally Konica Minolta which isn't strictly true. Sony bought out Konica Minolta which is very different from being involved with Konica Minolta for a long time before re-branding. Now it isn't clear (at least to me) what Sony inherited from them, and how much of the Konica Minolta is left, I do know that there were a lot of people from KM that were laid off. What does all this matter? To me diddly squat, I'm not bothered if Sony have been making cameras for 2 years or 100 years, what matters to me is whether it's any good or not, and certainly Sony cameras are very good indeed.
 
Messages
20,569
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I suppose we all remember the recent picture comparisons on another site in which in blind tests (as in not knowing what camera was used to take what picture) Sony came top but when people knew what camera took each picture they changed their minds... this must point to extreme brand loyalty (to put it kindly) coming into play.

Personally and I may be wrong but playing with old lenses has convinced me that the lens has far more effect on the image including colour than the camera, I shoot raw BTW so I'm not really interested in how JPEG's can affect all this.
 
Messages
14,280
Edit My Images
No
I suppose we all remember the recent picture comparisons on another site in which in blind tests (as in not knowing what camera was used to take what picture) Sony came top but when people knew what camera took each picture they changed their minds... this must point to extreme brand loyalty (to put it kindly) coming into play. {/quote] Really? That's funny :LOL:

Personally and I may be wrong but playing with old lenses has convinced me that the lens has far more effect on the image including colour than the camera, I shoot raw BTW so I'm not really interested in how JPEG's can affect all this.
I think it's a combo of both tbh when we're talking colours, plus I think AWB has an effect too.
 
Messages
1,424
Name
Lloyd
Edit My Images
Yes
A question for Z owners who use AI/AIS glass with the FTZ adapter:

Does the aperture behave exactly like the F mount, I.e all focusing/metering is done wide open even if you select a smaller aperture, only stopping down to the desired aperture when the shutter is released or is it a ‘dumb’ adapter in the sense that turning the aperture ring immediately causes the aperture to close?
 
Messages
221
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyway, one question I've been meaning to ask but don't think I have yet...

Is anyone using film era manual lenses?

I have three lovely Nippon Kogaku's that'd look lovely on a Nikon mirrorless... Here's one (50mm f2) on my Sony...



One thing about these lenses is that if you're happy to mf they're basically a lens for life as they'll last for decades and you can take them with you if you change systems.
I have had several including the 24 mm and 28 AIS --- the latter wasn't a great copy and was pretty hopeless adapted to Fuji as wide-angles often are. Two 50mm AIS -- the f1.8 which was very nice and I kept it ten years until I quite recently got the 50mm f1.2 which is no longer bargain basement but a superb lens if you like the wonderfully varied bokeh. Three 100-105 versions - the 105mm f2.5 AI perhaps I should have kept though I found it better for portrait than landscape. Currently 105mm micro f2.8 D which perhaps doesn't count but is MF only with the Z's. It's looking pretty promising as well but I only got it a couple of weeks ago or so.

Due to lack of modern coatings, these lenses may have poorer against the light performance performance, worse fringing, "dreaminess" wide open but the best of them trash most digital consumer lenses, especially the zooms, with superior rendering and better detail out to the edges. I think wide angles (esp. UWA) is where the standards less often meet those of latest generation such as the S lenses.
 
Top