To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
As the only lens reaching 400mm currently in the lineup, the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS is an important addition for Sony full-frame E-mount cameras such as the action-oriented A9 and some A7 variants. It will also appeal to owners of such cropped-sensor APS-C models as the A6000, on which it offers nearly the equivalent field of view of a 200-600mm lens.
Five years after their first mirrorless M-series camera, the sixth generation of the Canon M has arrived — the EOS M6. Boasting similar internal specifications to its sister model, the EOS M5, the EOS M6 features a 24Mp APS-C sensor, Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus, Canon’s latest Digic 7 processing engine, and 1080/60p video.
As the current flagship model in the range of Sony’s APS-C format mirrorless cameras, the Sony A6300 is fitted with a newly-developed 24-Mpix APS-C CMOS sensor and BIONZ XTM processor. With a native ISO range up to 25,600 and continuous shooting at up to 11 fps, along with 4K video, the A6300 offers a wide range of capabilities in a small package. Read on to find out how well this model’s new sensor performs.
Another Sony lens that’s not new, exactly, but one we’ve been asked in our forums to review is the Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS. Featuring the maker’s G moniker indicating high-end construction, this stabilized 28-164mm equivalent has been designed for the maker’s APS-C format mirrorless models and is an intriguing addition to the lineup. Read on to find out how well this model performs.
This camera is the follow-up to the EM-10 from 2014 and features a similar 16-Mpix Live MOS sensor, but gains a similar (but not identical) 5-axis body stabilization system that helped make the upper-level OM-D models so popular. Read on to find out how well the sensor for this model performs.
Launched in July 2015, the $1,198 GX8 is Panasonic’s latest Micro-Four-Thirds mirrorless hybrid camera. Announced as an update to its predecessor, the GX7, the GX8 becomes the highest-resolution Micro-Four-Thirds offering in the Panasonic lineup, featuring a 20Mp Live MOS sensor.
Packing a 28.2Mp BSI CMOS sensor, the Samsung NX500 is one of the highest-resolution APS-C hybrids cameras currently available. Wasting no time after posting scores for its sister model, the NX1, our latest review analyzes the stats and scores for the NX500.
Announced earlier in the year, this model is the upgrade to the Pentax K-3 and features the same chassis and casing, 24-Mpix sensor, 27-point AF system, and high 8.3fps continuous shooting as the original, while adding new Pixel Shift resolution technology and an improved 4.5-stop shake reduction option. Read on to find out how well the sensor in this new upgraded model performs.
Aimed at enthusiasts, Canon’s latest iteration of the mirrorless M-series contains the new 24.2-Mpix APS-CMOS sensor and Hybrid CMOS AF III 49-point AF system found on the EOS 760D (Rebel T6s) and 750D (T6i). There’s also an articulated touchscreen LCD and built-in Wi-Fi with NFC, but it’s still not officially available in North America. Read on to find out how well this new model’s sensor performs.
I really love my Sony a6000 with the kit lens, but I hate the situation where you need to save money for long time to be able to buy a second lens, i try adapter with my Old Nikon D3000 lens but i didn't like the results, also the process of mounting them on and off.
A few people have pointed out that the Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS is a fine lens. What confuses me is that it has been tested on this site and, by this site's metrics, outperforms almost everything on this list.
What is the point of having a list like this when potentially the most useful high quality lens isn't given the time of day? If this list was to be taken on face value then I'd be left thinking that the kit lens is a better option.
anyway; for those that are looking here's the test of the vario-tessar
I have the Sony A6000, yesterday bought the Nikon D5300 because I finally decided to have some better optics. So, I bought the 18-35 1.8 Sigma and 85mm 1.8 Nikon lenses as suggested by you: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D5300-Part-1-concise-overview-of-primes-and-zooms
I am dissapointed, the Sigma 60mm for Sony NEX/Alpha is SO MUCH SHARPER than both of the lenses for Nikon.
How could this be possible? What's going on? Can I send you some sample photos?
I spent 1500€ just because of your recommendations believing I was going to get something REALLY GOOD.
Well, there is the possibility the equipment is defective, but not ALL THREE (camera and two lenses).
Tested the Sigma 18-35mm on all apertures, lowlight/plenty of light (never sharper than the Sony Sigma at all apertures, focal length taken into consideration) - Nikon also (never sharper than the Sony Sigma even at F7 which was the sharpest setting for the Nikon lens).
Sony's jpeg engine relatively better so jpeg image out of camera looks sharper. For real camera test you should be looking at RAW files and see how much details it has. DXO tests with raw files and scores are based on that. I have same Nikon D5300 with sigma 18-35 and also Nikon 85mm and they tack sharp after I do post processing using lightroom/photoshop. I am simply blown away by image quality. I don't have A6000 to compare so can't comment on A6000 but by looking at RAW output of that studio test of dpreview link posted, I can definitely say from D5300/Sigma you can get much sharper than a6000.
I have a question that has been bothering me for ages about Sony and their mirrorless ILC cams. Why are all the lenses on these cameras so low on sharpness? It can't be blamed on all the lens makers including Zeiss who makes some of the finest lenses out there. Is it because of the flange distance on ILC's is much closer then a mirrored DSLR? Is this causing lenses to lose their ability to come close to utilizing more of the sensors pixels?
I am a canon user but am seriously considering changing over to the Sony A7R or A7. I absolutely love the new sensors they are making and think the A7 line and the A5000/6000 are incredible cameras. After reading about the best lenses for the Sony A6000 the highest sharpness on any lens is the Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN A Sony E at 16 mpix. Thats only 16 of the 24 Mpix sensor. Lenses should be able to utilize more of the pixels (especially the prime) and the rest of the lenses just utilize less and less. Now if you look at the Sony FE 70-200 F4OSS on the A6000 the sharpness is 11mpix on the 24mpix sensor and that same lens on the A7R is 23 Mpix of 36 mpix. This is very low especially especially since this is only 2/3rds of the A7R camera.
Maybe DXO can explain why these ILC's by sony are suffering on sharpness? Atleast staying with Canon utilizes more sharpness, but bringing those lenses over with converters could be an issue all on its own as changing the flange distance to the sensor can cause issues on a camera.
I'm no lens designer but I suspect that it's more to do with the APS-C sized sensor than the flange distance. Which makes sense if you think about it, it just gets easier to draw a greater number of individual lines if you have a bigger canvas.
If you compare the APS-C lenses for Sony's e-mount and Cannon's EF-S line you'll notice that they're very close in performance.
have a look at this list of best performing APS-c 35mm primes for the 7d for example
even the revered Otus 85mm 1.4 is only 15mp when cropped in to accommodate an APS-C sensor. So I wouldn't be too hard on Sony's offerings. http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-Part-2-Prime-Lenses/Best-short-telephoto-prime-Carl-Zeiss-APO-Planar-T-Otus-85mm-f1.4
Like many other, I am eagerly awaiting a report on the Tessar 16-70, which I suspect may be the best lens for the camera. I have a 24-105 L lens for my Canon 5DII, which has the same range, and I use it for over 90% of my photos. I am prepared to spend extra for the lens I use most. Also I would like to see a test for the Sigma 8-16 on the alpha 6000. usingthe A to E mount adaptor. I have an older Sigma 12-24 zoom on my 5DII, which again is a similar range. I love the coverage of this lens, but is is not sharp at the edges. I have seen some good reviews of the 8-16, but I am wary. Please!!!
I assume, that Zeiss has problems with the variance of quality. The zoom lens Tessar 16-70 mm has big deficits, especially at the short end of the focal lenght. Every corner shows a different but allways a weak performance. For example: The cheap Sony 16-50 is much better in this range. I refused the lens twice, to get a lens i can use reasonably. I think Sony is not interested in a test.
The most versatile lens in APS-C lineup is missing. Is this some kind of joke? The most important lens among zooms is not here!!! What's going on? I really hope this is just a mistake that you guys are going to correct the first thing ASAP. Without this lens this whole review is useless.
Re: most important zooms missing: 18-105 and 16-70
Dream on akrow. Unfortunately DXO thinks they can survive with our posts, and without doing any actual work themselves - except for they products *they* want to push. Their business model is not simply to provide honest information in exchange for advertising. That would be fair enough. It is to shepheard its readers towards products and trends - driven by the manufacturers, adversiters and their marketing agendas. See for yourself ... all the posts requesting tests for Zeiss EF 16-70 going way back to when this lens was first introduced, have been ignored by DXO. They don't want to know, because Sony has decided this lens is too "niche" - i.e. cost realative to cost of ASPC camera bodies, and want the Sony ASPC devotees (myself amongtst them), to switch to full frame. Well, to this scenario - I say "f**k off" to both DXO and Sony. We are not stupid. We know the EF 16-70 with a a Nex-7 or a6000 is a killer combo - but not to the extent that it represents the longevity of a professional system e.g. full frame Canon or Nikon Sony full frame? Well, unfortunately Sony are so fickle with their various incarnations of camera and lens combos, that anyone who has observed their behaviour/ product rekeases over the last three or four years will know that any investment in serious Sony systems will not be rewarded. The proof of this is a fourth Sony full frame camera in about a year - the A7 mark 2 - whoopee do - now "in camera" stabelised (just like the A99 - they've got a loop going on here) - rendering of course all that stabelised FF glass a waste of money. What will they come up with next? Maybe the A7Q (quadcopter).