Admiring Light
Menu
  • Home
  • Review Index
  • Shop Talk
  • Technique and Vision
  • Opinion
  • Portfolio
  • Site Index
  • About
    • Privacy Policy
Menu

Review: Sony E PZ 18-105mm f/4 G OSS

Posted on June 17, 2014June 17, 2014 by Jordan Steele

Contents

  • 1Around the Lens: Construction
  • 2Handling, Autofocus and Stabilization
  • 3Image Quality
  • 4Conclusion
  • 5Image Samples

Image Quality

Distortion

Pincushion Distortion (51mm) - Click to Enlarge
Pincushion Distortion (51mm) – Click to Enlarge

If you’ve read my reviews before, you may notice that I always discuss sharpness first, but I’m switching things up for this review because the discussion on distortion will impact the discussion on the other imaging parameters.  The reason for this is that when viewing uncorrected RAW files, the 18-105mm f/4 G OSS has the worst distortion characteristic of any lens I have ever used for any format.  The lens exhibits moderate pincushion distortion at 18mm and it simply gets worse from there, with more severe pincushion throughout the zoom range. The level of distortion is rather extreme, and is actually somewhat more complex than typical pincushion distortion, as using standard distortion correction tools will still leave residual bending of lines at the image edges.

The distortion is severe enough that I view the digital correction of this distortion to be absolutely essential to using the lens.  The distortion is visible not only in shots of architecture and other images with straight lines, but can even be noticeable in portraits or more abstract work.  It has the potential to ruin images if left uncorrected.

The same file, corrected in Lightroom 5.4 with the built-in profile - Click to Enlarge
The same file, corrected in Lightroom 5.4 with the built-in profile – Click to Enlarge

Luckily, if you are shooting JPEG images or shooting videos on a more recent E-Mount body, the camera will apply built-in distortion correction to the images, and this correction is even displayed when the camera is showing you the live view.  Additionally, Lightroom 5 has a profile for this lens that corrects the distortion perfectly, which I would highly recommend applying upon import if you are shooting RAW.  As such, after discovering this and setting an import preset to apply profile corrections, I don’t ever see the distortions any more in practice.

View the two images to the right, showing uncorrected and corrected levels of distortion. I would not recommend using the 18-105mm if you are shooting RAW and you typically use a RAW converter that doesn’t have a profile for this lens.

The reason I discuss this first, is that the evaluation of all the other imaging qualities in this review is based on images that have had the digital distortion correction applied.  I didn’t bother evaluating sharpness on uncorrected images because in my opinion, images from this lens are essentially useless without correcting the distortion.  As such, sharpness and CA was evaluated after applying the profile corrections in Lightroom 5.4.

Sharpness

100 South Third - Sony NEX-6 with Sony 18-105mm f/4 G OSS @ 18mm, f/8
100 South Third – Sony NEX-6 with Sony 18-105mm f/4 G OSS @ 18mm, f/8

So, given the ‘G’ designation on this lens, I expected a relatively high level of sharpness from this lens, and I have to say, it didn’t quite meet my expectations, though it wasn’t too far behind.  The 18-105mm f/4 is a lens that provides very good sharpness over the central 80% of the frame throughout the range, right from f/4. However the edges and corners do lag a bit behind at f/4.  Stopping down brings edge and corner resolution at most focus distances to ‘good’ territory, but never into outstanding territory.

The lens is the weakest at the wide end of the zoom range, with the edges of the frame retaining a bit of softness even stopped down, though for most shooting there is plenty of detail across the vast majority of the frame, and the center is excellent. Click on the image to the left and then click on the green arrow to enlarge to see a large sample.  The mid range towards the long end of the zoom sees some improvement overall, with a very good performance here, with just a slight bit of corner softness.  The center softens slightly at 105mm, but still provides acceptable results, though image borders at 105mm remain only average stopped down.

The best way to sum up the sharpness of this lens is to say that it is always competent, but rarely exceptional.

Bokeh

Fireman - Sony NEX-6 with Sony 18-105mm f/4 G OSS @ 83mm, f/4
Fireman – Sony NEX-6 with Sony 18-105mm f/4 G OSS @ 83mm, f/4

Wide range standard zooms are usually not renowned for their excellent bokeh, but the 18-105mm does a very nice job in this department.  With a longer range than most standard zooms, the f/4 aperture will still allow for a fair bit of background blur, and when blurring the background, the 18-105mm produces quite pleasing bokeh.  Out of focus areas are generally smoothly rendered and specular highlights are round and evenly lit.  ‘Onion’ rings in the highlights can occasionally be observed due to the aspherical elements in the lens, but overall, a very nice performance that stays consistently good at all focal lengths.

Color, Contrast, Flare and Aberrations

The 18-105mm provides a very neutral output with regards to contrast, with somewhat muted midtones.  The result is a file that can be tweaked to your desire, but won’t provide huge amounts of pop right out of the camera.   Color on the 18-105mm tends towards the cool side, with color saturation being neither dull nor extremely rich.  While this means that straight out of the camera, you may need to add some minor contrast and saturation tweaks, it also means that you’ve got a great starting file from which to work.

Overall, the lens performs pretty well against bright light.  Some minor flare ghosting can occur in the right circumstances, but overall the lens does a nice job here.  In the right circumstances, some lateral chromatic aberration can be visible, though I found it rarely posed an issue in everyday shooting.  Indeed, I have to go looking for it for the most part.  A lot of this is not so much that the absolute level of CA is low, but rather that for some reason, where it shows up, the saturation of the fringe isn’t particularly high, so it often blends into the adjacent detail without issue.

Continue: Conclusion and Image Samples

Pages: 1 2 3

7 thoughts on “Review: Sony E PZ 18-105mm f/4 G OSS”

  1. Chun says:
    September 28, 2014 at 10:50 pm

    Thanks for the really useful review. Was thinking of getting this lens for general use to replace the kit zoom of the Sony a6000 (which I never liked). I wanted to know how badly the distortion correction was going to affect the final image output as I tend to shoot a lot of low light, and it doesn’t seem too bad.

    Reply
  2. Patrick Shields says:
    April 12, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    If you want to understand the pro’s and con’s regarding the Sony 18-105 Lens based a well thought out presentation then read this, well done, and intelligently offered.
    Thank you

    Reply
  3. Charles says:
    July 2, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    Hi, I would like to know how much more sharper is this compared to my 16-50 PZ kit lens on my Nex-6? Is it worth to spend the money on this lens?

    Thank you

    Reply
  4. Claude B. says:
    July 16, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    Excellent review. The conclusion must be the same for Sony A6000?

    Reply
  5. Pingback: ??????E?????? E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS??????? | ?????????????
  6. Reed1979 says:
    July 21, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Hi blogger, do you monetize your blog ? There is easy way to earn decent money every
    month, just search on youtube : How to earn $25/hour selling articles

    Reply
  7. Pingback: Sony 18-105 f4 G OSS Lens Review of Reviews - iJourneys

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Me:

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on RSSFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Mastodon

Most Popular Posts

  • "Full Frame Equivalence" and Why It Doesn't Matter (288)
  • Fuji X-Pro 2 vs. Sony A7 II: Noise Comparison (70)
  • Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron (63)
  • Review: Metabones Speed Booster (Canon FD to Fuji X) (56)
  • Review: Olympus OM-D E-M5 (48)

Recent Comments

  • Eric Wojtkun on My Favorite Photos of 2022
  • Jordan Steele on “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
  • Leon on “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
  • Clarke jones on Review: TTArtisan 50mm f/1.4 ASPH (RF Mount)
  • Anonymous on Sony A7 III vs. A7 II – Noise Comparison

Archives

©2023 Admiring Light | Theme by SuperbThemes
We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. You may consent to the use of cookies or opt out. Accept Reject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

SAVE & ACCEPT