Schloss / Castle Neuschwanstein - Disney's Trauma

This is not from a Disney movie set

Ich fand bereits als Kind die Disney-Märchenfilme jenseits von kitschig. Ganz besonders allein schon das Intro mit dem Traumschloss. Nun habe ich im reifen Alter von 48 Jahren zum ersten Mal Schloss Neuschwanstein gesehen und weiss, Disney muss das gesehen haben und es hat ihn aus der Balance geworfen.
König Ludwig von Bayern, menschenscheu, nachtaktiv und manischer Bauer von Schlössern im Romantik-Stil hat bei Schloss Neuschwanstein in die vollen gelangt. Der perfekte Standort, noch dazu die Marienbrücke über eine dramatische Schlucht, von welcher das Schloss wie aus einem Märchen zu stammen scheint.
Die Schulden für dieses Schloss und seine weiteren Bauunternehmungen haben ihn in den Ruin und nach der Erklärung für unzurechnungsfähig, wohl auch in den Tod getrieben. Uns bleibt dieses Erbe. Disney hingegen scheint nur das Äussere zu sehen und nicht die Scheinhaftigkeit und Widersprüchlichkeit dahinter.
In der Nähe das Familienschloss Hohenschwangau, in warmen Farben und gemütlich eingerichtet, welch ein Kontrast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Already as a kid, I found Disney fairy tale movies to be ultimate Kitsch. Especially the intro with the zoom in into the castle. Nun in the ripe age of 48 years, I saw for the first time Castle Neuschwanstein and know for sure, Disney must have seen this and it threw him out of balance.
King Ludwig of Bavaria, unsociable, nocturnal and manic builder of castles in the romantic style, gave castle Neuschwanstein the full package. The perfect site, in addition the Maria bridge, hanging over a dramatic gorge, giving a view point showing the castle as from a fairy tale.
The debts for this castle and other building activities drove him into ruin and, after having been declared insance, into death. The legacy belongs to us. Disney however appears to only have seen the outside of ot, not the illusion and the contradictions behind.
Close by, the family castle Hihenschwangau, in warm colors and comfortably furnished, what a contrast.

Used equipment / benutzte Ausrüstung (links to Amazon.com /.de):
Da es morgens um 7°° im Winter losging, habe ich mein Slik Mini-Stativ miteingepackt, um Bilder bei niedrigen ISOs machen zu können, anstelle von Wasserfarben-Gemälden :-). Trotz einer leichten Brise, hat das ganz gut geklappt. Ich hatte allerdings auch OSS angeschaltet gelassen.
Sony Alpha 6000 System-Kamera und SEL-P1650 Objektiv
Sony SEL1018 Weitwinkel-Zoomobjektiv mit Bildstabilisator
Sony SEL50F18 Objektiv mit Bildstabilisator
Canon FD100/2.8
Slik Sprint Mini II GM Stativ (mit Kopf) grau-metallic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rising at 7:00 am in the winter morning, I packed my Slik mini tripod to be able to take some pictures at low ISO instead of water-color paintings :-). Despite a slight breeze, this worked out quite good, I however left OSS turned on, too.
Sony a6000 Camera with 16-50mm Power Zoom Lens
Sony SEL1018 10-18mm Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
Sony SEL50 50mm f/1.8 Lens for Sony E Mount Cameras
Canon FD100/2.8
Slik Sprint Mini II Tripod with Ball Head

Early morning view

The tower

View from the Maria bridge

Poellat-Gorge

The gorge

Asia is everywhere :-)

Hohenschwangau

The Alps

Would this be your choice for a bath?

Pixel-peeping: Comprehensive (Zoom) Lens test on Sony Nex 5N & A6000 / ILCE-6000: SEL1670, SEL1855, SEL1650PZ, SEL50

UPDATE: For a 1:1 comparison of 1650 versus 1670 both on the A6000, check here: Blog -the-16-something-zoom-shootout-on-a6000)

Guilty as charged - did another lens test to assess the performance of the currently available zoom lenses for the the Sony APS-C mirrorless camera line: SEL1670, SEL1855 and SEL1650PZ. The SEL50F18 was added on the spur of a moment.

If you are interested, you can find here crop comparisons of those lenses both on the Sony Nex 5N camera body and on the A6000. These comparisons are at different apertures: wide-open, f5.6 and f8. Crops were taken from the center of the image, and another set is for the left upper corner.

Just for illustration, a downsized picture of one of those comparison:

Just a small example

Since Google and Flickr mess up the files, I have ZIPped them and added the links below. File size is 5 to 10 MB, so have patience!

My personal summary based on my copies are:

My SEL1670 is a very sharp lens in the center and the edges even wide open at f4. The sharpness wide-open allows good shots in lower light as well as good subject isolation. Contrary to some other reviews, it appears to me as well-usable for landscape photos. Weakest point seems to be edge sharpness at 35mm & 50mm wide open at f4. Further bonus points are the tele range and a silent & fast AF drive. Very well-built.

My SEL1855 needs f5.6 or f8 to perform best, edge sharpness above 24mm is not the best. For the low price a good allround lens. But the 1670 outperforms it in central sharpness by two stops at the wide end and else by one stop, as well as in edge sharpness by one stop. The SEL1650PZ easily outperforms it too, is smaller, and also cheap. So for me, the SEL1855 is ripe for retirement.

Unfortunately, I forgot to test the SEL1670 on the A6000 and therefore had to compare the results of the SEL1670 on the 5N to the SEL1650PZ on the A6000, giving the latter a slight advantage in resolution. See my following lens-shootout between the 1670 and 1650 both using the A6000 here: LENS SHOOTOUT 1670 & 1650

My SEL1650PZ is a compact lens and easily outperforms my SEL1855. Weakness is edge sharpness below 24mm unless f8 is used. Also strange is the dip in sharpness in the mid-aperture range at 16-18mm, similar to the odd behaviour of the FE2870 kit zoom for FF.

If the SEL1650PZ is used at f8, it is a good lens over its entire range, better than the SEL1855. In the wideangle range it is sometimes outperformed by the SEL1670 but at f8 can achieve comparable results. This is impressive for such a small and inexpensive lens. Lacking a lens hood, flare can impact image quality. See my solution using the hood of the SEL1855 and some inexpensive stuff here.

Download links:
SEL1670 at 16, 18, 24, 35, 50 and 70mm on 5N:   Center crops

SEL1670 at 16, 18, 24, 35, 50 and 70mm on 5N and SEL1855 at 18, 24, 35, 50 mm on 5N: Crops from left upper edge

SEL1855 at 18, 24, 35, 50 mm on 5N: Center crops

SEL1855 at 18, 24, 35, 50 mm on A6000 / ILCE-6000: Crops from Center and upper left edge


SEL1650PZ at 16, 18, 24, 35, 50 mm on A6000 / ILCE-6000: Crops from center  &  Crops from upper left edge

SEL50F18 on A6000 / ILCE-6000: Crops fromcenter and upper left edge

Detailed evaluation of lens performance:

SEL1670 (on Nex 5N)

center

16mm sharp from f4, contrast good, improves to very good at f5.6.   18mm sharp from f4, contrast already very good at f4 f5.6.  24mm same (changing contrast due to clouds).   35mm, 50 and 70 mm sharpness and contrast improves slightly from f4 to f5.6.  At 50mm, sharpness decreases somewhat at f8 compared to f5.6

Edges

16mm good at f4 with slight improvement at f5.6.  18mm and 24mm ok to good at f4, slight improvement at f5.6 and good at f8.  35mm soft at f4, ok at f5.6 good at f8.  50mm slightly soft at f4, good at f5.6, very good at f8.  70mm ok to good at f4, good at f5.6 and f8

SEl1855 (on Nex 5N):

center

18mm weak at f3.5 and f4, ok at f5.6, good at f8      => SEL1670 at f4 beats SEL1855 at f8.

24mm slightly soft at f4, ok-good at f5.6 and f8.       => SEL1670 at f4 still slightly better than SEL1855 at f8.

35mm quite good at f4.5, good at f6.3 and f8            => SEL1670 at f4 is reached by SEL1855 at f5.6.

50mm f5 and f5.6 soft, at f8 acceptable                     => SEL1670 at f4 clearly better than SEL1855 at f8.

Edges:

18mm: ok to good at f3.5 and f4, good at f5.6 and f8   24mm: slightly soft at f4, good at f5.6 and f8   35mm soft at f4.5, ok at f6.3, good at f8   50mm soft at f5 and f5.6, ok to good at f8

SEL1855 (on A6000)

center

Same observations as on the 5N, but the pictures are somewhat better on the A6000 (higher resolution?)

SEL1650PZ (on A6000)

center

16mm excellent sharpness and contrast at f3.5, drops to good at f4 and f5.6 and becomes very good at f8

18mm good sharpness at f4, drops to ok at f5.6 and becomes good again (or better) at f8

24mm ok sharpness at f4.5, good sharpness at f5.6, very good at f8

35mm and 50mm starts at f5.6, good sharpness, very good at f8

=> The 1650PZ (at least my copy) outperforms the SEL1855 everywhere.

=> The 1670 on the 16 Mpx 5N is as good or better if both are on f5.6.

Edges

16mm soft at f3,5 and f4, still somewhat soft at f5.6 ok to good at f8 

=> 1670 is always sharp, the 1650 at f8 is still less sharp than f4 on the 1670

18mm soft at f4, somewhat soft at f5.6, good at f8           => 1670 is sharper at f4 and f5.6, about the same at f8

24mm slightly soft at f4.5, good at f5.6, very good at f8   => 1670 better at f4, draw with the 1650PZ both at f5.6 and f8.

35mm soft at f5.6, good at f8                                               =>1670 offers f4, f5.6 and f8 are as good or better than f8 on the PZ

50mm ok at f5.6, good at f8                                                 => 1670 offers f4, is better at f4 and f5.6, draw at f8

SEL50 (on A6000)

Center

Slightly soft at f1.8, improves at f2.8 to good, at f4 better, at f5.6 and f8 bitingly sharp :-)

edge

At f1.8 slightly soft, improves at f2.8 and further at f4 to good, f5.6 and f8 very good

Notes:

Focus was on windows, NOT on the ladder. Central point was used. Changing clouds, so don't overvalue the colors and contrast. AWB, OOC, JPG, ISO 100, 2 sec shutter delay, tripod. OSS off. Keep in mind when comparing that wide-open on the variable-aperture zooms SEL1855 and SEL1650PZ is different from the constant f4 of the 1670. 

The FILE NAMES of the first three comparisons are wrong regarding center or left edge crop. What IS correct is always the text within the comparisons. Sorry for the potential confusion.