Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
  

DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom
  
 
Holger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree Chris, but as Roger wrote, the Sony "lens" MTF never matched the Canon "lens" MTF. There is no way in my mind that a lower megapixel Sony "system" MTF would beat the Canon "system" by that much...I would love to see the real 1:1 crops evaluated by DXO.

Differences in distance performance should not be that dramatic especially with modern lenses. Unless DXO tests at MFD or very close to it we should not see such discrepancy. I think that infinity testing is the most reliable since the results represent most shooting distances.

I agree to this.
Dxo introduces a lot of variables. We don't know what happens to the raw files as well (what in-raw adjustments like sharpening etc. are performed) and having only a single sample doesn't help. For me lensrentals results are the one I am looking at.
Irrespective the dxo results, the 16-35 from Sony is a great lens being probably among the best wide angle zooms on the market. This lens is on my wishlist for christmas.



Oct 14, 2017 at 04:37 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Holger wrote:
I agree to this.
Dxo introduces a lot of variables. We don't know what happens to the raw files as well (what in-raw adjustments like sharpening etc. are performed) and having only a single sample doesn't help. For me lensrentals results are the one I am looking at.
Irrespective the dxo results, the 16-35 from Sony is a great lens being probably among the best wide angle zooms on the market. This lens is on my wishlist for christmas.


Also Sony "RAW" files could be cooked for better sharpness. an optical bench test (lens MTF) would bypass all of these variables. It's just a superior methodology.



Oct 15, 2017 at 02:50 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


RCicala wrote:
Now I'll turn on cynical snarky mode and mention that I believe 9 of the last 11 products reviewed by DxO have been declared "BEST ONE EVER!!!!" This includes two consecutive cell phone cameras (the iPhone 8 was best one ever for like 4 days) and the Nikon D850 (which required removing the Pentax 645D from their database before reviewing the Nikon because the Pentax rated a point higher). And DxO's software isn't selling as well as it used to . . . . . . .


It's a mystery why they removed the "101" score for the Pentax. I found it though.








Oct 15, 2017 at 03:23 AM
thenoilif
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


telyt wrote:
Even much more costly lenses will have noticeable image quality 'defects' depending on what you're looking for. Some people will notice the OOF color fringes of spherochromatic aberration, others won't notice for example. The way to use a $2,000+ lens, or any lens for that matter, is to be aware of its strengths and weaknesses and take advantage of its strengths and work around its weaknesses. Regardless of the price tag its up to each of us to choose which imaging properties we want (or want to avoid) and decide if a lens is 'worth it'.


Design quirks are one thing, poor manufacturing leading to massive (noticeable) differences in the level of image quality from what is intended is another.

There are a lot of buyers out there who do not have the means to easily return lenses if they are a 'dud'. Camera retailers in my area do not allow you to return opened items nor do they allow you to test them in the store before buying. You can inspect it physically but not on camera as it immediately becomes 'used'.

It's interesting that the general consumer has gotten to the point where its just part of buying lenses which is quite sad. I would expect that Sony would not allow this especially when there is a G stamped on the side of their lens.



Oct 15, 2017 at 06:52 AM
Viramati
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


I too can find DXO tests more confusing than helpful at times though they can give a sort of general overall idea towards a lens. MY 16-35GM was the first one my dealer got in and I am very happy with it. I find it performs well all at all focal lengths and especially see the difference between it at the the f4 version at the wide end. I have no problems at the 35mm end where it again performs well stopped down and gives beautiful bokeh (for a f2.8 lens) wide-open. I did go through a pixel peeping day or two of panicking that it was ever so slightly softer towards once side than the other but discovered that it was just down to the way you need to focus the lens. I find it to be a perfect match for my FE70-300 for landscape work where I would find the gap in range to be big if I had the 12-24. All in all a superb all-rounder which is after all what a zoom is supposed to be


Oct 15, 2017 at 08:31 AM
dgpfotografia
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


I read somewhere that DxO said it was due they never finish the review and they stopped reviewing medium format sensors... they say now they are going back to publish then... now with people looking to mirrorless medium format...

Ok, found it, it was published here https://m.dpreview.com/news/0674315225/this-is-why-the-pentax-645z-dxomark-score-of-101-was-never-published

Fred Miranda wrote:
It's a mystery why they removed the "101" score for the Pentax. I found it though.



Oct 15, 2017 at 08:33 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Dxo's sharpness 'score' is based on the 16-35/2.8GM at 24mm and f/2.8, compared to the Canon at 16mm f/2.8. That's just an useless number IMO. Unfortunately it's the number that will start brand wars and rush photographers to run and buy this lens. Well, good for Sony I guess.

I would believe more in their numbers and scores if they would presented some evidence like 1:1 crops! We are photographers and prefer seeing images instead of relying so much on numbers.
Show me the side-by-side images proving that the 16-35/2.8 GM is that much better than the Canon 16-35/2.8L III and many native Sony primes. Center crops are not enough for me, I want to see mid-zone and extreme edges as well.

From my experience the 16-35/2.8 GM is not better than Loxia 21/2.8 or even FE 35/2.8ZA off-axis, but according to their numbers which I assume only cares about center performance, it's a superior lens.



Oct 15, 2017 at 06:07 PM
Phillip Reeve
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Fred Miranda wrote:
Dxo's sharpness 'score' is based on the 16-35/2.8GM at 24mm and f/2.8[...] which I assume only cares about center performance

DxO is very vague in their documentation but they say they average across the entire zoom range and take the corners into account although with a lower weight to get to their "perceptual MP" score.

"For each focal length and each f-number sharpness is computed and weighted across the image field, with the corners being less critical than the image center. This results in a number for each focal length / aperture combination. We then choose the maximum sharpness value from the aperture range for each focal length. These values are then averaged across all focal lengths to obtain the DxOMark resolution score that is reported in P-MPix (Perceptual Megapixels)."

I think their score is BS because their documentation is so vague, because the camera seems to play a significant role and because it makes zero sense to summarize lens sharpness in one number.




Oct 15, 2017 at 07:55 PM
mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


It would be nice if DXO provided more cross MTF results of 5DSR+1635FE and/or A7Rii+1635EFiii to isolate the lens/sensor based comparision. Imo, the universal (F)E mount has unlocked a way that system MTF really need to be re-defined/re-tested to cover more integrated data for this group. For now, A7Rii owner here can help some data if they owned both 1635EF and 1636FE lenses



Oct 15, 2017 at 08:05 PM
Mike Hope
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Followed this very interesting conversation as a non registered reader for a while and now feel tempted to comment, as a lot of DxO "bashing" seems to go on.

First things first: I'm not a fanboy of any sort. I use systems that I deem to fit my purposes and change systems when I see enough reason (including finacial aspects) to do so.
I'm not here to "defend" DxO in any way, don't get my first sentences wrong on that.

Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think their score is BS because their documentation is so vague, because the camera seems to play a significant role and because it makes zero sense to summarize lens sharpness in one number.

I agree on most things that you, Roger and Fred said.
Yes, that one P-MPix score is not enough to judge a lens or even compare to another one.
And the hints towards the discrepancies between GM16-35 vs. GM24-70 in the 24-35 range need to be examined.

BUT ...
As already mentioned before: its not a lens score, its a sytem score: that one lens bound to that one specific body.
And in that particular the A7RII fairs extraordinarily well, compared to the older A7R for example it gets a much higher percentage P-MPix score on most lenses and even much higher percentage than APS-C bodies which only use the "sweet spot" and negate weak extreme corners.

My main point is: it is the system the photographer should care about.
If we are talking about IQ a great lens on a "weak" body (e.g. one system that has not adapted well its two components in this case) may deliver less P-MPix than an also good lens on a "perfect" body.
So my main concern is about what I get in the "printed picture" and only to a lesser degree which lens has better MTF.
I'm very much with Luminous Landscape's approach of things.
Sadly DxO does not test adapted lenses, so seeing a P-MPix score for the EF 16-35 L III on a Sony A7RII (though obviously Canon did not try to match the lens to the Sony sensor) would be interesting.

I think the DxO approach is valid in its own way, as is a test on an optical bench.
They both give us different viewpoints that may contradict each other. And if so, we of course want to know why ...



Oct 15, 2017 at 10:46 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



swldstn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Ok, so have I made a mistake in ordering the Sony FE16-35mm f/2.8GM? Is this another lottery like Zony 35mm f/1.4 Distagon? Should I simply cancel my order?

I will be using it on an A7RII. I own quite a few wide angle lenses but getting tired of packing them and switching off from one to the other. So I have gone back and forth on the FE 12-24 and FE 16-35mm GM and decided on the 16-35 GM because I just don't do well below 16mm. Just a personal limitation. Also have a nice see of Lee filters I like to use.

I used to shoot exclusively Canon and on that system ended with a general purpose EF 16-35mm f/4L IS that I use along with a TS-E 17mm f/4L and a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Had a Zeiss ZE 21mm and 18mm for a while but sold those when I bought the 16-35 since Canon's wide angels took a step up when it came out. I thought the ZE 21 was special the 18mm was not and the 16-35 f/4 easily replace the ZE 18mm.

On the Sony I started with the FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA but traded tit out for the Batis 18/2.8 and 25/2.0 and the Loxia 21 for when I wanted to go small and would go out with just the 21, 35/2 and 50/2 ore the 18/2.8, 25/2, and 55mm f/1.8.

As you can tell I have been all over the map on wide angles and thought I could finally go back to a high quality f/2.8 zoom. Maybe that thinking was a mistake because I have not been unhappy with the Batis images just having to carry an switch out several lenses.

It will arrive in few days and I bought from B&H so I know I can return it if its a bad copy but I admit I am not the most knowledgable when it comes to testing. What is the best way for me to determine if its a keeper?

So did I make a mistake here? I bought the Sony instead of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III because the A7RII is really my landscape and architecture camera more than my 5D IV is so I thought that was the better place to put my money and stay native.

Steve W



Oct 15, 2017 at 11:06 PM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


swldstn wrote:
Ok, so have I made a mistake in ordering the Sony FE16-35mm f/2.8GM? Is this another lottery like Zony 35mm f/1.4 Distagon? Should I simply cancel my order?

I will be using it on an A7RII. I own quite a few wide angle lenses but getting tired of packing them and switching off. So I have back and forth on the FE 12-24 and FE 16-35mm GM and decided on the 16-35 GM because I just do well below 16mm. Just a personal limitation.

I used to shoot exclusively Canon and on that system ended with a general purpose EF 16-35mm f/4L
...Show more

I don't think it's a mistake at all. It's a very good lens. I think people are mostly bashing the hyperbole of 'best measured' when that's really not true.

Most copies are really excellent at 16mm and 24mm, if they are weak it's at 35mm. For those that also carry a 24-70mm f/2.8, this is less of an issue, they can swap for the longer end.

I usually recommend testing by taking pictures, and in this case I'd look particularly for side- to- side sharpness differences. You can do more if you like, but that's the end-all; does it take good pictures. I would be sure, though, to take several images each at different focal lengths and focusing distances. With this lens you're more likely to find a weak spot than overall softness.



Oct 15, 2017 at 11:40 PM
billsnature
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


DXO has a lot of useful information, but the one number score of a lens is not useful at all nor is the summary page. If you just look at first page without spending time on measurements tab you are missing it.

I do use the compare capability of the site to look at three lenses and the click the "measurements tab" immediately. Next click sharpness and then last tab on right for profiles. You can now look at the relative performance of three lenses as a function of focal length, f stop and location across the sensor. While I don't like that measurements are at a close distance, I do see a high correlation to actual tests of center to corner sharpness and how that changes with stopping down.

I also find the "vignetting" and the last tab on right "field map" to be highly useful in predicting relative corner darkening as a function of f stop.



So Steve - Based on my comparisons to the 16-35 F4 and your other lenses I think you will be happy if you get a good copy (50:50) and I wish I had played that lotto over the 12-24 lotto.

Bill



Oct 15, 2017 at 11:52 PM
Messier77
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


RCicala wrote:
I don't think it's a mistake at all. It's a very good lens. I think people are mostly bashing the hyperbole of 'best measured' when that's really not true.

Most copies are really excellent at 16mm and 24mm, if they are weak it's at 35mm. For those that also carry a 24-70mm f/2.8, this is less of an issue, they can swap for the longer end.

I usually recommend testing by taking pictures, and in this case I'd look particularly for side- to- side sharpness differences. You can do more if you like, but that's the end-all; does it take
...Show more

Good to hear that they are at least reasonably consistent at 16mm and 24mm. I may have just been very unlucky with my copies that were weak over portions of the frame at 16mm. Considering giving it another shot.




Oct 16, 2017 at 12:36 AM
swldstn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


RCicala wrote:
I don't think it's a mistake at all. It's a very good lens. I think people are mostly bashing the hyperbole of 'best measured' when that's really not true.

Most copies are really excellent at 16mm and 24mm, if they are weak it's at 35mm. For those that also carry a 24-70mm f/2.8, this is less of an issue, they can swap for the longer end.

I usually recommend testing by taking pictures, and in this case I'd look particularly for side- to- side sharpness differences. You can do more if you like, but that's the end-all; does it take
...Show more

Roger, thanks so much. It helps to hear from someone who really knows. For 24-70 I have the native FE 24-70 f/4 ZA and the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II that works great adapted especially on my A9 with the latest firmware update. That lens pretty much lives on my 5D IV though.

Steve W




Oct 16, 2017 at 12:44 AM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


swldstn wrote:
Ok, so have I made a mistake in ordering the Sony FE16-35mm f/2.8GM?Steve W


No. It is perhaps the best WA zoom lens ever made. Just do some quick testing (don't get too carried away) to verify you have a good copy.

swldstn wrote:
Also have a nice see of Lee filters I like to use.Steve W


Just a quick note that the 100mm filters will vignette a bit on the 16-35mm GM at 16mm. 17mm and up is ok though...





Oct 16, 2017 at 03:33 PM
Brandon Dube
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


If two cameras use different coverglasses, you can introduce advantages to one lens or another in a comparison by using it with the wrong one.

E.g. 5DsR and A7RII and D850 are all different coverglasses. You can't equivocate performance of a canon lens on the A7RII with its performance on the 5DsR.



Oct 16, 2017 at 05:14 PM
scrappydog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Brandon Dube wrote:
You can't equivocate performance of a canon lens on the A7RII with its performance on the 5DsR.


Define "equivocate". I use several Canon lenses on my A7RII and there is little noticable perception of difference in their performance when compared to Canon bodies. The only lens that I have noticed a negative change is the TS-E 17, which developed distortion.



Oct 16, 2017 at 05:52 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


scrappydog wrote:
Define "equivocate". I use several Canon lenses on my A7RII and there is little noticable perception of difference in their performance when compared to Canon bodies. The only lens that I have noticed a negative change is the TS-E 17, which developed distortion.


I've seen induced field curvature when using ultra wide Canon lenses on the Sony body. It's is probably due to the slight different sensor stack thickness. That's one of the reasons I stopped adapting and went native.



Oct 16, 2017 at 05:59 PM
DannyBurkPhoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


I've tested a lot of mine, and the only one that had a very noticeable difference was the ZE 15/2.8 on Metabones IV. When I tried it on a Sigma adapter, the difference disappeared. My Canon 17 t/s shows a slight difference with the MB, but again, that also disappeared with the Sigma adapter. None of my other adapted wides have shown a difference with either MB or Sigma. I don't dispute others' findings, I'm just saying that it's yet another variable in the equation. I wouldn't dream of giving up most of my ZE and other Canon-mount lenses on the Sony, so I guess I'm lucky to get one excellent adapter and another that's excellent for everything except the 15 and 17.


Oct 16, 2017 at 06:52 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password