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
  
 
scrappydog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Fred Miranda wrote:
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.


I haven't noticed more distortion on my EF 16-35/4. If anything, it seems as though it has a shallower depth of field than on my old 5DIII.



Oct 16, 2017 at 09:01 PM
Phillip Reeve
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Fred Miranda wrote:
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.

Are you sure that your adapter had 100% the correct thickness? Because FC is what you get with too short adapters and the Metabones is usually too short.



Oct 17, 2017 at 04:35 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Phillip Reeve wrote:
Are you sure that your adapter had 100% the correct thickness? Because FC is what you get with too short adapters and the Metabones is usually too short.


Yes, good point. An out of spec. adapter would make things even worse. What I am saying is that even with an adapter providing perfect flange distance, FC seems to be slightly off between camera brands and that's more apparent with ultra wides. That's what I saw and it drove me nuts.



Oct 17, 2017 at 04:46 AM
TakenWild
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


My adapted Canon 16-35 f4 on a MC11 has less field curvature than when I had FE 16-35 f4. My FE 12-24 f4 is quite good. But that 12mm there is more field curvature than the Canon at 16mm.

The Shift Tilt 17mm and 24mm have the most field curvature at shifted extremes. The 17TSE in shifted corners especially. Makes it very annoying doing focus staked shifted panoramas.



Oct 17, 2017 at 05:04 AM
Phillip Reeve
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, good point. An out of spec. adapter would make things even worse. What I am saying is that even with an adapter providing perfect flange distance, FC seems to be slightly off between camera brands and that's more apparent with ultra wides. That's what I saw and it drove me nuts.

I think it would be quite hard to create a test which only measures the impact of the filter stack here and not also issues with floating elements/IF. Almost any adapter, even the expensive ones from Metabones or Novoflex, are built a little shorter than perfect to allow for variation in camera (which is quite high in at least first generation a7 series camera) and lenses. Rayqual Adapters and the MC11 seem to be quite exact but I have never measure how exact. Do you have a link to your tests?




Oct 17, 2017 at 05:04 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think it would be quite hard to create a test which only measures the impact of the filter stack here and not also issues with floating elements/IF. Almost any adapter, even the expensive ones from Metabones or Novoflex, are built a little shorter than perfect to allow for variation in camera (which is quite high in at least first generation a7 series camera) and lenses. Rayqual Adapters and the MC11 seem to be quite exact but I have never measure how exact. Do you have a link to your tests?

Phillip,
From my experience, I saw ill-effects with the Sigma MC-11 with Canon ultra wides I used to own. Metabones was not good either and I tried many copies. (This adapter also had issues with mount parallelism)

I've tested many other adapter brands with the Zeiss 15/2.8 ZE and TS-E 17/4 lenses and they were more flat field on my Canon 5D III while having slightly more field curvature on the A7R. I've asked smarter people than me to help figure this out but at the end didn't arrive at any decisive conclusion and decided it was not worth the headache for me. Your mileage may vary.



Oct 17, 2017 at 06:20 AM
Phillip Reeve
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Fred Miranda wrote:
Phillip,
From my experience, I've seen worse ill-effects with the Sigma MC-11 with the Canon ultra wides I used to own. Metabones not good either and I tried many copies (This adapter also had issues with mount parallelism). I've tested many other adapter brands with the Zeiss 15/2.8 ZE, TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 lenses and they were more flat field on my Canon 5D III while having more field curvature on the A7R. My conclusion was that it was not worth the headache for me. Your mileage may vary.

Interesting. I just measured my MC11 and it is 26.00mm which is the "perfect" value. Both my Novoflex adapters in contrast are 0.1mm short, my M-mount K&F adapter is 0.25mm too short . Did you also measure your adapters or did you only test them on camera? Did you make sure that in the end your focus scale showed exactly the same distances as on the 5diii when they were focused at the same distance?



Oct 17, 2017 at 06:56 AM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Phillip Reeve wrote:
Interesting. I just measured my MC11 and it is 26.00mm which is the "perfect" value. Both my Novoflex adapters in contrast are 0.1mm short, my M-mount K&F adapter is 0.25mm too short . Did you also measure your adapters or did you only test them on camera? Did you make sure that in the end your focus scale showed exactly the same distances as on the 5diii when they were focused at the same distance?


One thing I would throw out is parallelism is very important too, and and 0.05 difference is detectable on wide angles. Personally I've been unable to measure to that accuracy and only optically testing could detect it.



Oct 17, 2017 at 12:16 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Phillip Reeve
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


RCicala wrote:
One thing I would throw out is parallelism is very important too, and and 0.05 difference is detectable on wide angles. Personally I've been unable to measure to that accuracy and only optically testing could detect it.

I just put a simple digital calipher to my adapter and repeated my measurement several times until I got consistent results. Certainly much lower standards and a higher measuring error than you employ but I didn't have several thousand dollars lying around to throw at the problem .

As we are talking about the effect of the Sony sensor stack on Canon lenses: Which optical thickness do you use for your EF-mount and E-mount MTF-measurements and have you tried testing a more critical EF-mount lens (like an Otus or 2.8/16-35 III) on the E-mount stack?



Oct 17, 2017 at 01:22 PM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Phillip Reeve wrote:
As we are talking about the effect of the Sony sensor stack on Canon lenses: Which optical thickness do you use for your EF-mount and E-mount MTF-measurements and have you tried testing a more critical EF-mount lens (like an Otus or 2.8/16-35 III) on the E-mount stack?


We test E mount on the actual sensor stack from the cameras, Sony was kind enough to supply it. We've been testing Canon on 2mm of N-BK7 glass. 1.9 would be more ideal, but we can't source 1.9mm flats and I doubt there would be many, if any, lenses that would really vary more than the 1% reproducibility error our tests have.

Roger



Oct 17, 2017 at 06:00 PM
Brandon Dube
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


The intrinsic aberrations are those that are generated merely by the insertion of plate/window into a converging (focusing) beam. For any beam of the same numerical aperture (f/#) they are the same. Diffraction limited and highly aberrated beams of this NA have the same intrinsic aberrations added by the plate.

The induced aberrations are those that are a function of the aberrations present in the beam passing through the window. You will not find many people on this forum that are well versed in aberration theory. If you want to read my resume, you are free to do so here: http://www.retrorefractions.com/public/documents/bdube-resume-summer17-01.pdf




Oct 18, 2017 at 06:11 PM
swldstn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


Well my FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM arrived yesterday but won't get a change to test it until this weekend. Hope I got a good copy.

The size does not seem to big so I am glad I went that way rather than the 12-24mm since I don't feel I do well below 16mm any way, just my lack of talent.

If time permits I plan to compare it with the following collection of lenses Batis 18mm f/2.8, Batis 25mm f/2, Loxia 21mm f/2.8, Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Will take a bunch of time but I've got to do it to decide what has to go. If time permits will compare the 35mm and 24mm focal lengths between the GM 16-35 and my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. For the Canon lenses I will use my MB IV adapter.

These wide angle zooms have come a long way since my EF 17-40L.



Oct 20, 2017 at 01:45 AM
digital_AM
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


I just purchased this lens for architecture and landscape shooting. Iím looking forward to receiving it.


Oct 31, 2017 at 11:37 PM
digital_AM
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


@FredMiranda have you done any testing with this lens and compared it against the Batis 18? I have been using the GM lens for about a week now and even shot a commercial architecture job with it. Itís a sharp lens but Iím noticing distortion at the wide end that is taking some time to correct. It seems like not many have opted for this lens.


Nov 09, 2017 at 08:16 PM
davewolfs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · DxOmark: FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, Highest-rated wide-angle zoom


You had mentioned before you had some concerns about the lens compared to your Loxia and Batis. How are you liking the zoom?

swldstn wrote:
Well my FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM arrived yesterday but won't get a change to test it until this weekend. Hope I got a good copy.

The size does not seem to big so I am glad I went that way rather than the 12-24mm since I don't feel I do well below 16mm any way, just my lack of talent.

If time permits I plan to compare it with the following collection of lenses Batis 18mm f/2.8, Batis 25mm f/2, Loxia 21mm f/2.8, Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Will take a bunch of time but I've got to
...Show more



Nov 10, 2017 at 12:41 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