taoger wrote:
Second this based on my observation of my copy as well. Nice job. Basically, at any focal length, there is a setting one can get very good corners (as you indicated with purple)
I feel that in the 60-65 range, F9-F11 are at similar peak performance, and 24-35 5.6-8 are at similar peak performance for corners.
for flattest field, it is around 40-55. I found the shots in this range are very pleasing. low CA, low distortion, low astigmatism, and very even and crispy sharpness in the whole frame.
The problem is that once you close the aperture to f/9-f/11 (60-70mm), the peak corner performance will always be worse when compared to f/5.6-f/8 at the wider range. (due to diffraction)
The FE 16-35/4 performs similarly at the long range as 35mm needs f/9 for the corners. This is very common with zoom lenses and this thread proved to be a great resource for getting the best IQ out of the 24-70/2.8 GM lens. For example, we know we should not be shooting landscapes at 65-70mm at f/4 or f/5.6 but that's fine for wider focal lengths.
Not that I don't care about getting sharp rendition throughout the entire frame but in my real-life shooting, the corners, let alone the extreme corners barely play a role. Most of the time, I am capturing images of 3-dimensional targets. Even for landscape there are layers of varying distances from the camera where depth-of-field or field curvature may play a role. Frankly, I would put significantly more emphasis on the renditions/sharpness, micro contrast, etc. of about 80-85% of the center frame.
I had a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark II for the longest time and used it on my A7r II a lot until recently. Although I didn't do any side-by-side comparison of the two, I have to tell you that my copy of the GM 24-70mm lens is on par with the Canon counterpart. It is extremely good in rendering the majority of the center area and that includes the 70mm setting. I am also very pleased with the corners at f/8 at that FL setting as rendered in the image a few pages back. In short, this zoom lens easily replaces a few primes in the FL range for me.
AGeoJO wrote:
Not that I don't care about getting sharp rendition throughout the entire frame but in my real-life shooting, the corners, let alone the extreme corners barely play a role. Most of the time, I am capturing images of 3-dimensional targets. Even for landscape there are layers of varying distances from the camera where depth-of-field or field curvature may play a role. Frankly, I would put significantly more emphasis on the renditions/sharpness, micro contrast, etc. of about 80-85% of the center frame.
I had a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark II for the longest time and used it on my A7r II a lot until recently. Although I didn't do any side-by-side comparison of the two, I have to tell you that my copy of the GM 24-70mm lens is on par with the Canon counterpart. It is extremely good in rendering the majority of the center area and that includes the 70mm setting. I am also very pleased with the corners at f/8 at that FL setting as rendered in the image a few pages back. In short, this zoom lens easily replaces a few primes in the FL range for me. ...Show more →
Joshua,
I agree with what you wrote about real-life shooting but that applies to any lens. We are just intentionally scrutinizing this lens to the max to give an idea of its strengths and weaknesses. There is no doubt it's one of the best standard zooms in the market.
I think I still have a direct comparison against the Canon 24-70/2.8L II from a few months back. I will try to find it.
Update: I found the images and will post a comparison here. For the record, I had to get four Canon 24-70/2.8L II lenses to find a great copy. This was many months ago and I no longer own either lens.
Thanks Fred,
I understand diffraction could be an issue if stop down hard. But for 11 at the tele end, it is really not going to affect much to the details.
Sometime the F5.6 or 4 can give very strong center, but not always to the corner, the very separated Tan and Sag MTF make the corner not nice. The sag and Tan MTF are not always improved in sync, especially for the zoom at different focal lengths. For example, if F11 may be the best for Sag, but weaker for Tan, and F5.6 is best for Tan, but weak for Sag, and at all condition, Tan is always better than Sag, then in this condition F11 may give you a overall balance. it actually look nature and "sharper" to eyes even on MTF it is not on the peak. And after some sharpening, it indeed could surpass the F8.
The tele focal lengths tolerate well stopping down. my FE 70-200 can still have really decent details even stopped down to F16, there I can get very good DOF and corner quality. The defraction is quite easy to remove by adding some sharpness and details. For wide end, I rarely go smaller than F8.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The problem is that once you close the aperture to f/9-f/11 (60-70mm), the peak corner performance will always be worse when compared to f/5.6-f/8 at the wider range. (due to diffraction)
The FE 16-35/4 performs similarly at the long range as 35mm needs f/9 for the corners. This is very common with zoom lenses and this thread proved to be a great resource for getting the best IQ out of the 24-70/2.8 GM lens. For example, we know we should not be shooting landscapes at 65-70mm at f/4 or f/5.6 but that's fine for wider focal lengths.
Fred, thank you for posting the comparison on both lenses.
A few observations I noticed, solely by looking at your resized images
- It seems that the GM at 70mm is longer than the same FL using the Canon
- It is tough to judge the difference in the center and mid-field at the size you posted. I am sure it is more easily distinguishable at the full size on your monitor.
- To my eyes, the comparison of the extreme edge images seems to favor the GM lens. Somehow, the GM appears to render sharper or better delineated lines. At least, they are equal, I would say.
Since you said that the Canon was a tad sharper or better, does it have to do with the rendition of the center and mid-field section? I truly cannot make out any difference there based on the size of the images and insufficient amount of contrasty borders/lines.
Just saw B&H has a bunch of open box stock 24-70 for 1900 plus. Now not sure if these are returns or not but they do have a return policy. Might be worth playing the lottery.
I know I know but hey it maybe worth a shot to someone.
p.51 #10 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Looking at Fred's pictures it looks like the GM has a slight edge. I should really test mine as all I've used it for are wedding formal pictures at churches.
p.51 #11 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
GMPhotography wrote:
Just saw B&H has a bunch of open box stock 24-70 for 1900 plus. Now not sure if these are returns or not but they do have a return policy. Might be worth playing the lottery.
I know I know but hey it maybe worth a shot to someone.
they are grey market with a 1 year B&H warranty, I talked to B&H about them today.
I'm questioning whether the 250 savings is worth it for an "open box" on a 2200 dollar lens....
p.51 #12 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
GMPhotography wrote:
Just saw B&H has a bunch of open box stock 24-70 for 1900 plus. Now not sure if these are returns or not but they do have a return policy. Might be worth playing the lottery.
I know I know but hey it maybe worth a shot to someone.
I just grabbed one. You devil!!
It feels like playing in the lottery. I could win!
p.51 #14 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just grabbed one. You devil!!
It feels like playing in the lottery. I could win!
Im really hoping you do. You need this lens in your arsenal. Keep us posted. Really better than buying used as you can return it and have those return options
My results for extreme corner sharpness, for landscape use.
1,000 test shots, 2 copies, 1 weeks worth of pixel peeping!
Your mileage may vary....
I've tested a few copies as well and your chart is pretty much on point.
However, from my experience, I would place the 'purple' color at f/5.6 from 24mm until 35mm. With my best copies, I could not see any difference in the extreme corners (even at 2:1) from f/5.6 to f/8 at this range. That's where this lens is outstanding. (comparable to the best primes)
p.51 #16 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tested a few copies as well and your chart is pretty much on point.
However, from my experience, I would place the 'purple' color at f/5.6 from 24mm until 35mm. With my best copies, I could not see any difference in the extreme corners (even at 2:1) from f/5.6 to f/8 at this range. That's where this lens is outstanding. (comparable to the best primes)
Hoping that you crack the jackpot and get a good copy again, Fred.
p.51 #17 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tested a few copies as well and your chart is pretty much on point.
However, from my experience, I would place the 'purple' color at f/5.6 from 24mm until 35mm. With my best copies, I could not see any difference in the extreme corners (even at 2:1) from f/5.6 to f/8 at this range. That's where this lens is outstanding. (comparable to the best primes)
That pretty much mimics my findings except that I can't tell apart f/5.6 to f/8 at 35mm. Maybe you are pickier than me!!
Here is a crop showing the extreme corners. Can you tell them apart?
I would say f/5.6 is also the optimal aperture for 35mm because the edges look pretty much identical and the center looks better at f/5.6.
p.51 #19 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Since we are being extremely picky (), I would also give 40mm until 50mm, f/6.3 as the optimum aperture. I don't see any difference for the edges going from f/6.3 to f/7.1 to f/8 and the center looks better at f/6.3 (40-50mm)
NOTE: You need a perfect lens to see these aperture differences. I used to have one but it felt on the ground and lost its mojo...I'm on the hunt for another one.
), I would also give 40mm until 50mm, f/6.3 as the optimum aperture. I don't see any difference for the edges going from f/6.3 to f/7.1 to f/8 and the center looks better at f/6.3 (40-50mm)