This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
p.1 #1The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
|
As we have already seen from the infinity tests I posted a few days ago, his bench-test results confirm that the FE 24-70/2.8 is stronger at the wider range with a slight resolution drop towards the longer end. The low variance between copies is also good news for Sony shooters.
He summarizes:
"When the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II came out a couple of years ago, I hailed it as dramatically better than what had ever been available in this range. Sony FE shooters now have it’s equal in a native-mount lens. Sure the fanboys can split hairs about this or that, but the differences in the lenses themselves are tiny. Of course, the proof is in the image, but early reports from reviewers seem to agree the new Sony performs just as well in the field as it does on the MTF bench. Well done, Sony!"
To read the entire test, check out Lensrentals.com
___________
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM ($2,198)
B&H Photo | Adorama
 |
||
 |
||
|
@24mm: Sony 24-70/2.8 GM vs Nikon 24-70/2.8 ED vs Canon 24-70/2.8L II
Apr 05, 2016 at 08:37 PM
p.1 #2The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Thanks Fred! I always love Roger's tests!
Apr 05, 2016 at 08:38 PM
p.1 #3The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
It's about time!
Now Canon can get around to releasing that 24-70/2.8L IS with the 5D IV
.
Now Canon can get around to releasing that 24-70/2.8L IS with the 5D IV
.Apr 05, 2016 at 08:47 PM
p.1 #4The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
"They look great! As Roger says "at least as good as, perhaps slightly better" than the Nikon and Canons in both MTF and Variance. The latter in particular is an encouraging step forward for Sony."
That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.
That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.
Apr 06, 2016 at 12:02 AM
p.1 #5The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Lee Saxon wrote:
"They look great! As Roger says "at least as good as, perhaps slightly better" than the Nikon and Canons in both MTF and Variance. The latter in particular is an encouraging step forward for Sony."
That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.
Give it a few years, seriously. The price will definitely come down-- close or to parity. But it's going to take time.
"They look great! As Roger says "at least as good as, perhaps slightly better" than the Nikon and Canons in both MTF and Variance. The latter in particular is an encouraging step forward for Sony."
That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.
Give it a few years, seriously. The price will definitely come down-- close or to parity. But it's going to take time.
Apr 06, 2016 at 12:46 AM
p.1 #6The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Impressive lens. Also interesting to see the Sony and Canon with cameras attached are the same size when retracted fully to 24mm. No getting around physics I suppose.
Apr 06, 2016 at 01:19 AM
p.1 #7The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
I remember the EF24-70L II is very good in performance. Is it possible that those EF24-70L II samples are worn out a bit before the measurement? The zooms from Nikon and SONY are quite new to me.
Apr 06, 2016 at 02:28 AM
p.1 #8The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
phuang3 wrote:
I remember the EF24-70L II is very good in performance. Is it possible that those EF24-70L II samples are worn out a bit before the measurement? The zooms from Nikon and SONY are quite new to me.
We test lenses when they come out of the box and then retest them over time to make sure there are no changes. In this case the data from Canon and Nikon lenses we used are from their original tests when released. So the comparison is new lenses vs new lenses.
I remember the EF24-70L II is very good in performance. Is it possible that those EF24-70L II samples are worn out a bit before the measurement? The zooms from Nikon and SONY are quite new to me.
We test lenses when they come out of the box and then retest them over time to make sure there are no changes. In this case the data from Canon and Nikon lenses we used are from their original tests when released. So the comparison is new lenses vs new lenses.
Apr 06, 2016 at 04:49 AM
p.1 #9The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Well the Sony I can tell you from the field is flat out outstanding. It renders better than any mid zoom I have seen to date. That part just does not show up in bench testing unfortunately . From someone that's never been very fond of zooms over the last 40 years of my career. This one stays in the bag. I'm heading out the door to do my flat wall mid zone test here in a bit which I do for every lens purchased. But so far this lens really looks the best I have seen in a zoom from Sony. I'm really hoping the 70-200 comes out before my big runway gig in July as I always rent for this show from lens rentals so really hoping they have it in stock to rent.
My dealer has in his hand my GM 85 ready to ship today, just waiting on refund money but I'm all over this new 85 as well. Love to see Rogers take on this lens also
My dealer has in his hand my GM 85 ready to ship today, just waiting on refund money but I'm all over this new 85 as well. Love to see Rogers take on this lens also
Apr 06, 2016 at 05:15 AM
p.1 #10The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
moranjr wrote:
Impressive lens. Also interesting to see the Sony and Canon with cameras attached are the same size when retracted fully to 24mm. No getting around physics I suppose.
Perhaps, but maybe if you are Sony and you know you are going to making a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom you know it is going to be big and you don't even try to make it 10 or 20 percent smaller, because you don't think for this type of lens being smaller will get you any competitive advantage. It could be physics, but it could be economics. They might not be able to make it smaller or they might have decided to not make it smaller but make it a bit better as that is where they saw the competitive advantage.
Impressive lens. Also interesting to see the Sony and Canon with cameras attached are the same size when retracted fully to 24mm. No getting around physics I suppose.
Perhaps, but maybe if you are Sony and you know you are going to making a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom you know it is going to be big and you don't even try to make it 10 or 20 percent smaller, because you don't think for this type of lens being smaller will get you any competitive advantage. It could be physics, but it could be economics. They might not be able to make it smaller or they might have decided to not make it smaller but make it a bit better as that is where they saw the competitive advantage.
Apr 06, 2016 at 05:36 AM
p.1 #11The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Steve Spencer wrote:
Perhaps, but maybe if you are Sony and you know you are going to making a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom you know it is going to be big and you don't even try to make it 10 or 20 percent smaller, because you don't think for this type of lens being smaller will get you any competitive advantage. It could be physics, but it could be economics. They might not be able to make it smaller or they might have decided to not make it smaller but make it a bit better as that is where they saw the competitive...Show more →
I'm sure they could hav made it smaller - but not smaller and as good. And this zoom had to be as good or better than the very best standard zooms ever for Sonys marketing strategy to work, and to undermine the advantage that 'traditional' lens makers have in the minds of the public.
Actually smaller and less good in he wide open edges might be for most people actually more useful! But it would have been a strategic mistake. It was a strategic mistake they made with the f4 24-70. That thing is tiny for a full frame 24-70, especially in diameter. But the optical cost of that damaged their reputation with zooms, even if for some uses it was a sensible trade off.
moranjr wrote
Impressive lens. Also interesting to see the Sony and Canon with cameras attached are the same size when retracted fully to 24mm. No getting around physics I suppose.I'm sure they could hav made it smaller - but not smaller and as good. And this zoom had to be as good or better than the very best standard zooms ever for Sonys marketing strategy to work, and to undermine the advantage that 'traditional' lens makers have in the minds of the public.
Actually smaller and less good in he wide open edges might be for most people actually more useful! But it would have been a strategic mistake. It was a strategic mistake they made with the f4 24-70. That thing is tiny for a full frame 24-70, especially in diameter. But the optical cost of that damaged their reputation with zooms, even if for some uses it was a sensible trade off.
Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50 AM
p.1 #12The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Thanks to Roger for those timely tests. Granted I'm not interested in the big zoom, but it's good to see that the 24-70's performance and QA seem to live up to the rather bold marketing talk and the high price (which btw is not much different from the new Nikon 24-70 VR here).
Looking forward to your impressions/thoughts on the 85 1.4, Guy.
Looking forward to your impressions/thoughts on the 85 1.4, Guy.
Apr 06, 2016 at 07:52 AM
p.1 #13The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Chris_88 wrote:
Thanks to Roger for those timely tests. Granted I'm not interested in the big zoom, but it's good to see that the 24-70's performance and QA seem to live up to the rather bold marketing talk and the high price (which btw is not much different from the new Nikon 24-70 VR here).
Looking forward to your impressions/thoughts on the 85 1.4, Guy.
The 85 f/1.4 GM is looking very good. Not done yet, but preliminary looks like it's going to be another winner.
Thanks to Roger for those timely tests. Granted I'm not interested in the big zoom, but it's good to see that the 24-70's performance and QA seem to live up to the rather bold marketing talk and the high price (which btw is not much different from the new Nikon 24-70 VR here).
Looking forward to your impressions/thoughts on the 85 1.4, Guy.
The 85 f/1.4 GM is looking very good. Not done yet, but preliminary looks like it's going to be another winner.
Apr 06, 2016 at 08:20 AM
p.1 #14The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Neat stuff! Always enjoy reading your articles
Apr 06, 2016 at 09:00 AM
p.1 #15The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Thanks Roger!
Can your testing machine work stopped down? As a landscape guy, I'd love to see f/8 or f/11 comparisons,
Thanks again for your hard work.
Chris
Can your testing machine work stopped down? As a landscape guy, I'd love to see f/8 or f/11 comparisons,
Thanks again for your hard work.
Chris
Apr 06, 2016 at 09:00 AM
p.1 #16The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Lee Saxon wrote:
"They look great! As Roger says "at least as good as, perhaps slightly better" than the Nikon and Canons in both MTF and Variance. The latter in particular is an encouraging step forward for Sony."
That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.
Guess what the Canon was at release...you got it $2200.
"They look great! As Roger says "at least as good as, perhaps slightly better" than the Nikon and Canons in both MTF and Variance. The latter in particular is an encouraging step forward for Sony."
That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.
Guess what the Canon was at release...you got it $2200.
Apr 06, 2016 at 09:04 AM
p.1 #17The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
RCicala wrote:
Looking forward to your impressions/thoughts on the 85 1.4, Guy.The 85 f/1.4 GM is looking very good. Not done yet, but preliminary looks like it's going to be another winner.
When Roger says it's good on his bench-test, he means it's good wide-open at infinity distances. That's quite surprising for a 85/1.4 lens!
Mine just shipped today.
Chris_88 wrote
Thanks to Roger for those timely tests. Granted I'm not interested in the big zoom, but it's good to see that the 24-70's performance and QA seem to live up to the rather bold marketing talk and the high price (which btw is not much different from the new Nikon 24-70 VR here).Looking forward to your impressions/thoughts on the 85 1.4, Guy.
When Roger says it's good on his bench-test, he means it's good wide-open at infinity distances. That's quite surprising for a 85/1.4 lens!
Mine just shipped today.
Apr 06, 2016 at 09:06 AM
p.1 #18The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
I agree that resolution/contrast differences between the three lenses are not dramatic but at very high frequencies 50 lp/mm, the zoom is noticeably ahead at most FLs. That means it will perform better with future higher MP bodies.
I've never tried the Nikon version but aside from the MTF tests, from my experience shooting with the Canon and Sony versions, I give the edge to the Sony for aberration control and out of focus transition rendering. Bokeh balls are also cleaner without high contrast outer rings and less inner onion patterns. This translates to smoother bokeh.
I've never tried the Nikon version but aside from the MTF tests, from my experience shooting with the Canon and Sony versions, I give the edge to the Sony for aberration control and out of focus transition rendering. Bokeh balls are also cleaner without high contrast outer rings and less inner onion patterns. This translates to smoother bokeh.
Apr 06, 2016 at 09:23 AM
p.1 #19The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
chez wrote:
That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.Guess what the Canon was at release...you got it $2200.
Actually the release price for the Canon was $2,300. I know because I pre-ordered one.
Lee Saxon wrote
"They look great! As Roger says "at least as good as, perhaps slightly better" than the Nikon and Canons in both MTF and Variance. The latter in particular is an encouraging step forward for Sony."That's what I'd be posting if the GM was $1750-$1800 like the other two. But at $2200, "at least as good, perhaps slightly better" is kind of a letdown.
Actually the release price for the Canon was $2,300. I know because I pre-ordered one.
Apr 06, 2016 at 09:25 AM
p.1 #20The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
Schlotkins wrote:
Thanks Roger!
Can your testing machine work stopped down? As a landscape guy, I'd love to see f/8 or f/11 comparisons,
Thanks again for your hard work.
Chris
Chris, it can but there's simply a workload issue. Doing just the basic tests on the zoom took two full days. Stop downs would add another 3 or 4 days on multiple copies and both the machine and I have time constraints.
Roger
Thanks Roger!
Can your testing machine work stopped down? As a landscape guy, I'd love to see f/8 or f/11 comparisons,
Thanks again for your hard work.
Chris
Chris, it can but there's simply a workload issue. Doing just the basic tests on the zoom took two full days. Stop downs would add another 3 or 4 days on multiple copies and both the machine and I have time constraints.
Roger
Apr 06, 2016 at 10:41 AM