p.4 #1 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm not switching. Lol
I want native all the way . But how is the look Fred
It's funny how we complain about QC with Sony lenses. I just tested a brand new TS-E 17/4L and it's terribly decentered.
I also have 2 new copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II and they are also both decentered at the wider range of the zoom...Go figure. Three lenses, none good.
p.4 #2 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
I can tell you one thing for sure. At infinity distances, my tests show that both Canon and GM are very similar from 24mm until about 50mm. At 70mm, the Canon is better towards the edges.
What I see if pretty much what LensRentals MTF graphs show and it's very different than what's been reported by DXOMark. I would not trust this test at all.
The Canon has more vignetting at 24mm wide-open and more CA towards the edges at the wider range. The only weakness for the GM is 70mm where it never quite matches the Canon towards the edges.
p.4 #3 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's funny how we complain about QC with Sony lenses. I just tested a brand new TS-E 17/4L and it's terribly decentered.
I also have 2 new copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II and they are also both decentered at the wider range of the zoom...Go figure. Three lenses, none good.
Fred, you're catching up to me on how many decentered 24-70 f/2.8 II's I've tried
p.4 #4 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Ive tried 2 copies of the 24-70 2.8 GM and they are both perfectly aligned. Last night I did a side by side against my Canon 24-70 2.8 II which is also perfectly aligned. For all intents and purposes they are the equal of each other. There was a very slim advantage to one or the other at certainly distances and focal lengths but so little at 100% and also printed, it hardly rates a mention.
The Canon did have a little CA at the edges at wider focal lengths but it looks like the Sony has a correction baked in so once the Canon was corrected with a click in lightroom then it was even again. They are both fantastic lenses.
p.4 #6 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's funny how we complain about QC with Sony lenses. I just tested a brand new TS-E 17/4L and it's terribly decentered.
I also have 2 new copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II and they are also both decentered at the wider range of the zoom...Go figure. Three lenses, none good.
I've been coming to a conclusion lately that I think is quite accurate. Metrology (lens measurement) at even the biggest companies isn't what it should be and for a fairly understandable reason: Most tests, from MTF to AF1951 to star collimation, to lens projectors were developed in the 50s to 70s. They were fine for decades, through film and even dSLRs. But new high-resolution sensors and good lenses resolve better than the tests that have been in place in factories for a generation.
For decades they've designed lenses, figured out what the tolerance should be, and the metrology guys checked a sample group and said good to go and it was. Suddenly photographers with their cameras are seeing defects that the outdated metrology can't see.
In retrospect it seems obvious that they should have thought of this. But I can assure that at some companies the lens designers didn't even know what type of testing was being done. It's just one of those things you have to do and the way we've always done it must be fine. We aren't going to assign engineers to review our testing procedure when we need everybody creating new products.
I know firsthand this is true with several brands (and of course I can't talk specifics). I assume it's true for many of the others. Maybe most. In a year or two I think testing will be in place that's better than 'photographer can see on his camera'. But right now it's not there.
p.4 #7 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
It's kind of running rampant in the industry and reading Rogers comments above it makes me wonder have we gone beyond some of the testing out there that simply does not apply anymore to these high end sensors today. I'm not a engineer by any stretch of the imagination but from a logical standpoint there is no room for any poorly made lens design or production issues as the tolerance for things has gotten a lot smaller on mistakes. I mean come on guys how can I go through 4 FE 35 1.4 lenses and hit the same issue in all four. That's never happened to me before. So my question is this and me coming from MF it's even harder to believe are we going to high in Mpx count for 35mm digital, have we surpassed the Mpx limit and is there one.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's funny how we complain about QC with Sony lenses. I just tested a brand new TS-E 17/4L and it's terribly decentered.
I also have 2 new copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II and they are also both decentered at the wider range of the zoom...Go figure. Three lenses, none good.
p.4 #8 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just did a few tests today and I have the impression that towards the long end, the Canon is sharper at the edges of the frame when compared to the GM (infinity distance).
I had forgotten how good the Canon was and it's even better on the A7RII. There is more CA on the Canon at wider apertures though. I am still checking and will post some samples soon. (BTW: I have 2 copies of the Canon)
Thanks Fred! I remember you loved this lens so I'm somewhat not surprised. But if you are sony only, sounds like the GM is still the way to go. Of course, if you can get a good copy, the Canon is a lot cheaper.
BTW, I hope you find a good copy of the 17 f4L. As I'm sure you remember, it's an awesome lens. I used it a lot in Iceland and even used it for some stitching. Really nice.
Look forward to seeing the pics
Also, I know you probably don't care that much, but I'd be curious what you think of the AF vs. the GM. I know you lose eyeAF, but if AF and IQ are similar and weight is similar with the MB IV, then it makes a cheap 2.8 lens. (Assuming you already have the MB.)
p.4 #9 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Schlotkins wrote:
Thanks Fred! I remember you loved this lens so I'm somewhat not surprised. But if you are sony only, sounds like the GM is still the way to go. Of course, if you can get a good copy, the Canon is a lot cheaper.
BTW, I hope you find a good copy of the 17 f4L. As I'm sure you remember, it's an awesome lens. I used it a lot in Iceland and even used it for some stitching. Really nice.
Look forward to seeing the pics
Also, I know you probably don't care that much, but I'd be curious what you think of the AF vs. the GM. I know you lose eyeAF, but if AF and IQ are similar and weight is similar with the MB IV, then it makes a cheap 2.8 lens. (Assuming you already have the MB.)
I shot with the TS-E 17/4L together with the EF 24-70/2.8LII for many years with Canon and Sony bodies.
Unfortunately, the TS-E 17/4L has strong inwards field curvature especially on Sony bodies with an adapter. It became even more very evident with higher MP sensors. I tried Metabones and Sigma MC-11 adapters but it's just unusable for landscapes. On top of that, any amount of shifting or tilting deteriorates the edges to a point that it defeats its purpose. I hope Canon updates this lens soon.
A while back, Canon service worked with me and was able to diminish field curvature by tweaking the floating element. I don't really know how they did but it worked. Field curvature was diminished on that particular copy I had but I sold it many years ago.
Regarding the EF 24-70/2.8L II: As much as I love the GM rendering and CA control, the Canon is a terrific deal for landscapes if you can find a good copy. It has mechanical MF and the edges are sharp starting at f/4 for all FLs. Edges are crispier with less astigmatism than the GM but its color rendition is not as pleasant.
Both have minimal field curvature even wide open. With an adapter, they are pretty much the same weight and size.
Regarding AF with an adapter...it's pretty decent but you will lose eyeAF and other lock-on AF modes.
p.4 #10 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Correction, EyeAF works with the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L II and Sigma MC-11 adapter.
You have to change the "AF System" from "Phase Detection AF" to "Contrast AF". In only works in AF-S mode.
It's curious that it only works with a brand new 24-70/2.8L II I have. It does not work with an older copy.
I decided to try another 24-70/2.8LII before posting any comparisons here. I want to get a perfect copy first.
But...even these not stellar copies are very good.
p.4 #11 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Fred Miranda wrote:
I shot with the TS-E 17/4L together with the EF 24-70/2.8LII for many years with Canon and Sony bodies.
Unfortunately, the TS-E 17/4L has strong inwards field curvature especially on Sony bodies with an adapter. It became even more very evident with higher MP sensors. I tried Metabones and Sigma MC-11 adapters but it's just unusable for landscapes. On top of that, any amount of shifting or tilting deteriorates the edges to a point that it defeats its purpose. I hope Canon updates this lens soon.
A while back, Canon service worked with me and was able to diminish field curvature by tweaking the floating element. I don't really know how they did but it worked. Field curvature was diminished on that particular copy I had but I sold it many years ago.
Regarding the EF 24-70/2.8L II: As much as I love the GM rendering and CA control, the Canon is a terrific deal for landscapes if you can find a good copy. It has mechanical MF and the edges are sharp starting at f/4 for all FLs. Edges are crispier with less astigmatism than the GM but its color rendition is not as pleasant.
Both have minimal field curvature even wide open. With an adapter, they are pretty much the same weight and size.
Regarding AF with an adapter...it's pretty decent but you will lose eyeAF and other lock-on AF modes....Show more →
I'm not as picky as GM or you but I've found my TSE 17 to be pretty good on my original A7r. I may revise that when I upgrade to the A7rII in the next few months. I guess if you are shooting buildings I'm not sure what you do. To replicate the 17mm with a 6mm shift, you'd need to shoot under 12mm. Even if you had the 11-24, you would have to crop to about 20mpx - versus 42mpx with the shift - and that crop would consistent of a lot of the non-center of the frame. I don't know if that would be a better solution or not in terms of resolution.
In terms of the 24-70 situation, the question is.... if you get another good copy of the Canon, are you keeping the Sony or the Canon?
p.4 #12 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Schlotkins wrote:
I'm not as picky as GM or you but I've found my TSE 17 to be pretty good on my original A7r. I may revise that when I upgrade to the A7rII in the next few months. I guess if you are shooting buildings I'm not sure what you do. To replicate the 17mm with a 6mm shift, you'd need to shoot under 12mm. Even if you had the 11-24, you would have to crop to about 20mpx - versus 42mpx with the shift - and that crop would consistent of a lot of the non-center of the frame. I don't know if that would be a better solution or not in terms of resolution.
In terms of the 24-70 situation, the question is.... if you get another good copy of the Canon, are you keeping the Sony or the Canon?
Thanks again for all your thoughts Fred!
Chris...Show more →
Do a quick test: Take a shot with the lens without any movements and then another one with a some tilt or shift and check your corners. You will see what I mean. The field curvature I mentioned is at infinity distances so I am not sure how that would be a problem for architecture photography. With the options we have now, if I really need shift, I would be cropping images from the CV 10/5.6 lens. Yes, there will be resolution loss but at least the corners would survive.
Regarding the GM: Mine fell on hard concrete last month. Sony will fix it for $$$ but I don't think it will be the same. I would never sell it here.
I just got a 24-70/2.8LII replacement right now and will test it. Hopefully it's the golden ticket!
Fred
p.4 #13 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
I am now officially 0 for 2 on Sony GM 24-70's. My new copy is decentered like the first was and will be going back. I had hoped waiting 3 months between copies would be the ticket, but..not to be.
p.4 #14 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
billsnature wrote:
I am now officially 0 for 2 on Sony GM 24-70's. My new copy is decentered like the first was and will be going back. I had hoped waiting 3 months between copies would be the ticket, but..not to be.
Trying to decide on trying a third, or giving up.
After 2 decentered copies of the Canon 24-70/2.8LII, I got a perfectly aligned one. Keep trying!
EyeAF also works with it.
p.4 #17 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Question for Canon 24-70/2.8LII shooters. Is the 50mm weaker towards the edges when compared to 35mm and 70mm? I see that on a preliminary test but will test again tomorrow.
p.4 #19 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Fred Miranda wrote:
After 2 decentered copies of the Canon 24-70/2.8LII, I got a perfectly aligned one. Keep trying!
EyeAF also works with it.
Hi Fred,
I will keep trying just a question of trying what? Since I still have a Canon 5DSR, should I be trying multiple copies of the Canon 24-70 II or keep playing the Sony lotto? From what you have seen so far... For Landscape purposes is the Canon equal or better than GM? Guy has convinced me GM may be better for events, but I don't shoot events so I am strictly looking for landscape quality and versatility.
p.4 #20 · DXOMark: Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM - Best zoom in the range
Bill, did you just get a Contax 24-85? I received the GM 24-70 few weeks ago but haven't done any test yet. It's definitely bigger than I thought. I am like you, I don't shoot event/people all the much. May sell it for something else.
