p.26 #1 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Luvwine wrote:
Yes. I did not find a lot of value in that posting. Comparing the 12-24 and 16-35 without a landscape image nor any 100% crops seemed odd. Subjective comments about build quality and image quality are fine, but obviously we are used to much more insightful and objectively based information from LR.
Strange he kept mentioning how the 16-35mm f/4 was the heaviest of the three too. It's actually the lightest.
p.26 #3 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
It did absolutely nothing for me.
Luvwine wrote:
Yes. I did not find a lot of value in that posting. Comparing the 12-24 and 16-35 without a landscape image nor any 100% crops seemed odd. Subjective comments about build quality and image quality are fine, but obviously we are used to much more insightful and objectively based information from LR.
p.26 #4 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Messier77 wrote:
New comparison from LensRentals. They're a fan of the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/08/comparing-sony-ultra-wides-zoom-lenses/
Well apart from the facc that i would agree that the GM betters the ZA a fairly nonsensical review as he gets the weights wrong and really can't understand how he can say that the GM is less durable when it's been on the market for around 2 weeks!!!. No talk of corners sharpness which is one area where the GM knocks the ZA into the long grass, Pretty much a pointless bit of reading which tells you nothing. Sorry
p.26 #7 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
This gets confusing sometimes.
Lensrentals is this really huge company that I founded but now own a minority share in. They aren't blowing smoke when they say they're the largest photo rental company in the US. I haven't ever met half the employees. There are lots of people working there that if you asked who I am, they would have no idea. I direct QA, optical testing, and repair which is a small, 8 person department that interacts with the area managers.
I entirely own this other little company, Olaf Optical Testing, that I spun off from Lensrentals. I split my time between LRs QA and repair, and testing at Olaf. (About 1/3 of Olaf's work is testing for Lensrentals, so it's all incestuous and confusing.)
As part of our arrangement everything I blog (if it's MTF tests, it's actually from Olaf; if it's a teardown, it's from Lensrentals) gets published on Lensrental's blog. It's not my blog, it's Lensrental's blog.
They also publish stuff that other employees and guest bloggers put up there. But I don't edit it, I'm not in charge of it, and if my name isn't on it, I saw it probably two days after you did (as in this case) because I only sign on to the blog platform to answer questions on my articles.
They are trying to develop content other than mine which is a good thing that I support. Geek articles are fun and you guys love them, but they honestly don't generate a lot of traffic and they would like traffic. I do know some of the techs that are writing them. They're very knowledgable techs, but techs tend to think "I'll spend 20 hours doing this comparison and an hour writing it up". They learn that doesn't work after a post or two.
p.26 #8 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
RCicala wrote:
This gets confusing sometimes.
Lensrentals is this really huge company that I founded but now own a minority share in. They aren't blowing smoke when they say they're the largest photo rental company in the US. I haven't ever met half the employees. There are lots of people working there that if you asked who I am, they would have no idea. I direct QA, optical testing, and repair which is a small, 8 person department that interacts with the area managers.
I entirely own this other little company, Olaf Optical Testing, that I spun off from Lensrentals. I split my time between LRs QA and repair, and testing at Olaf. (About 1/3 of Olaf's work is testing for Lensrentals, so it's all incestuous and confusing.)
As part of our arrangement everything I blog (if it's MTF tests, it's actually from Olaf; if it's a teardown, it's from Lensrentals) gets published on Lensrental's blog. It's not my blog, it's Lensrental's blog.
They also publish stuff that other employees and guest bloggers put up there. But I don't edit it, I'm not in charge of it, and if my name isn't on it, I saw it probably two days after you did (as in this case) because I only sign on to the blog platform to answer questions on my articles.
They are trying to develop content other than mine which is a good thing that I support. Geek articles are fun and you guys love them, but they honestly don't generate a lot of traffic and they would like traffic. I do know some of the techs that are writing them. They're very knowledgable techs, but techs tend to think "I'll spend 20 hours doing this comparison and an hour writing it up". They learn that doesn't work after a post or two.
After reading many of your blogs and tests, I was really excited when I saw the comparison on LR blog was up. While reading, a juxtaposition in content became more and more evident. I thought "oh well, that guy seems to likes the 16-35 GM and it's better than no news at all, right?" With that said, what are your thoughts on the 16-35gm? Have you tested it yet?
p.26 #9 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
RCicala wrote:
This gets confusing sometimes.
Lensrentals is this really huge company that I founded but now own a minority share in. They aren't blowing smoke when they say they're the largest photo rental company in the US. I haven't ever met half the employees. There are lots of people working there that if you asked who I am, they would have no idea. I direct QA, optical testing, and repair which is a small, 8 person department that interacts with the area managers.
I entirely own this other little company, Olaf Optical Testing, that I spun off from Lensrentals. I split my time between LRs QA and repair, and testing at Olaf. (About 1/3 of Olaf's work is testing for Lensrentals, so it's all incestuous and confusing.)
As part of our arrangement everything I blog (if it's MTF tests, it's actually from Olaf; if it's a teardown, it's from Lensrentals) gets published on Lensrental's blog. It's not my blog, it's Lensrental's blog.
They also publish stuff that other employees and guest bloggers put up there. But I don't edit it, I'm not in charge of it, and if my name isn't on it, I saw it probably two days after you did (as in this case) because I only sign on to the blog platform to answer questions on my articles.
They are trying to develop content other than mine which is a good thing that I support. Geek articles are fun and you guys love them, but they honestly don't generate a lot of traffic and they would like traffic. I do know some of the techs that are writing them. They're very knowledgable techs, but techs tend to think "I'll spend 20 hours doing this comparison and an hour writing it up". They learn that doesn't work after a post or two.
By the negative reaction to the article, it's pretty obvious it wasn't written by you.
We are really dying to see the 16-35GM MTFs!!
Do you have a timeframe for us?
Take care,
Fred
p.26 #10 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Roger's comment on that article: "I do not have 10 copies tested yet. From what I have done, it looks superb at 16mm, fading in performance towards 35mm as most of the 16-35 zooms do. It’s different than the Canon – not as sharp in the center for certain, but at 16mm it’s more even across the entire field. Some will prefer it to the Canon, no question. But it won’t numerically outperform it, I’m afraid, so no fanboy fodder."
p.26 #11 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Roger's comment on that article: "I do not have 10 copies tested yet. From what I have done, it looks superb at 16mm, fading in performance towards 35mm as most of the 16-35 zooms do. It’s different than the Canon – not as sharp in the center for certain, but at 16mm it’s more even across the entire field. Some will prefer it to the Canon, no question. But it won’t numerically outperform it, I’m afraid, so no fanboy fodder."
Intersting as I had missed this. My copy certainly seems to be producing a level of sharpness at 35mm that I wasn't seeing on the ZA version and I think that it is more even across the frame make a big and important difference to general performance.
p.26 #12 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Phillip Reeve wrote:
It’s different than the Canon – not as sharp in the center for certain, but at 16mm it’s more even across the entire field. Some will prefer it to the Canon, no question. But it won’t numerically outperform it, I’m afraid, so no fanboy fodder."
Anyway, DXO will classify it as significantly better than the Canon
p.26 #13 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
IsabellaR wrote:
Anyway, DXO will classify it as significantly better than the Canon
We certainly don't need to worry that those fanboys will run out of ammunition
p.26 #14 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
RCicala wrote:
...
They're very knowledgable techs, but techs tend to think "I'll spend 20 hours doing this comparison and an hour writing
it up". They learn that doesn't work after a post or two.
Roger
So true, Roger!
I also appreciate you clearing things up in the rest of the post.
p.26 #15 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Roger's comment on that article: "I do not have 10 copies tested yet. From what I have done, it looks superb at 16mm, fading in performance towards 35mm as most of the 16-35 zooms do. It’s different than the Canon – not as sharp in the center for certain, but at 16mm it’s more even across the entire field. Some will prefer it to the Canon, no question. But it won’t numerically outperform it, I’m afraid, so no fanboy fodder."
Sounds good to me. I can't remember the last modern lens I looked at that offered unsatisfactory centre sharpness even wide open - it's always the edges/corners that let a lens down, if anything does. At least in my book. Happy to sacrifice a bit of central sharpness for more consistent edge-to-edge performance.
I have tested the EF 16-35III on my A7RII and was very impressed (although the copy was decentred, so only half the lens was good.) If the 16-35GM offers a broadly comparable performance I'll be a happy camper - hopefully with less vignette though.
p.26 #16 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
So far I haven't vignetting to be an issue as the lens correction profile in LR CC seems to do a good job not resulting in any loss of detail. There is some there but it certainly isn't in any what I would call extreme
p.26 #17 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Fred Miranda wrote:
Do you have a timeframe for us?
Take care,
Fred
I've done 5 copies and while I have plenty of copies in stock, I'm badly backed up with several things right now. Additionally, our tech who runs the MTF bench is out for a month so I'm having to do them myself when time allows and I'm having to miss a lot of office time for family matters right now.
There's a chance I get them finished this week, but it may well be next week.
p.26 #19 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
I have the 16-35/2.8 GM coming this week and will compare it to the 12-24/4 G and 35/2.8 ZA. I can't imagine it will be better than the 12-24/4 @16mm and 24mm but I'm curious to test it out. The 35/2.8 ZA is very good at landscape distance starting from wide open so that will be a tough challenge for the new GM zoom.
Hopefully, I get a good copy from the start.
p.26 #20 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have the 16-35/2.8 GM coming this week and will compare it to the 12-24/4 G and 35/2.8 ZA. I can't imagine it will be better than the 12-24/4 @16mm and 24mm but I'm curious to test it out. The 35/2.8 ZA is very good at landscape distance starting from wide open so that will be a tough challenge for the new GM zoom.
Hopefully, I get a good copy from the start.
I look forward to your testing.
I want the GM to be good - I'd much prefer it to the 12-24. Needing to use 150mm filters is very off putting; I've been through that with my Tamron 15-30 before and would really like to avoid doing it again.
