Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
p.18 #1Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
I tested the 12 24 gm together with the 12 24 g the 18 batis the 21 loxia and the 24 gm .. it is not at all easy to make comparisons especially for the different conformation of the lenses every time the focus is moved on the tripod even if manual and the focal plane can change slightly .. to do this kind of test you have to do more sessions and draw conclusions pondering what to keep and what to leave .. it is not easy at all ... then we all know that in real use the most shots they are done freehand and everything is useless .. here a little test
https://www.juzaphoto.com/topic2.php?l=it&t=3686251&show=9
I have briefly checked if the edges of the optics are okay .. but I must say that I have never checked all my optics .. this one seems quite okay in case I ever notice something serious a tour in assistance costs nothing
rather known a dismantling in afc the fire goes back and forth as happened with the 24 gm but firse need a firmware update
Edited on Sep 23, 2020 at 03:14 PM · View previous versions
https://www.juzaphoto.com/topic2.php?l=it&t=3686251&show=9
I have briefly checked if the edges of the optics are okay .. but I must say that I have never checked all my optics .. this one seems quite okay in case I ever notice something serious a tour in assistance costs nothing
rather known a dismantling in afc the fire goes back and forth as happened with the 24 gm but firse need a firmware update
Edited on Sep 23, 2020 at 03:14 PM · View previous versions
Sep 23, 2020 at 12:46 PM
p.18 #2Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Stefano 1967 wrote:
I tested the 12 24 gm together with the 12 24 g the 18 batis the 21 loxia and the 24 gm .. it is not at all easy to make comparisons especially for the different conformation of the lenses every time the focus is moved on the tripod even if manual and the focal plane can change slightly .. to do this kind of test you have to do more sessions and draw conclusions pondering what to keep and what to leave .. it is not easy at all ... then we all know that in real use...Show more →
I get
Page Not Found - Pagina non trovata
Edit:
Works now
I tested the 12 24 gm together with the 12 24 g the 18 batis the 21 loxia and the 24 gm .. it is not at all easy to make comparisons especially for the different conformation of the lenses every time the focus is moved on the tripod even if manual and the focal plane can change slightly .. to do this kind of test you have to do more sessions and draw conclusions pondering what to keep and what to leave .. it is not easy at all ... then we all know that in real use...Show more →
I get
Page Not Found - Pagina non trovata
Edit:
Works now
Sep 23, 2020 at 02:44 PM
p.18 #3Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)I agree that the A7R4 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and well worth having.
But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.This is subjective though. For example, astrophotography may benefit from a symmetric and optimal lens. But, is it crucial for f/8-11 stopped down landscapes? Probably not...but everyone has their level of what's acceptable for them.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like...Show more →
Sony has apparently committed to making at least one more round of higher res sensors: so 200MP for Phase One, 135 for Fuji, and 90 odd for full frame. As some have already pointed out, more resolution is always a good thing in the context of reducing digital artifacts and noise by down-ressing. I presume when you interpolate your 60MP images down to 42MP Fred, that the spatial sharpness discrepancy between center and corner diminishes also?
I shudder to think how complex an engineering task and how tight the tolerances would need to be to manufacture a curved sensor. I suspect the only way it may be achievable at a realistic price point is with fixed-lens prime cameras, where every single lens is individually calibrated to its own sensor; and even then, asking people to buy an expensive separate camera for each focal length is a big ask - probably only justifiable in the wide angle range, which would benefit most from such technology.
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like...Show more →
Sony has apparently committed to making at least one more round of higher res sensors: so 200MP for Phase One, 135 for Fuji, and 90 odd for full frame. As some have already pointed out, more resolution is always a good thing in the context of reducing digital artifacts and noise by down-ressing. I presume when you interpolate your 60MP images down to 42MP Fred, that the spatial sharpness discrepancy between center and corner diminishes also?
I shudder to think how complex an engineering task and how tight the tolerances would need to be to manufacture a curved sensor. I suspect the only way it may be achievable at a realistic price point is with fixed-lens prime cameras, where every single lens is individually calibrated to its own sensor; and even then, asking people to buy an expensive separate camera for each focal length is a big ask - probably only justifiable in the wide angle range, which would benefit most from such technology.
Sep 24, 2020 at 04:35 AM
p.18 #4Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)
Has anybody seen the behavior described by Lloyd Chambers regarding the 12-24:
"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
httivals wrote
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)Has anybody seen the behavior described by Lloyd Chambers regarding the 12-24:
"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
Oct 04, 2020 at 03:14 PM
p.18 #5Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Holger wrote:
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)Has anybody seen the behavior described by Lloyd Chambers regarding the 12-24:
"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
Look at the resolution crops posted here and here. I focused the subject manually and wide open for both infinity and MFD tests.
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
httivals wrote
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
Look at the resolution crops posted here and here. I focused the subject manually and wide open for both infinity and MFD tests.
Oct 04, 2020 at 03:24 PM
p.18 #6Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)Has anybody seen the behavior described by Lloyd Chambers regarding the 12-24:
"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."Look at the resolution crops posted here and here. I focused the subject manually and wide open for both infinity and MFD tests.
Doesn't seem you observe this "extreme" focus shift.
Holger wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
Doesn't seem you observe this "extreme" focus shift.
Oct 04, 2020 at 03:57 PM
p.18 #7Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
I also read that on his website. He talks about the outer zone, not the center.
Oct 05, 2020 at 02:45 AM
p.18 #8Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Holger wrote:
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)Has anybody seen the behavior described by Lloyd Chambers regarding the 12-24:
"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
Yes, I have noticed some pretty obvious focus shift for the corners when comparing wide open and stopped down behavior at infinity with this lens too. At least that's the case for my fourth copy, which is the least decentered one I've tried so far. However it does have some swing that after more careful testing turns out to be evident even stopped down to f6.3 at the extremes of its range. I have #5 on its way to me, so if by any stroke of luck it has decent corner symmetry across the whole range I'll report back on its focus shift.
** edit ** I recall now that I noticed the focus shift on my second copy as well, so it may not be very sample dependent.
Edited on Oct 05, 2020 at 03:11 PM · View previous versions
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
httivals wrote
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)"confirm the pronounced forward focus shift — so strong that even 3 stops of depth of field cannot compensate—absurdly damaging. "
"huge outer-zone peripheral forward focus shift, such that even f/8 cannot come close to compensating for—f/8 is much worse than f/2.8, so severe is the shift."
"most outrageous focus shift I have ever seen in a lens in this range."
Yes, I have noticed some pretty obvious focus shift for the corners when comparing wide open and stopped down behavior at infinity with this lens too. At least that's the case for my fourth copy, which is the least decentered one I've tried so far. However it does have some swing that after more careful testing turns out to be evident even stopped down to f6.3 at the extremes of its range. I have #5 on its way to me, so if by any stroke of luck it has decent corner symmetry across the whole range I'll report back on its focus shift.
** edit ** I recall now that I noticed the focus shift on my second copy as well, so it may not be very sample dependent.
Edited on Oct 05, 2020 at 03:11 PM · View previous versions
Oct 05, 2020 at 05:03 AM
p.18 #9Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Looks like Marc Alhadeff did a review of the Nisi S6 filter kit for this lens:
https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/09/24/nisi-s6-filter-holder-for-sony-12-24-f2-8-gm/
Looks quiet good the improved design. I just want the filter kit without any glass as i already have haida 150mm cpl and gnd filters. If they fit (which it should) all i need is like a 6 stop nd filter and I am set. I may just wait to see if lee filters just releases the adapter for the sw150 mark ii but doesn't look like they will release it for quiet some time. They are def on the slow end in catching up with new lenses.
https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/09/24/nisi-s6-filter-holder-for-sony-12-24-f2-8-gm/
Looks quiet good the improved design. I just want the filter kit without any glass as i already have haida 150mm cpl and gnd filters. If they fit (which it should) all i need is like a 6 stop nd filter and I am set. I may just wait to see if lee filters just releases the adapter for the sw150 mark ii but doesn't look like they will release it for quiet some time. They are def on the slow end in catching up with new lenses.
Oct 05, 2020 at 07:13 AM
p.18 #10Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
sismailian wrote:
Looks like Marc Alhadeff did a review of the Nisi S6 filter kit for this lens:
https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/09/24/nisi-s6-filter-holder-for-sony-12-24-f2-8-gm/
Looks quiet good the improved design. I just want the filter kit without any glass as i already have haida 150mm cpl and gnd filters. If they fit (which it should) all i need is like a 6 stop nd filter and I am set. I may just wait to see if lee filters just releases the adapter for the sw150 mark ii but doesn't look like they will release it for quiet some time. They are def on the slow end in catching up...Show more →
Nisi Australia have informed me that they are expecting to start selling the S6 adapter only, rather than complete kit, at the end of the month. Presumably they will then also sell the attachement for rectangular filters.
Note they also have a round CPL+6ND filter that doesn't require the added attachment and allows you to keep the filter mounted in the adapter with a lens cap.
Looks like Marc Alhadeff did a review of the Nisi S6 filter kit for this lens:
https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/09/24/nisi-s6-filter-holder-for-sony-12-24-f2-8-gm/
Looks quiet good the improved design. I just want the filter kit without any glass as i already have haida 150mm cpl and gnd filters. If they fit (which it should) all i need is like a 6 stop nd filter and I am set. I may just wait to see if lee filters just releases the adapter for the sw150 mark ii but doesn't look like they will release it for quiet some time. They are def on the slow end in catching up...Show more →
Nisi Australia have informed me that they are expecting to start selling the S6 adapter only, rather than complete kit, at the end of the month. Presumably they will then also sell the attachement for rectangular filters.
Note they also have a round CPL+6ND filter that doesn't require the added attachment and allows you to keep the filter mounted in the adapter with a lens cap.
Oct 05, 2020 at 03:17 PM
|
p.18 #11Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Wish they added a CPL + 3ND option along with the 6.
rvh23 wrote:
sismailian wrote
Looks like Marc Alhadeff did a review of the Nisi S6 filter kit for this lens:https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/09/24/nisi-s6-filter-holder-for-sony-12-24-f2-8-gm/
Looks quiet good the improved design. I just want the filter kit without any glass as i already have haida 150mm cpl and gnd filters. If they fit (which it should) all i need is like a 6 stop nd filter and I am set. I may just wait to see if lee filters just releases the adapter for the sw150 mark ii but doesn't look like they will release it for quiet some time. They are def on the slow end in catching up with new lenses.
Note they also have a round CPL+6ND filter that doesn't require the added attachment and allows you to keep the filter mounted in the adapter with a lens cap.
Oct 05, 2020 at 03:18 PM
p.18 #12Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
One thing I liked about my Sigma 14-24 DN was that it was reasonably parfocal, so regardless of the focal length I was using, best infinity focus for example was always at the same known 'distance' as indicated in camera.
So far with the Sony GM lens samples I've tested this is substantially not the case, which makes focus stacking harder because I have to remember different distances for each focal length. On my current copy, best corner infinity focus at F7.1 is for example when the sliding rectangle is 2-3 notches before the left side of the infinity symbol, whereas at 14mm it is almost in the middle of the infinity symbol, which is a fairly large range. And compromising by setting the lens to the middle of these two positions for all focal lengths results in much softer corners.
For those who believe they have a well-centered copy of the GM, do you still see the same behavior that I do, or is it fairly close to parfocal?
Alternatively if you own a well centered copy of the Sigma DN that is clearly not parfocal, that would be of interest too.
So far with the Sony GM lens samples I've tested this is substantially not the case, which makes focus stacking harder because I have to remember different distances for each focal length. On my current copy, best corner infinity focus at F7.1 is for example when the sliding rectangle is 2-3 notches before the left side of the infinity symbol, whereas at 14mm it is almost in the middle of the infinity symbol, which is a fairly large range. And compromising by setting the lens to the middle of these two positions for all focal lengths results in much softer corners.
For those who believe they have a well-centered copy of the GM, do you still see the same behavior that I do, or is it fairly close to parfocal?
Alternatively if you own a well centered copy of the Sigma DN that is clearly not parfocal, that would be of interest too.
Oct 05, 2020 at 05:57 PM
p.18 #13Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
tsdevine wrote:
Wish they added a CPL + 3ND option along with the 6.
I'd like to see them make some NDs without CPL in a round form factor. Much quicker and easier to use than the rectangular systems because you can have the filter preloaded in the adapter.
Wish they added a CPL + 3ND option along with the 6.
I'd like to see them make some NDs without CPL in a round form factor. Much quicker and easier to use than the rectangular systems because you can have the filter preloaded in the adapter.
Oct 05, 2020 at 07:58 PM
p.18 #14Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
I do a lot of waterfall photography, and I like have some polarization. For my other lenses, I have a set of CPL, CPL+3ND, CPL+6ND.....and that's usually all I Need. But I hear you, the Nisi with screw in filters is really nice, not having to deal with the rectangular holder. If you don't need polarization, it would make things really nice (assuming you don't need grads, just straight ND.)
-Tim
rvh23 wrote:
tsdevine wrote
Wish they added a CPL + 3ND option along with the 6.Oct 05, 2020 at 08:22 PM
p.18 #15Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
tsdevine wrote:
I do a lot of waterfall photography, and I like have some polarization. For my other lenses, I have a set of CPL, CPL+3ND, CPL+6ND.....and that's usually all I Need. But I hear you, the Nisi with screw in filters is really nice, not having to deal with the rectangular holder. If you don't need polarization, it would make things really nice (assuming you don't need grads, just straight ND.)
-Tim
I'd like to see them make some NDs without CPL in a round form factor. Much quicker and easier to use than the rectangular systems because you can have the filter preloaded in the adapter.
For waterfalls when ND6 is too much (e.g. due to wind motion in the trees) I just use the CPL without ND, and if needed include a stopped-down shot in my focus stack to smooth the water flow. But if you are aiming to use just a single shot, I can see that CPL+3ND would make sense.
I do a lot of waterfall photography, and I like have some polarization. For my other lenses, I have a set of CPL, CPL+3ND, CPL+6ND.....and that's usually all I Need. But I hear you, the Nisi with screw in filters is really nice, not having to deal with the rectangular holder. If you don't need polarization, it would make things really nice (assuming you don't need grads, just straight ND.)
-Tim
rvh23 wrote
tsdevine wrote
Wish they added a CPL + 3ND option along with the 6.For waterfalls when ND6 is too much (e.g. due to wind motion in the trees) I just use the CPL without ND, and if needed include a stopped-down shot in my focus stack to smooth the water flow. But if you are aiming to use just a single shot, I can see that CPL+3ND would make sense.
Oct 05, 2020 at 08:44 PM
p.18 #17Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but in case not Haida have recently released a magnetic front-mount alternative to the Nisi S6 filter system for this lens.
With regards to my pursuit of a satisfactory copy of the lens I have now tried 5 copies, and unfortunately none are good by my standards across the whole range at wider apertures. The best one I've found is well centered between 14 and 24mm (each corner sharpens up nicely if focused on in turn), but does have mild swing in opposite directions at 24mm and 14mm. At 12mm one side is mildly decentered, as seems to be common.
I can confirm from having tested corner focus shift on three of the copies now that it is indeed substantial, and manifests all the way across the apertures I use i.e. f2.8 to f8. It is so strong that you simply can't focus wide open and stop down and expect your corners to stay well focused, especially at the wide end of the zoom range.
For me persoanlly, the bigger drawback of the focus shift is that for focus stacking you have to know where infinity is not only for different focal lengths, but also at each aperture
My approach will be to have a table of best infinity in-camera focal distances at F2.8 (astro) and 7.1 (landscapes). Another FM member suggested a while ago I try focus peaking instead but it's totally useless wiht a lens this wide, and even more so in low contrast conditions.
On the plus side though, stopped down to my typical landscape aperture of 7.1, and using my known distances the focus stacked results I'm getting with this lens now are very sharp across the entire frame. Even at 12mm the results are very nice, albeit not quite as good as the rest of the zoom range in the extreme corners, and certainly way better than the CV12.
Edited on Oct 12, 2020 at 08:33 PM · View previous versions
With regards to my pursuit of a satisfactory copy of the lens I have now tried 5 copies, and unfortunately none are good by my standards across the whole range at wider apertures. The best one I've found is well centered between 14 and 24mm (each corner sharpens up nicely if focused on in turn), but does have mild swing in opposite directions at 24mm and 14mm. At 12mm one side is mildly decentered, as seems to be common.
I can confirm from having tested corner focus shift on three of the copies now that it is indeed substantial, and manifests all the way across the apertures I use i.e. f2.8 to f8. It is so strong that you simply can't focus wide open and stop down and expect your corners to stay well focused, especially at the wide end of the zoom range.
For me persoanlly, the bigger drawback of the focus shift is that for focus stacking you have to know where infinity is not only for different focal lengths, but also at each aperture
My approach will be to have a table of best infinity in-camera focal distances at F2.8 (astro) and 7.1 (landscapes). Another FM member suggested a while ago I try focus peaking instead but it's totally useless wiht a lens this wide, and even more so in low contrast conditions. On the plus side though, stopped down to my typical landscape aperture of 7.1, and using my known distances the focus stacked results I'm getting with this lens now are very sharp across the entire frame. Even at 12mm the results are very nice, albeit not quite as good as the rest of the zoom range in the extreme corners, and certainly way better than the CV12.
Edited on Oct 12, 2020 at 08:33 PM · View previous versions
Oct 12, 2020 at 05:55 PM
p.18 #18Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
5 copies that's just sad. Sorry bud
Oct 12, 2020 at 06:00 PM
p.18 #19Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
I gave up after 5 on the FE 35mm1.4
It's just sucks we have to deal with this crap
It's just sucks we have to deal with this crap
Oct 12, 2020 at 06:01 PM
p.18 #20Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
GMPhotography wrote:
5 copies that's just sad. Sorry bud
Thanks Guy. Yes it's dissappointing, but not entirely unexpected with these complex UWA zooms. I've decided to use the best one I found for now and wait until we're out of lock-down so I can maybe try a few more copies in-store. Fortuntaely the one I have does produce excellent results under most real-world conditions I would encounter (although yet to confirm it can satisfy my astro needs).
5 copies that's just sad. Sorry bud
Thanks Guy. Yes it's dissappointing, but not entirely unexpected with these complex UWA zooms. I've decided to use the best one I found for now and wait until we're out of lock-down so I can maybe try a few more copies in-store. Fortuntaely the one I have does produce excellent results under most real-world conditions I would encounter (although yet to confirm it can satisfy my astro needs).
Oct 12, 2020 at 06:08 PM