Chuck Coyne wrote:
Well to those discouraged with the apparent copy variance concerns on the Sony 12-24 f/1.2 GM, I can tell you that it isn't always the case that you will need to buy and test multiple copies. I decided to order one for examination from B&H and if it was poorly centered I would return it and stick with my excellent Sigma 14-24 DG DN. I really wanted the extra 12mm focal length, the better flare performance and nicer sunstars of the Sony. Well I can say it was a resounding success and the Sony was very well centered at 12mm, 18mm, 20mm and 24mm. I performed Fred's tough centering test and this lens is a keeper on the first try....Show more →
That test is very hard for a zoom.
Congrats. That's how my review copy performed. Should've kept it.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Well to those discouraged with the apparent copy variance concerns on the Sony 12-24 f/1.2 GM, I can tell you that it isn't always the case that you will need to buy and test multiple copies. I decided to order one for examination from B&H and if it was poorly centered I would return it and stick with my excellent Sigma 14-24 DG DN. I really wanted the extra 12mm focal length, the better flare performance and nicer sunstars of the Sony. Well I can say it was a resounding success and the Sony was very well centered at 12mm, 18mm, 20mm and 24mm. I performed Fred's tough centering test and this lens is a keeper on the first try....Show more →
I got my GM 12-24/2.8 copy yesterday and after custom preliminary testing I found it well centered throughout the zoom range too.Lucky me.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Well to those discouraged with the apparent copy variance concerns on the Sony 12-24 f/1.2 GM, I can tell you that it isn't always the case that you will need to buy and test multiple copies. I decided to order one for examination from B&H and if it was poorly centered I would return it and stick with my excellent Sigma 14-24 DG DN. I really wanted the extra 12mm focal length, the better flare performance and nicer sunstars of the Sony. Well I can say it was a resounding success and the Sony was very well centered at 12mm, 18mm, 20mm and 24mm. I performed Fred's tough centering test and this lens is a keeper on the first try....Show more →
Another good copy first try here. The corners aren't 100% equal but they're very, very close, at all focal lengths. I bought this primarily for astro & landscapes (I have a 14-24 DG DN and 24mm GM too) and it certainly does an excellent job with both. Slight star bloat in the corners at 12mm but they're still nice and round.
A nice surprise was the sharpness at 24mm & f2.8 - it outperforms both of the 24mm GM lenses I've had at f2.8. Sharper in the centre, sharper mid-frame, but a tiny bit softer in the extreme corners (tested on an A7Riv).
The only drawback I've found in real-world use is that optimal focus for stars and landscapes etc is within the infinity zone on the electronic readout. For my 14-24 DG DN and 24mm GM there's a specific number where they perform best for infinity focus, but I'm going to have to nail it manually every time with the 12-24 GM. That'll cost me some time in the field with astro, but it's not a big problem really.
Superb lens.
Tested my copy for centering today, seemed centered for sharpness well within my tolerances when accounting for field curvature. All are focused for corners using the top right corner. 12mm had the biggest difference between corners, 24 was really really close, and 17mm (not shown) was right in the middle.
Finally got out to do some real shooting instead of just tests. I had my youngest with me so I didn’t get to ponder my compositions much I between making sure he didn’t end up face down in some tide pool but it was great to see some real world results from my recent purchase.
I think it is harder to manual focus this lens at 12mm than it was my sigma 14-24 at 14mm. The distance scale is not quite as useful and objects are small plus more perspective stretching of details in the corners.
I know the digital distance scale is arbitrary and not accurate; but the sigma had hyper focal around “2-4m” at f16/11 respectively and a long enough focus throw for me to be precise in hitting it (I could clearly feel the movement between each 1m interval). I perceive the Sony to have a much shorter focus throw, where I go from “1m to Infinity” with the slightest twist at 12mm; makes it less confident that I’m exactly at hyper focal.
When I have more time to play around with it I’m hoping I can find the exact hyperfocal equivalent distances on the digital distance scale and master hitting it quickly.
Very happy with the NiSi S6 setup, most of these had at least a CPL and GND.
Had some fun finally using the nisi s6 filter! Getting some more 150mm filters by next week or two. The blue hour ended being absolutely mind blowing with colors bit later and I swapped to the sigma 24-70 and just used that for the longer range.
15mm F9 (focus stacked) Haida GND 0.9, resized to 2048
The field curvature is pretty noticeable at 12mm especially. Certainly there are decentered lenses out there but I also think there is a psychological element to a lens like this upon release. The higher cost, the hype at first release etc.... with the field curvature, even at f11 when on the border of hyperfocal the edges and corners can look “bad” with minor focus error. Higher apertures mask the curvature under the assumption that the subject is centered in the field depth wise. For landscape work where every effort is made to just exactly focus the distant subjects on the very far edge of the field, the curvature is still quite relevant when well stopped down.
I noticed this a lot this past weekend that at f11-16 I still needed to focus at the corners, because infinity hit at center before the corners. Had I stopped focusing once the center was at hyperfocal, the corners wouldn’t have been sharp yet.
This is pretty normal behavior but can be alarming when one has just dropped 3k on a hyped up new release.
I got a “good one” on the first try as far as I’m concerned, about a month ago.
NatDeroxL7 wrote:
The field curvature is pretty noticeable at 12mm especially. Certainly there are decentered lenses out there but I also think there is a psychological element to a lens like this upon release. The higher cost, the hype at first release etc.... with the field curvature, even at f11 when on the border of hyperfocal the edges and corners can look “bad” with minor focus error. Higher apertures mask the curvature under the assumption that the subject is centered in the field depth wise. For landscape work where every effort is made to just exactly focus the distant subjects on the very far edge of the field, the curvature is still quite relevant when well stopped down.
I noticed this a lot this past weekend that at f11-16 I still needed to focus at the corners, because infinity hit at center before the corners. Had I stopped focusing once the center was at hyperfocal, the corners wouldn’t have been sharp yet.
This is pretty normal behavior but can be alarming when one has just dropped 3k on a hyped up new release.
I got a “good one” on the first try as far as I’m concerned, about a month ago....Show more →
We all have different standards and requirements. But I suggest you go back and have a careful read of this thread. FC has nothing to do with the results I obtained with 8 copies of this lens, none of which was able to produce sharp corners wide open across the entire range (even when corner focused). They all varied and had different parts of the range where they were excellent and where they were not. That's expected to some extent with a zoom of this kind, but the amount of variation I saw was disappointing at this price.
But I'm very fussy and always focus stack my landscapes, typically at less than f8 and 4-6 frames. If you are happy with your copy, that's great, but I'm pretty sure there are very few copies out there that really are great across the whole range.
p.s. Note that if you're stopping down to F11 or even further, this lens' sharpness advantage is greatly reduced.
I think mine is centered. I may have to go out and check it again - I think I was too close to the subject I was using and it's taking up more space in the frame than it should in the corners of the frame.
I had a good overnight recently where I got to try my 12-24 on some stars. I did like it better than my previous Sigma 14-24 DG DN. Slightly less coma and little less fringing on the stars. 12mm also adds a little extra dynamic to the scene with a incrementally larger expanse of sky. However, 12mm also makes it very obvious when objects are near the edge of the frame and show perspective distortion from an un-level camera. Had to be extra careful to avoid this.
Got some cloud cover initially (below, still kind looks cool) but eventually I got a clear window.
I forgot to turn off the in camera vignetting correction on my second camera body and unfortunately that one ended up being used for the 12-24 GM so it has the red color shift rings issue....ugh. Was correctable to an extent, and I fixed the issue so next time both cameras are properly set to mitigate this issue as much as possible. its hard to make a perfect master flat frame @ 12-18mm to fix this, especially at higher apertures because the DOF makes details come out AND its very hard to achieve perfectly even illumination. Still working on finding a solution for that. This would hopefully provide total rectification of this issue for critical images using Adobe 'flat field' correction. I may go full-astro mode and buy a flat frame LED light setup.
Maybe this weekend!
