j4nu wrote:
Well, if we take the assumption that all Sigma owners are biased, then there's not going to be much discussion here, as I think they consitute a big fraction of people interested in the GM .
Given previous tests and MTF reports, I actually expected the GM to win in every case gainst the Sigma (and I'd actually want that to happen as that would make it the ultimate unquestionable ultra-wide across systems ) ... but there are cases where Sigma is slightly better so I think it's unfair to declare the GM winner in every category (sharpnes-wise that is).
I still think GM is overall a better package (if not sharpness, then 12mm), but its price limits its audience and diminishes a lot of its appeal.
Hopefully Fred's further tests will provide more arguments to crown the winner here......Show more →
"if we take the assumption that all Sigma owners are biased" That's a mis-representation of what I was saying: I was just reminding people that Fred's tests are not blind tests, and that can lead some people to see what they want to see. There are all sorts of eye-brain neurophysiology, psychological and hardware based reasons behind that...
Petegh wrote:
"if we take the assumption that all Sigma owners are biased" That's a mis-representation of what I was saying: I was just reminding people that Fred's tests are not blind tests, and that can lead some people to see what they want to see. There are all sorts of eye-brain neurophysiology, psychological and hardware based reasons behind that...
Yes, I agree - people tend to overjustify their purchases and can be blind even to rational arguments... still I don't think we see evident fanboyism here, but maybe I'm also biased .
sismailian wrote:
I think if i had the 12-24 f4 i would have to think hard about the upgrade. Is the f4 version flare that bad? I've seen examples of some pretty bad flare and some not too bad. Some youtube reviews i seen aren't that fond of the lens somehow due to vignetting and flare.
Depends where exactly the sun is in the frame. There's a ring shaped area in the frame that allows the sun, when inside it, to create some colorful and large ghosts. Slight reframing / zoom change helps removing them. The "flare" consists mostly of ghosts not veil so you can even think of using it "creatively".
As for the reviewers, once they found the approximate ring position, they had a contest on whom creates the weirdest stuff. Ask Fred to post the "pegasus" pic lol.
I've taking several shots at difference scenes, angles and lighting conditions to compare the Sony FE 12-24/2.8 GM, Sigma 14-24/2.8 and Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 III for flare resistance. The latter is famous for its beautiful color rendering and flare resistance and it indeed did very well on this test.
All three lenses have excellent veiling flare resistance as you can see from the crops below. They are also very resistant to ghosting flare. The Sony's larger bulbous front element didn't induce ghosting flare even when provoked! To my eyes it performs just as good as the Voigtlander which was my benchmark lens for flare resistance, with the Sigma showing slightly less resistant to ghosting compared to the others.
Fred Miranda wrote:
All three lenses have excellent veiling flare resistance as you can see from the crops below. They are also very resistant to ghosting flare.
Quite a performance from the GM. Actually, an amazing trio of lenses; not a bad one among them.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Quite a performance from the GM. Actually, and amazing trio of lenses; not a bad one among them.
I agree Mike. The worse performer is actually great. I've been shooting landscapes with the Sigma and ghosting flare was never an issue for me. However, both Sony GM and Voigt have even stronger ghosting resistance.
Finally got clear skies last night and was able to test the FE 12-24/2.8 GM for coma and compare the results to the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN and FE 24/1.4 GM. (Both Sigma 14-24 and FE 24/1.4 were my reference lenses for astro)
As you can see from the crops below, all three lenses are amazing astro tools. They have incredible coma correction even wide open throughout the zoom range. The Sony FE 24/1.4 GM has the 2-stop advantage (see how clean the shadows get at f/1.4) but at 24mm @ f/2.8, they were all fantastic.
The differential for the FE 12-24 GM is the 12mm @f/2.8 capability. There are no lenses on the market capable with this coma performance at 12mm.
Yeah, not a lot of difference between the 3 with regards to coma. The GM looks to be an awesome lens. What a time to be a photographer - finally multiple outstanding ultra-wides with image quality that was previously out of reach for such lenses.
Great coma performance. Oh man I am already imagining a location I have in my mind at 12mm F2.8 at night. Last time I was there the fastest lens I had was a 20mm 1.8 and it was definitely not wide enough. Now it's going to be an amazing time just having that insane range from 12-24....oohh I am so excited for next week
There appears to be no major downside (save price) to the 12-24 assuming you get a good copy. Small nick is the minor field curvature between 12-14. I’d still really like to know how the center and midfield hold up when you focus on the corners in that case.
Justin Stone wrote:
There appears to be no major downside (save price) to the 12-24 assuming you get a good copy. Small nick is the minor field curvature between 12-14. I’d still really like to know how the center and midfield hold up when you focus on the corners in that case.
Hi Justin,
I'd say field curvature for the GM is more pronounce from to 12 to 14mm @f/2.8. The Sigma has lower field curvature at the wide range.
Here is the worse case scenario (12mm + f/2.8) at center, mid-field and extreme corner:
Focused at Center (LEFT CROP) | Focused at Corner (RIGHT CROP)
Focused at Center (LEFT CROP) | Focused at Corner (RIGHT CROP)
Focused at Center (LEFT CROP) | Focused at Corner (RIGHT CROP)
To my eye, the focus-in-corner crops result in some diminished resolution in the center and mid, but only slightly. Focusing in the corner (restating your earlier finding) is definitely an improvement for the corner vs center focus. Wondering aloud if this means that mid field focusing results in the best across-the-field sharpness. Whatever the case, if you want sharp corners it's an easy adjustment at 12mm to just focus in the corner.
Also, re coma: a beautiful result for the 12-24 GM. Still the noise improvement from the wider aperture of the 24 1.4 GM is very noticeable. Maybe a 14 1.8 GM is still in Sony's future.
This lens could be another system mover arrow in the Sony quiver for those who need the very best of everything at wide focal lengths.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Justin,
I'd say field curvature for the GM is more pronounce from to 12 to 14mm @f/2.8. The Sigma has lower field curvature at the wide range.
Here is the worse case scenario (12mm + f/2.8) at center, mid-field and extreme corner:
Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN vs Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM size and barrel design differences:
The Sony FE 12-24/2.8 GM is made in China while the Sigma's 14-24/2.8 DG DN Art is made in Japan.
I prefer the Sigma's "drop-in" rear ND filter implementation compare to the Sony's "slide in".
For the latter, the surface where the filter has to slide in, is lower than the mount surface (~1.5mm) which means the filter must 'bend' to slide inside the slot. Glass filters may not be compatible with it for this reason. I've tried a Lee 4-stop 'film' ND filter and it's also cumbersome to attach. I'm waiting from Aurora's response for a solution on this.
The Sony's manual focus ring is thinner compared to the Sigma's (by a 1/3). It has not made much difference to me but some shooters prefer thicker focusing rings.
The diameter of the Sony GM's hood is 97mm while the Sigma's is 84mm.
The Sigma's lens barrel has a smoother finish while the Sony's barrel and hood is texturized.
The lens' serial number is now printed instead of glued on with a sticker (which is the case with most GM lenses). The Sigma's serial is also printed and located between both rings.
Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN vs Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM: Notice the barrel and hood finish differences (smooth vs texturized). Also the GM's thinner focusing ring and big hood diameter
Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN vs Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM: The GM has a much larger front element and hood (97mm vs 84mm)
Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN vs Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM: Sigma's drop-in rear filter vs GM's slide-in. Also notice the serial number is now printed for this GM (vs. taped for my other GM lenses)
I've taking several shots at difference scenes, angles and lighting conditions to compare the Sony FE 12-24/2.8 GM, Sigma 14-24/2.8 and Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 III for flare resistance. The latter is famous for its beautiful color rendering and flare resistance and it indeed did very well on this test.
All three lenses have excellent veiling flare resistance as you can see from the crops below. They are also very resistant to ghosting flare. The Sony's larger bulbous front element didn't induce ghosting flare even when provoked! To my eyes it performs just as good as the Voigtlander which was my benchmark lens for flare resistance, with the Sigma showing slightly less resistant to ghosting compared to the others....Show more →
Thanks very much Fred. Flare resistance on the GM looks excellent, which is a key result for me because it means less need to switch over to my Loxia to shoot against the sun. Coma is excellent too, but I would not have expected otherwise because astro is such an obvious use for this lens. The only minor negative in terms of IQ so far seems to be wide open corner performance at the long end, which doesn't improve with corner focus. Your 24mm shoot-out will be interesting in that regard.
I agree about the noise. As much as the sigma 14 1.8 had coma, I find pics with that for Astro more appealing than the sigma 14-24 dn because of the much better noise across the whole frame.
Justin Stone wrote:
Thanks Fred!
To my eye, the focus-in-corner crops result in some diminished resolution in the center and mid, but only slightly. Focusing in the corner (restating your earlier finding) is definitely an improvement for the corner vs center focus. Wondering aloud if this means that mid field focusing results in the best across-the-field sharpness. Whatever the case, if you want sharp corners it's an easy adjustment at 12mm to just focus in the corner.
Also, re coma: a beautiful result for the 12-24 GM. Still the noise improvement from the wider aperture of the 24 1.4 GM is very noticeable. Maybe a 14 1.8 GM is still in Sony's future.
This lens could be another system mover arrow in the Sony quiver for those who need the very best of everything at wide focal lengths.
.
) ... but there are cases where Sigma is slightly better so I think it's unfair to declare the GM winner in every category (sharpnes-wise that
