Sony 12-24 G on A7RM2 vs Canon 11-24 L on 5DsR - you'll never guess who wins?

jackgreen said:

Thanks for your review. Any idea, how is the sharpness compared to Sony E-mount 16-35 F4?

Click to expand...

In case the mtf graphs are any indication of that I'd consider the 16-35 f/4.0 to be weaker weaker.









I have not seen yet any test between the two - but honestly why would you buy now a 16-36 any more? - you can have a 12-24 for a few bucks more than an 16-35 and get a stunning performer.

In case you own the 16-35 don't be fooled by GAS - we all tend to use our gear not to it's full extent.

The only reason for a 16-35 would be if you need filters. It is flimsier and less refined and the extra 4 mm are a very big deal - remember - you can shoot at 12 mm and apply lens correction and crop your frame and still get tons of MP being on the safe side to cover everything.

I am sure we'll see soon a direct shootout between the two

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

Ok, thanks. I'm shooting a lot interiors with 16-35 F4 and thinking abt 12-24 F4.

One gallery: http://www.jackdevant.com/astana-opera/

16mm 1/60 F4, hand shot w A7rII





--
My hobby www.jackdevant.com

joger said:

I have not seen yet any test between the two - but honestly why would you buy now a 16-36 any more? - you can have a 12-24 for a few bucks more than an 16-35 and get a stunning performer.

In case you own the 16-35 don't be fooled by GAS - we all tend to use our gear not to it's full extent.

The only reason for a 16-35 would be if you need filters. It is flimsier and less refined and the extra 4 mm are a very big deal - remember - you can shoot at 12 mm and apply lens correction and crop your frame and still get tons of MP being on the safe side to cover everything.

Click to expand...

Filters, it's a little bit smaller and lighter, heavy use of the 25-35mm range, no need for anything wider than 16,handles flare better, current used prices are about 55% of the 12-24, it's prettier, it's a Zeiss lens .... seriously, I think the 12-24 looks great but to say that there is only one reason to choose it over the 12-24 is not accurate IMO.

The actual side by side comparisons that I've seen show the 16-35 to still be a very capable lens and I'm not convinced that the real world results will be as different as maybe some people think especially once you factor in your personal preferences for focal length, types of subjects, etc. When you consider everything, the 16-35 f4 could very well still be a better fit for a number of users. Of course there is something to be said for the overall performance of the 12-24 so it surely will replace the 16-35 for some users.

jackgreen said:

Ok, thanks. I'm shooting a lot interiors with 16-35 F4 and thinking abt 12-24 F4.

One gallery: http://www.jackdevant.com/astana-opera/

16mm 1/60 F4, hand shot w A7rII



--
My hobby www.jackdevant.com

Click to expand...

Jack, Fred Miranda has a great thread omn his site comparing the 2 as well as the Loxia, you might want to check it out, lots of samples.

--
Flickr Gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/15630077@N02/

joger said:

JimKasson said:

joger said:

I've taken f/4.0 as this should be the weakest point for both lenses - the focus was set manually at the top of the pillar (triangle pointing downwards in the middle of the crop)

Click to expand...

f/4 is weak on-axis close focused at 24 mm, but that is the best f-stop at the same distance at 18 mm. Go figure.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-loca-focus-shift-at-18-24-mm/

Jim

Click to expand...

thx for pointing that out - is your distance of 0.5 m applicable for future away objects?

Click to expand...

I'm doing some testing now at 2 meters, and it appears that the poor f/4 24mm results don't occur there. I'll have a firmer conclusion and some numbers later today.

joger said:

My understanding is that most of the time the close focus results are not necessarily transferable to further away objects at a lens that is corrected and quoted for infinity performance - an optical bench would help here and my understanding is that Carl Zeiss is doing that for in line testing at the production.

Click to expand...

You may be right. I can do visual sharpness tests at infinity, but have to get much closer for quantitative tests.

These tests did not indicate the poor f/4 performance at 24mm:


So I think that I may have been unnecessarily alarmist above.

Jim

jackgreen said:

Ok, thanks. I'm shooting a lot interiors with 16-35 F4 and thinking abt 12-24 F4.

One gallery: http://www.jackdevant.com/astana-opera/

16mm 1/60 F4, hand shot w A7rII

Click to expand...

Great location!!! Well done!

(I am jaleous)



--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

i'd love to see a starry night shot even if light polluted to see corner performance with this lens wide open at 12mm.

Greg.

It would be nice to see how the sony compares to the Canon lens, concerning flare. I have seen tests with the Canon that would indicate the Sony might be better (Lentip shows a serious flare issue with the Canon 11-24).

Sony must pay something to Adobe - otherwise it is not explainable that every time a new lens comes out the lens profiles are included for SONY

Anyway - I am happy that I bet on the right horse when it comes to workflow optimization and the latest update this night in LR (I have the 'pay once' version not the rental one) brought support for the Sony 12-24 - the last jigsaw piece to make this lens an even more attractive offering!

The complex geometrical distortion is clearly gone and thus I thought I give it a quick and dirty 1:1 comparison to the canon 5DsR with 11-24 vs. the Sony A7RM2 with the new 12-24 - every time (as in the beginning of the thread) focussed on the down pointing triangle of the big pillar in the frame

Hope you like it - (Sony is beginning to surprise more and more!)


Canon 11-24 on 5DsR vs SONY A7RM2 with 12-24 @ 12 mm (both with LR lens profiles applied)


Canon 11-24 on 5DsR vs SONY A7RM2 with 12-24 @ 15 mm (both with LR lens profiles applied)


Canon 11-24 on 5DsR vs SONY A7RM2 with 12-24 @ 21 mm (both with LR lens profiles applied)


Canon 11-24 on 5DsR vs SONY A7RM2 with 12-24 @ 24 mm (both with LR lens profiles applied)

edit:

Just to add - this is a before and after lens correction comparison (of course also contrast and sharpness were touched but the main target is to visualize the size difference - I guess you're loosing roughly ½ mm - so it's more a 13ish mm lens after lens correction - fine for me - the profile does a very fine job!




SONY 12-24 G with lens profile in LR 6.12 applied (pay version - not rental version) - before and after



--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

Astrophotographer 10 said:

i'd love to see a starry night shot even if light polluted to see corner performance with this lens wide open at 12mm.

Click to expand...

The size and weight difference is the dominant one.

ORiL said:

The size and weight difference is the dominant one.

Click to expand...

ahm - yes and no - in case there would be something dramatically superior in optical quality I would surely consider a much heavier and bigger lens for certain sujets and locations.

The nice situation with the Sony 12-24 G is, that this lens seems to beat all the heavier and bulkier pendants by a nice margin.

So you get all you might desire (expect an aperture ring).

Unfortunately I cought a cold and I am lying in bed trying to get healthy again - otherwise I'd have posted some not test oriented shots already :-/

After applying the LR profile and comparing the test shots I have to say that the image quality is more than stunning! The image quality is near to independent from the Aperture setting - even in the outer areas of the frame you can hardly see a degradation of the image quality when opening the aperture.

I am looking forward to some lab tests from photozone.de and slrgear.com or lenstip.com

Will be very nice to see how the system performs in direct competition to their huge databases.

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/sony-fe-12-24-f4-g-mtf-tests/

The optical bench tests indicate this lens to be excellent, too.

The 16-35 is seen here:


The main difference for me is indicated in the discrepancy of the sagittal and tangential curves. So the 16-35 shows stronger astigmatism.

HFLM said:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/sony-fe-12-24-f4-g-mtf-tests/

The optical bench tests indicate this lens to be excellent, too.

The 16-35 is seen here:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/06/sony-fe-16-35-f4-sony-fe-24-70mm-f4-zoom-mtf-and-variance/

The main difference for me is indicated in the discrepancy of the sagittal and tangential curves. So the 16-35 shows stronger astigmatism.

Click to expand...

Thx for posting - I had looked at the first link before (of course)

The 2nd is rather irrelevant for me since the 16-35 is really poor from 12-15 mm

I never owned any 16-35 mm lens since this focal range is unattractive for me - I might use 16-24 from time to time and I see myself using this 12-24 some ⅔ of the time at 12 mm purely - some shots maybe zoomed till 20 mm and very very seldom @ 24 mm.

The Canon color is a lot warmer and pleasant, but not true color, isn't it?

I shoot RAW and post process to my own taste, so I prefer true color. Nice color out of camera is somewhat irrelevant.

DVT80111 said:

The Canon color is a lot warmer and pleasant, but not true color, isn't it?

I shoot RAW and post process to my own taste, so I prefer true color. Nice color out of camera is somewhat irrelevant.

Click to expand...

If by "true color" you mean the result displays precisely the colors in the original scene, no commercially-available camera can do that.


Jim

DVT80111 said:

The Canon color is a lot warmer and pleasant, but not true color, isn't it?

I shoot RAW and post process to my own taste, so I prefer true color. Nice color out of camera is somewhat irrelevant.

Click to expand...

What you see in the different colors is probably the different handling of the AWB.

I did a wedding with 5DsR and A7RM2 and after manual adjustment in LR the warmth in the color is more or less the same.

The rest is taste - I adjust it to my pleasure - all lenses I currently own can produce pleasant colors after some adjustments in LR.

I am always amused when people rank a camera with RAW capabilities based on the JPEG output.

The best is to have a neutral grey card with you and take under the light conditions you're photographing a shot for white balance correction.

After that you can add as much warmth as you find pleasing - the lens influence is IMHO minor (but of course existing)

The color influence is more important for videographers - that's why you get color adjusted lens sets to be able to shoot with ideally identical results to blend seamlessly different views of the same scene - this is no typical photo requirement and we're talking about subtle differences between lenses.

To proof that I've adjusted the WB on the grey casing of the loudspeaker - it was not important IMHO for the sharpness comparison but might mislead some guys out there (for me color is something I do in post for important images not for test shots ,-)

(only one click anyways)


Sony G 12-24 with adjusted WB and lens profile vs Canon 11-24 L with adjusted WB and lens profile

to me they look very similar with slightly different rendering but this would be still within a tight tolerance margin.

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

joger said:

DVT80111 said:

The Canon color is a lot warmer and pleasant, but not true color, isn't it?

I shoot RAW and post process to my own taste, so I prefer true color. Nice color out of camera is somewhat irrelevant.

Click to expand...

What you see in the different colors is probably the different handling of the AWB.

I did a wedding with 5DsR and A7RM2 and after manual adjustment in LR the warmth in the color is more or less the same.

The rest is taste - I adjust it to my pleasure - all lenses I currently own can produce pleasant colors after some adjustments in LR.

I am always amused when people rank a camera with RAW capabilities based on the JPEG output.

The best is to have a neutral grey card with you and take under the light conditions you're photographing a shot for white balance correction.

After that you can add as much warmth as you find pleasing - the lens influence is IMHO minor (but of course existing)

The color influence is more important for videographers - that's why you get color adjusted lens sets to be able to shoot with ideally identical results to blend seamlessly different views of the same scene - this is no typical photo requirement and we're talking about subtle differences between lenses.

To proof that I've adjusted the WB on the grey casing of the loudspeaker - it was not important IMHO for the sharpness comparison but might mislead some guys out there (for me color is something I do in post for important images not for test shots ,-)

(only one click anyways)


Sony G 12-24 with adjusted WB and lens profile vs Canon 11-24 L with adjusted WB and lens profile

to me they look very similar with slightly different rendering but this would be still within a tight tolerance margin.

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

Click to expand...

As the color are matched, look like the Sony image has a lot more detail than the Canon one. Is that right?

DVT80111 said:

joger said:

DVT80111 said:

The Canon color is a lot warmer and pleasant, but not true color, isn't it?

I shoot RAW and post process to my own taste, so I prefer true color. Nice color out of camera is somewhat irrelevant.

Click to expand...

What you see in the different colors is probably the different handling of the AWB.

I did a wedding with 5DsR and A7RM2 and after manual adjustment in LR the warmth in the color is more or less the same.

The rest is taste - I adjust it to my pleasure - all lenses I currently own can produce pleasant colors after some adjustments in LR.

I am always amused when people rank a camera with RAW capabilities based on the JPEG output.

The best is to have a neutral grey card with you and take under the light conditions you're photographing a shot for white balance correction.

After that you can add as much warmth as you find pleasing - the lens influence is IMHO minor (but of course existing)

The color influence is more important for videographers - that's why you get color adjusted lens sets to be able to shoot with ideally identical results to blend seamlessly different views of the same scene - this is no typical photo requirement and we're talking about subtle differences between lenses.

To proof that I've adjusted the WB on the grey casing of the loudspeaker - it was not important IMHO for the sharpness comparison but might mislead some guys out there (for me color is something I do in post for important images not for test shots ,-)

(only one click anyways)


Sony G 12-24 with adjusted WB and lens profile vs Canon 11-24 L with adjusted WB and lens profile

to me they look very similar with slightly different rendering but this would be still within a tight tolerance margin.

Click to expand...

As the color are matched, look like the Sony image has a lot more detail than the Canon one. Is that right?

Click to expand...

1st and foremost the two crops are 100 %

The Sony uses a slightly lower enlargement than the Canon lens due to 42 vs 50 MPixel - which gives an edge to Sony in general - to be able to view in 100 % with equal starting conditions both files should be scaled and resharpened.

That said with all my experiences of looking at comparisons over the past decade or so I'd tend to agree that the Sony file has more detail and is sharper in the over all look.

Remember - all shown images here are sharpened with 70 points in LR and masked with 50 points since I want to see the behavior under workflow conditions and not unsharp results from the camera algorithms ;-)

So the minimum thing we can summarize is that the Sony files (uncompressed RAW) take sharpening much better and the end result has a tad bit more details and sharpness compare to the Canon file.

To my eyes the 12-24 wins hands down at every focal length and aperture setting against the fabulous Canon 11-24 except at 11 mm ;-)

The 12-24 is more or less on par with the CV15 and Loxia 21 at the same aperture and with the new lens profile in LR you get full control over the complex geometrical distortion too without loosing details!

And it is half the weight and much less bulky and attention drawing when you're in public photographing.

I was expecting a solid performance after I read the initial press reviews and saw the vloggers' youtube streams but it literally blew me away when I saw that this lens beats by a nice margin the probably best ultra wide zoom on the (arguably) best camera at ISO 100 (the 5DsR is meant to be used at ISO 100 until maybe ISO 3200 but the results are really best at base ISO and then there is hardly any better FF camera out) at ⅔ of the price.

Nice!!

The 12-24 excels in:

• image quality
• price
• weight
• size
• centering (my copy is near to perfectly centered - compared to heavy decentering of other lenses in this range like the 16-35 we saw in this thread with severe decentering)

The 12-24 falls short in:

• susceptibility to harsh light (flares under certain conditions - can be avoided though)
• price (for some of us)
• missing short end with 12 mm vs 11 mm (not a big deal for me)

All in all a big thumbs up for the 12-24 G from my side - I did not expect that.

(normally I am rather disappointed after testing a promising lens since some testers seem to predominantly hype new lenses and forget about the fabulous existing lenses - this one is at least on par with the best primes in the zoom range - amazing!)

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

JimKasson said:

Astrophotographer 10 said:

i'd love to see a starry night shot even if light polluted to see corner performance with this lens wide open at 12mm.

Click to expand...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1498485/14

--
http://blog.kasson.com

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. That looks pretty good especially considering if you stitch a panorama you overlap by 25% anyway. F4 just means it really needs to be tracked to get enough signal for astro.

Greg.