GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

Started 7 months ago | User reviews thread
Malling Contributing Member • Posts: 742
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images
  1. randomguy wrote:

Malling wrote:

  1. randomguy wrote:

Sure but I would at least expect a prime to be able to compete with 2.8 zooms at 2.8. My 14GM wasn't anywhere near my Sigma 14-24 at 2.8. The Sigma was just better at everything except sun stars.

you probably got a lemon. My copy where better at 2.8 from what I seen on these UW zooms.

How about at close range? My copy definitely looked something like the results here while the Sigma is as sharp at close range as it is at distance:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1559&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1535&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It’s not really made for close focus subject, I don’t really do that sort of things with extreme UW… So I have not tested it. Sigma and Tamron is also know to make this a selling point for their lenses.

This is made so it performs at landscape, architecture/real estate and astrophotography at longer focus distances. Personally I think it’s a little harsh calling it a one trick pony as it has better contrast, less fringing, aberration, better extreme corners then pretty much any UW zoom i seen that is important in that type of photography. But obviously not the IQ gap that currently exists between the 35, 50 and the 24-70, but when Sony do launch the next mid zoom I expect it too make the difference much smaller then it currently is. Comparing the IQ to a 35 and 50 makes no sense to me as a UW cannot be as sharp as those two, it never has never will be. UW is inherently less sharp, the 20 and 24 is also noticeable less sharp they are still good especially as you compared them to the 24-70 because of the older lens design, when Sony do launch it I bet that the IQ will be just as small as the difference between the 14 and 12-24gm.
Looking only at sharpness is also one dimensional.

So it boils down to the need for speed/low light or focal range flexibility, if you don’t need it to perform in low light then always go with the zoom if the IQ is close. However this is more then two stops compared to the G, or a little more then one stop and almost half the weight compared to the Art and GM, even with an 18 Batis it would still be lighter then the Sigma and GM. That is just to underline how heavy those lenses really are. You really need to shoot allot UW and use that 2.8 to it to be truly worthwhile. I would personally never walk around with more then one 2.8 zoom of that reason, or a bunch of 1.2/1.4 primes to cover the same range.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow