GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

Started 7 months ago | User reviews
joger
joger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,166
GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images
4

I finally got my copy of the GM 14 f/1.8 two days ago. As always I perform some basic checks for the lens to understand the capabilities and potential shortcomings since these are all tools and as usual with tools there are dos and don’ts

All images are from tripod with remote release and careful MFing on the subject in focus with 10x magnification. Images are edited to my liking in the very same way for compared lenses. Comments and critique are - as always - very welcome.

Disclaimer: I do not praise new gear for the sheer praising of new toys. I’ve sent back many brand new lenses since they did not fulfill my expectations - e.g the Loxia 85, Batis 18, FiRIN 20 and the Nokton 40 f/1.2 went straight back to the shops since they did not provide the image quality I expect from them wide open. An ultra wide angle lens doesn’t need to be fast to start with since basically everything is in focus all the time anyway more or less provided you use it for landscape and architecture. Yet there are occasions where speed matters e.g. for astrophotography or in case a tripod is not allowed.

I had tested the GM 12..24 and I own the G 12..24 - the GM 12..24 is a nice lens but it is nowhere near to the weight and size I’d want from comparable slow f/2.8 lens.

As elaborated before a wide angle lens needs to be sharp for landscape and architecture and for these situations I predominantly use something like f/7.1 anyway as my working aperture - this might change with an upcoming IMX555CQR equipped 102 MP Alpha body in the future. I am personally looking forward to such a camera since it renders any larger sensor format basically irrelevant provided one case use PixelShift - 4x PixelShift will yield in +1..1.2 stops more dynamic range and thus an image quality rivaling digital medium format at a fraction os the camera and lens size - plus there is no 14 mm equivalent lens in the small and large digital medium format anyway.

Here are some initial sample shoots and a comparison to the G 12..24 at equivalent apertures - mainly at the other areas of the frame since I fully expect lenses to be outstanding in the center of the frame - and most are - even the above mentioned canceled purchases had ben o.k.ish in the center ( the GM 50 beats the CV 40 by a huge deal ) Sony’s engineers has been very productive and very skilled with their latest releases. Enjoy the images!

1.) Sharpness and contrast

100 % view extreme side manually focussed at f/5.6 - G 12..24 vs GM 14

clearly the GM 14 wins - but opening the aperture the image quality fades away and compare to my previously purchased lenses the GM 14 is clearly not on the same level as the GM 35 and MG 50

At outer area the difference to the G 12..24 is negligible if visible at all

400 % view G 12..24 vs GM 14 - at f/5.6 no difference IMHO

2.) Size and weight

A bit smaller and a bit lighter than my G 12..24 - nothing to write home about - nice to hold away and much more attractive than the GM 12..24 - which is a no-go-zone for me for such a lens.

3.) Performance wide open

I have to admit that I hardly see any use case for a fast UWA lens - my initial tests showed that I find no real use case for the speed. It looks like the GM 14 is a one trick pony - astrophotography

4.) Sample images

5. Use with rear filter

Works very good with Haida rear filter kit ( from GM 12..24 ) and stopped down above f/5.6 the corners are sharp - at faster apertures the corners will get unsharp - to an extent I'd not be willing to accept

6. My personal verdict:

  • comparable lightweight
  • comparable small
  • sharp from f/4.0 and above
  • not much sharper (if at all) compare to my G 12..24
  • definitely the least attractive new lens from Sony - the GM 35 and GM 50 are the best one can buy - the GM 14 is a mixed Bag IMHO
  • one trick pony for astrophotography

I had tested the GM 35 and GM 50 and both are outstanding - I will keep the GM 14 for future astrophotography - which I do not pursue at this point in time - but my G 12..24 will be in the travel bag instead of the surprisingly disappointing GM 14 - I was close to sending it back but decided that I'll give this lens a 2nd and 3rd chance - not as thrilling as the previous new top notch primes.

This clearly shows how good the G 12..24 is. I'll rent again the GM 12..24 and compare it to the GM 14 and CV 15 and G 12..24 in a separate thread. In case you had been expecting sharpness king you will not benefit from this lens compare to the already good 12..24s zooms - personally I find hardly any use for f/1.8 in such a focal length outside of astro photography.

-- hide signature --

_____________________________________
A7R IV - 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's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM +13 more
Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM
Wideangle prime lens • Sony FE
Announced: Apr 20, 2021
joger's score
4.0
Average community score
4.6
Arcimboldo Regular Member • Posts: 486
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

Interesting that you found the Haida rear filters to be good on the 14 GM - they sucked on my 12-24 GM.

 Arcimboldo's gear list:Arcimboldo's gear list
Sony a7R Sony a7R III Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony 1.4x Teleconverter (2016) +6 more
Impulses Veteran Member • Posts: 8,494
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

Thanks for the feedback, this actually makes me more curious about the 12-24 than the 14GM heh...

 Impulses's gear list:Impulses's gear list
Panasonic GX850 Sony a7R IV Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Sony FE 20mm F1.8G +29 more
paul cool
paul cool Senior Member • Posts: 2,994
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

the 14mm looks to have more contrast in your examples look at the black owl on the sign

 paul cool's gear list:paul cool's gear list
Sony a7R III Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD +1 more
aSevenArr
aSevenArr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,077
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

joger wrote:

I finally got my copy of the GM 14 f/1.8 two days ago. As always I perform some basic checks for the lens to understand the capabilities and potential shortcomings since these are all tools and as usual with tools there are dos and don’ts

All images are from tripod with remote release and careful MFing on the subject in focus with 10x magnification. Images are edited to my liking in the very same way for compared lenses. Comments and critique are - as always - very welcome.

Disclaimer: I do not praise new gear for the sheer praising of new toys. I’ve sent back many brand new lenses since they did not fulfill my expectations - e.g the Loxia 85, Batis 18, FiRIN 20 and the Nokton 40 f/1.2 went straight back to the shops since they did not provide the image quality I expect from them wide open. An ultra wide angle lens doesn’t need to be fast to start with since basically everything is in focus all the time anyway more or less provided you use it for landscape and architecture. Yet there are occasions where speed matters e.g. for astrophotography or in case a tripod is not allowed.

I had tested the GM 12..24 and I own the G 12..24 - the GM 12..24 is a nice lens but it is nowhere near to the weight and size I’d want from comparable slow f/2.8 lens.

As elaborated before a wide angle lens needs to be sharp for landscape and architecture and for these situations I predominantly use something like f/7.1 anyway as my working aperture - this might change with an upcoming IMX555CQR equipped 102 MP Alpha body in the future. I am personally looking forward to such a camera since it renders any larger sensor format basically irrelevant provided one case use PixelShift - 4x PixelShift will yield in +1..1.2 stops more dynamic range and thus an image quality rivaling digital medium format at a fraction os the camera and lens size - plus there is no 14 mm equivalent lens in the small and large digital medium format anyway.

Here are some initial sample shoots and a comparison to the G 12..24 at equivalent apertures - mainly at the other areas of the frame since I fully expect lenses to be outstanding in the center of the frame - and most are - even the above mentioned canceled purchases had ben o.k.ish in the center ( the GM 50 beats the CV 40 by a huge deal ) Sony’s engineers has been very productive and very skilled with their latest releases. Enjoy the images!

1.) Sharpness and contrast

100 % view extreme side manually focussed at f/5.6 - G 12..24 vs GM 14

clearly the GM 14 wins - but opening the aperture the image quality fades away and compare to my previously purchased lenses the GM 14 is clearly not on the same level as the GM 35 and MG 50

At outer area the difference to the G 12..24 is negligible if visible at all

400 % view G 12..24 vs GM 14 - at f/5.6 no difference IMHO

2.) Size and weight

A bit smaller and a bit lighter than my G 12..24 - nothing to write home about - nice to hold away and much more attractive than the GM 12..24 - which is a no-go-zone for me for such a lens.

3.) Performance wide open

I have to admit that I hardly see any use case for a fast UWA lens - my initial tests showed that I find no real use case for the speed. It looks like the GM 14 is a one trick pony - astrophotography

4.) Sample images

5. Use with rear filter

Works very good with Haida rear filter kit ( from GM 12..24 ) and stopped down above f/5.6 the corners are sharp - at faster apertures the corners will get unsharp - to an extent I'd not be willing to accept

6. My personal verdict:

  • comparable lightweight
  • comparable small
  • sharp from f/4.0 and above
  • not much sharper (if at all) compare to my G 12..24
  • definitely the least attractive new lens from Sony - the GM 35 and GM 50 are the best one can buy - the GM 14 is a mixed Bag IMHO
  • one trick pony for astrophotography

I had tested the GM 35 and GM 50 and both are outstanding - I will keep the GM 14 for future astrophotography - which I do not pursue at this point in time - but my G 12..24 will be in the travel bag instead of the surprisingly disappointing GM 14 - I was close to sending it back but decided that I'll give this lens a 2nd and 3rd chance - not as thrilling as the previous new top notch primes.

This clearly shows how good the G 12..24 is. I'll rent again the GM 12..24 and compare it to the GM 14 and CV 15 and G 12..24 in a separate thread. In case you had been expecting sharpness king you will not benefit from this lens compare to the already good 12..24s zooms - personally I find hardly any use for f/1.8 in such a focal length outside of astro photography.

Nice shots.

I must admit that I was rather surprised to see a GM prime performing quite poorly next to a G rated WA zoom. Astonished actually.

The GM prime should really blow away that zoom for performance. Hopefully greed is not leading to lesser lenses receiving the orange badge.

I guess it means that the 12-24 is a really great zoom lens (I knew that before ... I was hovering between buying it and my 16-35 GM back at the time that I purchased the latter).

I'll be very interested in seeing how the 12-24 GM does!

 aSevenArr's gear list:aSevenArr's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a9 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +13 more
joger
OP joger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,166
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

aSevenArr wrote:

joger wrote:

I finally got my copy of the GM 14 f/1.8 two days ago. As always I perform some basic checks for the lens to understand the capabilities and potential shortcomings since these are all tools and as usual with tools there are dos and don’ts

All images are from tripod with remote release and careful MFing on the subject in focus with 10x magnification. Images are edited to my liking in the very same way for compared lenses. Comments and critique are - as always - very welcome.

Disclaimer: I do not praise new gear for the sheer praising of new toys. I’ve sent back many brand new lenses since they did not fulfill my expectations - e.g the Loxia 85, Batis 18, FiRIN 20 and the Nokton 40 f/1.2 went straight back to the shops since they did not provide the image quality I expect from them wide open. An ultra wide angle lens doesn’t need to be fast to start with since basically everything is in focus all the time anyway more or less provided you use it for landscape and architecture. Yet there are occasions where speed matters e.g. for astrophotography or in case a tripod is not allowed.

I had tested the GM 12..24 and I own the G 12..24 - the GM 12..24 is a nice lens but it is nowhere near to the weight and size I’d want from comparable slow f/2.8 lens.

As elaborated before a wide angle lens needs to be sharp for landscape and architecture and for these situations I predominantly use something like f/7.1 anyway as my working aperture - this might change with an upcoming IMX555CQR equipped 102 MP Alpha body in the future. I am personally looking forward to such a camera since it renders any larger sensor format basically irrelevant provided one case use PixelShift - 4x PixelShift will yield in +1..1.2 stops more dynamic range and thus an image quality rivaling digital medium format at a fraction os the camera and lens size - plus there is no 14 mm equivalent lens in the small and large digital medium format anyway.

Here are some initial sample shoots and a comparison to the G 12..24 at equivalent apertures - mainly at the other areas of the frame since I fully expect lenses to be outstanding in the center of the frame - and most are - even the above mentioned canceled purchases had ben o.k.ish in the center ( the GM 50 beats the CV 40 by a huge deal ) Sony’s engineers has been very productive and very skilled with their latest releases. Enjoy the images!

1.) Sharpness and contrast

100 % view extreme side manually focussed at f/5.6 - G 12..24 vs GM 14

clearly the GM 14 wins - but opening the aperture the image quality fades away and compare to my previously purchased lenses the GM 14 is clearly not on the same level as the GM 35 and MG 50

At outer area the difference to the G 12..24 is negligible if visible at all

400 % view G 12..24 vs GM 14 - at f/5.6 no difference IMHO

2.) Size and weight

A bit smaller and a bit lighter than my G 12..24 - nothing to write home about - nice to hold away and much more attractive than the GM 12..24 - which is a no-go-zone for me for such a lens.

3.) Performance wide open

I have to admit that I hardly see any use case for a fast UWA lens - my initial tests showed that I find no real use case for the speed. It looks like the GM 14 is a one trick pony - astrophotography

4.) Sample images

5. Use with rear filter

Works very good with Haida rear filter kit ( from GM 12..24 ) and stopped down above f/5.6 the corners are sharp - at faster apertures the corners will get unsharp - to an extent I'd not be willing to accept

6. My personal verdict:

  • comparable lightweight
  • comparable small
  • sharp from f/4.0 and above
  • not much sharper (if at all) compare to my G 12..24
  • definitely the least attractive new lens from Sony - the GM 35 and GM 50 are the best one can buy - the GM 14 is a mixed Bag IMHO
  • one trick pony for astrophotography

I had tested the GM 35 and GM 50 and both are outstanding - I will keep the GM 14 for future astrophotography - which I do not pursue at this point in time - but my G 12..24 will be in the travel bag instead of the surprisingly disappointing GM 14 - I was close to sending it back but decided that I'll give this lens a 2nd and 3rd chance - not as thrilling as the previous new top notch primes.

This clearly shows how good the G 12..24 is. I'll rent again the GM 12..24 and compare it to the GM 14 and CV 15 and G 12..24 in a separate thread. In case you had been expecting sharpness king you will not benefit from this lens compare to the already good 12..24s zooms - personally I find hardly any use for f/1.8 in such a focal length outside of astro photography.

Nice shots.

I must admit that I was rather surprised to see a GM prime performing quite poorly next to a G rated WA zoom. Astonished actually.

The GM prime should really blow away that zoom for performance. Hopefully greed is not leading to lesser lenses receiving the orange badge.

I guess it means that the 12-24 is a really great zoom lens (I knew that before ... I was hovering between buying it and my 16-35 GM back at the time that I purchased the latter).

I'll be very interested in seeing how the 12-24 GM does!

The G 12..24 is a surprisingly good lens - actually on the same optical level as the GM 12..24 - especially at 14 mm.

I had tested the G 12..24 vs the GM 16..35 and in the overlapping areas between 16 and some 20ish mm it is better at similar apertures.

Maybe I ave got an extremely good copy - which I doubt.

-- hide signature --

_____________________________________
A7R IV - 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's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM +13 more
aSevenArr
aSevenArr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,077
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

joger wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

joger wrote:

I finally got my copy of the GM 14 f/1.8 two days ago. As always I perform some basic checks for the lens to understand the capabilities and potential shortcomings since these are all tools and as usual with tools there are dos and don’ts

All images are from tripod with remote release and careful MFing on the subject in focus with 10x magnification. Images are edited to my liking in the very same way for compared lenses. Comments and critique are - as always - very welcome.

Disclaimer: I do not praise new gear for the sheer praising of new toys. I’ve sent back many brand new lenses since they did not fulfill my expectations - e.g the Loxia 85, Batis 18, FiRIN 20 and the Nokton 40 f/1.2 went straight back to the shops since they did not provide the image quality I expect from them wide open. An ultra wide angle lens doesn’t need to be fast to start with since basically everything is in focus all the time anyway more or less provided you use it for landscape and architecture. Yet there are occasions where speed matters e.g. for astrophotography or in case a tripod is not allowed.

I had tested the GM 12..24 and I own the G 12..24 - the GM 12..24 is a nice lens but it is nowhere near to the weight and size I’d want from comparable slow f/2.8 lens.

As elaborated before a wide angle lens needs to be sharp for landscape and architecture and for these situations I predominantly use something like f/7.1 anyway as my working aperture - this might change with an upcoming IMX555CQR equipped 102 MP Alpha body in the future. I am personally looking forward to such a camera since it renders any larger sensor format basically irrelevant provided one case use PixelShift - 4x PixelShift will yield in +1..1.2 stops more dynamic range and thus an image quality rivaling digital medium format at a fraction os the camera and lens size - plus there is no 14 mm equivalent lens in the small and large digital medium format anyway.

Here are some initial sample shoots and a comparison to the G 12..24 at equivalent apertures - mainly at the other areas of the frame since I fully expect lenses to be outstanding in the center of the frame - and most are - even the above mentioned canceled purchases had ben o.k.ish in the center ( the GM 50 beats the CV 40 by a huge deal ) Sony’s engineers has been very productive and very skilled with their latest releases. Enjoy the images!

1.) Sharpness and contrast

100 % view extreme side manually focussed at f/5.6 - G 12..24 vs GM 14

clearly the GM 14 wins - but opening the aperture the image quality fades away and compare to my previously purchased lenses the GM 14 is clearly not on the same level as the GM 35 and MG 50

At outer area the difference to the G 12..24 is negligible if visible at all

400 % view G 12..24 vs GM 14 - at f/5.6 no difference IMHO

2.) Size and weight

A bit smaller and a bit lighter than my G 12..24 - nothing to write home about - nice to hold away and much more attractive than the GM 12..24 - which is a no-go-zone for me for such a lens.

3.) Performance wide open

I have to admit that I hardly see any use case for a fast UWA lens - my initial tests showed that I find no real use case for the speed. It looks like the GM 14 is a one trick pony - astrophotography

4.) Sample images

5. Use with rear filter

Works very good with Haida rear filter kit ( from GM 12..24 ) and stopped down above f/5.6 the corners are sharp - at faster apertures the corners will get unsharp - to an extent I'd not be willing to accept

6. My personal verdict:

  • comparable lightweight
  • comparable small
  • sharp from f/4.0 and above
  • not much sharper (if at all) compare to my G 12..24
  • definitely the least attractive new lens from Sony - the GM 35 and GM 50 are the best one can buy - the GM 14 is a mixed Bag IMHO
  • one trick pony for astrophotography

I had tested the GM 35 and GM 50 and both are outstanding - I will keep the GM 14 for future astrophotography - which I do not pursue at this point in time - but my G 12..24 will be in the travel bag instead of the surprisingly disappointing GM 14 - I was close to sending it back but decided that I'll give this lens a 2nd and 3rd chance - not as thrilling as the previous new top notch primes.

This clearly shows how good the G 12..24 is. I'll rent again the GM 12..24 and compare it to the GM 14 and CV 15 and G 12..24 in a separate thread. In case you had been expecting sharpness king you will not benefit from this lens compare to the already good 12..24s zooms - personally I find hardly any use for f/1.8 in such a focal length outside of astro photography.

Nice shots.

I must admit that I was rather surprised to see a GM prime performing quite poorly next to a G rated WA zoom. Astonished actually.

The GM prime should really blow away that zoom for performance. Hopefully greed is not leading to lesser lenses receiving the orange badge.

I guess it means that the 12-24 is a really great zoom lens (I knew that before ... I was hovering between buying it and my 16-35 GM back at the time that I purchased the latter).

I'll be very interested in seeing how the 12-24 GM does!

The G 12..24 is a surprisingly good lens - actually on the same optical level as the GM 12..24 - especially at 14 mm.

I had tested the G 12..24 vs the GM 16..35 and in the overlapping areas between 16 and some 20ish mm it is better at similar apertures.

Maybe I ave got an extremely good copy - which I doubt.

The 16-35 GM is stellar in my experience.. it only falls down just a little at the 35mm end.

But if you stop down just slightly all of the very slight mushiness at 35 instantly clears up and the results are once more very sharp.

I saw a review back at the time ... I went for the GM WA zoom for the longer reach 35mm end and also the fact that the 12-24 can't accept any filters.

Incidentally ... is it possible that you simply got a bad copy of the 14 ? Just a thought.

 aSevenArr's gear list:aSevenArr's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a9 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +13 more
joger
OP joger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,166
G 12..24 is that good @ 14 mm

aSevenArr wrote:

joger wrote:

Maybe I ave got an extremely good copy - which I doubt.

The 16-35 GM is stellar in my experience.. it only falls down just a little at the 35mm end.

But if you stop down just slightly all of the very slight mushiness at 35 instantly clears up and the results are once more very sharp.

I saw a review back at the time ... I went for the GM WA zoom for the longer reach 35mm end and also the fact that the 12-24 can't accept any filters.

Incidentally ... is it possible that you simply got a bad copy of the 14 ? Just a thought.

The G 12..24 is that good - it was already a close to perfect lens years ago and it looks like it is the perfect ultra wide angle lens provided you don't need front filters.

IMHO it is the best option when you want to photography landscape and architecture at a comparable low weight and small size - I hardly find any usage for f/2.8 let alone f/1.8

As said before - it's a one trick pony for astrophotography.

Fortubnately we have many choices in the Sony eco system.

-- hide signature --

_____________________________________
A7R IV - 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's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM +13 more
joger
OP joger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,166
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

paul cool wrote:

the 14mm looks to have more contrast in your examples look at the black owl on the sign

yes - it's slightly better - not on the level of elevation in performance by a prime I had hoped for. Treatment of the files is identical - thus visible differences originate by the optical capabilities.

In case I would not own the G 12..24 the GM 14 would be a stunning performer - knowing the optical level of the G 12..24 it is surprisingly low gain in performance - too low for my taste to use it instead of the G 12..24 when traveling.

I'll only use the GM 14 in the future for astrophotography which I currently don't do - but intend to perform in the future.

Stopped down to f/7.1 the G 12..24 is a incredible performer and hard to beat by any other lens I have had access to.

-- hide signature --

_____________________________________
A7R IV - 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's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM +13 more
paul cool
paul cool Senior Member • Posts: 2,994
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

joger wrote:

paul cool wrote:

the 14mm looks to have more contrast in your examples look at the black owl on the sign

yes - it's slightly better - not on the level of elevation in performance by a prime I had hoped for. Treatment of the files is identical - thus visible differences originate by the optical capabilities.

In case I would not own the G 12..24 the GM 14 would be a stunning performer - knowing the optical level of the G 12..24 it is surprisingly low gain in performance - too low for my taste to use it instead of the G 12..24 when traveling.

I'll only use the GM 14 in the future for astrophotography which I currently don't do - but intend to perform in the future.

Stopped down to f/7.1 the G 12..24 is a incredible performer and hard to beat by any other lens I have had access to.

well some lenses you struggling to improve upon ,and wide angles are notoriously pernickety ,so probably hard to make a 14mm gm to match the  levels of 35mm and 50mm gm which are optically easier to make with less distortion ,if the 14mm is matching the g 12 24mm and still able to shoot at wider apertures then it has some merit. You are correct though a zoom over prime every time if the performance is remotely close.

 paul cool's gear list:paul cool's gear list
Sony a7R III Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD +1 more
Malling Contributing Member • Posts: 733
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

There seem to be a limit currently to how well one can make these ultra wide, these will obviously never be IQ as stellar as a 35 & 50. 35 & 50 range has for a longe time been the sharpest lenses with least amount of distortion, going in any direction from this and you loose performance, so it’s really no surprise that the 14mm isn’t as stellar as these as neither are the 24 or 135mm for that matter.

I kinda expect that when Sony do update their 24-70 I expect there won’t be huge of a gain in the 20-24 range either, as again there just is a limit for how well you can make these.

The 1.8/14 is still a good lens and if you don’t have an ultra wide it can still be worth it. If you have I can understand that you will view it as a one trick Astrophotography pony. But it’s just as one trick pony as any other lens that is nearly as sharp at 14mm.

Personally I never seen much reason for the 16 & 20 mm (too close to 14, 18 and 24 to really be worthwhile to own (within 10 degrees difference). I can see that when shooting If I’m not at 14 then I’m at 18 or 24mm. But the long end tend to go a little soft on most zooms, so rarely that useful. So for me the 12-24 has always been a 14 and 18 lens.

randomguy Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

I tried this lens too and was disappointed too and returned it. Mine performed very poorly at large apertures and close focus distance in particular, only small area around the center was sharp. I think your copy looks better than mine was judging from image 5 and 8. Mine wasn't that symmetrical either and didn't perform similarly at all 4 corners at photographing city lights at great distance (closest I get to astro this time of year).

It's a real shame because a good performing 14mm 1.8 at this size would have been fantastic.

-- hide signature --
randomguy Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

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.

-- hide signature --
Malling Contributing Member • Posts: 733
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images
  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.

randomguy Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

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

-- hide signature --
joger
OP joger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,166
one trick pony

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

ups - I did not see that they added the ISO 12233 chart shots.

That looks terrible - having said that this is not the normal use case for that type of lens. And I'd not base my decisions on 1200 mm wide ISO 12233 test charts for any ultra wide angle lens.

The GM 14 is calculated for infinity performance - as said before IMHO this is a one trick pony for astrophotography and I will keep mine for that reason alone.

But for the rest the G 12..24 is the far better option being as sharp stopped down and similar in weight and just a bit larger.

The GM 14 is the worst new GM lens by the measures of the mind-blowing good GM35 and GM50 I got recently - that's a bit of a disappointment but nothing to write home about to long and exhausting.

I will get the GM 12..24 loaner this weekend for X checking and will publish my unbiased results.

I am a bit surprised that the testers did not do any kind of proper evaluation - it looks like thorough testing is a thing of few well known good testers.

Got other stuff to do and it's summer in the city - keep riding my new bike - this weekend new tires for test.

-- hide signature --

_____________________________________
A7R IV - 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's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM +13 more
Malling Contributing Member • Posts: 733
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.

randomguy Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images
2

Malling wrote:

  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.

Yep well I wanted to know if close distance performance was just an issue with my copy or the lens in general and it seems to be the lens in general. Can't think of any other Sony lens with the limitation that it performs this lousy near MFD so this is something new.

For fun I pulled out my Laowa 15mm F2 and it performs similarly optically. But the Laowa has the advantage it can use 72mm front filters and for the things the 14GM actually perform at, autofocus is of little importance so don't see much purpose of the 14GM.

-- hide signature --
Malling Contributing Member • Posts: 733
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images

randomguy wrote:

Malling wrote:

  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.

Yep well I wanted to know if close distance performance was just an issue with my copy or the lens in general and it seems to be the lens in general. Can't think of any other Sony lens with the limitation that it performs this lousy near MFD so this is something new.

For fun I pulled out my Laowa 15mm F2 and it performs similarly optically. But the Laowa has the advantage it can use 72mm front filters and for the things the 14GM actually perform at, autofocus is of little importance so don't see much purpose of the 14GM.

Most UW is 25-28cm in MFD and has 0,1x it should really tell you that it’s not gonna be great at it. If you want to shoot close get a UW macro or other lens design specifically designed for it, because it’s not in a UW nature to be good at it, especially not at 14mm, in fact these are more often then not horrible at MFD. Personally I care very little about it, I just want a fast relatively lightweight UW that fulfil demand of sharpness and minimum of distortion, there isn’t a UW that is sharper or has less distortion then this at 14, it might not be 50 stellar performance but it’s great for what it is. But obviously if one desire a MFD capable lens this is probably not it.

I would gladly have accepted a MF if there where one that where equally good. But most are just average and has some really serious distortion and vignetting issues going on, it’s often so bad I rather use something else. Hopefully Voigtländer will come up with something on level with their Apo-L lenses.

PWPhotography Forum Pro • Posts: 11,134
Re: GM 14 initial test, rear filter usage and sample images
2

aSevenArr wrote:

The G 12..24 is a surprisingly good lens - actually on the same optical level as the GM 12..24 - especially at 14 mm.

I had tested the G 12..24 vs the GM 16..35 and in the overlapping areas between 16 and some 20ish mm it is better at similar apertures.

Maybe I ave got an extremely good copy - which I doubt.

The 16-35 GM is stellar in my experience.. it only falls down just a little at the 35mm end.

The TDP 16-35 GM vs 12-24 G @f4.0 and 16mm

The TDP 14/1.8 GM @f1.8 vs 12-24 G @f4.0 and 14mm

To my eye, 14mm GM at f1.8 is as sharp as 12-24 G at f4.0 that former is 2+1/3 stop faster, no comparison.

But if you stop down just slightly all of the very slight mushiness at 35 instantly clears up and the results are once more very sharp.

I saw a review back at the time ... I went for the GM WA zoom for the longer reach 35mm end and also the fact that the 12-24 can't accept any filters.

Incidentally ... is it possible that you simply got a bad copy of the 14 ? Just a thought.

He must got a bad copy of 14 GM and excellent copy of 12-24 G but as we have seen many times in his so-called confirmation-bias oriented comparison for mainly justification of personal choice.

From all creditable reviews, 14 GM is excellent and clearly superior to 12-24 G @14mm.

I will get 14 GM to complement 16-35 GM when I have chance in astrophotography.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a7R IV Sony a1 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads