EF-M 11-22mm vs. Roki 12mm f2: Head to head IQ test

[Larry Rexley]

in another thread I mentioned i thought the Rokinon (Samyang) 12mm f2 manual-everything lens I have seemed sharper than the Canon EF-M 11-22mm lens, and that I'd do a test one of these days.

This morning had good cloudy, flat lighting so i shot identical comparison shots of the city skyline with both lenses, processing the images using DxO PhotoLab 5 to do this comparison.

Details:

- identical manual exposures used for both lenses, all shots at ISO 100

- All images pushed +0.33 EV in DxO PL5, DxO Smart Lighting disabled, no contrast, brightness, tone, color balance, or other adjustment done (Exception: Roki 12mm shot at f2 had more exposure compensation, +0.67 Ev instead of +0.33 EV)

- Auto White Balance used for all shots

- Distortion correction disabled for all shots with both lenses (doing this appears to disable all other lens corrections for the Canon EF-M lens for exporting images, leveling the playing field for comparison)

- Maximum CA used for all shots (intensity 200, size 12, purple fringing correction enabled)

- Unsharp mask used for all shots: Threshold 0, radius 0.92, Intensity 200, Edge Offset 100 (exception: Edge Offset of 60 was used for both lenses in the f5.6 shots as the corners sharpened up for both lenses)

- Vignetting settings: Roki: at f2=70, at f2.8 through 5.6=45. EF-M 11-22: at f4.5=55, at f5.6=45

- Deep Prime de-noise used for all shots, Luminance 25

- All images exported to JPG at native resolution, max JPG quality (100)

f2: Roki 12mm at 1/1000s, +0.67 EV in post, vignette 70

f2.8: Roki 12mm at 1/500s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 45

f4: Roki 12mm at 1/250s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 45

f4.5: Canon EF-M 11-22mm at 13mm, 1/200s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 55

f5.6: Roki 12mm at 1/125s, +0.33 Ev in post, vignette 45

f5.6: Canon EF-M 11-22mm at 13mm, 1/125s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 45

Both lenses performed very well, and their performance wasn't very different by f5.6.

Overall I feel that the Rokinon lens appears to have better sharpness than the Canon lens at similar apertures... and allowing for the shallower depth of field for the f2 shots --- the Rokinon seems to render certain parts of the image sharper at f2 than the Canon lens does at f4.5.

The Canon lens at f4.5 had worse corner vignetting at f4.5 than the Rokinon did at f4, with both about the same by f5.6.

After shooting with the Rokinon for a few months, i found that I preferred to take it along instead of the Canon most of the time, since I liked its rendering so much, and it could do double duty as a good low light lens. Manual focusing isn't really an issue --- just setting it to the position I've determined to be 'infinity' is good enough 90% of the time, even at wide apertures.

Sadly the Canon 11-22 is now my least used lens.

 

[m100]

Sadly the Canon 11-22 is now my least used lens.

I use it at the car show a lot. 11mm with a flash will do nice interior and engine shots then switch to 22mm and step back and get the whole car.

At f5.6 or f8 most always in good light.

When I need to be fast and fast works at a busy car show.

#1 lens for ebay photos too.

--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.

 

[Larry Rexley]

Sadly the Canon 11-22 is now my least used lens.

I use it at the car show a lot. 11mm with a flash will do nice interior and engine shots then switch to 22mm and step back and get the whole car.

At f5.6 or f8 most always in good light.

When I need to be fast and fast works at a busy car show.

#1 lens for ebay photos too.

The Canon does have some great advantages, obviously, being AF and having IS and full EXIF reporting and so on. It also can focus much closer than the Roki 12mm so it's better for close-up work too. Also it can go a little bit wider than the Roki.

The difference in sharpness between the two lenses isn't that large, and may only be visible on the higher res m6ii's 32 MP sensor at full resolution. i'd bet that the images would look almost identical if shot with a 24 MP M camera like the M50ii.

i got the Rokinon for astrophotography, and I didn't really expect to carry it around and use it in other shooting, but was pleasantly surprised that it turned out to be so good optically.

At f2 The Roki's sharper than the Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens at f2, so the Sigma also is getting less use than I thought it would (plus it's much larger and heavier) - and for my shooting wider angle of the 12mm works well.

 

[dan the man p]

Thanks for sharing. I still have the Rokinon on my list of lenses I'd like to get at some point. I'd heard good things, but it's nice to see you are getting sharpness comparable to or even slightly better than the 11-22.

 

[MAC]

in another thread I mentioned i thought the Rokinon (Samyang) 12mm f2 manual-everything lens I have seemed sharper than the Canon EF-M 11-22mm lens, and that I'd do a test one of these days.

This morning had good cloudy, flat lighting so i shot identical comparison shots of the city skyline with both lenses, processing the images using DxO PhotoLab 5 to do this comparison.

Details:

- identical manual exposures used for both lenses, all shots at ISO 100

- All images pushed +0.33 EV in DxO PL5, DxO Smart Lighting disabled, no contrast, brightness, tone, color balance, or other adjustment done (Exception: Roki 12mm shot at f2 had more exposure compensation, +0.67 Ev instead of +0.33 EV)

- Auto White Balance used for all shots

- Distortion correction disabled for all shots with both lenses (doing this appears to disable all other lens corrections for the Canon EF-M lens for exporting images, leveling the playing field for comparison)

- Maximum CA used for all shots (intensity 200, size 12, purple fringing correction enabled)

- Unsharp mask used for all shots: Threshold 0, radius 0.92, Intensity 200, Edge Offset 100 (exception: Edge Offset of 60 was used for both lenses in the f5.6 shots as the corners sharpened up for both lenses)

- Vignetting settings: Roki: at f2=70, at f2.8 through 5.6=45. EF-M 11-22: at f4.5=55, at f5.6=45

- Deep Prime de-noise used for all shots, Luminance 25

- All images exported to JPG at native resolution, max JPG quality (100)

f2: Roki 12mm at 1/1000s, +0.67 EV in post, vignette 70

f2.8: Roki 12mm at 1/500s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 45

f4: Roki 12mm at 1/250s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 45

f4.5: Canon EF-M 11-22mm at 13mm, 1/200s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 55

f5.6: Roki 12mm at 1/125s, +0.33 Ev in post, vignette 45

f5.6: Canon EF-M 11-22mm at 13mm, 1/125s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 45

Both lenses performed very well, and their performance wasn't very different by f5.6.

Overall I feel that the Rokinon lens appears to have better sharpness than the Canon lens at similar apertures... and allowing for the shallower depth of field for the f2 shots --- the Rokinon seems to render certain parts of the image sharper at f2 than the Canon lens does at f4.5.

The Canon lens at f4.5 had worse corner vignetting at f4.5 than the Rokinon did at f4, with both about the same by f5.6.

After shooting with the Rokinon for a few months, i found that I preferred to take it along instead of the Canon most of the time, since I liked its rendering so much, and it could do double duty as a good low light lens. Manual focusing isn't really an issue --- just setting it to the position I've determined to be 'infinity' is good enough 90% of the time, even at wide apertures.

Sadly the Canon 11-22 is now my least used lens.

The zoom and IS rule. Were you using e-shutter? If not, repeat the study to reduce shock.

I'm interested in the Laowa 9 mm to supplement my 11-22

 

[Larry Rexley]

The zoom and IS rule. Were you using e-shutter? If not, repeat the study to reduce shock.

I'm interested in the Laowa 9 mm to supplement my 11-22

I was using e-shutter, also the camera was mounted on a solid Bogen Manfrotto tripod, plus I shoot multiple frames at each f-stop just in case.

I've tried with my M6ii cameras to repro the shutter shock. I had an EF-M 15-45 that could repro it a small percentage of the time, but i don't see it pixel peeping with my 11-22 or 18-150 zooms, and definitely not any of the primes.

 

[MAC]

The zoom and IS rule. Were you using e-shutter? If not, repeat the study to reduce shock.

I'm interested in the Laowa 9 mm to supplement my 11-22

I was using e-shutter, also the camera was mounted on a solid Bogen Manfrotto tripod, plus I shoot multiple frames at each f-stop just in case.

did you shoot with IS off on the tripod as recommended by canon?

I've tried with my M6ii cameras to repro the shutter shock. I had an EF-M 15-45 that could repro it a small percentage of the time, but i don't see it pixel peeping with my 11-22 or 18-150 zooms, and definitely not any of the primes.

 

[aeren]

"...

I'm interested in the Laowa 9 mm to supplement my 11-22"

I also have my eye on Laowa 9mm and Rokinon 12mm F2 for nightscape milkyway photograpy. I couldn't decide yet.

 

[Larry Rexley]

"...

I'm interested in the Laowa 9 mm to supplement my 11-22"

I also have my eye on Laowa 9mm and Rokinon 12mm F2 for nightscape milkyway photograpy. I couldn't decide yet.

I have read a lot about the Laowa and it is also an excellent lens.

The 12mm is already very wide for Milky Way, i also have a Rokinon 8mm fisheye and it is also a great astro lens and renders super sharp like the 12mm, but i find it hard for Milky Way shooting... It gets so much of the sky that its very hard to even out the background brightness to get a nice even shot. Light pollution, even a little, limits how wide you can go.

12mm - 22mm seems to be a really useful range... The Sigma 16mm f1.4 and Canon 22mm f2 give great Milky Way shots too.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I don't know, Larry. I think the use of unsharp masking is problematic when you are trying to judge the sharpness of the lenses, and I'm not so sure about the differences you observed.

I know you are trying to judge the best results you can get with final editing, but it does obscure differences. Furthermore, maybe you got optimal settings for one lens but suboptimal for the other.

Also, when I look at it, I'm not so sure which one is better. I'm looking at the f/4 and f/4.5 pictures. To my eye, the pole on the upper left appears quite a bit better with the EF-M lens. I think there could be some focusing and field curvature differences that would affect the sharpness in various parts of the image.

I do notice, however, considerably more vignetting in the EF-M lens. I have one too, and I am puzzled by why this happens with this particular lens. I think we can be sure, however, that both lenses are very good.

 

[m100]

I don't know, Larry. I think the use of unsharp masking is problematic when you are trying to judge the sharpness of the lenses, and I'm not so sure about the differences you observed.

I know you are trying to judge the best results you can get with final editing, but it does obscure differences. Furthermore, maybe you got optimal settings for one lens but suboptimal for the other.

Also, when I look at it, I'm not so sure which one is better. I'm looking at the f/4 and f/4.5 pictures. To my eye, the pole on the upper left appears quite a bit better with the EF-M lens. I think there could be some focusing and field curvature differences that would affect the sharpness in various parts of the image.

I do notice, however, considerably more vignetting in the EF-M lens. I have one too, and I am puzzled by why this happens with this particular lens. I think we can be sure, however, that both lenses are very good.

The Bank of America sign is sharper with the Roki at f5.6 ?

 

[nnowak]

I do notice, however, considerably more vignetting in the EF-M lens. I have one too, and I am puzzled by why this happens with this particular lens.

The 11-22mm is not the only EF-M lens with fairly heavy vignetting. It is a consequence of prioritizing smallest possible size. Reducing vignetting would require increasing the diameter of many of the lens elements. If you look at similar wide angle zooms for other crop systems, you will see that they tend to have less vignetting, but are also physically larger.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I don't know, Larry. I think the use of unsharp masking is problematic when you are trying to judge the sharpness of the lenses, and I'm not so sure about the differences you observed.

I know you are trying to judge the best results you can get with final editing, but it does obscure differences. Furthermore, maybe you got optimal settings for one lens but suboptimal for the other.

Also, when I look at it, I'm not so sure which one is better. I'm looking at the f/4 and f/4.5 pictures. To my eye, the pole on the upper left appears quite a bit better with the EF-M lens. I think there could be some focusing and field curvature differences that would affect the sharpness in various parts of the image.

I do notice, however, considerably more vignetting in the EF-M lens. I have one too, and I am puzzled by why this happens with this particular lens. I think we can be sure, however, that both lenses are very good.

The Bank of America sign is sharper with the Roki at f5.6 ?

Yes, there are differences throughout, but they are mostly pretty small. Matching the brightness and contrast helps, and I think improves the apparent sharpness in places.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I do notice, however, considerably more vignetting in the EF-M lens. I have one too, and I am puzzled by why this happens with this particular lens.

The 11-22mm is not the only EF-M lens with fairly heavy vignetting. It is a consequence of prioritizing smallest possible size. Reducing vignetting would require increasing the diameter of many of the lens elements. If you look at similar wide angle zooms for other crop systems, you will see that they tend to have less vignetting, but are also physically larger.

Small size is not an issue for wide-angle lenses. I am puzzled by this lens, because when I look at out-of-focus points of light in the corners of my pictures, I can see the shape of the aperture, and there is not much that is cut off. I would not expect heavy vignetting. And in spite of its size, the glass is much further from the sensor than it needs to be for its focal length. So I don't understand the vignetting at all.

 

[nnowak]

f5.6: Roki 12mm at 1/125s, +0.33 Ev in post, vignette 45

f5.6: Canon EF-M 11-22mm at 13mm, 1/125s, +0.33 EV in post, vignette 45

I am not sure if it is slight differences in processing, or the lenses, but the Rokinon appears to have much better contrast. Even at the reduced size in this thread, the white metal roof on the right side shows much more pronounced details. The manhole cover near the center of the frame is also more pronounced.

As a side note, I think your points of focus may have been slightly different between the two lenses. The 11-22mm appears to be focused closer and the Rokinon 12mm focused further in the distance. The shingles at the very bottom of the frame are quite a bit sharper in the 11-22mm samples while the distant cranes and skyscrapers are much sharper in the Rokinon 12mm samples.

 

[DocetLector]

There is less pronounced detail at the metal roof because the 11-22 image is overexposed compared to the Rokinon. And that`s also the reason why there is less contrast.

 

[nnowak]

There is less pronounced detail at the metal roof because the 11-22 image is overexposed compared to the Rokinon. And that`s also the reason why there is less contrast.

That is what I thought at first too, but no.

I pulled both f/5.6 images into photoshop. The values for the sky and the white roof are identical. The gray PVC conduit on the telephone pole in the middle of the image showed a difference of a few points (close to a neutral mid gray). A simple +6 on the brightness slider got the gray conduit to match between both images, but then the white roof was brighter in the Rokinon image. Even with the added brightness to the Rokinon image, the darker details of the roof are still far more pronounced.

There could be something else going on with the processing that is causing the difference, but it is not a simple matter of one set of images being overexposed.

 

[m100]

There is less pronounced detail at the metal roof because the 11-22 image is overexposed compared to the Rokinon. And that`s also the reason why there is less contrast.

The sky was blue that day.

 

[nnowak]

Out of curiosity, what were the files sizes for the original RAW files? In general, for the same scene, the larger file tends to be the sharper, more detailed, higher dynamic range image. Basically, the bigger file tends to be the better file.

While it is not always the case, it is a simple way of checking files without the influence of post processing.

 

[DocetLector]

At a close look the 11-22 is more exposed. But..

...when I was playing with the images i also found out that changing the exposure does still not match the images. If I select the same brightness on one part of the image other parts are quite different exposed. Quite strange...