Hands-on with Sony&#39;s new 16-35mm and 12-24mm wide-angle lenses

I love my FE 35 1.4. I find the size perfect.

Switching back to FE 55 1.8 or FE 28 2.0 feels awkward.

4 months agopermalink

proxy

I know, more to hold (and carry). First I had big lenses I loved them too. Only after several trips my spine/neck told me something else.

4 months agopermalink

I carry mine everywhere, never take it off. No problems with weight :)

4 months agopermalink

DJ Photo

Sony FE 12-24 f/4 G

SHARPNESS 5/10
(key flaw!)
CENTER
not sharp f/4
sharp f/5.6
Best at f/8
soft at f/11
Blurred at f/16

CORNERS
blurry f/5.6
Barely acceptable, NOT sharp f/8
Ok f/11
Excellent f/16

Basically you're left with using f/8 only (And not sharp corners)

Bokeh 4/10
Is not smooth not round, ugly weird at 12mm
bad at 24mm

Sunstars 3/10 BAD
Coma 8/10
Sagittal flare 9/10
Flare & Ghosts 4/10 BAD
Fall off 6/10 heavy

PRICE
Properly priced
You get what you pay for!
Cheaper than nikon & canon superior lenses $2000 $3000
high priced $1600 "sony" branded version of Sigma lens $1000

Build & Durability
questionable probably 5-7 years with innovative focus group & mechanism
Made by Sigma? (Like other Sony lenses)
_______________________

OVERVIEW
A GREAT addition to sony lens lineup
Great "enthusiast" lens.

PROS
-Low price
-Light weight
-Extremely wide
-Instant focus

CONS
Image quality inferior to Nikon Canon DSLR
(SHARPNESS contrast sunstar bokeh falloff )

4 months agopermalink

Sounds like FE 35 1.4 :-)

4 months agopermalink

Daniel Bliss

Some interesting lenses to say the least. Sony's quality control has raised eyebrows in the wrong way lately but their design seems to be progressing nicely.

I assume if Nikon and Canon go the (at this point sensible and logical) route of retaining their existing lens mount for mirrorless, they'll need a mirrorless-only line of wide-angle zoom and possibly one or two prime lenses with protruding rear elements filling up at least a part of the space formerly occupied by the mirror in order to properly compete with Sony on optics and size, much in the manner of Canon's EF-S crop sensor line and some of Nikon's exotics from the 1960s and 1970s that required mirror lock up on the SLRs of the day. Of course there are times Sony has to go the other direction, with recessed rear elements!

Nothing here that's going to get me to drop Nikon, but if Sony can do something about the quality this is going to get interesting for a lot of other people, I think.

4 months agopermalink

Will it be skewed/decentered like all FE 35 1.4?

4 months agopermalink

joe_leads

*Yawn* All the users that give the lens overall great reviews must be idiots. I guess you read something somewhere on the internet?

4 months agopermalink

Alphaville

I love my 35mm Distagon!

4 months agopermalink

^^ Me too ! :D

The AF is fantastic, build quality is great, size is a slight downer but at least its not terribly heavy.

The results are very pleasing and I don't shoot test charts to see if there is a slight issue with my lens. If there was anything major then for sure I would have been upset but so far only good things.

4 months agopermalink

Despite some decentering affecting some of these lenses, the Sony 35/1.4 is one of the all-time greatest 35mm lenses ever made.

There is way too much negativity on the net, and anyone who ever has a bad experience with any product gets amplified by the internet rumor mill 1000 times.

4 months agopermalink

@joe_leads, well, I had to return the lens twice and was left with the third one that had the left side blurry.

So, I guess I know a thing or two about the lens.

The shills that review are a plenty.

Just shoot a landscape and you'll see it.

The bokeh can also be nervous if you don't shoot at 1.4

Having to replace three lenses in a row, how is that "amplified bad experience?!"

I made sure they were from different stores and different batches but still no go.

4 months ago*permalink

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqmlyo5eonsmq4w/35mushyleft.jpg?dl=0

Here are the examples:

1. Mushy on left:

2. Mushy on left:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdsbwc3nmt7zkw3/35mushyleft2.jpg?dl=0

3. Mushy on left:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hp8h5216xrwvfeq/35mushyleft3.jpg?dl=0

Landscapes are much worse.

Even close group pictures suffer.

Middle and right side are ok.

Did you check the Cicala's reviews?

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/06/the-sony-fe-lenses-mtf-and-variance-summary/

4 months agopermalink

...and I actually think the size is perfect. I find FE 55 1.8 small on A7RII.

I like 35 1.4 but I hate that it is so flawed that I cannot trust it to give me usable pictures.

Even f8-f11 do not help.

4 months agopermalink

joe_leads

Sorry to hear, but that is hardly "all" samples of that lens, isn't it? If it was totally flawed, I guess it wouldn't have 4.5 stars on B&H or Amazon, with most people only complaining about its size.

4 months agopermalink

Most people are pretty ignorant, specially after shelling out 1.600 USD for a faulty product.

Cognitive dissonance is strong even with you.

Lensrentals did not test one, they tested many many lenses. Their livelihood is based on renting good lenses.

"I’m going to avoid comparing the consistency numbers, because as we’ve mentioned the testing for the Sony lenses is a bit different. But the variation graphs show what our photographic experience with this lens has suggested. The FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA lenses are all over the place. It actually is a bit worse than the graphs look because a lot of the variance is WITHIN a copy, not just copy-to-copy. None of the 10 copies we tested had even corners. And I’ll editorialize and say that none of the dozens we’ve tested on Imatest had even corners either. If you use this lens for centered objects, you’ll be happy. If you want 4 sharp corners, it’s not likely to happen unless your standards for equal sharpness are pretty low."

4 months ago*permalink

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests/

4 months agopermalink

http://tolkien.hifivoice.com/~heijligm/camera/Gear/35mm_1.4_2.8/

More reviews of skewed lenses:

4 months agopermalink

"variance is WITHIN a copy" means "our method of testing is inadequate".

4 months agopermalink

Riiiight. Actually, when I first got my third FE 35 1.4 it wasn´t as bad as it is today. Go figure.

4 months ago*permalink

I looked at the photos you uploaded to your dropbox. I don't see any mushiness. What are you talking about? Can you point out, or describe, the area you find unacceptable?

4 months agopermalink

BBQue you are joking, right?!

4 months agopermalink

No, seriously - I looked at mushyleft.jpg, I find the left side ever so slightly less sharp. The building is hard to tell, cause it is in the shadow. The grass in the foreground, yes, it is SLIGHTLY less sharp compared to the right. On the other hand, the flooring just above looks perfectly sharp.

mushyleft3.jg I find nothing. Yes, the left lower part of the building is soft, but likely because it is outside the DOF. The left upper part of the building looks perfectly sharp.

I know this lens has problems, and I have seen really bad examples (almost always on the right side though, suggesting some systematic manufacturing or design problem). But I don't see it in the photos you have uploaded here.

4 months ago*permalink

He must be mixing up 'out of focus' and 'soft'.
Anyway, dropping lenses is never a good idea.

4 months agopermalink

No, in defense of dcolak, I don't think he is mixing up anything. I took a look now at mushyleft2.jpg and it is as even and well ligned up as can be. No softness whatsoever at either edge. I would conclude that dcolak has a STELLAR COPY of this lens and just wants to tease us. But it is encouraging to know, that there are lenses out there without any decentering !!! :) :) :) So glad he posted this.

4 months agopermalink

Stop trolling BBQue or get better eyes/monitor.

4 months agopermalink

My eye sight is still 20/20 and my monitor is a 27" iMac. I swear, I am not trolling, I just don't see what "mushiness" you are referring to. Which is why I asked you in my very first response to point out exactly which are in which of your images your are unhappy with.

4 months agopermalink

@bbque
I agree. Not mushy at all. I can see some CA but very good sharpness. Man I wish I had a lens like that (also the camera).

4 months agopermalink

What a pair of jokers you are. :-)

You do know that skewed lenses appear "out of focus" on one side of the picture?

Check the lamp posts, windows and air condition boxes on the left and compare them to those on the right.

Check the left green roof with the flag and compare it to those on right in the other picture.

There, I've spelled it to you jokers :-)

4 months ago*permalink

Referring to picture #1. I already agreed that this one is slightly less sharp on the left than on the right side, most notably the grass.

4 months ago*permalink

1. aircons: in sun on the right, in shadow on left. Not a valid comparison.
2. lamp post: same thing. You are looking at a different surface of these posts left versus right.
3. Green roof: I agree, softer on left than on right. Not sure what's going on. The light hits the two green roofs at a different angle, maybe a contrast issue? Cause if you look at the capital (head of the column) just below, it is perfectly sharp, left equal right. If you look at the pink flyers below the building: perfectly sharp, left equal right. If you look at the stone blocks before the walk way: perfectly sharp, left equal right.

Honestly I still think your lens is perfectly fine, and nothing at all like the samples of decentered copies I have seen.

PS: it is not good style to insult those who try to help. Just saying.

4 months ago*permalink

Eh, if I take a photo of landscape now, everything on the left side will be out of focus. We are talking about focus at infinity with f8.

It's a bad lens and I guess we'll never get a good one from Sony.

Yes it's the best I could find (first two were much worse) but it's still less sharp than FE 28 2.0 (and that is using f2.0 with FE28 compared to f5.6 on FE 35, at infinity)

Old 50 buck 35mm lenses are sharper than this 1600 USD lens.

It's simply skewed.

What I did find to help is this:

If I focus at anything planar, put the focus point on the left side of the picture!

That way I get acceptable left and right sharpness. :-)

4 months ago*permalink

The 28/2 is very sharp lens, much underrated in my opinion. But the 35/1.4 should be similar sharp when closed down one or two aperture steps. If it isn't, return.

For landscapes, I prefer the 38/2.8 - the f1.4 lenses are more for bokeh look, in which case corner sharpness doesn't matter much. But you are right, for $1600 we should expect more. Again, relatively speaking, I don't find your lens bad at all (judging from the three photos you posted and comparing to some of the REALLY DECENTERED copies out there). Good luck.

4 months ago*permalink

Man, I though of buying FE 35 2.8 but... they say some of them are also skewed so... I just ordered a TAKUMAR SMC 35 3.5 lens, old manual M42 lens. If it´s anything like SMC 50. 1.4 and SMC 85 1.8, it will be sharper than FE 35 1.4 .

4 months agopermalink

Better alternative would be Sigma Art 35/1.4 - super sharp. Bokeh can be a bit busy sometimes, some would call it "interesting" - but if sharpness is your priority, then that's the lens to get (assuming you also need the wide open look only an f1.4 lens can produce).

The 35/2.8 is flawless, but it is too pricy for a f2.8

Am curious about your results with the Taks. I had the 50/1.4 for a while and of course loved the built quality and the overall look this lens produces. But in terms of sharpness, especially corner sharpness, it doesn't touch the more modern ones, like the FE 55/1.8 so I sold it. Never tried the 35/3.5 - would be interesting to see/hear your results with it, comparing to the $1600 Sony. But not here, this is getting too much off-track. Open a new thread on the E-mount forum, if you like. Best wishes!

4 months ago*permalink

I'll make a couple of shots with 50 1.4 and FE 55 and be back with the links.

4 months agopermalink

joe_leads

Just to back my point: the corners of my FE 35/1.4 look evenly sharp to me:
http://lietz.photo/files/FE3514_001_DSC6829.jpg

I could show you images from a PC-E 24mm that was adjusted by Nikon thrice and then certified to meet Nikon's quality standards. That was decentered. Which leads to your next point: No, I have no "cognitive dissonance" that holds me back to return bad "expensive" lenses.

Btw: Try to focus on the "weak" side of the lens, that really helped to get the most out of your lens, as I learned from my 2nd copy of the PC-E.

4 months agopermalink

https://www.dropbox.com/s/enclwzsmxyebdf9/DSC07202.jpg?dl=0

@BBQue, at last we god some Sun.

You can find the Takumar SMC 50 1.4 shot here:

As you can see it's sharp end to end, f5.6.

Focus was on the one cross in the middle of the picture :-)

My FE 55 1.8 is pretty much similar.

Awesome output of such an old lens.

I also have SMC 85 1.8, it is as sharp as it can be.

Still looking for a good SMC 35 3.5, got a couple of duds (skewed, probably in transport)

4 months ago*permalink

possi

it feels as we have now more than two dozens of FE wide angle lenses from Sony, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Tokina, Samyang, Laowa, Sigma and so on. There is still not even ONE really long lens for nature, wildlife and sports photographers. At least we need something as an 600 f/4, 500/4, 400/3,5, preferably with built in Konverter and as light and small as possible. Please license or buy the DO tech from Canon.

Sony, my Canon 600/4 is the last reason to keep my 5D3.

4 months ago*permalink

Have you tried this lens on A7rii with an adapter, either Metabones or the Sigma MC-11? If not, it might be worth to rent one. AF Performance may be sufficient for your needs, or it may not. Only one way to find out :)

4 months ago*permalink

possi

I tried 3 different adapters, very slow and sometimes erratic focusing on my A7R2, A7S and A7R. Useless for Wildlife.

3 months agopermalink

aris14

I 'd like this hands-on to give me a hint on how they managed the weight reduction.

4 months agopermalink

Toni Salmonelli

I read multiple times on the DPR forum, that the small flange distance of mirrorless bodies makes designing wide angle lenses easier. Maybe that's the reason.

4 months agopermalink

oriomenoni

Actually, no. It used to be true in the old days of rangefinder cameras, where wide angle lenses were of the non retrofocal type. Nowadays, all wide angle leses are retrofocal, and of course zooms _have_ to be retrofocal, so the short flange distance is not an advantage anymore, actually on the contrary, it is a disadvantage, because if the camera does not have a sensor with tilted photosites in the corners (such as the sensor of Leica digital M cameras), a shorter flange distance means more angled light rays in the corner and thus more chances to have the corners of the image blurred.

4 months agopermalink

probert500

That for symmetrical wide angles only.

4 months agopermalink

Toni Salmonelli

@ oriomenoni: Thanks, definitely will look that up.

4 months agopermalink

It's generally easier to design small ultra wide lenses for mirrorless cameras. Also this is a G lens and not a GM lens which is their ultra premium brand. Hence it's optical performance is not going to be the best Sony can do.

The 16-35mm f2.8 on the other hand is designed for performance and so size takes a backseat

4 months agopermalink

aris14

C'mon guys, Sony's engineers managed weight reduction up to 50% to the competition, not 50 grams...

4 months agopermalink

Mike99999

@oriomenoni: then why is the Loxia 21 so much smaller than the Milvus 21? Same story for the Batis 18 and Milvus 18. The FE 28/2 also walks circles around the Nikon 28/1.8 while being significantly smaller.

No, mirrorless lenses don't need to be retrofocal, they just need the appropriate optical corrections. Just have a look at the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 vs. 35/2 ZM to get the idea.

4 months agopermalink

le_alain

"The 16-35mm f2.8 on the other hand is designed for performance and so size takes a backseat"
is there any smaller-lighter 16-35 f2.8 ?

4 months agopermalink

Toni Salmonelli

@ le_alain: I think Brandon was referring to the 12-24 and his point is valid IMO.

4 months agopermalink

http://camerasize.com/compact/#713.663,312.594,ha,t

Well, Nikon 16-35 f2.8 is 0 grams. :-)

4 months agopermalink

gbvalli

Will they offer for free a trolley to carry it ? Why cameras even more light and small, and lenses instead even more large and heavy ?

4 months agopermalink

Infared

Honk'in HUGE! :-)

4 months agopermalink

Seeky

It is both smaller and lighter compared to the competition, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

4 months agopermalink

Tical

And how small do you believe such zooms can actually be?
Of course they are also supposed to be sharp and fast, right?
And small.

4 months ago*permalink

Alphaville

If you want small, go for the f4 zooms or switch to micro43 :)

4 months agopermalink

Mike99999

@gbvalli: Same reason why there exist ultra-thin 15" MacBooks: people want the 15" screen but they still want to shave off as much bulk as possible.

4 months agopermalink

What are you talking about? The Sony 16-35/2.8 is smaller and lighter than the Canon 16-35/2.8. In fact, the Sony lens is 110g lighter than the Canon:

The same goes for the Sony 12-24/4 compared to Canon's 12-24/4.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#713.662,312.449,ha,t

Actually, the weight differential is massive. The Sony lens is 565g, while the Canon lens is a whopping 1180g! Canon's lens is more than twice the weight of the Sony lens!!! How come no one asks for a free trolley with larger/heavier DSLR gear?

4 months agopermalink

Bgfreeman

Any lens that is designed for high quality with a fast aperture will be large because physics. Doesn't matter what size the camera body is.

1 week agopermalink

JohnnyFl

Good for Sony they are releasing more promising pro lenses to support their cameras, like they said they would. I hope they succeed.

4 months ago*permalink

davids8560

Guys, don't hold me to this, because I could be way off off here, but if it's what I think, I haven't got a clue.

4 months agopermalink

Robert Holloway

I find DP Review's comments section increasingly depressing and useless. Endless people with no interest in a product pouring venom on every post. I won't be buying these lenses, but what fascinates me is to check the gear owned section of these critics.

People criticize the lack of lenses for Sony and the pick faults with every lens released.

I'm not sure if it's fear based (they are killing my brand) or simple ignorance. Today, none of them have used these lenses of seen the results.

Maybe that's what DP Review has become - a forum for people to desperately defend their positions by offering nothing more than scorn and venom on every new initiative in a dying industry (that's right, phones are the enemy) . Very sad

Rob

4 months agopermalink

angus rocks

but i have a Samsung phone, will they make an adapter so i can use this lens?

4 months agopermalink

Robert Holloway

Exactly my point!

4 months agopermalink

dbm305

It's always been like that hasn't it? I can't say I've noticed it getting worse. Comments sections are always depressing displays of ignorance and bile. At least by some.

4 months agopermalink

angus rocks

i guess i have no life. i enjoy reading funny/ignorant comments. DPR is pretty good source of info, staff and readers. they also break it up pretty well too. different forums, and even the articles have selectable comment categories... all/most popular/editor's pick/DPR staff.

4 months agopermalink

At this point, the discussions are often about system comparisons and fanboying + counterfanboying rather than a discussion about what the new product is and what it makes available. The potential, the uses. This is what I want to see, and I hope you guys agree, but alas it's rarely seen.

4 months agopermalink

TORN

Just come over to a Canon camera article and you can see Sony fans at their worst. Exactly as you describe it. Not that this behaviour is limited to Sony users. Stupid, aggressive and rude comments get most likes nowadays. That pretty much tells it all.

4 months agopermalink

joger

couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately a good deal of fan boys mixed with unrealistic views defend their gear and ideals not understanding that a civilized discussion maybe brings further food for thought as well.

I've used Nikon, Canon and finally switched to Sony because of size and weight and new options I did not have before - yet I see flaws and shortcomings as well.

Either way I get bashed by the Nikon, Canon and Sony Fanboys telling me that I see it the wrong way ;-)

An open minded discussion seems to get harder these days and I am convinced that a forum might not be the right approach to have an open minded discussion any more - if it ever was.

I recently commented that an AF test performed at f/5.0 and quite long distance at 200 mm focal length is pointless and every one jumped on me - well this only shows that the vast majority dosen't understand the basics of photography. At 20 m distance and f/5.0 every AF should be more than o.k.ish since the depth of field is roughly 3 m

4 months agopermalink

angus rocks

yeah, well i bet you drive Chevy truck too. I'd push my ford truck naked before i'd wear a Chevy bow-tie.

4 months agopermalink

Peiasdf

You sure it is just DPReview and not western civilization in general? What do you see on TV, YouTube and tech sites? Daily political bickering. Thespian, comedian, talking heads on TV, tech writers all telling you who to vote for and students don't stay in class but march down streets demanding things they don't understand.

4 months agopermalink

amateurphotographer

Nikon has 14-24 f2.8 which I love for events but pretty heavy carrying it around for work all day. Canon has the 11-24 f4, super lens but weighs like a brick. Now sony has the 12-24 f4 which is pretty light for its focal length and certainly can be carried around all day by event and wedding photographers, they could use the in-camera stabilizer to shoot at lower shutter speeds or jack up the iso. The 16-35 f2.8, whilst great for lower light conditions f2.8, I feel isn't wide enough for events/weddings, where sometimes you want either an overall high shot or a dramatic low angle shot. I would personally take the 12-24 f4. So now Sony has the trinity 12-24/16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400 sufficient for most jobs. Will certainly put pressure on the other brands now for event work IMO.

4 months agopermalink

For event photography?? No AF assist from Flash support and stopped down focus in AF-C mode.

Recently placed a 17-40 f4 L with metabones adapter on my A7II to give is a try and what do you know? Always wide open focus rather than stopped down. So setting the f# to f14 for a shot did not result in continuous hunting or the need to fiddle and switch to AF-S.

Ya... love the A7II with a compact fast prime for those nice image and OOF backgrounds. But for a camera to get out of my way... thinking of picking up the 5D either IV or III. Coupled with the metabones the A7II would then serve as a second body.

4 months agopermalink

Gon0S

@lawny13
Really, I wonder why here and there, in all SONY bodies we encounter specific restrictions!
Always some specific settings with specific conter intuitive and different case of use.
I cannot find theses bodies as reliable nor coherent with this type of behaviour. Of course, the strange limits are in extreme limit settings, but it puzzle me the user have to remind that in this case the body behave that way and in that other case the behaviour will be this another one, etc, etc...

Why not just have a red button to unleash all theses "extreme" specs for techwhores, and give all other users a coherent and reliable bahaviour as they can find in Canikon/Olympus/Fuji/Pentax bodies ?

4 months agopermalink

Because sony things they know best.

I remember considering them years ago when their NEX camera's came out. I read a review that pointed out that it was more difficult than it should be to go through the process of using single AF point. Apparently many steps to activate and control it. The reviewer pointed out that it almost seemed like sony thought that people were just going to trust the camera in wide setting to AF.

In later versions things go easier, but they didn't fully give you the freedom like the other systems do. The stopped down thing, the medium filter on images exposed longer than 4 sec baked into the raw. Without allowing is to turn these things off to me it seems like sony still thinks they know best.

I might pick up a canon as I mentioned, but I will likely keep the A7II with the 55 ZA permanently on it, for mobility.

4 months agopermalink

Boeing skipper

That 12-24 is not only light, it is also quite compact (when compared to Sigma's offering).

4 months agopermalink

tailings

Isn't everything compact compared to Sigma's offerings?

4 months agopermalink

scoobysnapstories

not impressed. sticking with big dslrs. as im used to. the only camera that have changed my mind is the gfx. but im a fashion photographer, not into sport so yeah.

4 months agopermalink

RubberDials

You are not required to be impressed. The information is presented for those that are interested. Since you, by are your own admission are not, one wonders why you posted any comment in the first place.

4 months agopermalink

Need to feed that negativity quota amongst DPR tro... Err, commenters.

4 months agopermalink

Lol I need to join the Ferrari fan clubs and post there about not being able to afford any of their cars. Makes more sense than the OP ! :P

4 months agopermalink

Carl

The Sony 12-24/4 is produced in China, while the equivalent Sigma is produced in Japan. Doesn't this mean lower production costs for Sony? Why does this not reflect in a lower customer price?

4 months agopermalink

Dennis

Because Sony wants people to ask stupid questions.

4 months agopermalink

Ruy Penalva

Or, by the way, reply!

4 months agopermalink

RubberDials

Unless you're personally involved in the production of a lens there's no way of knowing what it costs a company to produce it. The cost is certainly not fixed either.

I would say it doesn't matter, anyway, because unless you steal it, you will have to pay the asking price to acquire it.

4 months agopermalink

AbrasiveReducer

The quality may be fine, but obviously it's considerably cheaper to manufacture in China. Otherwise, why do it?

4 months agopermalink

First off one is a third party brand. Third party brands have some caveats and are almost universally cheaper than first party offerings.

Secondly China is cheap but if you demand quality you do have to pay a lot. Apple is also made in China but their phones aren't cheap at all. Because they have to pay for much higher quality control.

4 months agopermalink

TORN

Because camera vendors have to compensate dropping sales by exploiting their customers to a higher degree. In marketing terms that is called "we are moving up to the premium segment".

4 months agopermalink

LOL... you are claiming that Apple products are as expensive as they are due to quality control? That is a load of bull. I can see QC upping the price of a product, but Apple isn't the wealthiest company on the planet because it pays so much in QC. They wouldn't have all those billions pilled up on a vault if they were using it on QC. Their margins are huge... bigly, and they charge the premium they do because they can.

In this case I actually believe it is the same with sony. I don't buy that their lenses warrant the higher price vs their L counter parts (especially with known QC issues). What they are doing (in my opinion) is to capitalize on their momentum, and to charge what they do because they are the only big mirrorless manufacturer on the market and so they can. They charge a premium and then reinvest that money to continue to aggressively develop their tech.

4 months agopermalink

It's a myth that they price their lenses more than Canon. They match more or less all their launch prices baring a few exceptions. What happens is that due to much higher sales Canon lenses drop in prices. Sony has far fewer sales and so the prices remain very close to their launch prices.

And I maintain apple products are very good with qc. I personally hate Apple as a company but my laptops are always Apple as they are the only ones that last for me.

4 months agopermalink

Carl

Dennis, calling my post stupid isn't kind. I'm a Sony, Nikon, Sigma and MFT (and a former Canon) user, so I'm interested in thoughts about these systems, and I think it's important for each manufacturer & its user base to accept critics to develop.

Now back to the topic.

Evaluating the total production costs as an outsider is difficult for sure. But I think we can agree that - all other things being equal - production in China is considerably cheaper than in Japan.

As commented, Sony has a currently unique mirrorless solution with a very fast growing system, which allows them to sell with higher profit margins. The E-Mount has become my main travel system and the A7S2 with its unmatched live-view in low light my main astrophotography camera.

I don't think there are caveats with Sigma lenses when native mounted. With the Sigma-dock I can upgrade the firmware should a future problem with a new body arise. I have some wonderful Sigma lenses, which I don't want to miss.

4 months agopermalink

stratplaya

Where were these sunny pictures taken? Most gear previews/reviews seem to get the rainy Seattle treatment.

4 months agopermalink

steelhead3

Sony wined & dined them in lovely Santa Barbara Ca.

4 months agopermalink

Carey Rose

First time in SB. Hopefully not the last.

4 months agopermalink

steelhead3

Went to school there...before the growth, it was the best place in the US.

4 months agopermalink

CamCaptain

Sony 12-24mm less than half the weight of the Sigma and Canon versions. Holy cow. Latest Sony releases suggest it will be at least as good optically too.

4 months agopermalink

Daniel L

but but but Canon doesn't has 12-24mm..

4 months agopermalink

photosen

No, only an 11-24...

4 months agopermalink

Mirrorless has the greatest size advantage over DSLR on the wide end of things. The moment you get close to 50mm all your size advantage evaporates.

4 months agopermalink

Having three UWA zoom options in such a short span is definitely quick progress for their FE lineup.

4 months agopermalink

They should have announced some lenses for their aps-c users!

4 months agopermalink

CCD FTW

They announced two lenses today that APS-C users can enjoy. They recently announced a much asked for 100-400mm as well, plus an affordable 85mm f1.8. Prior to that a nice affordable 50mm f2.8 macro.

4 months agopermalink

CCD FTW,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc

I know you can use them on aps-c sensor too. But this is not the point.

4 months agopermalink

RubberDials

These lenses ARE for aps-c users. If Sony made them aps-c only, which is what you mean, they would likely be around a 1-2cm narrower and exactly the same length.

I'm not making excuses for Sony but it really makes no sense for them to make an aps-c only range now that they have a FF sensor in the same mount.

Apart from producing two lenses that would be far too similar in size, Sony would be chided for not offering an upgrade path to FF.

4 months agopermalink

CCD FTW

Well I guess you are SOOL. One day you might have to find a different excuse but I'm sure you'll find it anyway.

4 months agopermalink

sibuzaru

The 100-400 have the exact same size as the Fuji

4 months agopermalink

Well, I was speaking to the progress of their FF lineup obviously, I think the crop lineup is now a forgettable sidetrack like it's been for CaNikon all these years... I'm not siding with CCD, it's just what it is. DPR had an interesting oped a couple years ago about the folly of the "FF upgrade path"...

If I was personally buying into a new smaller sensor system it'd be Fuji or M4/3 (and I already use the latter), and it's what I'd recommend to anyone too unless I knew they wouldn't really be interested in buying more than 1-2 lenses in the future (in which case, why not consider a 1" compact/bridge).

Some people are happy with Sony's APS-C lineup, hell I know people happy with their a6000 & 16-70 and they couldn't care less about any additional lens options. More power to them... I'm not sure how $2,000 UWAs (+/- a couple hondos) can seriously be considered good APS-C options tho...

One makes for a pretty short pretty large f2.8 standard zoom, and the other represents a more average UWA range but for $600+ more than the competition. /shrug

4 months agopermalink

The 85 & 100-400 are more credible options for APS-C users tho, as longer FF lenses tend to be in general... I'll give ya that, 128mm EFL makes for a pretty useful tele prime indeed. 75mm EFL is kinda short but it'll do too...

4 months agopermalink

Sorry clearly you are missing something here. what is the point, using a huge 12-24 f4 or 16-35 2.8 lens on aps-c sensor? Especially while they are very expensive!
aps-c is built for compromises.
Yes CaNikon is making mistakes, thats why Sony is increasing its market share.
And I don't question or complain why they are releasing more lenses for their ff line-up.
You are gonna buy a very expensive product to use %60 of it. It is gonna be bigger than it supposed to be and focal length will be almost normal not uw.

I was not talking about uw lenses particularly. So RubberDials, your comment makes no sense at all.
Impulses, I agree with you for those focal lengths. But when it is about 12mm to 85mm, aps-c sensor requires aps-c only lenses.
Sony still doesn't have a well-priced and decent walk around lens. Don't mention that over priced average 16-70 zeiss!

4 months ago*permalink

Please watch this video at least from 3:30 to 4:00...Only 30 seconds and you will understand my point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc

4 months agopermalink

@ Xentinus - Firstly, Sony already has the 10-18/4 for APS-C. I don't see much point in them offering a 12-24/4 for APS-C. Too much overlap. Secondly, for systems that offer both APS-C and FF, it's not cost effective or necessary to duplicate EVERY single lens for both APS-C and FF. For example, Canon and Nikon don't offer 16-35/2.8 for APS-C. Thirdly, I don't buy Tony Northrup's argument that you get less resolution with FF lenses on APS-C sensors. I've used both FF and APS-C lenses on my Canon APS-C bodies, and I see absolutely no loss of resolution whatsoever when I compare images shot with FF lenses vs APS-C lenses. If there is any difference, it's certainly not visible without extreme scrutiny. I just don't see it and never have. I don't care about any theoretical arguments. All I care about are real-world, visible results.

Finally, don't assume APS-C lenses would be much cheaper. Price depends on a lot of factors, not just APS-C vs FF.

4 months ago*permalink

T3,
please read my posts again. I actually emphasized that Sony needs a standard zoom lens, not 12-24. I already said "I was not talking about uw lenses particularly" but you are making comments without even reading or understanding what you have read.
About Tony Nothrup; buy it or not, it is not his opinion, it is the fact! If you say "I don't believe in math" then I can't help you.
If Sony was following Canikon, they would have not been where they are now.
I don't assume aps-c lenses would be much cheaper, let me make it clear for you:
aps-c lenses HAS to be cheaper or there is no point making an aps-c format.

4 months agopermalink

While I agree that Sony does need a good standard zoom lens for APS-C, I don't agree that they need to duplicate every lens in both APS-C or FF. I certainly don't think it needs to be done for optical performance. As I have said, I use both APS-C and FF lenses on Canon APS-C DSLRs, and I've seen NO difference in resolution between the two.

As for saying that "aps-c lenses HAS to be cheaper or there is no point making an aps-c format", I don't agree with that either. Lens price can, and will, depend on manufacturing volume. Lenses designed for smaller formats aren't necessarily cheaper. Additionally, often times the differences in material costs between APS-C and FF lenses will be negligible, resulting in negligible manufacturing cost. But by splitting a lens between FF and APS-C markets, you cut manufacturing and sales volume between them, which can ultimately result in lower economies of scale.

4 months ago*permalink

T3,
brother, I didnt say or mean they need to dublicate every lens...I really dont understand why u are assuming some things which I didnt even imply.
Im not gonna say "they don't need to dublicate"...I will say "they shouldn't duplicate" which means I agree and I even go further. For example 24-120 f4...its apsc equivalent is 16-80 f2.8...of course it will cost more than 24-120 f4 for ff and will be huge...so of course they should not make this lens. or 16-50 1.8 lens.

this also explains my point of view why I said "HAS TO"...It means if u can not produce a lens which s not cheaper and smaller of FF equivalent, then there is simply no point producing it.
But yes they need to produce 1.8 prime lenses for aps-c only...cuz it will be smaller and/or cheaper.
And of course they should give priority for a good 16-70 lens which is affordable or let me say, which deserves its price.

4 months agopermalink

burnymeister

With the emphasis on size and weight being so remarkable I went to the lens comparison chart and compared to equivalent lenses from other manufacturers. They may be fairly light and small but they aren't THAT revolutionary in terms of size. It still takes a lot of glass (82mm filter?!) to cover the FF sensor.

Great lenses, I'm sure - but no miracles here. I do love seeing Sony's innovation and drive to bring products to market!

4 months agopermalink

http://camerasize.com/compact/#713.663,682.594,ha,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#713.662,682.449,ha,t

The little things pile up...

You may have vaguely similar lenses for CaNikon, but then you need to mount them to 5D, D700/D800 type bodies as compared to the A7.

4 months agopermalink

Every little bit adds up. Who says you need "revolutionary in terms of size" or "miracles"?!?

I travel a lot. Just spent a week traveling around Taiwan. It was very hot and humid. You do feel every little bit of size and weight when traveling.

Here's what the size difference looks like:

I think it's a pretty significant size difference. Some people get off on carrying the biggest gear possible. Not me. As for weight, the Sony 16-35/2.8 is 110g lighter than the Canon 16-35/2.8. That's a pretty decent weight differential. But the weight differential between the Sony 12-24/4 (565g) and Canon 11-24/4 (1180g) is really massive. The Canon lens is more than double the weight! So with the two Sony lenses, you're already carry around 725g less of pointless unnecessary weight. That's more than 2 cans of Coke!

4 months agopermalink

otto k

Wait, what? 22-pointed sunstars and you don't bring Rishi along? You sadists!

4 months agopermalink

rsf3127

The gallery shows that the 12-24 mm zoom is OK. If I wanted UW focal lenghts I would choose prime lenses from third party manufacturers instead, for better IQ and smaller size/weight.

4 months agopermalink

FuhTeng

Which is true for ever zoom ever made. If you want better for that focal length, get a prime.

4 months agopermalink

Eric Hensel

Good 12, 18, and 24mm primes will outweigh this lens, combined. Horses for courses.

4 months ago*permalink

whtchocla7e

The year of the lenses indeed. Thank you Sony, please continue.

4 months agopermalink

DPRevievver

Rumored 135GM on the way, isn't it?

4 months agopermalink

Jonathan117

" (especially considering how wide it is - a 12mm rectilinear lens is seriously wide), and will be available in July for $1700."

I do not see anywhere in the official release that this is a rectilinear lens. This seems like an extremely important feature for a 12mm lens given the heavy distortion that can occur with extremely wide angle lenses. Is there a source for this claim?

4 months agopermalink

Dan Vincent

It is a rectilinear lens in its projection, as opposed to a fisheye projection. Rectilinear lenses do not have to be distortion-free.

4 months agopermalink

Sdaniella

Sony FE 12-24mm f4 is NOT a Rectilinear lens (it has a distinct barrel distortion)

at least, according to first-look web reviews so far

4 months agopermalink

Dan Vincent

Again, rectilinear projection lenses do not have to be distortion free. It is rectilinear because it is not a fisheye.

There are plenty of rectilinear projection lenses that have some degree of distortion. The Nikon 14-24 has quite the barrel distortion, but you're not going to tell me that it is not a rectilinear projection.

4 months agopermalink

rrccad

The FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM is extraordinarily lightweight (especially in comparison to the competition) ..

are the specs listed wrongly? it says the lens is 690g, which is only 100g less than the 16-35 III from Canon. that doesn't sound extraordinarily lightweight.

4 months agopermalink

FlyinDoc

I think they got the lenses mixed up. It is the 12-24mm F4 that is extraordinarily light, being less than half the weight of the Canon and Sigma equivalents.

And yet, much cheaper than the Canon 11-24mm and apparently sharper (or so they claim).

4 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

Plastic molded aspherical elements? Allows for fewer spherical elements and lighter weight.

4 months agopermalink

///M

Not internal zoom, composite body, saves allot of weight on the 16-35, for the price though, I would expect internal zoom :/

4 months agopermalink

Never used the CaNikon versions. Are they internal zoom?

4 months agopermalink

///M

Canon is (no nikkor 16-35/2.8), helps with dust sealing, really appreciate the Canon robustness of build. Sony does not look as sturdy,

4 months agopermalink

privater

These lenses screams for a A9r to match

4 months agopermalink

new boyz

Or at least A7R Mk 3.

4 months agopermalink

Why? The 36/42 mp A7R(ii) are both fine for this.

4 months agopermalink