Sony 12-24mm impresses Lensrentals with great sharpness, reasonable price

@Everythingis1
So bad technique of a photographer is now compensated by assistive equipment? Oh dear, based on your comment a photographer shouldn't learn anything about photography at all and let the camera do the whole stuff? How lazy is that? Couldn't lead to great results if anybody would be working like this.

@cbphoto123
" ...but the awkward "claw" on the camera body has much more to do with the size of the camera and the incorrect position of the shutter release. "

It's indeed a very unergonomic position of the right hand in this picture. I wouldn't like to use this camera for hours this way having those fingers in a convulsive position.

On my D600 i can put my entire hand around the body while having the finger laying on the shutter release button and rest on the grip without performing acrobatics. The camera size matters for this to have the entire gear secure in your palm and the fingers following the shape around it.

This Sony is even too small for the hands of a woman?

It's like recommending a tri-pod to take a 1/200 ss picture with a 35mm lens. It's down right stupid. Like the majority of your comments.

@Everythingis1
Who recommends a tripod for 1/200 shutter speed using a 35mm lens? You? Oh dear. Have you ever worked with a camera? It is pretty much a clueless sentence.

But let me guess: IBIS will help you even at 1/200, right? For you?

Let me guess, English isn't your first language? Either that or you have some sort of learning disability.

@Everythingis1
Tell me more stories about your beloved Sony. IBIS will help you maybe because your technique as a photographer can't be good.

Everythingis1.. this might be a 1st at DPR. U seem to be trolling yourself.

U really do take these things far to personally. No one is "making fun of the way she is holding the camera" ... Was pointing out some physical ergonomic issues with the camera, that are showing themselves very obviously, in the position her very nice hands have to contort into to be able to release the shutter and hold onto the tiny camera.
Have to confess: It does seem to me (and certainly others) that no one "needs" to make fun of you either..since seemingly your lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of photography is taking care of that in post after post you make.

Too often these diatribes go on far too long. When they do, I figure it's a good time to request a link to a website or any of your photographs. Silence tends to be the response.

Yep.. trolling yourself... and where is that link to your photography?

Quality control issue isn't exclusive to Sony, Tamron, Sigma etc. anymore but it is a common issue infecting other manufacturers like Nikon, Canon... from lenses, camera bodies, EVF eye sensors, batteries, card slot... you name it.

(Would not respond to that notoriously belligerent guy, he is wasting his time.)

@beavertown
Basically what you are saying is that you accept that Sony is having quality control issues? Or in what sense would make that the Sony in any way better?

You read the article? He wrote it.

I'm not sure Sony has a "notorious" QC issue. I've always had great experiences with my Sony cameras. While I absolutely hate the placement of the REC button on my a7s (and subsequent a7s2), these cameras have always performed exceptionally. Or maybe I just have good luck?

I think he is miffed that his Nikon gear is twice as big and heavy and has substantially less features and image quality.

@Everythingis1
Ah i smell "Sony Alternative Facts" again :)

Real professional photographers are preferring Nikon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxLJX5RFOdk&t

Yeah, except it can do it while taking world class 4k video as well.

@Everythingis1
Here is another professional photographer covering action...

All with bulky lenses that Sony doesn't have...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzaN-JW3SVU

@underxposed59
It truly fires your envy to see those professionals with Nikon gear. :)

@Everythingis1
Oh, he is still shooting with Nikon gear in 2017. Hm, it seems there are no real drawbacks for him and he seems to be satisfied - this is a mystery to Sony guys :)

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/daves-gear/

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/sports-portfolio/

I don't know what relevance this is having. The best sports camera is very subjective for each photographer and you can ask each one and getting different opinions. Even the old Nikon D4S was already capable to take great sports/action shots as you can see here from a professional photographer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzaN-JW3SVU

We live in times where the tools are already more capable than the photographers. If someone can't shoot sports with a D4S then you can't blame a tool for that.

@Frank_BR
... says the best Sony fanboy!

@AngularJS
Indeed!

@A-Sign - "Even the old Nikon D4S was already capable to take great sports/action shots..."

What you don't seem to realize is that this video was posted in 2014, and Dave Black was using the best camera that Nikon had to offer at that time-- the D4S. The D4S was not "old" at that time. It was state of the art in 2014, which is why Dave Black was using it. The D5 would not be introduced until 2 years later.

Pros like to use whatever can give them the performance edge. At the time of the video, it was the D4S. Photographers like Dave Black are always going to seek out the equipment that offers the best performance. You make it seem like there were far better cameras available to Black, and yet he still chose to use an "old" D4S. No, he was using the best camera that Nikon could offer. And as soon as the D5 came out, he moved on to that!

T3:
The comment was of course written in the know that D4 was best "at the time", his point was (as I interpret it anyway) that we, today, can simply admit the fact that good sports images (as in "good images even today") could be made even "at that time", with what was then available. Which, also as I see it, makes todays top performers among cameras even more impressive!

A-Sign: "I don't know what relevance this is having."
Which explains the rest of your "comments".

Yes, the Nikon has advantage for astrophotography with f/2.8. But is this lens designed only for astrophotography? For general landscape, f/4 and beyond are more frequently used. The main reason I didn't consider buying the 14-24 is it's bulk! Don't forget that the Sony is 2mm wider and Sony bodies are stabilized too!

I mean... it's one stop faster. Probably outweighed by the Sony cams having IBIS. Either way the almost 1 kilo is a quite hefty difference worth noting as an advantage for some usage cases.

Haha, you Sony guys are funny. If it's not for the advantage of the Sony it becomes suddenly a rare usage case. Well, that's fanboy talk as usual from these Sony guys - as always, nothing new here.

A-Sign, you comment proves that you're nothing but a troll! I, myself, a Nikon D750 user and happy with the performances of my current gears!

A sign
No he does not compare apples to pears, he is just telling why people leave Canonikon for smaller systems....

It probably is -- the main benefit of the short flange distance on the mirrorless body is in wide and extra-wide lenses. That short back distance makes for smaller, simpler designs than more retrofocus-based optics of dSLRs.

The 24-70 GM, 70-200 GM are both less than Nikon ver.

They are not really comparable. The Nikon is 1 stop faster, the Canon is 1mm wider (extreme wide territory).

They are certainly comparable, just not identical. Besides, the Sony cams can have IBIS to outweight a stop advantage for the Nikon

Haha, the Sony fanboys. If it's not up to the advantage of Sony then these guys need to relativize it.

It depends... For 30 seconds landscape shots with ND filter IBIS won't help as much as a good tripod :) One stop means less control of DOF, more motion for astro, etc... The Sony is wider though, so it's a plus.

These are just resolution tests so distortion not really taken into account here

12-24mm @ 565g vs 14-24mm @ 1000g. I think he meant what he said.

@A-Sign - Compared to the Sony, the Nikon is not as ultra-wide, it's much larger, and it's much heavier (969g vs 565g). The Nikon is 404g heavier. That's about the weight of a can of beer. So it's like taking the Sony lens, and strapping on a can of beer to it. Basically, it's just a lot more weight to carry around. Plus, with the Sony lens on a Sony IBIS body, it's stabilized so you'll get steadier shots. The Nikon has a faster aperture, but that's not helpful if you are stopping down.

Agreed

I like EVFs but it's much less expensive for me to get into Nikon FF than Sony FF for the same focal ranges.

@T3
Now Sony needs to get the build quality and ergonomics of their camera bodies right - this is the main critics which i have against their A7 and A9. They still look too much like cheap gimmick plastic toys. Camera grip and lens mount is far too close together and the grip could be bigger with more depth. It's a reason why they don't appeal to me. Make a well balanced Sony Ax that feels also comfortable with big telephoto lenses, like a 70-200mm f/2.8.

Look at the A9 pictures here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/a9.htm

It's not that much of a beauty.

@A-Sign.. I think you are saying that Sony got the 12-24 f4 so right that you can't say anything and instead have to grasp at straws. You Sony bashers are really struggling these days.... getting hard to use the usual stuff like lenses, AF, battery life so now it's desperation time with "cheap gimmick plastic toys". Makes me smile.

@Clayton1985
Calm down Sony fanboy. I have already said that this lens is great but it is my right to point out that i don't like the camera body. Where is the problem? Do have Sony fanboys so much trouble to accept critics? This whining is hilarious and doesn't make sense because different people have different tastes, experience and expectations. Battery life still sucks on a A7 - it's because Sony want this thing so compact that there is no space for a decent battery.

I am calm but you seem to be getting a bit worked up. I didn't say it wasn't your right... I'm just smiling (and laughing a bit) while you exercise your rights :-) .

@Clayton1985
Can't accept other opinions? That's your problem. And i repeat a compact camera body doesn't make sense for full frame lenses with fast aperture. That works for ultra wide angle but not so great for telephoto lenses.

Calm down guys, if you are going to fight, fight about something relevant like UWA lenses. Go argue over at the A9 article if that's getting your blood all boiled.

Ultrawides are where mirrorless shines with their low flange distance. It's quite obvious that you need a lot less glass to get to 12mm with an 18mm flange distance than to 11mm with a 44mm flange distance.

Definitely a factor when choosing camera systems.

I also would love a 24-104 F4 G lens, but will take a 24-70 if it keeps it small and lightweight. The 24-240 is pretty good from 24-105 honestly, just big and heavy for being so poor past 150mm or so.

silly to the extreme....

When the editors finally break

This from the man that wishes for a world without the internet, because we'd be better off... One thing is for certain, the internet would be better off without you.

"When the editors finally break"
Nonsense --sometimes even an editor can't avoid nailing a pitch right down the middle, like that one...

It was an open goal.

Obvious troll is a troll.

Could you elaborate some? This seems like a pretty standard grip to me.

Yawn. Really, we are nitpicking where someone's arm is while holding their gear? I only care what the photo looked like, I don't really care how the camera was held. It is really breathtaking how good people have it that they can criticize pointless things.

They've had multiple hooks already lens wise, like the 90 G Macro, 55 1.8 Zony, and 100 STF GM

85GM schould also be excellent... 70-200GM maybe. Looking forward to the 135GM :-)

Prairie, I think you mean loss leader... I doubt they're actually taking a loss on this tho, or the such an extremely wide lens is a calling to the masses. Great choice for Sony shooters nonetheless, I'm jelly.

Many excellent lenses, yes, but usually for more than their direct competitors.