Fred Miranda wrote:
For the lucky ones who already have the Sony FE 12-24/2.8 GM in hands, don't be shy and post samples here. I will link them to the review.
Talking about having (and keeping) the lens, are you going to keep yours or will you send it back after your review is finished, Fred?
I've taking several shots at difference scenes, angles and lighting conditions to compare the Sony FE 12-24/2.8 GM, Sigma 14-24/2.8 and Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 III for flare resistance. The latter is famous for its beautiful color rendering and flare resistance and it indeed did very well on this test.
All three lenses have excellent veiling flare resistance as you can see from the crops below. They are also very resistant to ghosting flare. The Sony's larger bulbous front element didn't induce ghosting flare even when provoked! To my eyes it performs just as good as the Voigtlander which was my benchmark lens for flare resistance, with the Sigma showing slightly less resistant to ghosting compared to the others....Show more →
In your last example, the Sony actually outperforms the Voigtlander that has a semi-circular flare on the grass. Have you seen any situations where the Sigma's flare suppression is better than the Sony's?
rvh23 wrote:
In your last example, the Sony actually outperforms the Voigtlander that has a semi-circular flare on the grass. Have you seen any situations where the Sigma's flare suppression is better than the Sony's?
I saw that for the Voigtlander as well. So far, I have not encountered a backlit scene where the Sigma does better than the Sony.
Chris_88 wrote:
Talking about having (and keeping) the lens, are you going to keep yours or will you send it back after your review is finished, Fred?
Hi Chris,
This is a loan copy and it will go back. I have not made my mind if or when I will purchase the Sony GM.
Currently I shoot with either CV 12/5.6 + CV 21/3.5 (for a lighter combo) or CV 12/5.6 + Sigma 14-24/2.8.
Yeah i guess since you have the cv 12 and sigma 14-24 2.8 already I don't see the point unless you sell both and just carry one lens for entire range. I Probably wouldn't in your shoes.
sismailian wrote:
Yeah i guess since you have the cv 12 and sigma 14-24 2.8 already I don't see the point unless you sell both and just carry one lens for entire range. I Probably wouldn't in your shoes.
The problems with the CV12 are two-fold. On A7r4 it has (imo) unacceptably soft corners even stopped down, and it's 5.6 so not good for astro. But it's sunstar is superb, which combined with the 12mm FOV provides a very unique look.
rvh23 wrote:
The problems with the CV12 are two-fold. On A7r4 it has (imo) unacceptably soft corners even stopped down, and it's 5.6 so not good for astro. But it's sunstar is superb, which combined with the 12mm FOV provides a very unique look.
I think it depends on the scene. I usually have sky on the top part of my landscape images where corners don't matter much and the CV 12/5.6 is very sharp at center even on the A7R IV. I just like its size and character a lot.
Really from an Art perspective a 12mm is more about the drama than the science. Love all that resolution stuff but our job as shooters is to create a image that no one forgets and stands out.
Side not usually in 12mm images corners are sky or grass images on the bottom or let’s say non important info
I totally agree the CV12 is a very artful lens that produces dramatic images, and I never felt anywhere near as satisfied with the character of the images I got from the 12-24G. If voigtlander ever replaces it with a higher resolution version, I'm pretty sure I will buy it. And despite my comment above, I did actually use it for astro on one occasion:
rvh23 wrote:
I totally agree the CV12 is a very artful lens that produces dramatic images, and I never felt anywhere near as satisfied with the character of the images I got from the 12-24G. If voigtlander ever replaces it with a higher resolution version, I'm pretty sure I will buy it. And despite my comment above, I did actually use it for astro on one occasion:
Thanks Fred. I'm hoping the GM will be inspiring at 12mm too, even if perhaps not quite to the extent that the CV seems to be for many who own it. Do you have a feel for that in your limited use of the Sony so far?
rvh23 wrote:
Thanks Fred. I'm hoping the GM will be inspiring at 12mm too, even if perhaps not quite to the extent that the CV seems to be for many who own it. Do you have a feel for that in your limited use of the Sony so far?
I will know more in a few days but I find the GM's color rendering a big improvement over the G.
I still prefer the Sigma and Voigtlander colors out of the camera but color can be tweaked in post. In terms of flare resistance, resolution and contrast, it's hard to beat the GM. I'd say it's the best ultra wide lens we have for the Sony E-mount and that includes primes! (Sigma is the runner-up)
Sunstar rendering is subjective. Some shooters prefer 10 points, others 12 or even 22 points. Personally I prefer defined sunstars without much ghosting around them. The Voigtlander is my reference lens but perhaps the Sony matches it at small apertures (18 points). I will know more soon as the weather cooperates.
Fred Miranda wrote: Sagittal Flare (Coma) performance
As you can see from the crops below, all three lenses are amazing astro tools. They have incredible coma correction even wide open throughout the zoom range. The Sony FE 24/1.4 GM has the 2-stop advantage (see how clean the shadows get at f/1.4) but at 24mm @ f/2.8, they were all fantastic.
That gives me high hopes for a prime lens in the range of 12/14/16mm f/1.2 or f/1.4!
Petegh wrote:
We all can only judge based on our own eyesight and what we see on our computer monitors: smaller 4K screens that many use these days for example have too higher pixel density to accurately see differences in sharpness, so, with that caveat, and the assumption that you are looking at a high quality, calibrated screen - as I am, I'll address the point's you make:
1) I see no where in the center or the midframe of any shot where the Sigma's sharpness exceeds the GM, whereas the GM is sharper in the majority of cases.The GM also appears to have a deeper real-world depth of field at a given aperture also. I made no mention of the edges where I agree, the Sigma is generally better - if that's important for your astro - great.
2) "it all depends on what's important to you in a lens" Exactly! and this is why I think there is some confirmation bias creeping in to some of the comments here which I thought needed calling out.
3) "as if there was a stark difference at f8 and f11. You dismiss these apertures..." There is never going to be a stark difference at f8 or f11 because diffraction is the limiting variable, not the lens, and indeed Fred's examples show this: f8 looks the same to me on both lenses.
4) The cost difference you raise is a valid point, but my comments weren't speaking to that - just absolute quality.
5) "I can't recall taking an image with the 14-24 that left me saying aww too bad that's not sharp" Sharpness is a relative thing: none of the images I'd seen taken with the Sigma ever disappointed me either, but when seeing them side-by-side with the GM, the difference is there....Show more →
Yes. monitor pixel pitch really needs to be above .2mm to see sharpness details. The beloved 5K imac is particularly bad for seeing actual details. This situation may improve with 8K monitors where 4 screen pixels can accurately display 1 pixel from the photograph.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Chris,
This is a loan copy and it will go back. I have not made my mind if or when I will purchase the Sony GM.
Currently I shoot with either CV 12/5.6 + CV 21/3.5 (for a lighter combo) or CV 12/5.6 + Sigma 14-24/2.8.
Thanks, Fred. I'm out of the race for the 12-24 GM. I toyed with the idea for quite a while, but it's too much money for me. I also stumbled over a new copy of the CV 12 today. The price was too good to ignore, meaning I'll give the CV another try.
Chris_88 wrote:
Thanks, Fred. I'm out of the race for the 12-24 GM. I toyed with the idea for quite a while, but it's too much money for me. I also stumbled over a new copy of the CV 12 today. The price was too good to ignore, meaning I'll give the CV another try.
It's a good alternative for the price and size @12mm. At f/8 and off-axis, the CV 12/5.6 never matches the Sony 12-24/2.8 GM but it's not too far behind in terms of resolution and has lower field curvature.
Good points Fred and Guy on sky/ground corners with the ultra-wides. That's been my experience as well, so if the corners get a little "meh" I can normally work around it. CV 15 & CV 21 3.5 are my lightest weight UWA combo when traveling. CV 10 is added if I think I might need it.
I've considered the Sigma 14-24 as well, but am happy with the CV's for now.
Yea, 12,14,15 corners tend to be on a percentage of use very low with regards to very sharp corners. Now 21 I want razor blades in those corners.
Big thing we need to keep in mind is your use case. And that will vary between people
