All shots were taken wide open at f1.8 with an a7riv. For the sharpness test, I took a photo of some text at roughly 40cm. I shifted the focusing box by two from the center and repeated it all the way to the edge. The center sharpness is very very crisp, but the off-center sharpness is lacking. The difference in sharpness is especially telling because the center is just that good.... Also, AF seems to miss sometimes when focusing off-center, so I had to use MF, take a few shots and select the best one. Based on its close-up performance, the lens performs slightly below expectation given the stellar performances of recent GM lenses like 24 35 and 50 GM. Stopped down to f2.8 though and it recovers some sharpness, though never quite as sharp as the center. My guess is that in exchange for size, the lens compromised on its close-up performance.
I should add that I tested 2 copies, and both share the same issues close-up. The sample photos from Marc at sonyalphablog show similar off-center softness in the close-up photos. The Digital-Picture mentions some softness as well when looking at the test charts. As such I don't think Lenstip's sharpness result is necessarily a result of copy variation either.
Of course, when focusing at infinity, the lens excels even at f1.8. The corner sharpness is very good if I refocus in the corners. I have not been able to find a scene at infinity that's wide enough to test FC consistently, but from the limited tests I did where I focus in the center, the corners can get a little soft. So while the lens is capable of excellent sharpness throughout, FC issue when wide open might limit its performance somewhat when out in the field. It is not a lens you set to f/1.8 and expect immaculate sharpness under all shooting conditions.
In general, the lens does perform very well indeed. Small, light, smooth handling, good color and contrast. The unusual discordance between test chart results and real-life usage has to do with focusing distance wide open. While the 14mm did not satisfy the pixel peeper in me the same way the 35mm GM did, it nevertheless performs very well for photos it is better suited for.
Update: I was talking out of my a**. The test I did above is for decentering, not field curvature. I've converted all mentions of FC to decentering. I don't think my copy has any strong decentering issues either (DC test above was not shot at infinity... oops)
p.25 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
I haven’t earnestly tried to many closeup shots but for Astro and for normal stopped down daytime use I found the lens to be excellent!
Edit: looks like the EXIF was stripped 😢. I’ll try to input manually.
F14, 40th, ISO100
F11, 1600th, ISO100
F11, 160th, ISO100
F10? UNK shutter ISO100
F2, 8s ISO5000. Already posted this but didn’t want to exclude it from the series. I saw no evidence of color banding; this was a stack of 30 lights and 10 darks, +1ev, uncompressed RAW all lens comp disabled in camera.
p.25 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
It's really annoying that this is 'baked' in, and with the 12-24 GM. Two of the best astro lenses on the planet, but having to deal with those rings is a significant inconvenience.
I think we'd be able to make a library of flat frames for commonly used settings (excluding exposure time obviously) rather than having to take them in the field. They may not be perfect, but should mostly correct the rings. It'll be easier for the 14mm being a prime whereas focal length is critical for flats on the 12-24 GM for instance. Flats are a little tricky for these bulbous-ended lenses though. Like you I'll investigate further when skies and moon allow...
WebmasterNeal wrote:
It's a bummer that this lens has the red ring issue, in particular since I bought it for the sole purpose of astrophotography. I've been shooting with a Rokinon 24mm and a Sigma 14mm via an MC-11 and I bought the Sony to replace the Sigma since my MC-11 adapter was splitting in half due to the weight of the 14mm and I didn't want to buy another MC-11.
Anyway, I'm guessing since neither of those were being run through the Sony RAW tampering I wasn't seeing the red ring issue with them. I'll have to test the Sony 14mm out more when the Milky Way is out without the moon in the coming weeks to see if the red ring issue pops up with how I typically edit shots. I know I can do flat field corrections, but it seems like more work, especially if I have to take that out in the field at the same time as my typical astro shots.
All shots were taken wide open at f1.8 with an a7riv. For the sharpness test, I took a photo of some text at roughly 40cm. I shifted the focusing box by two from the center and repeated it all the way to the edge. The center sharpness is very very crisp, but the off-center sharpness is lacking. The difference in sharpness is especially telling because the center is just that good.... Also, AF seems to miss sometimes when focusing off-center, so I had to use MF, take a few shots and select the best one. Based on its close-up performance, the lens performs slightly below expectation given the stellar performances of recent GM lenses like 24 35 and 50 GM. Stopped down to f2.8 though and it recovers some sharpness, though never quite as sharp as the center. My guess is that the small size of the lens demands some form of compromise which in this case is its close-up performance.
I should add that I tested 2 copies, and both share the same issues close-up.
Of course, when focusing at infinity, the lens excels even at f1.8. Also, I don't think my copy has any strong field curvature issues either (FC test above was not shot at infinity... oops). For normal usage, the lens does perform very well indeed. Small, light, good color and contrast.
While the lens did not satisfy the pixel peeper in me the same way the 35mm GM did, it nevertheless performs very well for photos it is better suited for.
This is a very fair assessement. I just got a copy of the 14mm after testing two of them in a shop. I use a9 so the lens is sharp to me even at f1.8, even to the edges.
I don’t really like the bokeh as it shows fairly strong outlining and is quite busy. Thinking of replacing my 14-24mm and shooting some ultra wide portraits…
p.25 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
NatDeroxL7 wrote:
I haven’t earnestly tried to many closeup shots but for Astro and for normal stopped down daytime use I found the lens to be excellent!
Edit: looks like the EXIF was stripped 😢. I’ll try to input manually.
Nice sunstars at f/11...if I needed the f/1.8 and/or autofocus I'd be all over this lens. Just can't part with my sharp CV 15. Glad you gave it an astro workout too. Seems to have been the perfect kind of overall trip for that lens.
p.25 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
TimWildAstro wrote:
After some experimenting, the 14mm GM suffers from the 'red/magenta rings' like the 12-24 GM does.
I'll be using flats for all tracked/stacked astro work with this lens now. The sample posted above does show the problem slightly, but it becomes clearer on a stacked and heavily pushed file.
Hi, I'm starting to get a bit more serious about astro and would like to know more about your workflow in the field. How would you go about taking the flat images and how many? Does it depend? What about dark frames? Any other frames? Thanks!
p.25 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Very interesting update about the red ring issue. I've just experimented with my new A1 (FW 1.10) and it doesn't show the same red ring with the 14mm that my A7Riv does! I'll investigate more and try the 12-24 GM next, but very interesting that the rings are baked in with the 14mm on the Riv and not the A1.
TimWildAstro wrote:
It's really annoying that this is 'baked' in, and with the 12-24 GM. Two of the best astro lenses on the planet, but having to deal with those rings is a significant inconvenience.
I think we'd be able to make a library of flat frames for commonly used settings (excluding exposure time obviously) rather than having to take them in the field. They may not be perfect, but should mostly correct the rings. It'll be easier for the 14mm being a prime whereas focal length is critical for flats on the 12-24 GM for instance. Flats are a little tricky for these bulbous-ended lenses though. Like you I'll investigate further when skies and moon allow...
p.25 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Hi there! Are you thinking of doing Milky Way kind of pics, or deep space, or both?
Typically I haven't done flats, but the red ring issue has forced me into it. I haven't taken 'proper/controlled' ones yet as I'm still working out the kinks with the lenses and the red ring issue (I've just posted an update that my A1 doesn't seem to suffer from the red ring effect, but my Riv does, with the same lens & settings...). For darks, I tend to take them at the end of each astro session (just with the lens cap on, same settings) but I don't always use them in the end. Stacking software does a good job of sorting out dodgy pixels, so darks aren't always vital, YMMV. I do use them for foreground frames as the darker areas often show up hot pixels more obviously. My Riv has few hot pixels vs my Riii which has many with long exposures. Not sure about the A1 yet as I haven't had chance to try. I'd generally only take 3-5 darks for say 20 sky frames (I use a tracker), and 1-3 darks for foreground depending whether I'm stacking or just taking a single long exposure. For deep space, I've found more benefit from darks, but it's possible to get good results without them. So I take them, and use them if I feel like it basically!
Hodie wrote:
Hi, I'm starting to get a bit more serious about astro and would like to know more about your workflow in the field. How would you go about taking the flat images and how many? Does it depend? What about dark frames? Any other frames? Thanks!
p.25 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
TimWildAstro wrote:
Hi there! Are you thinking of doing Milky Way kind of pics, or deep space, or both?
Typically I haven't done flats, but the red ring issue has forced me into it. I haven't taken 'proper/controlled' ones yet as I'm still working out the kinks with the lenses and the red ring issue (I've just posted an update that my A1 doesn't seem to suffer from the red ring effect, but my Riv does, with the same lens & settings...). For darks, I tend to take them at the end of each astro session (just with the lens cap on, same settings) but I don't always use them in the end. Stacking software does a good job of sorting out dodgy pixels, so darks aren't always vital, YMMV. I do use them for foreground frames as the darker areas often show up hot pixels more obviously. My Riv has few hot pixels vs my Riii which has many with long exposures. Not sure about the A1 yet as I haven't had chance to try. I'd generally only take 3-5 darks for say 20 sky frames (I use a tracker), and 1-3 darks for foreground depending whether I'm stacking or just taking a single long exposure. For deep space, I've found more benefit from darks, but it's possible to get good results without them. So I take them, and use them if I feel like it basically!
Thanks, Tim. I just got the Move Shoot Move tracker, so I only plan on doing nightscapes. No deep space. I'm probably going to start out simple. One exposure for sky, one for foreground, and practice my blending and post processing.
I'm curious, do you take dark/flat frames for both foreground and sky because each will have different camera settings?
p.25 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Sounds ideal, single tracked sky frame and single foreground frame is what I started with after getting a tracker too, then I added stacking later on. If the sky and foreground have different settings then yes, you'll need 2 sets of dark frames (although might not need different flats depending on what settings you changed; if it was just exposure time, you'd be fine). Personally, I usually use the same settings for foreground and sky, but it's not always possible of course.
Hodie wrote:
Thanks, Tim. I just got the Move Shoot Move tracker, so I only plan on doing nightscapes. No deep space. I'm probably going to start out simple. One exposure for sky, one for foreground, and practice my blending and post processing.
I'm curious, do you take dark/flat frames for both foreground and sky because each will have different camera settings?
p.25 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
I am now understanding why so few astro shots being posted with the 14mm GM. Just got back from White Mts in CA and came away profoundly disappointed with the new 14mm f1.8 Sony GM. I framed up first shot and upper left corner was fine, but upper right corner was terrible gull wings (sagittal coma). Luckily, I had both my 14-24mm Sigma and 12-24 Sony f2.8 GM with me, so was still able to get my shot. I was going to sell my Sigma 14mm f1.8 in favor of the Sony, but looks like I'll keep it, unless Sony service can fix this. I missed my return with Adorama by a week, so now have to send to Precision Camera Repair in CT.
Sony should have had it's act together on this lens, given that it was being alluded to as the best 14mm lens available for astro.
Fingers crossed they can get this thing 'right'...
p.25 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Sounds like you probably have a 'bad' copy unfortunately. The top right corner is also the weakest on mine, but if I corner focus, it mostly sorts it out, and it's good corner to corner by f2.5, taking into account field curvature. F1.8 is usable for astro with mine, despite not being a perfect copy. I do think this is probably the best lens on the market for (wide) astro at the moment. I also have the Sigma 14-24, Sony 12-24 GM, Sony 24mm GM and previously had the Sigma 14mm f1.8. All superb lenses, but having a 14mm usable at f1.8 is going to be unbeatable for Milky Way timelapses (personally, I didn't consider the Sigma 14mm usable at f1.8 due to the aberrations in the corners). Good luck with the repair; I hope they don't say it's within tolerance and just send it back!
Chris VenHaus wrote:
I am now understanding why so few astro shots being posted with the 14mm GM. Just got back from White Mts in CA and came away profoundly disappointed with the new 14mm f1.8 Sony GM. I framed up first shot and upper left corner was fine, but upper right corner was terrible gull wings (sagittal coma). Luckily, I had both my 14-24mm Sigma and 12-24 Sony f2.8 GM with me, so was still able to get my shot. I was going to sell my Sigma 14mm f1.8 in favor of the Sony, but looks like I'll keep it, unless Sony service can fix this. I missed my return with Adorama by a week, so now have to send to Precision Camera Repair in CT.
Sony should have had it's act together on this lens, given that it was being alluded to as the best 14mm lens available for astro.
Fingers crossed they can get this thing 'right'... ...Show more →
p.25 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
I thought I had a decent copy on my first lens until I found a great spot for Fred's centering test. Now on my second copy it's still de-centered. The top half of this lens on both copies has shown to be weak. Also the top half has a dimmer exposure than the bottom half even though they were manually shot with the same settings. Not sure I want to play the lotto again for copy number 3 unless I try a different retailer. The top left corner on both copies is the worst. I wonder if they sent me the same lens I sent back. I may try again from a another retailer then call it quits if it is not good. Sounds like the too half is an issue for a few folks here. Anyone else having a similar issue with multiple copies?
