Sony 11-24 looking like a winner

[hogloff]

Just read a couple initial reviews on this new lens from Sony and they are all stellar. What is most amazing is the size and weight of this lens is so much less than the lenses from other manufactures. The smaller flange distance is paying off for mirrorless. Looks to me like a must have lens for a Sony landscape shooter.

[Kiwi Paul]

It gets stellar reviews and certainly appears to be a very good lens but at a price and it has no provision to take filters.
I have the 16-35 f4 and the Voigtlander 10mm, the 16-35 is an excellent lens and can take filters, the 10mm can't take filters but offers an even wider FOV and can be post cropped to 15mm.
I also have the Sony 10-18 crop sensor lens but this lens can be used on a full frame camera with very good results from about 12mm to 16mm and can also take filters.
Sp although the 12-24 is tempting I think my current setup suits me better.

[BernardLanguillier]

It does appear to be a very nice lens for sure.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Kevin Raber]

I have been shooting with the 12-24mm for a while.  I will be posting a review with lots of images as well as the old bookcase test shots.  I'll start writing it up tomorrow.  It is a lightweight lens and is very sharp.  Quite a performer for a small lens.  The 16-35mm G Master is also a real nice lens.  I am really looking forward to 100-400mm lens that I have shot with.  The 100-400mm should be here before the end of the month.  The 12-24mm fits a very interesting niche as far as what you use it for.  Shot when level it is very nice, but introduces strange looks and perspective when slightly tilted.  I did use perspective correction in Capture One on some building shots and the results are very nice.  There is no way to attach filters with this lens but that doesn't bother me too much.  The 16-35mm will handle filters.  I plan to test that lens with the Wine Country filter system.

There is a lot to work on to complete this review as well as about 5 others I am currently doing.  Bottom line, so far is I am impressed.

[hogloff]

It gets stellar reviews and certainly appears to be a very good lens but at a price and it has no provision to take filters.
I have the 16-35 f4 and the Voigtlander 10mm, the 16-35 is an excellent lens and can take filters, the 10mm can't take filters but offers an even wider FOV and can be post cropped to 15mm.
I also have the Sony 10-18 crop sensor lens but this lens can be used on a full frame camera with very good results from about 12mm to 16mm and can also take filters.
Sp although the 12-24 is tempting I think my current setup suits me better.

Yeh I hear you about the price, but it's appetently in the same league as the Canon 11-24, but quite a bit less cost and very much lighter.

I too have the 16-35 but might complement that lens with this. It's either getting the 12-24 or the CV 12...need to shoot a bit with the 12-24 to determine direction.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Ref. filters, I suppose Lee and other makers will come up with something, like they did for the Canon lens.

[hogloff]

Ref. filters, I suppose Lee and other makers will come up with something, like they did for the Canon lens.

There's already two 150mm holders available.

[hogloff]

Here is a test comparing the 12-24 versus other lenses at various focal lengths. Very impressive indeed, especially compared to the infamous Loxia 21.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1498485

[Jim Kasson]

Here is a test comparing the 12-24 versus other lenses at various focal lengths. Very impressive indeed, especially compared to the infamous Loxia 21.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1498485

Why do you call the Lox 21 "infamous"? I find it an excellent lens.

Jim

[hogloff]

Why do you call the Lox 21 "infamous"? I find it an excellent lens.

Jim

Tongue and cheek...it's now infamous with the new king ( 12-24 ) in town. Biggest drawback to the 12-24 is the awkward method of using filters on it. Love to see how the 12-24 stacks up against the Canon 11-24 which weighs much more and costs much more.

[Hans Kruse]

It seems that Lloyd Chambers have some reservations about this lens https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170707_2054-Sony12_24f4G-color-shading.html

[hogloff]

It seems that Lloyd Chambers have some reservations about this lens https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170707_2054-Sony12_24f4G-color-shading.html

Of course...doesn't he have a problem with everything. If he said all
Was great, no one would click on his site...no money. Ain't it so blatenly obvious.

[kers]

Of course...doesn't he have a problem with everything. If he said all
Was great, no one would click on his site...no money. Ain't it so blatenly obvious.

I don't agree. yes he is a pixel peeper, has his own way of looking at things and likes some brands better than others, but what is noticed through the years as a subscriber, he often makes valid points.
But not always...
He is not a lensrentals that can test a dozen copies ; on the other hand he gets his equipment often through shops rather than from the company.
I agree that in the latter case you might end up testing the best of the bunch.

[Jim Kasson]

Versus the Nikon 24-24:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-244-on-a7rii-at-18-mm/

At 12 and 24 mm:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-244-on-a7rii-at-12-24-mm/

Fun-house mirror distortion? You be the judge:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-244-on-a7rii-distortion/

Corner color casting? Not significant, IMHO:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-244-fe-on-sony-a7rii-corner-color-casting/

Versus the Batis 18 and the WATE:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-batis-18-wate-on-a7rii/

Questions? Comments?

jim

[hogloff]

Jim it seems to blow the Nikon away...very nice. Wish you also had the Canon 11-24.

Amazing piece of glass that is very compact...

[Jim Kasson]

Jim it seems to blow the Nikon away...very nice. Wish you also had the Canon 11-24.

Amazing piece of glass that is very compact...

Yes.

Flare is good, too:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-f4-fe-on-a7rii-flare/

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-f4-fe-on-a7rii-more-flare/

The OOF PSFs (aka bokeh balls) don't look great by prime standards, though, and distortion varies by focus distance:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-f4-oof-psfs/

jim

[davidgp]

It seems that Lloyd Chambers have some reservations about this lens https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170707_2054-Sony12_24f4G-color-shading.html

I will wait for him to do some personal test first.

Anyway, for the different test that I read, like the ones Jim is doing, looks like a real good zoom lens Sony was able to deliver.

Yes it flares in some conditions: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1498485/4

[Farmer]

Thanks, Jim - very interesting and useful.

[shadowblade]

Looking forward to some head-to-head MTFs with the 16-35 f/2.8 GM (both wide-open and at equal apertures), now that the latter is shipping. They each play different roles, but it's hard to justify carrying both of them on the same trip (or even owning both), particularly if you're also carrying tilt-shifts.

The 16-35 is a stop faster, which is critical for certain subjects such as night landscapes with discrete stars. It also takes filters, although these are far less useful at ultra-wide angles than at narrower angles, since geometry leads to light forming the edges and corners of an image passing through a much greater thickness of filter than the centre (e.g. a 4-stop ND filter may well be 7 stops in the corners, due to light passing through a greater thickness of filter). However, if you're already carrying tilt-shifts, your use of the lens may be restricted to when you absolutely need the extra light (and can get sufficient DOF at f/2. and for UWA action shots, since, between a 17mm and 24mm tilt-shift and either a 24-70 zoom, 35mm prime or 1.4x TC, you pretty much have the entire 16-35mm focal length range covered sufficiently.

The 12-24 is wider and lighter. However, subjects and compositions which lend themselves to such wide angles of view are usually amenable to stitching, which gives you an even sharper and higher-resolution image. If you're already carrying a 17mm or 24mm tilt-shift, shift-stitching is very easy, with minimal parallax error (or none at all, with the right accessories), giving you a horizontal angle of view equivalent to a 10.2mm lens (with a 17mm lens) or 14.4mm lens (with a 24mm tilt-shift). So the wider angle of view may not actually be that useful even when you do need the additional angle of view, except in rare circumstances (e.g. high dynamic range situations - stitching HDRs is a pain).

So, which one to get may well depend on which one is sharper, as opposed to differences in the focal length range or aperture - both of those things are situational and could lead to one lens or the other, but sharpness is almost universally a good thing.

[davidgp]

Looking forward to some head-to-head MTFs with the 16-35 f/2.8 GM (both wide-open and at equal apertures), now that the latter is shipping. They each play different roles, but it's hard to justify carrying both of them on the same trip (or even owning both), particularly if you're also carrying tilt-shifts.

The 16-35 is a stop faster, which is critical for certain subjects such as night landscapes with discrete stars. It also takes filters, although these are far less useful at ultra-wide angles than at narrower angles, since geometry leads to light forming the edges and corners of an image passing through a much greater thickness of filter than the centre (e.g. a 4-stop ND filter may well be 7 stops in the corners, due to light passing through a greater thickness of filter). However, if you're already carrying tilt-shifts, your use of the lens may be restricted to when you absolutely need the extra light (and can get sufficient DOF at f/2. and for UWA action shots, since, between a 17mm and 24mm tilt-shift and either a 24-70 zoom, 35mm prime or 1.4x TC, you pretty much have the entire 16-35mm focal length range covered sufficiently.

The 12-24 is wider and lighter. However, subjects and compositions which lend themselves to such wide angles of view are usually amenable to stitching, which gives you an even sharper and higher-resolution image. If you're already carrying a 17mm or 24mm tilt-shift, shift-stitching is very easy, with minimal parallax error (or none at all, with the right accessories), giving you a horizontal angle of view equivalent to a 10.2mm lens (with a 17mm lens) or 14.4mm lens (with a 24mm tilt-shift). So the wider angle of view may not actually be that useful even when you do need the additional angle of view, except in rare circumstances (e.g. high dynamic range situations - stitching HDRs is a pain).

So, which one to get may well depend on which one is sharper, as opposed to differences in the focal length range or aperture - both of those things are situational and could lead to one lens or the other, but sharpness is almost universally a good thing.

For the initial results that I'm seeing, the 16-35 GM looks much better flare resistant, important if you put the sun in the scene... anyway, waiting for more "formal" lens analysis of the 16-35.

Regards,

David