• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Sony 12-24/4 on a7RII at 18 mm

Sony 12-24/4 on a7RII at 18 mm

July 7, 2017 JimK 16 Comments

This is the first part of a report on the subject lens. To find links to all the others, scroll down to the bottom of this page — below the comments — and follow the pingbacks. They are titled, so you will be able to see which ones are of interest to you without going there. 

I interrupt the GFXathon to bring you a look at a new Sony full frame E-mount lens that fell into my hands today — Mom, it followed me home; can I keep it? Sony calls it the FE 4/12-24G, and it’s a 12-24 mm f/4 rectilinear lens. It’s quite small and light for that range, compared to other Nikon 14-24 and Canon 11-24 lenses. It’s got a focus-lock button, which I like, and an MF/AF switch, which I also like. The petal hood is not removable, which filter lovers will bristle at, but it doesn’t bother me. There is no place to slip in behind-the-lens, or inside-the-lens filters. It’s got the best lens cap for a fixed-hood lens that I’ve ever seen. I’m not a fan of the soft leather hoods like those on the Nikon 14-24, or the ones that slide over the cover and don’t lock, or even the clip-on rubber ones like those on the WATE. This one slides over the hood, and if you press the buttons on the side, clicks into place and locks. Nice.

I took it outside. Here it is at 12, 18, and 24 mm wide open:

12mm

 

18 mm

 

24 mm

Falloff is definitely present, but, all things considered, not bad.

For comparison, here’s a Nikon 14-24 mm f/4 lens, the long-in-the-tooth ex king of the super wide zoom hill. I’d show you an image from the Canon 11-24, but I don’t have one on hand. Sorry.  The Nikon images were shot several days ago using a D810, but I think the differences are sufficiently striking that that won’t matter much.  The image is at 17 mm.

 

I focused both cameras manually at their taking f-stops on the lighter foliage in the upper-right-central part of the image. I focused and exposed four times for each aperture, and picked the best shot from each camera for each f-stop.  Shutter set to EFCS for both cameras.   2-second self-timer for the Sony, and 3-second shutter delay for the Nikon. Arca-Swiss C1 cube on RRS sticks.Small exposure corrections in Lr. Daylight white balance selected in Lightroom.  

I exported tight crops from the developed images as 700-pixel-wide JPEGs. That means that the images are all heavily upsampled. The a7RII images are 295% of their original size in both dimensions. The D810 images are at 320%.  The different ratios are necessary to compensate for the variations in the height of the sensors when measured in pixels.

If you just want a rough idea of the differences, just look at the images as displayed in-line in the posts. However, if you wish to compare these images in detail, you should view these images by clicking on them to see the source files, then setting your browser for 100% zooming. Even better, download them and make Photoshop stacks.

No matter what you do, these crops are all going to look horrible. I’m blowing them up so much so that they will represent the original file after JPEG’s discrete cosine transform has had its way with them. If you want to get a good idea of what the images would look like printed, get far away from your monitor. No, farther than that. Put a bunch of the images up on the screen and back up until the best one starts to look good. Then look at the others. There’s another reason why these images won’t look like the best thing the camera/lens combination can deliver. They’re demosaiced with Lightroom. Lightroom is not awful, but for a particular image, there are usually better raw processors. I use Lr because it’s a de facto standard, because I know it well, and because it’s got good tools for dealing with groups of images.

I’ll show the crops at 18 mm for the two combinations. In the next few posts, we’ll look at the Sony at 12 and 24 mm as well.

In the mid-upper right:

 

Nikon f/4

 

Sony 18 mm f/4

The Sony is sharper, and doesn’t have the LoCA that you see with the Nikon. By the way, Lr doesn’t have lens corrections yet for the Sony 12-24, so you’re not seeing corrected images.

Nikon f/5.6

 

Sony 18 mm f/5.6

 

 

Nikon f/8

 

Sony 18 mm f/8

 

Nikon f/11

 

Sony 18 mm f/11

 

Now, in the upper left corner brightened by 2/3 of a stop:

Nikon f/4

 

Sony 18 mm f/4

 

Nikon f/5.6

 

Sony 18 mm f/5.6

 

Nikon f/8

 

 

Sony 18 mm f/8

 

Nikon f/11

 

Sony 18 mm f/11

Now you can see why I didn’t bother to go out and reshoot the Nikon images so they’d be apples to apples with the Sony ones. These lenses aren’t playing in the same league. I guess that what ten years of lens design advancement does for you. 

The Sony images are quite lovely for a zoom lens. Actually, they are lovely for any lens. I will probably get around to doing a comaprison with the WATE, but I think I know who’s going to come out on top, and it doesn’t have a red dot on it.

[Added 10/11/17: Horshack shows here that much of the Nikon zoom’s poor edge performance is due to field curvature.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Last Word

← Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar on GFX Sony 12-24/4 on a7RII at 12 & 24 mm →

Comments

  1. Michael Fang says

    July 7, 2017 at 5:39 pm

    Hey Jim, have you ever tried the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L III? On paper (from the-digital-picture) it appears to be super sharp wide open, even into the corners

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 7, 2017 at 6:53 pm

      Sorry, no experience with that lens.

      Reply
  2. Joe says

    July 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    Hey Jim

    Nice review of the new lens. Would love to see a comparison to the Wate!

    Reply
  3. maljo says

    July 13, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    Maybe the wind was blowing… That’s why comparisons have to be near simultaneous and under controlled circumstances.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 13, 2017 at 4:45 pm

      A lot of people — I mean a lot! – don’t like the quantitative lab tests I run. Some of them get downright hostile about them, and many have a hard time interpreting the numbers and the graphs. The lab tests take a lot longer to run than the Q&D ones. I don’t have enough time to test all the things I want to test as it is. This is starting to cut into, you know, actually making photographs. I used to do the tilted camera/distant horizon tests. I ran into problems with atmospheric thermal effects providing blur (and even worse, ever changing blur) and atmospheric particulates causing wavelength-dependent scattering. You may have a better spot for that than I do.

      Foliage has some advantages for this. It is not regular. People know what it should look like. It moves from shot to shot, so people won’t look at things that depend on the subject’s alignment with the sampling grid. If there’s sky, it’s great for observing CA. A big advantage for me is that it’s handy. If I had to drive to do these tests, I’d do a lot fewer of them. Last, and maybe least, it has a long history in photographic lens testing; AA recommended it; although he liked bare tree branches against the sky, too. Not to easy to find a lot of those where I am.

      Yes, foliage has disadvantages. It moves, and I have to plan my shutter speeds accordingly. It’s green, so the wavelengths for a camera with a good IR filter are in its sweet spot.

      So, this isn’t exactly a defense of my Q&D lens tests, but more of an explanation.

      Reply
      • RevAaron says

        July 14, 2017 at 9:37 am

        These may not have the rigor of your lab tests, but I think it’s pretty obvious that these two lenses simply aren’t in the same league. Those Nikon corners don’t look like motion blur from wind, it looks like lens performance. Wind (if it was present) would be a factor, but the fact remains that the optical performance is such that you would never be able to identify it.

        Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Sony 12-24/4 on a7RII — distortion says:
    July 8, 2017 at 10:13 am

    […] This is part 3 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  2. Sony 12-24/4 FE on Sony a7RII — corner color casting says:
    July 8, 2017 at 10:40 am

    […] This is part 4 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  3. Sony 12-24, Batis 18, & WATE on a7RII says:
    July 8, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    […] This is part 5 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  4. Sony 12-24 f/4 FE on a7RII — more flare says:
    July 8, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    […] This is part 7 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  5. Sony 12-24 f/4 OOF PSFs says:
    July 8, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    […] This is part 8 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  6. Sony 12-24 LoCA & focus shift at 18 & 24 mm says:
    July 11, 2017 at 9:32 am

    […] This is part 9 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  7. Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G: Coverage | Sony Addict says:
    July 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

    […] The Last Word – Sony 12-24/4 on a7RII at 18 mm […]

    Reply
  8. Sony 12-24/4 AF performance with a7RII says:
    July 13, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    […] This is part 10 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  9. Sony 12-24/4 on a7RII vs Fuji 23/4 on GFX says:
    July 14, 2017 at 8:55 am

    […] This is part 11 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here. […]

    Reply
  10. IQ effects of Sony 12-24/4 Lr distortion corrections says:
    July 21, 2017 at 10:32 am

    […] This is part 13 of a test of the Sony 12-24 mm f/4 FE lens. The test starts here.  […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.