• 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 a7II IBIS with a 16mm lens

Sony a7II IBIS with a 16mm lens

January 29, 2015 JimK 5 Comments

A reader asked if I’d test the in-body image stabilization (IBIS) on the Sony alpha 7II with a really short lens, to add to  the testing I’ve done previously with a 180mm Apo-Telyt and the Zony 55mm FE and the Leica 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R. I selected the Leica 16/18/21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar, aka the WATE. Sony calls IBIS SteadyShot.

I employed the following protocol:

  • The camera: the Sony a7II.
  • The lens: the Leica WATE, with a Novaflex M to E adapter, set to 16mm.
  • The target: Imatest slanted edge with Siemans star for focusing.
  • No filter.
  • The lighting: a single Fotodiox LED-200WA-56 daylight balanced variable-output flood.
  • ISO set to 400, f/8, to minimize the effect of manual focusing errors.
  • Focusing manually at f/4, using the magnifier. The focus point as a Siemens star on the target.
  • Drive set to single
  • EFCS on
  • Manual exposure mode.
  • Hold the camera in the “Pete Souza” grip: left palm under base, left fingers bracing the underside of the front part of the lens, elbows against chest. With the WATE, you have to be careful to keep your fingertips out of the picture.
  • Exposure protocol: LED light to full, shutter to 1/60 second, make 16 exposures, turn the light down a stop, make 16 exposures… until you get to 1/8 of a second.
  • Develop in Lightroom 5.7.1 with standard settings.
  • Crop, export as TIFFs, analyze for horizontal edge and vertical edge MTF50 in Imatest.
  • Export the results to Excel, crunch the stats, and graph.

First, with IBIS off, looking at the horizontal edges:

WATE MTF IBIS offb

Then with it on.

WATE NTF IBIS ona

Finally, with both of the results sets on the same plot:

WATE MTF IBIS botha

The heavy lines are the average,, or mean, values, for which the mathematical symbol is mu. The light lines are the mean plus and minus the standard deviation, or sigma, of the measurement set, and provide an estimate of repeatability.

It’s clear that IBIS helps a lot. As with the 28mm lens, 1/(half the focal length in mm) is eminently usable, and better than 1/(twice the focal length in mm) without IBIS.

However, at 1/4 second, IBIS isn’t much help at all. Is is possible that it runs out of travel at that shutter duration and my body motion. It’s also possible that translation, which it can’t correct for in lenses that don’t tell it the subject distance, becomes too big a factor at that shutter speed. The target was about three feet away from the camera.

It’s a small effect, but we saw it in the case of the 28mm lens, and we see it here: at high shutter speeds, IBIS might actually hurt a little. I wouldn’t worry about it.

The Last Word

← Sony a7II 12-bit mode’s effect on shadows Pictures: 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor-D on IR a7 →

Comments

  1. NicoG says

    January 29, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    Ahah, thanks a lot!
    Interesting to see results degradation without IBIS (starting at 1/30 s).
    More importantly, your results show that IBIS efficiency is the same whatever the focal lens! Also, it is impressive to see how MTF falls after 1/(twice the focal length in mm) with IBIS. This fall is not as clear for the standard (albeit it had 5 axis IBIS) and the tele lenses.

    thanks

    Reply
  2. FAS says

    January 30, 2015 at 11:05 am

    Hmmm, it seems to be a “cap” at around 1/8s, isn’t it? Perhaps I was not totally wrong, then.

    Reply
    • NicoG says

      January 30, 2015 at 5:31 pm

      I was thinking the same: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3788046)
      From my experience, I found it hard to have sharp shots with IBIS and an adapted MF lens (3 axis IBIS) below 1/10 s whatever the focal lens.
      I’m currently playing with a Samyang 14 mm and 1/8 s is OK (not GOOD). At 1/6 s, it starts to be very hard to get a sharp shot and almost impossible at 1/4 s.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Rules of thumb for handheld shutter speed | The Last Word says:
    April 8, 2015 at 8:35 am

    […] while back, I tested 16, 28, 55, and 180 mm lenses handheld on a Sony alpha 7 Mark II (a7II), both with and without the […]

    Reply
  2. Sony a7II IBIS and sloppy technique | The Last Word says:
    April 25, 2015 at 9:24 am

    […] image stabilization (IBIS; Sony calls it Steadyshot) on the Sony alpha 7 Mark II (a7II) with 16mm, 28mm, 55 mm, and 180mm lenses. The improvements over handholding without the IBIS turned on were […]

    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.