Sony 12-24mm lens? Any first hand experience?

[haring]

Hi!

I am wondering whether anybody has first hand experience with the Sony 12-24mm lens? Anybody who owned Nikon 12-24mm or used Canon's 11-22mm wide angle lenses and can compare them to Sony's 12-24mm wide angle lens?

Thanks!

 

[k-hawinkler]

Verdict: 12-24 or 16-35 GM?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1504846/0#14149885

 

[Pradeep]

Verdict: 12-24 or 16-35 GM?Verdict: 12-24 or 16-35 GM? - FM Forums

K-H, there was a lot of talk on that thread about the lens being de-centered and bad copies etc. I must be terribly lucky in this regard because I think my copy is pretty good.

I got it just before my trip to China earlier this month, and tested it out there. It is really quite a handy lens, surprisingly light and much easier to handle than the 24-70 GM (which is terrific in its own way). Of course it is f4 but then you can't beat the laws of physics I suppose.

I remember using a Nikon 12-24 with adapters on my Canon/Sony cameras and it was a nightmare, not being able to set the aperture at all. It was also a very bulky lens and although the IQ was very good, I feel IMHO that the Sony is equally good if not better.

Here are two images taken in the Forbidden City, both quick snapshots, as I was being pushed around by the crowds. They are completely unsharpened, no clarity either. All I did was adjust the exposure and minimal rotational correction in the first one. I did not even do that for the second image. When I took this it was raining, the skies were very dull and there was a crowd pushing me, despite all this I think it came out pretty good.

What is mind-blowing to me in the second image (also in the first) is that there is absolutely NO chromatic aberration, I deliberately did not correct the rotational error in this image to point to the tree in the upper left. This is where almost every other lens I have used will show some CA, given a white/grey sky behind the tree and branches. Also, note, the aperture is wide-open, f4 in both images.

I think Sony has knocked it out of the park with this one. Wide open, note that these are completely unsharpened images, see the focus is perfect edge to edge.

I just love it.

Sorry for the large image size, these are full frame full size images from the A7R2, wanted to show the details of the lens. Hmm....... even though I linked to the full size image, it shows up low-res here! Cannot see the CA-free corners unfortunately.

 

[Pradeep]

Since the full size image does not show up here, I am posting crops (100%) from the left upper corner of both images to show there is no CA (well, almost none) and that despite the lens being wide open and with no sharpening or clarity boost in LR, they are quite sharp.

 

[Pradeep]

The Canon 11-24 is approximately as sharp (I only tested at f/8-f/11), but the Sony has way more distortion. Great for anything but architecture.

I don't know about distortion yet, have not tested it with buildings thoroughly. But you may be right.

However, it is almost half the weight, $1000 less expensive, 25% smaller in size. Not to mention that on the A7r2 it makes for a very tidy package with great resolution.

At this time I am so happy I moved from Canon to Sony. Almost all my needs are met except perhaps for a good supertele lens. Sony has excellent wide angle, mid-range primes and better mid-tele zooms also. I compared the 100-400 GM to my Canon 100-400 L MkII, it is definitely sharper and lighter (although not by too much).

From the limited reviews on the web, the 12-24 is also fantastic for astrophotography with minimal if any coma. Have to try that next.