Sony Goes World Class: The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM MTF and Variance Tests
I was one of those who noted Sony had some troubles, as manufacturers often do, with some of their first generation lenses for full-frame FE mount cameras. When they announced the G Master lens series I was really excited to test them. I was expecting Sony to have made progress both with optical quality and with copy-to-copy variation. I wasn’t sure that they’d be as good as the best lenses coming from the long-term photo manufacturers, but I did expect they would be close. In case you don’t like to read or look at charts, you can stop here. The 24-70 f/2.8 GM lens is as good as any 24-70 f/2.8 zoom from any manufacturer, at least as far as bench-test results go.
A Note About Sony MTF Testing
As I discussed in our post about the 70-200mm f/4 lenses, our testing algorithms and presentations are changing as we improve things and try to make them more scientific. If you missed that there are two major points.
First, the variation algorithms are different, both to make the charts easier to see (we show a 1 Standard Deviation range, rather than the 1.5 S. D. we used to) and to eliminate the Consistency Number. We found that the Consistency Number was too blunt of a tool; it showed only one limited part of variation. There were cases when there were two lenses had the same consistency score, but one was quite a bit worse than the other in ways the number didn’t show.
Second, I want to continue to point out that the MTF bench is not designed to test lenses that require power to maintain focus position, which FE lenses do. We’ve worked around that by making an electrically live mount, but the electronics block some of the test points at 20mm from the center (the right side of the graph). For that reason, the measurements at the edge have fewer measured points than the other points tested. Take them with a mild grain of salt.
Finally, one note about this test. We found that the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM lens performed best with 2mm of optical glass placed in the pathway, simulating the cover glass of a camera sensor. This is of NO significance to persons shooting with the lens, but I mention it for completeness sake. We check every lens we test with and without glass in the optical pathway and present the best MTF results.
MTF Tests
We tested 10 copies of the lens at 24mm, 35mm and 70mm focal lengths. I’ll print the results full size first because sometimes it’s hard to see the smaller comparison charts.
These are really impressive MTF curves with excellent resolution, but it’s always helpful to compare things a bit, so below are side-by-side comparisons with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk II and Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S VR lenses. First, we’ll compare the MTFs at 24mm.
I know the graphs are a bit small (click them for larger), but it should still be apparent that the Sony is at least as good as the other two lenses. It actually has the best center resolution, particularly at higher frequencies, which backs up Sony’s statement that this lens was designed with high-resolution sensors in mind. Off-axis, it maintains good sharpness to the edge of the field, although it does have a bit more astigmatism or lateral color (it’s not possible to differentiate the two on a single-aperture MTF test). All three of these are excellent lenses at 24mm. The Sony might be a hair better, but it’s a pretty minor hair.
The 70mm end of 24-70mm zooms tends to be the weaker end, so we’ll do the same comparison there.
None of these lenses are quite as strong at 70mm as they were at the wider portion of the zoom range. Again the Sony is at least as good as the others. It has, by a tiny hair the best center resolution, and while it isn’t quite as flat across the image as the Nikon, it is better in that regard than the Canon. It does have just a bit more astigmatism / lateral color on the MTF bench, though.
Fanboys can split hairs about which lens is best if they need to, but really all three of these are excellent lenses with only minor differences between them.
Copy-to-Copy Variation
This was the part of testing that I was most interested in since we’ve seen a few Sony FE lenses that had pretty large copy-to-copy variation. I’ll remind you again that the variance algorithms are different now, so for comparison, I’ve redone the variance graphs using the raw data from the Canon and Nikon 24-70 lenses, too. Both of them we consider pretty good, with a reasonable amount of variation for zoom lenses.
To my surprise and pleasure, the variation of the Sony G Master lenses at 24mm is at least as low as, and perhaps a bit better than, the Canon and Nikon zooms, both of which we consider good for zooms.
We knew that both the Canon and Nikon lenses had more variation at 70mm than at 24mm, so we expected the Sony would, too.
Like the Canon and Nikon, the Sony did have more variation at 70mm. But the Sony doesn’t worsen more than the others, they all end up fairly similar. As an aside, we also checked variance in the middle of the zoom range and the Sony was really quite good there. In other words, if your copy has problems, it will almost certainly be at 70mm, but if you buy a Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 you are no more likely to have an issue than you would with a Canon or Nikon.
Summary
When the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II came out a couple of years ago, I hailed it as dramatically better than what had ever been available in this range. Sony FE shooters now have it’s equal in a native-mount lens. Sure the fanboys can split hairs about this or that, but the differences in the lenses themselves are tiny. Of course, the proof is in the image, but early reports from reviewers seem to agree the new Sony performs just as well in the field as it does on the MTF bench. Well done, Sony!
Roger Cicala, Aaron Closz, and Brandon Dube
Lensrentals.com
April, 2016
154 Comments
Andre Yew ·
Roger, et al. you mentioned that the Sony has more lateral color on the bench than the Canon. How can you tell this by looking at the MTF graphs? The text seems to indicate that you use an aperture series?
Thanks again for doing these tests and sharing the results!
Mike Aubrey ·
Both astigmatism and lateral CA can appear in MTF graphs as the separation of the Tag and Sag lines. Know which is which requires more charts at different apertures.
Brandon Dube ·
That is roughly correct, but it is dangerous to associate aberrations with the MTF directly, without being quite well versed in both aberrations and MTF. Even having a complete series of tests from the full aperture to a very small aperture, one cannot say strictly what is limiting the performance, and usually it is a combination of things.
Mike Aubrey ·
“That’s roughly correct, but…”
Well, yeah. This is a comment thread, not a white paper.Everything has a “but.”
Andre Yew ·
Thanks guys, I appreciate the info! So it sounds like one may guess that there’s some form of lateral CA (but not longitudinal?) from a set of MTF curves, but you’d have to test for it directly to be sure?
Brandon Dube ·
There are ways to tell the axial color from the MTF, but they are rather convoluted and I would rather not get into them.
The lateral color can be discerned from very closed aperture measurements of the MTF under polychromatic light; the nature of the tangential MTF drop will reveal, approximately, the lateral color. Lateral color by its definition does not impact the sagittal plane.
The trioptics MTF bench does not use a point light source, but a “point like” source. For these tests, photopic light is used (~80% green, 10% red, 10% blue). This mimics the final sensor response to sunlight.
I could write a blog post on something like this, but it would be uber nerdy but I’m a little short on time right now.
Andre Yew ·
Thanks Brandon: no worries. That’s still useful information!
Mike Aubrey ·
There are a lot of things that degrade performance that you can’t see in a single chart. You would need multiple charts for different focusing distances, for example. You could also have different focusing charts for different color wavelengths–green tends to be the sharpest usually. the variables are, well, extensive.
Andre Yew ·
Mike, thanks for your comments. I definitely use field tests to figure out which lenses I’m going to use. This was more curiosity on my part because I’ve seen CA decrease the acuity of my images, so I was wondering how this was reflected in the MTF curves.
Mike Aubrey ·
"That's roughly correct, but..."
Well, yeah. This is a comment thread, not a white paper.Everything has a "but."
Andre Yew ·
Thanks guys, I appreciate the info! So it sounds like one may guess that there's some form of lateral CA (but not longitudinal?) from a set of MTF curves, but you'd have to test for it directly to be sure?
Another question: wouldn't CA lower MTF if you're using a point light source with wavelengths in the range where the lens has CA? If so, it sounds like there's no way to tell from a len's MTF curves what degraded its MTF performance
Brandon Dube ·
There are ways to tell the axial color from the MTF, but they are rather convoluted and I would rather not get into them.
The lateral color can be discerned from very closed aperture measurements of the MTF under polychromatic light; the nature of the tangential MTF drop will reveal, approximately, the lateral color. Lateral color by its definition does not impact the sagittal plane.
The trioptics MTF bench does not use a point light source, but a "point like" source. For these tests, photopic light is used (~80% green, 10% red, 10% blue). This mimics the final sensor response to sunlight.
I could write a blog post on something like this, but it would be uber nerdy but I'm a little short on time right now.
Andre Yew ·
Thanks Brandon: no worries. That's still useful information!
Mike Aubrey ·
There are a lot of things that degrade performance that you can't see in a single chart. You would need multiple charts for different focusing distances, for example. You could also have different focusing charts for different color wavelengths--green tends to be the sharpest usually. the variables are, well, extensive.
There's a lot you could worry about with MTF, but if you're happy with the results you get from your own gear. That's what matters most, I'd say.
Andre Yew ·
Mike, thanks for your comments. I definitely use field tests to figure out which lenses I'm going to use. This was more curiosity on my part because I've seen CA decrease the acuity of my images, so I was wondering how this was reflected in the MTF curves.
Andre Yew ·
Roger, et al. you mentioned that the Sony has more lateral color on the bench than the Canon. How can you tell this by looking at the MTF graphs? The text seems to indicate that you use an aperture series?
Thanks again for doing these tests and sharing the results!
Bernhard Sedlmaier ·
Hi Roger. When do you think you will be able to test the 85mm GM? My lens is pretty awesome also compared to the now sold Canon L but there ist the thing with the lubricant inside the lens so I would be curious if you do a lens tear down to check the mechanics. Thanks a million for your effort. Greets from Bavaria. Bernhard
Roger Cicala ·
Bernhard it will be out the day we get them.
Bernhard Sedlmaier ·
Looking forward to this. Thanks a million
l_d_allan ·
Thanks for the very timely article. Many of us are looking forward to similar info about the GM 85 and GM 70-200. Also teardown[s] should be fascinating.
I understand the reluctant to provide a single “figure of merit number” on consistency (aka variance, but with variance, seems like smaller numbers should be better). Would you be willing to divulge what the Consistency/Variance number would have been using the same procedure as the 4.7 received by the notorious FE 35 f1.4, and the 6.1 received by the FE 55 f1.8?
Usually I’m not that bad on interpreting charts, but the MTF charts still come across to me as “a bunch of squiggly lines”, and the Consistency/Variance band’ing as even more so. I suppose with experience, you get some competence at reading them. I understand that “the higher the better”, and I think that the right side reflects the edges of the lens.
Is there any way to be able to overlap the charts, a’la Photoshop layers with transparency?
Brandon Dube ·
We couldn’t tell you what the consistency number would be if we tried. The database is formatted differently to how it used to be, and the numbers are pulled from it differently too. It’d probably be in the range of 6~7 or so.
The big takeaway is that on the wide end, they’re all about as good as each other at infinity. At the long end, Sony’s lens is a little bit better away from the center than Nikon’s, and noticeably better than Canon’s.
Roger Cicala ·
For MTF higher is better, that’s the simple summary. Dotted and straight lines close together is also generally better.
For Consistency, narrow bands of color mean all copies are pretty similar. Broad bands mean there’s more copy-to-copy variation.
l_d_allan ·
Thanks for the very timely article. Many of us are looking forward to similar info about the GM 85 and GM 70-200. Also teardown[s] should be fascinating.
I understand the reluctant to provide a single "figure of merit number" on consistency (aka variance, but with variance, seems like smaller numbers should be better). Would you be willing to divulge what the Consistency/Variance number would have been using the same procedure as the 4.7 received by the notorious FE 35 f1.4, and the 6.1 received by the FE 55 f1.8?
Usually I'm not that bad on interpreting charts, but the MTF charts still come across to me as "a bunch of squiggly lines", and the Consistency/Variance band'ing as even more so. I suppose with experience, you get some competence at reading them. I understand that "the higher the better", and I think that the right side reflects the edges of the lens.
Is there any way to be able to overlap the charts, a'la Photoshop layers with transparency?
Brandon Dube ·
We couldn't tell you what the consistency number would be if we tried. The database is formatted differently to how it used to be, and the numbers are pulled from it differently too. It'd probably be in the range of 6~7 or so.
The big takeaway is that on the wide end, they're all about as good as each other at infinity. At the long end, Sony's lens is a little bit better away from the center than Nikon's, and noticeably better than Canon's.
Roger Cicala ·
For MTF higher is better, that's the simple summary. Dotted and straight lines close together is also generally better.
For Consistency, narrow bands of color mean all copies are pretty similar. Broad bands mean there's more copy-to-copy variation.
david ·
Thanks for the test. Maybe I missed it, but what does average mtf mean? Average of several re-focusings, or average across all apertures? Or something else? I’d sure like to know what happens as this lens stops down….
Brandon Dube ·
Average of n samples of the lens. All at the same aperture. All focused the same way.
For the sony lens and most others n=10.
david ·
Thanks for the test. Maybe I missed it, but what does average mtf mean? Average of several re-focusings, or average across all apertures? Average of ten lenses? Or something else? I'd sure like to know what happens as this lens stops down....
Brandon Dube ·
Average of n samples of the lens. All at the same aperture. All focused the same way.
For the sony lens and most others n=10.
Thinkinginpictures ·
Cool. Now back to shooting micro four thirds because I don’t care.
Thinkinginpictures ·
Cool. Now back to shooting micro four thirds because I don't care.
Tristan.W ·
as for 70mm graph, looks like NIKON has better QC. Variation is smaller.
Roger Cicala ·
It is a bit. Very reassuring graphs for the Sony lens!
Wesley ·
Do you have photo examples of sharpness? I can see that the Nikon has a larger drop in center sharpness than the other two & “mustache” style in 24mm sharpness & variance, if I’m using that term correctly. As a photographer, I can’t correlate the sharpness drop from a chart to a picture.
Would it also be possible to create a Sony IBIS vs Nikon VR test of these lenses?
Roger Cicala ·
Wesley, it’s possible in theory, but not practical for us. We’ve experimented that way but ‘shake’ is such a huge variable we’ve never figured out a consistent way to test this.
Master ·
can´t you build a rig that produces a repeatable shake pattern.
should not be to difficult for a mechanical engineer.
the important part here is repeatable.
so the amplitude and frequenz must be the same.
take the weight of the body lens combo into account.
you than mount the cameras into the rig and test the image stabilization.
Brandon Dube ·
And how do you test fairly? Does one focus on low frequency high amplitude, high frequency high amplitude, high frequency low amplitude? What frequency distribution? Even in a controlled test there are perhaps a half dozen to a dozen variables to test.
Master ·
you test of course with a typical human shake.
humans normaly won´t do a 20cm amplitude with 1000 hertz.. right?
ask some people with expertiese in this field any you will get answers. it´s no magic.
Roger Cicala ·
Master,
Actually I spent a lot of time a couple of years ago doing all those things. Not nearly as easy as you think. Humans shake very differently (I’m a physician, I know) depending on position, age, gender, and a host of other factors. Even then, several prototypes were built. All failed pretty badly.
Roger
silmasan ·
Hi Roger, the past articles are without comments now — are the (pre-Disqus) comments archived or have they been lost in the migration?
Marc Feldesman ·
Roger, what is/was your medical specialty? My wife is a radiologist and I taught anatomy to med students.
Roger Cicala ·
Marc, I was an Anesthesiologist. I did Trauma Critical Care when I was young and thought 24 hour shifts would be a great lifestyle, but got over that after a few years.
Master ·
you test of course with a typical human shake.
humans normaly won´t do a 20cm amplitude with 1000 hertz.. right?
ask some people with expertise in this field any you will get an answers. it´s no magic.
it´s just empirical data you translate into a repeatable motion.
if you want to go a step further.
build a lens mockup that records the data from actual shake.
for a lens to counter shake it first has to measure it.
instead of using the data for correction you just collect the data.
and as with other test ... you don´t have to do just a single test.
.
Roger Cicala ·
Master,
Actually I spent a lot of time a couple of years ago doing all those things. Not nearly as easy as you think. Humans shake very differently (I'm a physician, I know) depending on position, age, gender, and a host of other factors. Even then, several prototypes were built. All failed pretty badly.
Roger
silmasan ·
Hi Roger, the past articles are without comments now -- are the (pre-Disqus) comments archived or have they been lost in the migration?
Wesley ·
I see.
How about a 35mm comparison chart? Did you test 50mm?
Wesley ·
35mm & 50mm average MTF?
I can see that the Nikon has a larger drop in center sharpness than the other two & "mustache" style in 24mm sharpness & variance, if I'm using that term correctly. As a photographer, I can't correlate the sharpness drop from a chart to a picture ;)
Would it also be possible to create a Sony IBIS vs Nikon VR test of these lenses?
Roger Cicala ·
Wesley, it's possible in theory, but not practical for us. We've experimented that way but 'shake' is such a huge variable we've never figured out a consistent way to test this.
Master ·
can´t you build a rig that produces a repeatable shake pattern.
should not be to difficult for a mechanical engineer.
the important part here is repeatable.
so the amplitude and frequenz must be the same.
take the weight of the body lens combo into account.
you than mount the cameras into the rig and test the image stabilization.
Wesley ·
I see.
How about a 35mm comparison chart? Did you test 50mm?
Doctor Nick ·
Shouldn’t it be easier to design a better wide normal zoom lens when you don’t have to worry about clearing a mirror?
Shark ·
the problem is that sonys E mount sucks.
it is to small to be optimal for a FF sensor.
sony should show a good UWA around 11-12mm.
EcoR1 ·
Psst. Thanks for the info, but don’t tell that to any Nikon users. You know that F-mount is even narrower than the E-mount. Users would feel bad if they learned that F-mount is totally unoptimized for FF-lenses.
Bardoliak ·
Shouldn't it be easier to design a better wide normal zoom lens when you don't have to worry about clearing a mirror?
Shark ·
the problem is that sonys E mount sucks.
it is to small to be optimal for a FF sensor.
sony should show a good UWA around 11-12mm.
Lee ·
For $400-$450 more, though, I think more than “at least as good as, maybe slightly better” is called for. :/
speedy fisher ·
All lenses cost more when they come out. That’s the same price the Canon was at launch, and in a few months they’ll end up the same price.
And at these prices anyway, if you can’t afford one, you probably couldn’t afford the other either.
Lee ·
Yeah, but as Master pointed out this Sony faces much stiffer competition on launch than that Canon did (and Sony does not have nearly the stability of market share and position that Canon does).
leh ·
But it does deliver more… Can canon lens autofocus in a corner of the frame? Can it be stabilised like FE on A7II? There are some FE system mirrorless advantages that dslr’s doesn’t have.
Shark ·
what does that have to do with the lens?
how often do you focus on the outer 15% of the frame?
you sony fanboys are ridicolous… as if this is worth an additional 600 euro.
grab a dual pixel canon and you can focus on any 80% of the frame.
and you even have great autofocus when doing video.
S.Yu ·
“what does that have to do with the lens?”?
This has everything to do about the system, many Canikon fanboys tout their system when their body and/or lenses can’t beat the Sony equivalent.
Master ·
System.. Lens.. now what exactly are you talking about Fanboy?
leh ·
Your argument has no sense. Sigma or tamron should take 4 times more money because they produce lenses for some systems?
But for example in-body stabilisation is real advantage on FE system. You don’t have it on ANY canon dslr body so GM lens has a solid advantage over canon set.
S.Yu ·
Well following the same logic I could still say you’re wrong. The Canon needs an extra adaptor to work at all on a Sony, also for it to work on a Sony you first need a Sony, for it to work on a Canon , you need another Canon for that, so for you to make use of the fact that the Canon could be used in two systems, you need two bodies and an adaptor, which costs a lot, so if you need a lot of extra investments to achieve that extra function, the extra function would have significantly less potential value, or shall we say the cost greatly offsets the practical value.
For the Sony to achieve those functions, you only need that one Sony body, without an adaptor, and it happens to come with other advanced functions like a full electronic shutter and advanced video capabilities.
To further the argument, the Canon, even with the adaptor, is not 100% functional on the Sony, it just gets pretty close, so having the potential to be adapted does raise the value of a Canon lens a little, but far from 2x, also any adaptation basically means you’re willing to make your gear more bulky though the adaptor, so there’s that issue too.
S.Yu ·
And since Sony gave a lot of PR on their XA elements, we should have a comparison of onion rings between those two and the Sony.
Huge irony should the Sony lose though.
leh ·
When you lack arguments or doesn’t understand you start with ‘fanboy’ stuff? Really? Is it canon-user level of discusion?:/
How many FF canon cameras have dual pixel technology? In sony all can AF anywhere in frame. When you can’t use it you don’t do it and accept that, but when you can – you do and it’s a very nice feature which you lack when you don’t have;)
Focus on 100% of the frame is only one of the advantages… You have
also ‘eye AF’ wchich focuses on the eye, all the time you see real image and
setups (like BW) with EVF, you can enlarge a part of the frame to
check/correct focus, you can backup pictures on your phone through WIFI
and using it as a remote LCD and pilot, you have a ton of aps, you have
tiltable screen in each body… it all (and much more) incrises
capabilities of a lens attached to the FE body.
Lens is only a part of the set. The second one is a camera and they work as a team. So when A7vII series have stabilisation it works with GM lens so the GM have more possibilities and advantage over a system that doesn’t have that.
You can say ‘oh well I don’t need this, this, that and that’ but they are still advantages.
Roger Cicala ·
Lee, I don’t disagree but Sony lenses have been having a price premium; it seems to be something we’ll have to live with for a while. On the other hand, if I remember correctly the Canon was $2,000 when it was first released.
speedy fisher ·
>On the other hand, if I remember correctly the Canon was $2,000 when it was first released.
As far as I can tell it was actually $2249 at launch.
Master ·
2249$… yes.
that´s what wikipedia and other websites say.
but canon had no competition back then.
the canon 24-70 MK2 was a lens so good it had no equal.
today there is a lens as good as this new sony.. and it cost 700 euro less.
Lee ·
Yeah, I looked back and I was wrong the Nikon and Canon launched at least as high as the Sony. On the other hand, if you’re trying to build market share in a well-locked duopoly…
Lee ·
For $400-$450 more, though, I think more than "at least as good as, maybe slightly better" is called for. :/
speedy fisher ·
All lenses cost more when they come out. That's the same price the Canon was at launch, and in a few months they'll end up the same price.
And at these prices anyway, if you can't afford one, you probably couldn't afford the other either.
leh ·
But it does deliver more... Can canon lens autofocus in a corner of the frame? Can it be stabilised like FE on A7II? There are some FE system mirrorless advantages that dslr's doesn't have.
Shark ·
what does that have to do with the lens?
how often do you focus on the outer 15% of the frame?
you sony fanboys are ridicolous... as if this is worth an additional 600-700 euro.
grab a dual pixel canon and you can focus on any 80% of the frame.
and you even have great autofocus when doing video.
S.Yu ·
"what does that have to do with the lens?"?
This has everything to do about the system, many Canikon fanboys tout their system when their body and/or lenses can't beat the Sony equivalent.
Master ·
System.. Lens.. now what exactly are you talking about?
The LENS is more worth because the BODY can focus into the corners. That makes sense to you.. really?
With that "unlogic" i could say Canon lenses should cost twice as much because they can be used on Sony bodys too.
leh ·
Your argument has no sense. Sigma or tamron should take 4 times more money because they produce lenses for some systems?
But for example in-body stabilisation is real advantage on FE system. You don't have it on ANY canon dslr body so GM lens has a solid advantage over canon set.
S.Yu ·
Well following the same logic I could still say you're wrong. The Canon needs an extra adaptor to work at all on a Sony, also for it to work on a Sony you first need a Sony, for it to work on a Canon , you need another Canon for that, so for you to make use of the fact that the Canon could be used in two systems, you need two bodies and an adaptor, which costs a lot, so if you need a lot of extra investments to achieve that extra function, the extra function would have significantly less potential value, or shall we say the cost greatly offsets the practical value.
For the Sony to achieve those functions, you only need that one Sony body, without an adaptor, and it happens to come with other advanced functions like a full electronic shutter and advanced video capabilities.
To further the argument, the Canon, even with the adaptor, is not 100% functional on the Sony, it just gets pretty close, so having the potential to be adapted does raise the value of a Canon lens a little, but far from 2x, also any adaptation basically means you're willing to make your gear more bulky though the adaptor, so there's that issue too.
S.Yu ·
And since Sony gave a lot of PR on their XA elements, we should have a comparison of onion rings between those two and the Sony.
Huge irony should the Sony lose though.
leh ·
When you lack arguments or doesn't understand you start with 'fanboy' stuff? Really? Is it canon-user level of discusion?:/
How many FF canon cameras have dual pixel technology? In sony all can AF anywhere in frame. When you can't use it you don't do it and accept that, but when you can - you do and it's a very nice feature which you lack when you don't have;)
Focus on 100% of the frame is only one of the advantages... You have
also 'eye AF' wchich focuses on the eye, all the time you see real image and
setups (like BW) with EVF, you can enlarge a part of the frame to
check/correct focus, you can backup pictures on your phone through WIFI
and using it as a remote LCD and pilot, you have a ton of aps, you have
tiltable screen in each body... it all (and much more) incrises
capabilities of a lens attached to the FE body.
Lens is only a part of the set. The second one is a camera and they work as a team. So when A7vII series have stabilisation it works with GM lens so the GM have more possibilities and advantage over a system that doesn't have that.
You can say 'oh well I don't need this, this, that and that' but they are still advantages.
Roger Cicala ·
Lee, I don't disagree but Sony lenses have been having a price premium; it seems to be something we'll have to live with for a while. On the other hand, if I remember correctly the Canon was $2,000 when it was first released.
speedy fisher ·
>On the other hand, if I remember correctly the Canon was $2,000 when it was first released.
As far as I can tell it was actually $2249 at launch.
Master ·
2249$... yes.
that´s what wikipedia and other websites say.
but canon had no competition back then.
the canon 24-70 MK2 was a zoom lens so good it had no equal.
today there is a lens as good as this new sony.. and it cost 700 euro less.
Lee ·
Yeah, I looked back and I was wrong the Nikon and Canon launched at least as high as the Sony. On the other hand, if you're trying to build market share in a well-locked duopoly...
Nikoniser ·
The elephant in the room is that once you put a speedlight and pro 2.8 lens on a Sony, its an ergonomic nightmare, it doesn’t balance and the grip is too small. This is not really news, we knew Sony would bring in decent quality lenses with Zeiss at a price premium, and they have done so.
Matt ·
These aren’t Zeiss.
Shark ·
handling is a nightmare with sony anyway.
i have a a6000 and i only use it with the kit pancake.
everything else makes no sense.
Wesley ·
One would put on a battery grip as well in this instance.
Nikoniser ·
The elephant in the room is that once you put a speedlight and pro 2.8 lens on a Sony, its an ergonomic nightmare, it doesn't balance and the grip is too small. This is not really news, we knew Sony would bring in decent quality lenses with Zeiss at a price premium, and they have done so.
Matt ·
These aren't Zeiss.
Shark ·
handling is a nightmare with sony anyway.
i have a a6000 and i only use it with the kit pancake.
everything else makes no sense.
Wesley ·
One would put on a battery grip as well in this instance.
Shark ·
price? LOL
street price 1699 euro for the canon….. 2399 for the sony.
S.Yu ·
“When the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II came out a couple of years ago…”
This explains a lot. Wait at least as many years then compare the price of the Sony then to the Canon now, and correct for inflation.
Master ·
Yeah.. i wait even longer.
And who cares?
It´s what it will cost you now.
S.Yu ·
You don’t have to care, but he’s putting it like Sony should make its new lens immediately as cheap as Canon’s years old product, or else its optical achievements should be ignored.
Master ·
there are no optical achivements over canons lens.
not even close to worth 700 euro more.
Nolivfr ·
Well, see you in 4 years 😉
S.Yu ·
It’s a little better, a minor difference is still a difference, and bokeh is not yet compared. Say what you will but the Sony’s price, unlike the Canon, has plenty of room to fall and it will be even more attractive to buyers. If Canon doesn’t speed up its body improvements, this lens and fast improving Sony bodies will attract more and more converters.
Nolivfr ·
The Canon was 2700 euros when released.
Master ·
no it was not that expensive.
$2249 at launch… in europe ~2249 euro
Nolivfr ·
“Question tarif, il a été annoncé autour des 2700 euros”
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1481/objectif-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2_8-II-usm-presentation-caracteristiques-1.html
“Prix public conseillé : 2699€ TTC”
http://www.fnac.com/Canon-sort-3-nouveaux-objectifs-dont-le-EF-24-70mm-f-2-8L-II-USM/cp14989/w-4
Yes it was (announced at $2300/£2200/€2700).
Master ·
no it was not that expensive.
$2249 at launch... in europe ~2249-2299 euro.
"Die unverbindliche Preisempfehlung liegt bei 2299,- EURO inkl. MWSt., Erstauslieferung im April 2012." - germany
.
Nolivfr ·
"Question tarif, il a été annoncé autour des 2700 euros"
http://www.focus-numerique....
"Prix public conseillé : 2699€ TTC"
http://www.fnac.com/Canon-s...
Yes it was (announced at $2300/£2200/€2700).
Master ·
when canon released the 24-70mm Mk2 it has cost 2249$.
but canon had no competition back then.
the canon 24-70 MK2 was a zoom lens so good it had no equal.
today there is a lens (said canon 24-70 MK2) that is as good as this new sony.. and it cost 700 euro less.
Shark ·
price? LOL
street price 1699 euro for the canon..... 2399 for the sony.
S.Yu ·
"When the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II came out a couple of years ago..."
This explains a lot. Wait at least as many years then compare the price of the Sony then to the Canon now, and correct for inflation.
Master ·
Yeah.. i wait even longer.
And who cares?
It´s what it will cost you now.
S.Yu ·
You don't have to care, but he's putting it like Sony should make its new lens immediately as cheap as Canon's years old product, or else its optical achievements should be ignored.
Master ·
there are no optical achivements over canons "old" lens.
not even close to worth 700 euro more.
"Fanboys can split hairs about which lens is best if they need to, but really all three of these are excellent lenses with only minor differences between them."
except for the PRICE difference.
Nolivfr ·
Well, see you in 4 years ;)
S.Yu ·
It's a little better, a minor difference is still a difference, and bokeh is not yet compared. Say what you will but the Sony's price, unlike the Canon, has plenty of room to fall and it will be even more attractive to buyers. If Canon doesn't speed up its body improvements, this lens and fast improving Sony bodies will attract more and more converters.
Master ·
when canon released the 24-70mm Mk2 it has cost 2249$.
but canon had no competition back then.
the canon 24-70 MK2 was a zoom lens so good it had no equal.
today there is a lens (said canon 24-70 MK2) that is as good as this new sony.. and it cost 700 euro less.
Shark ·
roger can you secretly send some lenses to sony for repair and write about your experience?
the sony supports is terrible here in europe.
i don´t pay 2400 euro for a lens and have support that needs forever.
i have some sony HIFI stuff i did not get repaired after 4 years.
im a burned customer when it comes to sony.
Roger Cicala ·
Shark, it’s no secret 🙂
Sony doesn’t do any in-house repair here, they subcontract it out and the support isn’t OK at all. I’m sure they’ll fix it someday, but that’s going to require building an infrastructure they just don’t have yet.
Master ·
NO. 1 reason i don´t buy Sony camera gear.
I don´t spend a few thousand Euro on stuff i get not repaired properly.
Canon does a fantastic job and has so for 15+ years.
Master ·
and to add this…. there a actually some sony acolytes (always the same) who say sonys support is even better than canons.
i mean obviously everyone with a clue knows that´s not true.
Shark ·
roger can you secretly send some lenses to sony for repair and write about your experience?
the sony supports is terrible here in europe.
i don´t pay 2400 euro for a lens and have support that needs forever.
i have some sony HIFI stuff i did not get repaired after 4 years.
im a burned customer when it comes to sony.
Roger Cicala ·
Shark, it's no secret :-)
Sony doesn't do any in-house repair here, they subcontract it out and the support isn't OK at all. I'm sure they'll fix it someday, but that's going to require building an infrastructure they just don't have yet.
Master ·
NO. 1 reason i don´t buy Sony camera gear.
I don´t spend a few thousand Euro on stuff i get not repaired properly.
Canon does a fantastic job and has so for 15+ years.
My gear sees some heavy abuse. No way i trust Sony to be a reliable partner.
Master ·
and to add this.... there a actually some sony acolytes (always the same) who say sonys support is even better than canons.
i mean obviously everyone with a clue knows that´s not true.
Master ·
how does the sony bEnd mount deal with heavy lenses?
Ilan ·
That’s so clever.
Ilan ·
That's so clever.
EcoR1 ·
It’s so funny. When some people are told that there are very good lenses out there, released by brand they don’t support, they start listing reasons why it would be bad to own those lenses. Price/customer support/ ergonomics of the bodies, you name it. I guess it feels pretty bad, when you hear that there might be some lenses that could be optically as good or better as the ones that you already own. Because you made the correct brand choose when you bought your first system camera. Right?
speedy fisher ·
It’s really sad to see such a high quality blog with such high quality content marred by such negative boorish trolling. I certainly wouldn’t complain if there were a few obvious bans.
speedy fisher ·
It's really sad to see such a high quality blog with such high quality content marred by such negative boorish trolling. I certainly wouldn't complain if there were a few obvious bans.
JJ Backer ·
Roger I just received my 24-70GM today. When mounted on my A7RII I noticed that the ‘rubber’ seal on the lens mounting flange does not make a complete seal against the camera body flange. There are 3 very distinct areas where i can see a sliver of light between the lens gasket / seal and the body. These slivers of light reach well to the inside of where the gasket is. Is there any way you might be able to check a few combos of your 24-70 GM / A7RII to see if this shows up? It appears that the ‘seal’ on the lens side is either pushed to far into the lens to make a proper seal or that the face of the seal is not uniformly parallel to the e-mount flange. You guys are the only ones I know of who have multiple copies of the 24-70GM… FWIW the largest ‘gap’ I see with the lens mounted is on the top center of the flange in landscape orientation. Of course that is the worst possible area to possibly have water intrusion. Any input you have would be appreciated.
PS: I did a simple light leak test with 30sec. exp. and saw no issue with leakage…
Roger Cicala ·
JJ, we didn’t notice anything like that – in fact the lenses all seemed to seal very well – you could feel the rubber resistance when mounting. But I couldn’t tell you if yours is the lens or the camera side of the mount.
JJ Backer ·
Roger, thanks for the quick reply. After further inspection this morning with a 10x loupe I confirmed that the lens ‘gasket’ appears to be the culprit. Basically it looks like the gasket is defective or possibly misaligned during assembly. It is not a uniform thickness, on one side it is thinner to the point where the rubber is actually below the metal flange of the lens for approx 120° of the diameter. It’s only a few thousandths below the flange but it’s enough to clearly see light through the ‘gap’ which means there is not a full moisture seal. The lens / body flanges appear to be mating correctly. I’ve emailed and called Sony pro support who of course is not open on staurday 🙁
JJ Backer ·
Roger I just received my 24-70GM today. When mounted on my A7RII I noticed that the 'rubber' seal on the lens mounting flange does not make a complete seal against the camera body flange. There are 3 very distinct areas where i can see a sliver of light between the lens gasket / seal and the body. These slivers of light reach well to the inside of where the gasket is. Is there any way you might be able to check a few combos of your 24-70 GM / A7RII to see if this shows up? It appears that the 'seal' on the lens side is either pushed to far into the lens to make a proper seal or that the face of the seal is not uniformly parallel to the e-mount flange. You guys are the only ones I know of who have multiple copies of the 24-70GM... FWIW the largest 'gap' I see with the lens mounted is on the top center of the flange in landscape orientation. Of course that is the worst possible area to possibly have water intrusion. Any input you have would be appreciated.
PS: I did a simple light leak test with 30sec. exp. and saw no issue with leakage...
Roger Cicala ·
JJ, we didn't notice anything like that - in fact the lenses all seemed to seal very well - you could feel the rubber resistance when mounting. But I couldn't tell you if yours is the lens or the camera side of the mount.
JJ Backer ·
Roger, thanks for the quick reply. After further inspection this morning with a 10x loupe I confirmed that the lens 'gasket' appears to be the culprit. Basically it looks like the gasket is defective or possibly misaligned during assembly. It is not a uniform thickness, on one side it is thinner to the point where the rubber is actually below the metal flange of the lens for approx 120° of the diameter. It's only a few thousandths below the flange but it's enough to clearly see light through the 'gap' which means there is not a full moisture seal. The lens / body flanges appear to be mating correctly. I've emailed and called Sony pro support who of course is not open on staurday :-(
Shaun O'Boyle ·
The original FE 24-70 f/4 is a workable lens, not spectacular, but not a dog either. I wonder if you can post the MTF for the FE and new G lens next to each other for comparison, to see what the extra $1100 buys.
Roger Cicala ·
Shaun, I would if we could get MTFs on the f/4. We’ve tried. Lord knows we’ve tried. But it’s the only lens we’ve ever tested that distortion varies. Which means each copy has to be done by hand. We just haven’t found that kind of time.
Brandon Dube ·
Meh I’ll do it when I go down to train the intern. Trial by fire, as they say.
If I can do the superteles I can do this thing 🙂
Roger Cicala ·
Deal!!!!! 🙂
Shaun O'Boyle ·
Wanted to check in to see if Brandon ever did the tests on the 24-70 f/4 to compare with the G. Am considering the G but it is a very pricey lens so am interested if it will replace 3-4 primes or better my f/4 by a significant margin. Owner reviews on forums indicate a lot of per copy variation, but when you get a good one it is worth the entry price.
Roger Cicala ·
Shaun, I would if we could get MTFs on the f/4. We've tried. Lord knows we've tried. But it's the only lens we've ever tested that distortion varies. Which means each copy has to be done by hand. We just haven't found that kind of time.
Brandon Dube ·
Meh I'll do it when I go down to train the intern. Trial by fire, as they say.
If I can do the superteles I can do this thing :)
Roger Cicala ·
Deal!!!!! :-)
xxx ·
Not really impressive for 2200 dollars lens. I really hope as soon as possible lens from tamron/sigma/tokina at half and less prices.
?ukasz Moszczy?ski ·
Roger, why you didn’t test this lens at 50 mm, as you do with other lenses 24-70?
Łukasz Moszczyński ·
Roger, why you didn't test this lens at 50 mm, as you do with other lenses 24-70?
Benjamin S. Kim ·
Sony Gm 24-70 has less sharpness compare to Canon 24-70 ii. I have no idea why people kept speaking that Sony GM 24-70 has the greatest sharpness while the real life test showed that the edge sharpness is soft.
Benjamin S. Kim ·
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c94acb4fe323588a028324c79977ddb4c507539a044465712fa73fc47a2d308e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7cf9996e5f029395f7d40f4e43215634947c0e6a7d69a7154ecd6a3a046a8ca.png
Even Dxo put lower score on Sony 24-70mm F2.8 than Canon 24-70mm F2.8 ii. Photozone also indicate that it has poor sharpness at edges. I really doubt about this testing for Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM since other GM lenses have the greatest sharpness.
Alpha Omega. ·
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51a55d12f421990bbb986b68d0daef9d064951b9eb3b44b6042c474c1dbaf53a.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5fe5c9f00c0177b33e26d18752aafb1fa299f19d0ea24369428576c2a4f12e62.png
These are for 16-35mm F2.8 GM. You can see the sharpness compare to 24-70 GM.
Björn Wunderlich ·
What lens is the first one? Is it the Sony or Canon? Thanks.
Björn Wunderlich ·
Mich interessieren diese ganzen Testcharts nicht mehr! Leider wird so viel gelogen!
Moszczyński - Pięknografia ·
@roger_cicala, Some time ago I noticed a mistake in your Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art test. After my comments, you corrected it and wrote: "We’ll make mistakes. The ultimate mistake is mine – I was more enthusiastic about something else I was doing and didn’t supervise this as closely as I should have. My thanks to those who made comments and pointed out the error". Unfortunately, I am forced (wanting to be in truth with myself) that the MTFs for the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM are significantly overstated. I've tested many copies of this lens with the several copies of Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II (in different test scenario) and Canon has always been sharper. If you care about the true, please check again at least the behavior of 3 copies at 70 mm f/2.8 and compare it with Canon, and you'll see that I'm right.
If you don't trust me, look at the reviews of these lenses at the-digital-picture.com (by your friend Bryan Carnathan), opticallimits.com, dxomark.com, or the Tony & Chelsea Northrup channel (https://www.youtube.com/wat... in the end). I could not find even one comparison of those lenses in which someone would say that Sony is sharper - it's a good proof of my opinion. I hope you will find the heart and desire to check it.
Roger Cicala ·
I'm always willing to recheck, but we've rechecked once before. Still I'll rerun a few more copies and see if there's a difference. I suspect in this case it's the difference between testing at infinity and not testing at infinity.
Moszczyński - Pięknografia ·
I thought about it too, but I'm not convinced that the difference will be so significant. And if it turns out that you're right, I think it's a great driver to write article about this, how great lens at infinity may not be so great or even weak at a generally more popular distance of a few meters. So far I have not had the opportunity to compare MTF charts of one lens at two distances.
I also noticed that Canon is significantly "sharper" than Sony at 24 mm f/2.8 in the center. In the case of the center, there are no big differences in the MTF depending on the copy (variance), so it's not a matter of a bad copy. But "yes"... I only checked it at a distance of about 4 meters (still not at minimum focus distance, where differences could be more significant).
Roger Cicala ·
I’m always willing to recheck, but we’ve rechecked once before. Still I’ll rerun a few more copies and see if there’s a difference. I suspect in this case it’s the difference between testing at infinity and not testing at infinity.
Moszczy?ski - Pi?knografia ·
I thought about it too, but I’m not convinced that the difference will be so significant. And if it turns out that you’re right, I think it’s a great driver to write article about this, how great lens at infinity may not be so great or even weak at a generally more popular distance of a few meters. So far I have not had the opportunity to compare MTF charts of one lens at two distances.
I also noticed that Canon is significantly “sharper” than Sony at 24 mm f/2.8 in the center. In the case of the center, there are no big differences in the MTF depending on the copy (variance), so it’s not a matter of a bad copy. But “yes”… I only checked it at a distance of about 4 meters (still not at minimum focus distance, where differences could be more significant).