Pixel Peeping the Sony 12-24 f/2.8 - I found reasons why you should skip this lens

[@firpofutbol]

I have the Sigma. Great value on a top quality lens.

[@Xetenor]

It's true this lens is not for MANY people, expect for UWA addicts like me who demand the best. I got the 12-24 2.8 GM even though I have the 16-35 2.8 GM as well which I really love too. The 16-35 GM was the lens that made me want to switch to Sony actually with being able to use filters. Over the years I ended up not really relying on filters much at all and bracket my shots. Only time I use a filter mainly is a polarizer and even then I don't use it much. The biggest benefit I gathered from the 12-24 GM is the mind blowing flare performance which really no lens I've so far has come close to this and the super sharp mid to corner sharpness. It's truly amazing and shooting at 12mm is even more fun than 14mm since I've used it for year and know how to compose at that focal length. The one downside so far I've noticed with the community at fred miranda forum is the sample variation with this lens and it's sad that it exists today. I had to go through at least 1 copy to get a good one. The copy you tested probably was not very optimal and possibly de-centered. Super happy with the 12-24 GM and I am keeping my 16-35 GM as well for those waterfall shots where I need a polarizer. I never realized just how much wider 12mm was to 16mm until I saw it with my own eyes. There were times I wish I was wider than 16mm but the prime options for sony isn't great (most are slow and have terrible flare performance which is important to me), so this 12-24 GM was a dream lens to own to me. Again IMO, this lens is incredible to those who will truly appreciate it who can afford it. Everyone else can go buy whatever they want that suits them. We are spoiled for choices. I am curious to see what roger at lensrental will find out as well when he gets his copies. Can't go wrong with the 12-24 GM, 16-35 GM or Sigma 14-24. Right now the 12-24 GM is my favorite lens I possibly ever owned. Not a fan of the cheap built tamron zooms but that's me. I didn't want to shoot with another 14-24 2.8 (and the sigma 14-24 had some pretty bad sample variation too and various AF issues that made me worried about buying it). You should come by the fred miranda forums. We talk a lot about these things and are a picky bunch :) Even today's world we still are plagued with lens variation. Even my sigma 35 1.2 when I bought it brand new I had to exchange for a better copy since it had AF noise issues. At the end of the day it is up to each of you out there to decide what works better for you. I am super happy I went with the 12-24 GM even though I had to go through 2 copies to get a really good one.

[@stevearita3267]

Enjoyed reading your thread! I just purchased the 12-24 F2.8 as well, and I have to agree pretty much with everything you said. I love the flare performance of this lens, and while I didn't have a similar wide angle lens to compare it against (such as the Sigma 14-24), I did do a comparison at 24 mm with my 24 F1.4 GM lens, and I found at that focal length almost identical sharpness, only when I blew it up to nearly 180%, did the sharpness difference really show and then again it wasn't really significant if you know what I mean. I'm really having a lot of fun with this lens, to the point where it just stays pretty much on my A7R4. At first I was a bit apprehensive that I wasn't going to be able to use filters (except for the gel ones), but I too bracket shots and so rarely have found the need, unlessI want to get waterfall shots where the water is silky blurred, but I do have my old 16-35 Zeiss FE, F4 lens still, so carry that around especially if I think I will want to put a ND filter on, but other then that, really haven't missed the ability to use filters. The only thing I had to adjust to was the size of the lens, but I now for the most part only carry the 12-24 and my 24-105. I'm not sure how the lens he was testing was not sharper then the Sigma, my lens is really sharp, on par with my 24 mm 1.4 prime! I did have to sell a few of my other cameras to fund the lens, but glad I did.

[@Xetenor]

@@stevearita3267 That's what I was thinking too. He prob got a not so great copy. Us at fred miranda forums have had bad luck with copies as well but the sigma 14-24 2.8 is worse. I am thinking of that 12-24 and 24-105 combo a lot since I also have the 100-400 GM. Would make a nice combo. I got some nice 82mm filters ready to go with the sigma 24-70 2.8 DN but after seeing how not so weather sealed the lens is and how easy dust gathers inside I am kinda thrown off now so not sure. Also the sigma 24-70 2.8 DN flare performance isn't great either. I guess I could get 77 to 82mm step up ring but just more stuff to carry and put on. Why is it so hard for someone to make a 24-70 that has good flare performance....darn it lol. I do have a voigtlander 50mm F/2 APO which is mind blowing good so I just carry that to fill in that 24-70 gap. The sigma 35 1.2 that i own too, that I normally do not use for landscapes since it too has bad lens flare. How's the flare on that 24-105?

[@davidligon6088]

I think the 16-35 is a more versatile focal length, particularly on the long end. I agonized for a long time and, in the end, bought the Sony 16-35 over the Sigma for that reason. I find myself not swapping lenses as often with that range. I’ve rented the 14mm f1.8 for astro (and some rare landscape photos). For me, the 14mm focal length is a “nice to have,” more of a specialty lens and separating it from the zoom range for the f/1.8 makes it a perfect lens for astro.

[@josephjohn3560]

What about sacrificing 1stop and getting the Sony 12-24 f4G?

[@phucmapvlog]

Sigma sharper and much cheaper....hard to argue with that

[@barbaraolk749]

Before this lens came out, I debated between the Tamron 17-28 (which I ultimately went with before of its weight and ability to use available filters) and the Sigma 14-24 which I tried out and loved but the difficulty with filters decided me. If through using the Tamron I find it consistently not wide enough, I would go with the Sigma, especially now that the glass filters are available. The Sony is just too expensive for what it does when compared with the alternatives. Thanks for the review.

[@photorectoby]

You are very welcome Barbara. Thanks for watching. I do think the Tamron is a great lens for the money and ease of use.

[@PhotoTrekr]

When this lens was first released, I thought interesting but I'll never buy it because of the price. But, I bought a couple primes to try over the summer then sold them because I mainly shoot landscapes and prefer zooms. But, the 12-24mm GM was always in the back of my mind. So, I decided to use the money from the primes and another lens that I was going to sell anyway, to buy the 12-24mm GM. And I'm glad I did. It's an excellent lens in a unique focal range. I know, there's the f4 which I tested when it was released and if the sun is anywhere near the front element you'll get horrible flare. And the Sigma 14-24mm which is supposed to be excellent and which I seriously considered buying, but ruled out because I already have the 16-35mm GM. So, the 12-24mm GM turned out to be the best complement to my current lenses even if it is horrendously expensive.

[@timwhite1111]

Interesting results there! The Sony 12-24 GM is meant to be sharper centre frame than the Sigma 14-24 DG DN. Corners are pretty close at the wide end, but Sony is better towards the 24mm end according to most tests. Less vignette throughout the range too, and far less distortion than the Sigma. Perhaps you had a slightly soft copy or some other issue :-(. At 24mm my 12-24 GM is noticeably sharper than the 24mm GM in the centre, and not far off in the corners (I have all 3). Incredible lens.

[@mimoreque1805]

Thanks a bunch fo taking the time to share.

[@echoauxgen]

Great Review but now 2021, Have had the E 1018 f/4 @ 12mm FF mode (2015),1635 f/4 (2015) and 1224 f/4 (2017), Voigtlander 12mm (2015) and 10mm (2016). First a Sony sensor makes an f/4 a f/2.8, for day shots you will be at the sharpest setting that is 2 stops above wide open, for night and night stop action wide open. At 12mm you can stand 20 yards away from a full grown Pecan tree in landscape view and see over it and it portrait 10 yard or less so keep subjects close with great backgrounds. All of the above are sharp in the corners with pinpoint stars and no coma or pincushion distortion when doing astro Milky Way (the worst Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and heaviest Sigma 14mm f/1.8 [use at 2.8 even]). You will be super happy with any f/4!!! But this year I have used the 1224 f/2.8 GM with the A7S and A7Siii (because no more new A7sii) for astro MW. First wide open in daytime you get bokeh but at night sharp stars and daylight night (two different things, it just is). Why 12mm at night the f/4 and f/2.8 no distortion in either L or P view. In P view panos of MW can be done for 4 hours with only one level getting that rainbow MW shot in the early season and PS, Lr and ON1 Photo RAW will stitch almost perfect PTGui the best with least points. And when August and vertical a landscape view vertical pano of two to three levels looks like a rocket to heaven again no distortion and stitching works great. The difference of the 2.8 from 4 none both clarity and sharpness wide open, landscape with galactic center on the right and almost the left horizon to the left a in camera jpeg image will be a wall hanger as big as you want, you get the magenta and baby blue sides (yin and yang) of the Dark Horse Nebula (above the Galactic Center) and every detail of the MW path to the left horizon with sharp stars at top/sides/corners using natural AWB or 3900 (not daylight or 3200). For sunrise/sets a 12mm gets the curve of the horizon (ever so slight/do not correct) were a pano gets it all flat, bracket 5 @ +/- 2ev to get clear/sharp with a small sun w/star not a big blown out with clear dark sides of things. Having 12 to 24 saves steps for 24 is still wide. The 12mm f/4 at the Grand Canyon @ f/8 or f/11 is super sharp near and far. I used in Antelope Canyon day and night and no one got that wide ever, shot straight up on the ground had to use an IR remote from behind rocks. Also did bracketed shots without sticks during day when everyone used sticks and one shot long exposure. Due to the dark areas and the sky above you need to do bracketed. I used the Voigtlander 10mm hand held at Horseshoe bend without having to do a pano on the edge (scary). Look getting a 3:2 ratio shot that looks like a pano and sharp/clear like a 100mm pano in one shot but with a great foreground subject is like a miracle. A f/4 lower price but great since 2017 (just 3 years ago), a f/2.8 also greatest even on an old (2014) 12MP A7s (the brightest of any at night) and Gigapixel AI you can have a 300+MP image. USE NPF rule for Camera and MM settings for astro to get those sharp stars, bigger pixels longer SS means more light and lower ISO's. ALSO Haida has the Clear Night filter also works in daytime for baby blue sky! Also for anything any day the 1224 and 24240 (360 APS-C) in one small bag you can do MW at night, sunrise then some Birds on the way home a threefur morning.

[@damianbereza6901]

how about 12-24 f4? Please compare it for interior photography:)

[@photorectoby]

Well you don't need f/2.8 indoors so that f/4 is a great lens.

[@Rollergold4]

Kinda expanding on the last reason to get the Sony is if you have Sony Pro Support they can service the Sony lens if something goes wrong but not 3rd party lenses but that applies to many of the OEM's

[@aloena.schaefer]

Amazing scenery!

[@shotsbyalex260]

Whenever I shoot 24mm I always like it better on my Canon 16-35 vs my Canon 24-70. I don't know why. But I got a 35mm and I hated it. 24mn seems to be the narrowest I got in landscape. I miss my Rokinon 14mm though.

[@RyanJosephDaley]

Usually a zoom lens will not have its best performance at its widest or longest focal length. Often times the best results will somewhere in the middle of the zoom range. Prime lenses, ( lenses that don’t zoom) will have become he best performance.

[@unkle037]

Great video! What wide angle lens for Sony full frame would you recommend to do indoor real estate photography?

[@digitalclips]

Try the Sigma 14-24mm first, 14mm is wide enough for real estate IMHO and a faction of the cost.

[@cwarren4396]

I much prefer the Sigma. Cost less and is sharper and has better color. JMHO...

[@neerajnegi5987]

What about Tamron 17-28mm with samyang 14mm 2.8...?

[@promedianz]

I actually dont think you got the best version of the Sony lens. I had a Sigma 14-24mm DG DN. It was the sharpest version of that lens that I could find amongst 6 or so samples that I tried (I work in the industry). The first version of the Sony I tried was bang on and actually beat the Sigma at 14mm and every other focal length actually. 14mm is where the Sigma is optimized and the Sony is more optimized for the longer end. Pretty amazing really. I think you try another sample...

[@6gwilliams]

I am happy with the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 for my A7RIV, A9 and A7SIII. This 12-24mm GM is just too expensive to justify. Sony is due out with a new 16mm and maybe a new 12mm primes. I will wait for that. Cheers

[@photorectoby]

🌠 Build a beautiful website! SAVE 10% off your first purchase, go to www.squarespace.com/photorectv And remember - shopping my B&H Photo or Amazon links to support my channel. Thank you! amzn.to/3mTlK0k bhpho.to/2kao2d9 What lens focal length is the best wide angle 12-24 or 16-35?

[@AR-vf7vg]

Instead of the GM 12-13.9mm range I'd prefer spending the same money for a (hypothetical) fixed focal DN Art 11mm f2.8 - that woul probably be superior, and still cost the same including the DN Art 14-24. (I do have the 12mm "Zero Distortion" from Laowa for special and even more rare occasions now.. - and an amazing Samyang f2.8 12mm STERESCOPIC fullframe-fishey I use far more often. Such an unlikly stereoscopic version replica as DN ART or a dedicated fixed distortion-free DN 11mm could win me over -perhaps. That would still be together the same price as the one all in one less specialized 12-24. But its 12 to 13 range here are not worth the 1600 bux to me, considering the above thoughts. For me my 14-24 DN Art is a miracle. (Easily bettered and replaced my GM 16-35mm and without loosing money. And it "forces" me to always carry the f1.2 Art 35 witch is rewarding -despite admittedly flare-prone. I use it all the time, I couldn't say that for 12-13mm. So selling the 16-35 was a total win for me if that can inspire someone with the same priorities.)

[@vj-nikkolax8008]

What's better canon 77D or Lumix G80?!!!

[@DiviPhotos]

cool video

[@warpspeed9877]

Sony funboys will flap their wallets. The rest will buy Sigma and never look back. With the price difference you can buy the SUPERB Sigma 24-70/2.8 to go with your 14-24/2.8 or have half the money against the also SUPERB 120-300/2.8 sports lens.

[@FitzMichael]

the reason to buy the sigma and save money

[@AR-vf7vg]

..for instance for a dedicated 35mm DN ART f1.2 or DN f2 35 (or GM f1.4 if You prefer the crisper open end for Your subjects) ;-)

[@robertbarel896]

12 is nowhere near 16, 12 is double wide than 16

[@ahmonon4352]

I really miss your reviews, you used to do lot more reviews in past. I'm not saying you're biased, but I've seen opposite results from other reviewers. Recently Marc Alhadeff from Sonyalphablog found this GM lens to be sharper than any other ultra wide zooms. But to be realistic these tiny difference doesn't matter in real life photography, what matters is the value for money. Actually I'm looking for a better 16-35 f/4 for Sony system

[@photorectoby]

As I mentioned near the end of the review - testing just one copy is always an issue for KZbinrs - maybe my copy was not as sharp but I have read some other reviews that found the same. And I appreciate the kind words - I do lots more than just reviews these days including running a community of photographers that get new content every week. Check it out at photorec.tv/pen

[@jaapvansplunter2517]

a beter 16-35 f/4 for Sony. Used the Zeiss/Sony one? I used it for years now and very satisfied.

[@AR-vf7vg]

16-35 f2.8 - but I sold it 1) for the better performance and wider end of the DN 14-24mm, an 2) for a dedicated 35mm with best adapted character to my needs - as I use 35mm a lot -especially if of optimum quality. ( I chose the DN Art f1.2 35mm befor the GM existed. Am glad that it continues (and despite flaring-prone) to be better for my needs for portraits and its mood. Otherwise i'd probably go for the DN version f2. Perhaps You need f 1.4 (GM) and it's crispness there.