ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Sony FE 12-24mm f2.8 GM review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2024
- I test the Sony FE 12-24mm f2.8 GM, the widest f2.8 zoom!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/2Z4YRgg // WEX: tidd.ly/c86f4d2a
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/camerala...
I test the Sony FE 12-24mm f2.8 GM, the widest f2.8 zoom!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/2Z4YRgg // WEX: tidd.ly/c86f4d2a
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
High quality video like always Gordon !
Thanks!
Bought this lens recently, really looking forward to shooting with it.
Absolutely agree about the need for more ultra-wide primes. The A7R range in particular would be well-served and photographers specialising in landscapes and interiors would benefit.
Hi Gordon, when comparing the lens in video mode at f/2.8 and then stopping down to f/4 were you on fixed or AUTO ISO?
Always keep the camera rolling, especially when Gordon isn’t concentrating on the incoming waves!
Thanks for filming Ben!
Thanks for the great review. I am planning to buy wide angle lens for my a73, which one should I buy sony 16-35 GM, Tamron 17-28, or this sony 12-24 GM? Please suggest.
Thanks Gordon, I enjoyed your review, the lens appears to be great, although I still have to learn to use ultrawide effectively....but for many professionals like real estate photographers this is a dream lens...
almost as expensive as a house. certainly a secondhand car. or a new motorbike. :/
great looking lens and great review!
nice to see steven seagull back :)
would be nice to see some f2 zooms a la canon - or maybe a 135/2.8 prime along with a 14/2.8 prime
Best video on this lens!!
the image of the lady @5:20 is a perfect example of why one needs to be careful with ultrawide lenses....nice review Sir
High quality lense from a high quality reviewer ! Thanks
Thankyou!
Gordon, Thanks for the review. Were you walking through the forest in darkness? I ask because your pupils appear dilated and remain that way when looking at the light source. There's also a headlamp under your sweater. Was this footage created using an unreleased camera (with a new sensor) or software?
Great review :D
For daytime shooting, I love my 12-24G. That said, something like the 20mm 1.8G but maybe a bit wider at 16 or 14mm would be amazing and a definite buy for me.
I agree!
I love ultra wide lenses. I have bought the full frame manual e-mount Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 but it isn't really sharp even at f/8. The Sony 12-24mm is much brighter, looks much sharper and the 24mm is very convenient. Of course the difference between 10mm and 12mm seems insignificant but in reality is huge.
I don't care about autofocus because manual focusing with ultra wide lenses is very easy and with f/8 you don't really need to focus at all. The depth of field is inherently very deep even at f/2.8.
The Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 seems very expensive but It is reasonably priced for what it offers. The construction of bright ultra wide lenses is very challenging for lenses manufacturers. With such angle of view the chromatic aberration, and distortion are serious problems.
I will save money for it.
Thanks mate.
Big Kudos for having mentioned the DN 14-24mm, witch many simply pretend to ignore the existence off !
(However I would have liked to see/know where and by whom they are observed, the 24mm differences You say. Not only hear. For that price difference it makes sens - but I still really wonder.)
nice video...can you do a review of the sony 20 mm f1.8 lens and compare it with 12-24 at 20 mm.. interested in your vlog test specially...
Nice to see Bodiam Castle. I went to school at the manor house.
Tanks Gordon!
You're welcome!
*i noticed this lens on the 12mm looks so much sharper than sigma when shooting in video. I checked out alot of video sample of sigma and it just doesnt look sharp. sony it is.*
ok
@@godsinbox ok
Gordon has the best voice
What a lovely lens!!
Is it front heavy with the smaller Sony camera body?
Keep up the good work!
It's fine with the A7 and A9 series, but perhaps a bit big on cropped bodies.
@@cameralabs to be honest I wouldn't use that lens on a crop body as there is good crop frame alternatives that deliver good quality results, maybe not as great as that sony lens but still good, smaller lens size and less expensive!
Gordon, I'm looking at GM zooms for the first time. 24-70 ii and 70-200 ii are in the cart. Would you say going 12-24 i would be a better bet for complimenting those two? I'm just concerned about paying mucho dollars for a lot of focal length overlap between the 16-35 ii and the 24-70 ii.
Help make me poor.
The 16-35 is more of a general purpose range, from mild to ultra. You could leave it on for many day to day situations, whereas the 12-24 is wide to really wide, so is more if a specialist. If you intend to always have your 24-70 on you, then get the 12-24, but if you think you may sometimes only use one, get the 16-35. Ps if you're ordering from any of the stores I have a partnership with, please consider going through my links, thanks!
@@cameralabsThanks for the input. I did end up just doing the GM II 16-35. I think you were right about it being more of a general purpose lens for carrying less.
I did end up going local retail for the GM ii trio, and I love them all.
Gordon, nice video, but I still haven’t gotten my question fully answered: If I currently have a 16-35 GM, should I sell it, or just the 12-24mm f/2.8?
It's all about the range - which do you prefer? Both are optically excellent.
I own both now and am keeping both. Spoiler alert: the 12-24 GM is just AMAZING. I took both outdoors to shoot the northern california lakes areas and there were quiet a few times that I felt 16mm just was not wide enough. I think if you enjoy the more longer range to 35 the 16-35 GM is great especially due to filters but want to know the area the 12-24 GM beats the 16-35 GM the most at? Flare. That is my biggest gripe with the 16-35 GM at times and it really can hinder contrast in landscape images. The 12-24 GM blew me away in that regard and it's mind blowing resolution midfield to corners which are important to me. Both are excellent lenses but the 12-24 2.8 has been my dream lens for years and I totally fell in love with it. It probably will make me use the 16-35 GM less because it's just so darn good and better at the important aspects I described. I would rent it out and play with both. I couldn't get enough of the 12-24 GM. I got really addicted to shooting at 12mm, it's SO FUN. Also if you use filters the 16-35 is easily more favored. I don't really use filters much besides polarizer so it doesn't matter that much. Besides the polarizer I use more with the 24-70 and 100-400 GM lenses anyway.
Sev that’s a great answer! Thank you so very much. I have the filters for the 16-35 by Nisi. They’re very good although I must profess I haven’t used them often at all!! But I will stick with the 16-35. I will be honest and say I am looking the Canon R5, because I am so fed up with the menus and lack a an articulating touch screen that Sony will not address, I was thinking about picking up the new R5 with he 24-105mm 4.0 lens. Just to have and try for general walking around photography.
Looks like a really excellent lens. Takes me back to my days with Nikon's excellent 14-24mm f2.8 (from a decade ago), but I'm now a Sony convert with a broad range of Sony glass. I think I want this lens too, BUT.... it's one heck of a price. Hope $3k doesn't translate as £3k in UK? If so, then I won't be buying in UK on principle.
Despite my initial 'lust' for this latest and greatest, I suspect my needs might be better served by a really good, light, compact Sony 12 or 14mm f1.8 prime. This would nicely augment other wide primes or a 16-35mm zoom. I used to own a manual Laowa 12mm f2.8 but sold that - too big/heavy for travel, so consigned to just occasional architectural use, for which an adapted Nikon shift optic proved just as capable.
I'm lucky to already own/use Sony's 24mm f1.4 GM and I'm seriously considering their 20mm f1.8 G prime (for astro). I currently use and love other Sony primes too... 35, 55 and 85mm (for street and portraiture). I sold my Sony 28mm and can't quite justify their otherwise lovely 135mm. Yet for day to day and 'just in case' use I typically pack zooms - Sony's 16-35, 24-105 and/or 70-200 all G f4 as less bulk/mass than Sony's GM f2.8 trinity. I can typically travel with just 1-2 smaller zooms augmented by 1-2 small primes for lower light calls or when more bokeh is wanted.
On big (but impractical and/or difficult to use) I also own a lightly used Sony 200-600mm - only occasional use for dedicated sports or wildlife. Ditto a 90mm macro (uber sharp, but pretty specific use case). Lower heft and day to day utility, without seriously sacrificing high IQ, are now key considerations for me. If it's too big it typically stays home unless I have a specific assignment or special need. So, to go full circle in my thoughts, 12-24mm f 2.8 looks lovely and, whilst initially very tempting, the sane part of me thinks that it's probably going to remain circa £3k worth of specialist glass that won't ever get sufficient use to seriously justify buying. Like Sony's 600mm f4 it's lovely concept glass, but only for those with really special needs and/or deep pockets.
I sometimes think I would benefit from a photo caddy! On vacation, my good lady refuses to carry any of my kit on principle, feeling that her travel photo needs are already fully met via her smartphone or my efforts. I'm probably still humping too much kit - despite switching from a hefty Nikon DSLR (with too much heavy glass - reason I resisted Sony's GM trinity) to supposedly lighter Sony mirrorless. Objectively I can get 70%+ shots I want to make via an a7R4 and just a single OSS 24-105 f4 lens so why, irrationally, do I lust after the esoteric?
Suggested 1. For filters use Sony Playmemories app Digital Filter on Mark ii and below bodies (if someone could just ask Sony to put apps on the Mark iii and above frames) 2. Put a Lenscoat on the lens, For Astro people you are out at night and early season Feb. Mar. and Apr. in the cold will help keep the lens warmer. The lens is internal focus almost like the 200-600mm and my lens coat on it is so awesome for protection and extra weatherproofing, ever do a MW at 2 deg.F in snow need I say more!! Lenscoat currently does not make one for the f/2.8 or f/4 but will if enough ask!!
at 7:28 you have convinced me to buy this lens. every TH-camr has failed to prove the power of this lens with 12-15 minutes of a talking head and no example footage. your have, sir! well done!
Great video and review. I love the opening of your review. You show a close up view of the lens. But the lens is so expensive.$$$$🤦♂️🤦♀️
It's a gorgeous bit of glass on the front!
The Holy Trinity of 2.8 zooms - 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Most applications are covered.
that close call with the wave 1:33 gave me a heart attack so likely I won't get it. If I do, likely it would rarely see the field since it costs a lot and would literally fear damaging the front element. I have the 12-24 F4 G and I take it out and about often since I got it used for a steal.
I feel like the more I spend on a lens, the more cautious I end up being and the lens becomes unused :(
I know how you feel, but the more you spend on gear the more you SHOULD use it, in order to get value from it, but I agree, it can be nerve-wracking at times!
I am not sure what to think of this lens. It will make looking for appartments even more annoying because it can make a broom closet look like the presidential suite, but other than that?
Need an ultra-wide lens? Go for the F4 version at half the price. Most of the time you'll stop down to F8 or more anyways. Need a LOT of light in a wide lens? Sacrifice 2 mm, go for the Sigma 14 mm F1.8 and enjoy even more light. Want the aperture of F2.8, but did not win the lottery? Buy the Sigma 14-24 2.8. So between all these options, the advantages of this new lens are in need of an oddly specific use case. In my opinion, a very wide, very fast prime lens would have been a more valuable addition to the lineup, something like a 14 mm F1.4 (or even 12 1.4? One can dream...).
Thank you vey much for the great review, Gordon! I would love to hear your opinion on how much having 12 instead of 14 mm at the wide end really matters from a real-world perspective.
yea its the 14 for me too much money and for what?
If you want to get use to 12mm and have shallow pockets there are other choices 1. The f/4 $1,773 2. Sony E 1018 12mm FF f/4 $898 very small Screw on filters/IS/AF 3. Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical III Lens Leica M-Mount Lens requires adapter but has screw on filters all manual $649 4.Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical III Lens for Sony E no screw on filter all manual used $748 5. Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical Lens for Sony E all manual $999.00 (a great lens). Got all these over the past 5 years all 2 thru 5 are real small like old film lenses and great for playing at 12mm.
everything i wanted to know!
Thanks, I tried to be thorough!
Nice review. However I think you should have done the lens IQ review with the A7R4. Doing it with only 24mp doesn't really show how good the corners are or how it behaves with high mp sensor bodies which btw is really what this lens is likely to be paired with.
I agree, but Sony couldn't lend me an A7r IV to test it with.
@@cameralabs The vlogging test was good though. Shows the unique perspectives of the 12-24mm at 2.8 or more. Consider doing a follow up with the R4 body and focus on stills IQ.
Before Lockdown I purchased from Cameraworld . The Sigma 12-24mm f4 Canon EF fitting on my Sony Alpha A73 using the Sigma Lens converter. It is another lens worth looking into.
Your prayers have been answered from the future with a flippy screen on the A7siii 😂
When are you going to purchase the Sony ZV-1 camera so you can give a review ?
When I earn enough from this job!
Thanks for review! What camera did you use in this video?
I use a Sony A6400 and e 24 1.8 to film my videos.
Technically still a trinity! 12-24, 24-70, 70-200.
Yes, no overlap either...
Nice review! When you use it with video and shift the focus with the inbody lens correction turned on, do you see there's weird curvature magnify looks? Because this review show it, you can watch it at the 10:42 part, is it real and should I turn off the correction then?: m.th-cam.com/video/4FbYfkMDreU/w-d-xo.html
Also, is the 12-24mm still a good buy or Sony will update it soon because the same 6 years old 16-35 GM got updated few months ago?
I find it hard to understand people recommend faster lens but when they actually use it they stop down, then what's the benefit there at all, is not like you get a F2.8 lens will provide more light when you use it at F4 isn't it? And what if I want the scene to be fully in focus at night time, fast lens won't help but it's the sensor low light capability that going to provide my artistic vision at F8 with the good rendered quality of image isn't it?
Just got this lens for my Sony A7R5. Having more megapixels produces a better image for ultra-wide lenses.
Nice combo
The vlog portion at 12mm feels like you're on a green screen as you're so sharp and the background is so blurry!!! So weird! LOL!
I know what you mean - I really liked the way it looked!
It's a Whopper ! Nice one Sony even if I am a Canon / Fuji user 😎😎😎 Smooth review Gordon. Stay safe stay well.
Thanks Mike,
Nice
Personally I hate the 12mm look. I'd get the more versatile 16-35mm for less money or the 24-70mm for the bigger zoom coverage and entry point to portraits.
What lens to buy will depend on personal taste and objective use, but I doubt these will sell like hot cakes like their cheaper more versatile variants.
Great review like always Sr. Gordon, can we expect early coverage of Canon new products later this week?
Take care.
Thanks, and as for the other company, you'll have to wait and see!
Watch Gordens review to see what products are really like and others just for entertainment..... Sony are mad not to have sent you a ZV-1 yet nor lent you a A7R4 for evaluating this lens. But with Kai destroying the former and you nearly writing off the lens with a dose of salty water perhaps it’s not a surprise !😂. The 16-35 is good enough for me, for wild life one wants telephoto zooms, for dance wide angle can be helpful to get everyone in when in a small studio, but I’d imagine the distortion that close would look odd. For most other uses one can take 2-5 images and stitch them together in photoshop. But would be interested to see a comparison with the sigma 14-24 and the 2 Sony lenses.
I just got this used
Nice!
Love your reviews. Please review the Canon RF lenses when they release! I cant buy a lens if i haven't watched your review on it!
Thanks! I intend to review EVERY RF lens, so as well as covering new ones, I will go back and review older ones too.
@@cameralabs Yes please. If you can start with the 85mm RF f1.2 then the 50mm RF f1.2 primes!
i am poor and i dont have the money to buy it , but i just came here to dream .,.
Good😍
Can you compare with Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8?
No, but you can check out my 8-16mm review and see how they compare!
Great lens... for a price!
YES.
W I D E
prime
pointless to me they just made a 24 and then 20 so they should have made a 15 or 12 f2 thats what i need
i dont want to carry my 24 and a 12-24 it doesnt make sense ..
Thnx, but, but... vey, very expensive :(
Must resist the urge to switch to Sony! Hang on wallet says no anyway! 😁
You won’t regret it 😎 haha
you have an expensive lens and filters and you don't know from what focal length the lens starts to sharpen
what?
The Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 art is sharper, midframe and corners, and much cheaper!
It is a great lens...
@@cameralabs Did you say in the review the Sony is sharper than the Sigma?
@@brianpalmer6385 I don't remember
This full frame world is getting out of hand. Way too large, heavy and too expensive.
and yet, full-frame is what the market is buying.
Getting out of hand? The Canon 11-24mm f4 was released in 2015 at $2999, and it's much heavier, and also larger overall. If anything, things are getting smaller and lighter, and the price is the same as always.
If you can't afford one then you cant buy.