Dude!!! Vigneting and Distortion is automatically corrected in body, no wonder why the Zeiss had won that test because the other 2 lenses were off native bodies.
That is a fair point, but my suggestions to you would be the following. As i pointed out to Milcho Siljanoski two months ago, the distortion compensation was probably disabled. The vignette compensation was probably enabled, though my experience (and some others too) seems to suggest that this feature, oddly enough, makes little to no difference. The chromatic aberration compensation was also probably enabled, and the Sony still had the worst fringing of the three lenses. With that being the case (CA comp), one may wonder, doubtfully, how much the shading and distortion compensations (in camera) would have been able to contribute in their respective tests. At the very least, we now know what the results of the Sony lens looks like with 2 of the 3 compensations enabled, and at best, this is the last lens video i will ever make with the in camera lens compensations enabled, and such was the case with my most recent lens shootout video (16-35mm f/4).
Thanks. Not really...they would be different, yes, mainly because of autofocus, otherwise one could expect all the other features to render the same results. Sometimes (emphasised) dslr lenses loose a bit of optical performance with ultra wide angles on a mirrorless body, but with any non ultra wide focal length, i don't think any difference in sharpness or light transmission (among other things) would be detected. Other lens attributes such as optical stabilization, rings, weight, and close up distance, would be identical. It is technically possible for some adapters to allow some light to leak inside causing extra flaring, whereas the same lens on a dslr body would not be subjected to this sort of compromise. However, this is rare and so this issue does seem to be of a very low concern, or perhaps no concern at all. It is also untested (partly) for my part. You might (or not) have noticed that some will claim that a dslr lens will perform substandardly (in all or most areas) on a mirrorless body, but in my experience that claim is just smoke with no fire. I hope that helps, and thank you very much for watching. I am soon to release another lens video, so stay tuned, cheers.
Regards to the distortion and vignette test its obvious for the Sony lens that the camera is correcting those issues. Did you turn off in camera lens corrections ? Those options work only with native Sony lenses.
Thanks for pointing that out, the shading and CA compensation are currently set to auto, and distortion comp set to off. It is probable that these settings were the same in this video.
Excellent review. I had all those three lenses in their respective ff bodies. I got rid of the Sony because of its color science, particularly with artificial light (plain awful). I still keep the Nikon and use it on a DX body. The Nikon is wayyy cheaper than the other too (1/3 the price), and there are in camera corrections, so I can’t complain. I sold the Canon in favor of a telephoto I needed and replaced it by two cheaper primes. It’s a great lens though.
Hi, Those of you interested in using an adaptative lens on my SOny A7RII try this lens cos I own one and can recommend it fully yet it costs a pittance about US$150 2nd hand. It's the Canon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5, use it with either MC11 or another brand of adapter, this lens my copy at least is really very sharp. At this price do try it. BTW very good review this video.
Having switched from 6D II and L Lenses to Sony, I really appreciated your take on the comparison. Well done. As a note, I have great luck with MC-11 and Sony Sigma lenses on A7R III. Cheers,
My first time using an adapter. I would say snug. Not uncomfortably resistant. I did not worry about ruining my expensive camera. I have used it with a handful of L lenses and Sigma 20. I hear that L lenses behave better with Metabones. What is amazing is how Sony FE lenses look like as if they have built in MC-11. I hear Sigma EF and Metabones is identical to Sigma FE functionally. I should have kept the SIgma FE lenses. But they are so huge.
awesome review! This just convinced me to get an adapter to get my sweet Canon 24-70 on my awaited A7RII . And it IS a lot cheaper. Thinking of the MC-11 by sigma. What is your thought on the adapters?
Hi thanks, my thoughts on adapters are, the a7rii is the only Sony FF body with good enough autofocus to justify an expensive adapter like a Metabones Mark 4, otherwise the cheap ones are good enough. Watch Dave Dugdale's video called, "Metabones vs Commlite Canon Lens to Sony Body Adapter," he explains it there.
Granted this was posted 11 months ago I use the MC-11 with the Canon and it works extremely well and I can use autofocus. I would have like to see this analysis done with the MC-11.
I used the Sigma MC-11 lighly in my 16-35mm f/4 shootout video, but mostly used the Metabones M4. While i didn't like the feel of mounting the Sigma to the camera, it's performance was good. I borrowed both of these adapters from a friend, and when asked which is his favorite, he said that he preferred the Sigma to the Metabones. I own a Commlite, but do not recommend it.
Conclusion: the $1200 lens better than $500 lens, the mount adapter ring not supports all native functions and not improves image quality. I'm surprised.
Haha, interesting. While i use Sony cameras, my favorite lenses are actually Canon. I like Nikon bodies like the D850, but i've done four lens shootout videos now, and the Nikon lenses usually don't do so well, and some Nikon fans have gotten upset with me about that, lol. Thanks for commenting :D
Well done but I suggest you try real life use-cases rather some pineapples. I love to see how lens perform in different situations: indoor portrait, outdoor portrait, lowlight, landscape and so on. I love to see how lens render nature textures, skin tones in different ISO rather sharpness tests. Btw look like I going to get canon 24-70L4 for my a7rii
Hi thanks, for your feedback. I use to own the EF 24-70mm f/4 but i sold it after i made this video, it is a good one tho. I use pineapples in the image quality test to keep the results as empirical and consistent as possible, so other attributes like textures and skin tones unfortunately go beyond the scope of my intend. But i see what your are saying tho, and a co-worker said something similar. This video is quite laboratory isn't it? Tell you what, i'm working on a new lens video right now, and it's too late to make any changes to it, but for the future i will put some thought into something more creative ok.
Very thorough! It is such an interesting argument for native lenses. I've always bought into the idea that Canon makes superior lenses but it is not simple. Thanks Grant!
would very much interested in seeing review of the SONY Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II and the tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2, mainly because the ssm11 is the only 24-70mmf2.8 made for the sony "A" mount these days.......
Good question...yes and sort of. Yes, in the sense that the Sony's in camera lens comps only work on Sony lenses, but sort of (multiple reasons) in the sense that i disabled the shading and chromatic aberration compensations. And if i remember right, the distortion comp was probably enabled. In my experience these comps are...kind of a gimmic; ya they do work, but usually not much, if at all. So the simple answer is yes, the Sony had a theoretical (not practical) advantage over the Canon and Nikon with respect to distortion, but not for vignetting. Thanks for watching :D
I think that from 12:55 to 23:53 of the video best explains the the IQ of the Sony. It turned out a moderate IQ performance, but it's usefulness overall was good. But now that the FE 24-105mm f/4 exists, it might be even harder to justify the older 24-70mm f/4, and i think that they both cost the same amount of money.
GE Video I was considering the 24-105mm but unfortunately where I am the lens is about 500 dollars more than the 24-70, which seems like the only viable option, hopefully images aren't as soft as people state. Great videos
GE Video In the US, when Tamron announced the 28-75mm F2.8. Sony reduced $300 on 24-70mm Zeiss, and it became $900. Sony also is doing $100 discount on older lenses (not included the newer 24-105mm F4). It is $1300 for 24-105mm F4 and $800 for 24-70mm F4. The new question is, does 24-70mm F4 justify $800 and better value than the 24-105mm F4? Thank you!
That's interesting, thanks for the updates. Since i made this video i kind of stopped following the value of these lenses, so by now others will probably know better about the value of these lenses than i.
There is no way other lenses than Sony would perform as well as the Sony model on a Sony camera using camera lens adapters. You should test them on their own using Canon and Nikon cameras of comparable specs. This sort of shoot out is totally meaningless.
Agree. This is a joke of testing methodology used. Either that or the Nikon lens was a bad copy. My Nikon version does not exhibit the corner softness and distortion that his does.
Sony is the most expensive and Canon also is more expensive. So how are you comparing them to Nikon which is the least expensive and you had a bias toward Nikon which you said at the start of the video. Not a good review. Sorry.
What did everyone expect from a Sony fan boy? You shoot on a Sony camera and claim because one lens is Sony it gets better points? That's your choice not the lenses. The Nikon is purposely sticky between the wider focal distances. Please do your research if you are going to make a review of these lenses.
An EF glass, mounted on a NON-NATIVE body and still blows the native(Zeiss + Sony) combo in most image quality test, how dare you Sony(including fanboys).
