I was somewhat surprised when Sigma released the Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN (my review here). It had only been 13 months since they had released the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DN, a lens I felt was a strong alternative in both performance and price ($1099 USD) to the much more expensive Sony G Master version ($2198 USD). I had given the 24-70mm a positive review, and wondered if there was room for two similar lenses in Sigma’s lineup for Sony. Over time, however, I have begun to realize a couple of things about Sigma’s strategy on mirrorless. The first is that while I tend to focus on the Sony side of things, Sigma is also actively developing for the Leica L mount, which their own Sigma branded cameras now use. Some of those L-mount bodies are more compact, whereas a lot of the Sigma ART and Sport branded lenses have actually been some of the largest and heaviest in their class. Sigma’s strategy (which makes sense!) has been to develop two separate lines on mirrorless. They have, for example, three DN 35mm lenses already (F1.2, F1.4, and F2). All DN lenses – new, purpose designed lenses for mirrorless cameras and their unique focus systems. The large aperture lenses are designed for those who want ultimate image quality (and don’t mind paying for it and carrying it!), while the smaller aperture lenses (called the “i-Series”) are designed for those who want good image quality but aren’t willing to carry around a massive, heavy lens to achieve it. Sigma has started to bifurcate their zoom lineup in the same way, with the 28-70mm DN being the first of those designs. Enter the new Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN, a wide angle companion to the “normal” zoom range of the 28-70mm. The 16-28DN (as we’ll call it for brevity) follows a lot of the same principles of the 28-70mm (compact and lightweight) while also allowing you to go quite wide (16mm):
…and frame in a little tighter on the 28mm side:
This lens is a little less surprising, obviously, as it is an obvious compliment in focal length to an existing lens. Like the 28-70mm DN, however, the new 16-28DN comes up against an established competitor in the Sony space (where I’m reviewing it) in the form of the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD (my review here). The Sigma has an obvious advantage in focal length, going considerably wider (here’s what 16mm vs 17mm looks like):
Interestingly, it also zooms in to a bit tighter a framing despite both lenses supposedly ending at 28mm:
That’s a serious advantage, though the Tamron also has a few compelling factors in its favor, including lower distortion and vignette, and, due to market forces, a cheaper price. There are some of you who just prefer Sigma, period, and I’m always in favor of more competition on the market. It is the proliferation of lenses like this that make Sony such a compelling platform right now. There are so many quality choices at a variety of price points…and I love it!
The big question is whether or not this particular lens is worthy of your consideration. Sigma’s 14-24mm F2.8 DN lens is an excellent lens (my review here), but it is also 43% larger by volume, 76% heavier, and hundreds of dollars more expensive. Is the superior performance of that lens worth the extra size, weight, and expense…or would you rather travel light? Sigma is clearly betting that there are those of you who will check the latter box, and, if so, the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DN might just be the lens for you. So join me as we explore the highs and lows of this compact standard zoom for Sony or Leica. If you prefer to watch reviews, you can watch my video review below…or just keep reading.
I want to thank Sigma Canada (and Gentec) for the loaner of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. The opinions here are completely my own. *The tests and most of the photos that I share as a part of my review cycle have been done with three cameras – the Sony Alpha 1, Sony a7IV, and Sony a6400.
Sigma 16-28DN Build, Design and Handling
Whereas the 28-70mm DN offered a slightly reduced focal length relative to its main competitor (the Tamron 28-75mm), Sigma flips the script here and offers up a slightly larger zoom range instead (a solid move, in my opinion). That does translate into slightly more size and weight relative to the Tamron 17-28mm RXD, the two lenses are close enough in size that I don’t think that will be a factor for many people. Here’s a look at how the 16-28DN compares to some competing options (I’ve manually added the information for the 16-28mm since it isn’t available to retailers yet).
Here’s a visual comparison to the Tamron (as I happen to own that lens):
The new Sigma 16-28DN is 77.2mm in diameter and right over 100mm long. You can see from the photo above that the Sigma is marginally wider and longer, but the basic footprint of the two lenses is roughly the same. There’s only one exception to this, and that is in the nature of the lens hoods (both lenses include a lens hood). The Sigma lens hood flares out a fair bit and thus doesn’t store as compactly.
The Sigma is slightly heavier at 450g (vs 420g), though that is significantly lighter than the Sony 16-35mm GM (680g) or the Sigma 14-24mm ART (795g).
Up front we have a 72mm filter thread, which is fairly common but not as ubiquitous as either the 67mm or 77mm standards. The ability to use traditional screw-in filters is always welcome in a wide angle lens.
Like the 28-70mm DN (and i-Series primes), Sigma has chosen to position the 16-28DN under the Global Vision division of “Contemporary”. Typically the lenses branded Contemporary carry Sigma’s lowest level of build, with Sport lenses given the most robust while Art lenses land in the middle. The build here is actually pretty decent, though, and is competitive with the Tamron’s build save the fact that the Sigma has only a gasket at the lens mount while the Tamron has some internal weather sealing points as well. The Sigma feels ever-so-slightly nicer in the hand, however, due to slightly more upscale materials on the barrel, and (always welcome!) includes an AF/MF switch (something the Tamron 17-28mm lacks). That may or may not be a big deal to you, but I still find it the fastest and most logical way to switch in between these two methods of focus.
The more upscale Sigma 14-24mm DN has a more thorough weather sealing and also includes a focus hold button – both of which this lens lacks.
This is an internally zooming lens, so it doesn’t change shape at all during zooming or focusing – the length is constant. This helps with the weather sealing and also means that a zoom lock is unnecessary.
The zoom ring is closest to the lens mount and moves with that smoothness you only see in internally zooming lenses. Sigma persists in the zoom action being from left go right rather than from right to left like Sony (and Tamron, and Samyang) lenses on the Sony platform. Unfortunate, really, as you may find yourself instinctively zooming the wrong direction if you’re accustomed to lenses from any of the other brands on Sony.
The manual focus ring is closest to the front of the lens and also moves nicely. The focus ring is a “by-wire” system, meaning that input on the focus ring is electronically communicated rather than through a direct mechanical coupling. This means that input on the focus ring will not create any physical changes unless the lens is attached to a camera and powered on. The focus ring has a fairly nice feel to it, and Sigma has done a good job emulating traditional manual focus.
The aperture iris has 9 rounded aperture blades, and this helps keep the aperture shape fairly circular when stopped down, though there are only so many opportunities to see circular bokeh highlights on a wide angle lens once stopped down.
The geometry of the bokeh looks quite good across the frame at 28mm, F2.8, however:
This is helped by having a fairly close minimum focus distance (25cm) and a resulting maximum magnification of 0.178x.
That’s just very slightly behind the magnification of the GM and Tamron 17-28mm lenses (0.19x) and betters the 0.14x of the Sigma 14-24mm.
Unlike the 28-70mm DN, however, we don’t get a higher magnification on the wider end. This lens behaves more traditionally where the MFD at both ends of the zoom range are the same. Up close performance at 28mm looked very good to my eye, however.
Like the 28-70 DN, I would have liked a more thorough weather sealing on the lens, but overall I quite like the build and handling of the 16-28DN. I think it strikes a nice balance between size, weight, and build quality. It is marginally bigger than the Tamron that it will compete with, but also gives a bigger zoom range, which I suspect many will find a reasonable tradeoff.
Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DN Autofocus Performance
The Sigma 16-28DN utilizes a stepping focus motor (STM) that makes fast, quiet focus changes. Video focus pulls are fast, accurate, and smooth, and there is little to no hunting or settling. I saw minimal focus breathing during my tests, too.
A lens with a maximum aperture of F2.8 is fairly good in low light, though obviously not as good as lenses with even larger maximum apertures. In many cases, cameras will focus with the lens aperture wide open and then close it down to the preset aperture choice at the moment of capture. A lens with a smaller maximum aperture is going to be at a disadvantage in low light conditions because the physical aperture is smaller than alternative lenses, meaning that less light can reach the sensor. F2.8 is what I would call a “medium” maximum aperture, but it is wide enough that one should be able to shoot weddings or events with the lens and get solid results.
Under normal lighting conditions I had no problems. I was able to nail focus indoors without any problems at all.
Eye AF works well, with good detection of the eye and “stickiness” in tracking it.
In my video test where I track my face, I found the lens did a good job of quickly and smoothly returning to focus on the eyes when I moved my hand out of the way.
I also had no problems nailing focus on this shallow subject (lock) on the chain link fence.
Though it is hard to see at this magnification level, the focus on the golfer in this wide shot is accurate:
In general I feel like Sigma had really hit their stride in the focus accuracy and quality on their Sony DN lenses. While their telephotos are not quite as fast as the native Sony lenses (that typically employ multiple focus motors), their general purpose lenses are pretty much as good as native Sony competitors. Autofocus here was fast, quiet, and accurate whether shooting stills or video. Focus was solid in all the situations I shot with the lens…and that’s all you can ask for.
Sigma 16-28DN Image Quality
The optical formula is made up of 16 elements in 11 groups, which is slightly more complex than the Tamron (13 elements in 11 groups). That’s to be expected, however, since the Sigma lens does go wider. It is capable of delivering crisp result even on my high resolution cameras.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations (LoCA) seem well controlled and I see little to no fringing on the white edges of the letters or transition zone on the mirror behind.
If we look up into the bare branches on this golf course image, we find little evidence of lateral chromatic aberrations near the edge of the frame, too.
That’s a solid start, though things go downhill a bit after this. I’ve complained about some previous Sigma lenses and the complexity of the distortion that I found hard to manually fix, so Sigma made sure to send a correction profile along with the 16-28DN for me.
It’s a good thing, as it was needed. I found a strong amount of barrel distortion that unfortunately is a bit complex and difficult to smoothly correct manually. There’s some mustache pattern left over.
I dialed in a +21 to correct the barrel distortion and needed to max out the sliders (+100) to correct for the vignette, which is very strong at 16mm.
That vignette will be very obvious at F2.8 if you don’t correct for it:
The profile does a better job of correction the complexities of the distortion and deals with the vignette fairly well. It is worth noting that aberrations that heavy can cause a bit of damage to image quality in the correction process, though (particularly near the edges). There’s no free ride, so to speak.
The distortion flips to a more mild pincushion distortion (-4) near the middle of the range and the vignette, while still heavy (+64), is milder than what we saw at 16mm. The pincushion distortion worsens at 28mm (-10 to correct) but the vignette gets a bit lighter (+50). That correction profile is going to be necessary with this lens, though JPEGs and video will get corrected in camera. Tamron took the safer route by producing a lens with a smaller zoom range (and which didn’t go as wide) and the byproduct is that it has less vignette and distortion. Sigma gambled on photographers preferring the wider angle of view even if it comes with a bit more optical challenges.
So how about sharpness and contrast? All chart tests done with a Sony Alpha 1 (50 MP) using a tripod and a two second timer.
Here’s a look at my test chart:
A close look at the 16mm, F2.8 results (this is 200% magnification) shows exceptionally good results in the center of the frame and very good results in the midframe and corner:
There’s some minor give and take in comparison to the Tamron (at 17mm), but the two lenses are largely similar on the wide end (which is to say very good!).
Stopping down to smaller apertures (like F5.6) provides only minimal improvement in the center of the frame (already near perfect) but the mid-frame and corners improve to excellent levels.
Take that in the real world and you can get nicely detailed results all across the frame:
Minimum aperture throughout the zoom range is F22, though I typically avoid anything smaller than F11 because of the effects of diffraction that rob the images of contrast and resolution at those very small apertures.
This is a constant aperture zoom, so the maximum aperture of F2.8 applies equally to all focal lengths. 16mm proved the sharpest focal length on my test copy, with a mild regression at 18-20mm most obviously seen in the mid-frame and corners. You’ll want to stop down to F5.6 or so if you want sharp corners, as there is an obvious improvement when stopped down (here at 20mm):
At 24mm I found a more even performance, though I felt the corners were relatively stronger than the center performance here. Stopping down sharpens them up to excellent levels.
28mm is similar, with good results wide open and better results available when stopped down.
I thought that my real world 28mm landscape results looked nice.
Here’s another that I like, though I wasn’t quite as wowed by real world results as what I saw on the 14-24DN.
A lens like this is rarely going to be a “go-to” lens for bokeh, and this lens is no exception. I didn’t really see any images where I loved the bokeh quality. Images like this show fairly busy backgrounds.
Likewise this monochrome along the fence never really shows the “creaminess” that I associate with quality bokeh.
To be fair, however, I buy a lens like this more for having everything IN focus rather than out of focus!
Flare resistance was mostly good, but also somewhat mixed. You can see from these images that having the sun right at the edge of the frame does end up with some reduced contrast, and, if stopped down (like the second image), so very long sun rays.
This second batch of images is mostly better, which shows that being careful in your composition can make a big difference in the flare performance with this lens (and many others).
I’m often very pleased with the colors from Sigma wide angle lenses, and that’s true here as well. Color seems both rich and accurate.
It won’t be hard to get images you can be proud of out of this lens, though you’ll want to correct that vignette and distortion. You can see more images by checking out the lens image gallery here.
Conclusion
It’s a little hard for me to predict the market reaction for the new Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN. It is an obvious compliment to the 28-70mm F2.8 DN, giving potential owners a smaller, lighter, cheaper kit than the 14-24mm and 24-70mm F2.8 ART DN lenses. But like with the 28-70mm (vs the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8), Tamron has had a chance to really beat Sigma to the market with their 17-28mm F2.8 RXD lens – a lens that was introduced nearly three years and was well-received both critically and commercially. Will the slightly wider focal length of the Sigma attract future buyers on Sony over the Tamron…despite the Sigma being more expensive?
As always, though, it is important to remember that Sigma is also developing for the Leica L-mount. The market is less crowded there and also competing lenses are often more expensive than some of Sigma’s competition on the Sony platform. The 16-28DN may excel there.
Outside of the high distortion and vignette, this is a solid lens. Nice build, relatively compact, great focal range, great autofocus, and a solid optical performance. There’s no question you can make beautiful images with it, and it is light enough to come along easily. You can use traditional screw on filters (not the case for the 14-24mm F2.8 DN), so that also makes it a more accessible lens. I think the 14-24mm F2.8 DN is the more exceptional lens optically, but it is also bigger, heavier, and more expensive. If you are a Sigma fan and want to travel lighter with your wide angle kit, then the new Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DN may just be the lens for you.
Pros:
Compact, lightweight lens with nice construction
Includes some weather sealing at mount and is internally zooming
Broader zoom range than competing Tamron lens
Fast, quiet autofocus
Smooth and quiet video AF work
Good up close performance
Excellent flare resistance
CA is well controlled
Excellent sharpness and contrast across the frame even wide open
Weight under 500g
Cons:
Strong vignette (particularly at 16mm)
Fairly complex barrel distortion on the wide end
Strong pincushion distortion at 28mm
Sigma persists in the zoom direction being opposite to other lenses on Sony
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Sigma 16-28 DN, Sigma 16-28 F2.8, Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN, 16-28 DN Review, Review, Sigma 28-70 DN, DN, DG, 16-28mm, F2.8, Review, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, Tamron 17-28, Review, Sony Alpha 1, Sony a7IV, Review, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, Sony a9, sony a7III, sony a7RIII, a7R3, Leica L
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I was somewhat surprised when Sigma released the Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN (my review here). It had only been 13 months since they had released the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DN, a lens I felt was a strong alternative in both performance and price ($1099 USD) to the much more expensive Sony G Master version ($2198 USD). I had given the 24-70mm a positive review, and wondered if there was room for two similar lenses in Sigma’s lineup for Sony. Over time, however, I have begun to realize a couple of things about Sigma’s strategy on mirrorless. The first is that while I tend to focus on the Sony side of things, Sigma is also actively developing for the Leica L mount, which their own Sigma branded cameras now use. Some of those L-mount bodies are more compact, whereas a lot of the Sigma ART and Sport branded lenses have actually been some of the largest and heaviest in their class. Sigma’s strategy (which makes sense!) has been to develop two separate lines on mirrorless. They have, for example, three DN 35mm lenses already (F1.2, F1.4, and F2). All DN lenses – new, purpose designed lenses for mirrorless cameras and their unique focus systems. The large aperture lenses are designed for those who want ultimate image quality (and don’t mind paying for it and carrying it!), while the smaller aperture lenses (called the “i-Series”) are designed for those who want good image quality but aren’t willing to carry around a massive, heavy lens to achieve it. Sigma has started to bifurcate their zoom lineup in the same way, with the 28-70mm DN being the first of those designs. Enter the new Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN, a wide angle companion to the “normal” zoom range of the 28-70mm. The 16-28mm DN follows a lot of the same principles of the 28-70mm (compact and lightweight) while also allowing you to go quite wide (16mm):
…and frame in a little tighter on the 28mm side:
This lens is a little less surprising, obviously, as it is an obvious compliment in focal length to an existing lens. Like the 28-70mm DN, however, the new 16-28DN comes up against an established competitor in the Sony space (where I’m reviewing it) in the form of the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD (my review here). The Sigma has an obvious advantage in focal length, going considerably wider (here’s what 16mm vs 17mm looks like):
Interestingly, it also zooms in to a bit tighter a framing despite both lenses supposedly ending at 28mm:
That’s a serious advantage, though the Tamron also has a few compelling factors in its favor, including lower distortion and vignette, and, due to market forces, a cheaper price. There are some of you who just prefer Sigma, period, and I’m always in favor of more competition on the market. It is the proliferation of lenses like this that make Sony such a compelling platform right now. There are so many quality choices at a variety of price points…and I love it!
The big question is whether or not this particular lens is worthy of your consideration. Sigma’s 14-24mm F2.8 DN lens is an excellent lens (my review here), but it is also 43% larger by volume, 76% heavier, and hundreds of dollars more expensive. Is the superior performance of that lens worth the extra size, weight, and expense…or would you rather travel light? Sigma is clearly betting that there are those of you who will check the latter box, and, if so, the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DN might just be the lens for you. If you want more information, you can watch my video review or read my text review…or just enjoy the photos below.
I want to thank Sigma Canada (and Gentec) for the loaner of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. The opinions here are completely my own. *The tests and most of the photos that I share as a part of my review cycle have been done with three cameras – the Sony Alpha 1, Sony a7IV, and Sony a6400.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Sigma 16-28 DN, Sigma 16-28 F2.8, Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN, 16-28 DN Review, Review, Sigma 28-70 DN, DN, DG, 16-28mm, F2.8, Review, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, Tamron 17-28, Review, Sony Alpha 1, Sony a7IV, Review, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, Sony a9, sony a7III, sony a7RIII, a7R3, Leica L
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
A couple of months ago I had a look at the Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 along with the 35mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 lenses. These lenses were part of a trio of highly similar prime lenses from Tamron designed specifically for Sony FE (full frame E-mount). The third lens was not ready at the time, and it was (to many of us) the most intriguing, as the 20mm focal length is a very practical one for landscape work and/or vlogging on the video front. Fortunately I now have the Tamron 20mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 in hand. Here’s what those initials mean: OSD = Optimized Silent Drive (the type of focus motor), Di III = designed specifically for mirrorless (in this case Sony Full Frame E-mount), and M1:2 =1:2 Macro…which is one of the main reasons why the F050 might be worth considering even with so many other options available. It is a unique lens with both a wide angle of view and the interesting ability to also do 1:2 macro shots (a 0.50x magnification). This lens (the F050 in Tamron’s lens identification, which I’ll use for brevity in this review) was the focal length of the group that I was most interested in. I spent time with the Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 during my review and loved the little lens because of the mix of compact size, focal length, and image quality. I looked at the F050 as being a much cheaper alternative to that lens but with autofocus and that close focus macro capabilities.
And, to some extent, that’s true here, though with one major caveat. The Tamron F050 has good optical performance, a reasonably nice build (remember this is a $350 lens!), fairly good autofocus, but it also has a potentially fatal flaw for some photographers. This review will be devoted to exploring whether or not the Tamron is still worthy of consideration despite that issue. I suspect for some photographers it will be, as the F050 is a very compelling blend of capabilities, including some very stellar up close performance that opens a lot of extra creative opportunities.
I’ve now reviewed all three of the current batch of little prime lenses announced by Tamron, and I’ve found an interesting quirk connected to that internal code of F050. The 20mm F2.8 OSD has a lens designation of F050, the 24mm is F051, but the 35mm is code-named F053 (not F052).
Hmmm…
This makes me suspect that another lens (most likely a 28mm) is yet to come in this series. 28mm is a great focal length…and there aren’t a lot of options there, so this could potentially be a solid move for Tamron.
I always have a few reservations when examining a prime lens that doesn’t offer an aperture advantage over a zoom lens, but we’ll see how the F050 compares to the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD zoom lens that covers the 20mm focal length with a similar F2.8 aperture. One thing is sure: the macro(ish) performance of these lenses at least gives them a “killer app” not matched by the zoom lenses…and Tamron has priced them to move at $349 USD each. So should the Tamron 20mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 be on the short list for your next lens purchase? Let’s find out together…
If you prefer to watch your reviews, I have both a shorter length review along with a thorough, “definitive” review available:
I did this review on both Sony a9 and Sony a7RIII bodies. Thanks to Tamron USA for the loaner.
Tamron F050 Build, Handling, and Design
As mentioned previously, the F050 is designed specifically for Sony FE, though it can also be used on Sony’s crop sensor E-mount cameras where it has an equivalent angle of view of roughly 25mm. This makes this a very interesting focal length in both full frame and APS-C modes where shooting stills or doing video work, as these are both compelling focal lengths.
All of Tamron’s development to date for Sony FE has come without their popular VC (Vibration Compensation) system and instead rely on Sony’s Steadyshot Inside (IBIS) for stabilization. This has allowed Tamron to have less complex lens design and really focus on keeping things smaller and lighter, which is often the forgotten element of modern lens design. The F050 weighs only 7.8 oz (221 g), which is incredibly light for a full frame optic with such a wide focal length. Here’s a look at a chart of how the raw specs compare to some alternatives (both affordable and expensive).
You’ll note that Loxia is an aberration here, as while it is narrower than the Tamron is is both heavier (394 vs 221g) and MUCH more expensive ($1499 vs $349). That extra weight comes from the all-metal construction of the Zeiss (which is truly lovely!) and the price comes from, well, Zeiss. Perhaps the closest competing lens for many photographers will be the diminutive Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 (my review is here), which is most similar in size and price. The Samyang is the smaller of the two, weighing only 145g and being only 60.5 (vs 63.5mm) in length. The biggest physical difference, however, is the diameter of the lenses, which is almost 10mm more on the Tamron and results in a much larger 67mm filter thread compared with the 58mm thread of the Samyang). This gives the Tamron a rather squat appearance:
There are a few mitigating factors that balance the two lenses, however. The Tamron comes with the aforementioned macro capabilities (0.50x vs a rather sad 0.09x) along with the inclusion of weather sealing, which the Samyang lacks.
That’s right…weather sealing. Tamron has given us fairly strong value for money when it comes to the build of these little primes. They all have a LOT of shared design elements with each other and even with the FE zooms. One shared design element is the inclusion of weather sealing, starting with a gasket at the lens mount, several internal seal points, and a fluorine coating on the front element to resist fingerprints and watermarks (this also makes the front element easier to clean).
Few lenses at this price point offer that, and certainly the inexpensive first party options on any system would not. So far Tamron has included this on all of their FE lenses…and it’s very welcome! Also included is a lens hood, which is plastic and functional but without any particular defining characteristic. It is rather shallow, but that’s no real impediment here, for, as we will see, the flare resistance is fabulously good.
Another shared design element is that every FE lens thus far has had a shared 67mm front filter thread. There are both pros and cons to this. The primary con is that this shared design element is a limiting principle in the size/shape of a lens, though in many ways the 20mm is the least compromised in that this lens is still fairly compact for a wide angle lens.
The main upside (and it’s a big one) is similar to what Zeiss has done with the Loxia series. That shared diameter and front filter thread means that one set of filters can easily be shared across all the Tamron lenses (and in a very common size), and also anything like gearing or other accessories can be shared in a similar fashion. The shared filtering is a rather big deal to me, as I’ll obviously invest my filter money on the most commonly shared size, and this means that I’ll have a wide range of filters available to use with the lenses (and could potentially bring along one set of filters). I used the Freewell Vari-ND filters I reviewed a few months back at the nine-stop setting for this shot:
The physical design is also quite similar. These little primes carry a strong family resemblance to the FE zooms, with a body made of mostly engineered plastics around a lightweight metal mount. This is finished in a satin black with a platinum-color (“luminous gold”, according to Tamron) accent ring near the lens mount. There is white lettering on the lens barrel with lens designation and other information, and no switches to be seen anywhere. I do prefer having an AF/MF switch, but you’ll have to rely on controlling that from within the camera.
There is a ribbed focus ring a few centimeters wide near the front of the short lens. The focus ring moves fine, though I detected a noticeable lag and that focus seems to move in small chunks rather than a smooth, linear-type focus. This makes making fine focus adjustments somewhat difficult. You’ll never mistake the action for a Loxia lens! While focusing the selected area of the image will automatically magnify to help you to visually confirm focus.
If you look at the front of the lens while focusing, you will find that the front element group is the group that moves to achieve focus, so you will see some movement forward and backwards, though all within the lens housing, meaning that this is still technically an internally focusing lens, as the the lens does not change length during focus. There are a few seal points near this area according the diagram, so Tamron has taken steps to assure that dust won’t enter here. If you have any further concerns, however, adding a protection filter is always an option.
The F050 can focus down very closely (4.3″ or 10.92cm), which is the primary reason that it can achieve such a high magnification figure. Just know that you will be VERY close to your subject when shooting at MFD, as that figure is from the sensor of the camera. Here’s what that looks like, what kind of magnification you can achieve, and an example of a wide open macro shot.
You will have to be careful to avoid shading your subject with the lens, and you’ll obviously need fairly good light on your subject, too. While the magnification figure is useful here, the working distance is far less so, so there will probably be few situations where you can squeeze out the full reproduction value of the lens.
If you attach the F050 to an APS-C camera (or shoot in crop mode), that magnification level rises even higher perceptually to something akin to 1:1. The first shot is in full frame mode; the second is an APS-C mode. Nothing has moved in between the shots:
In this case the camera has just cropped into the image, but if one were using the lens on an APS-C camera the additional magnification becomes even more compelling and useful. The “macro” capabilities (many contest if 1:2 constitutes macro) of the lens are a definite selling feature, and gives you many additional creative options when photographing different scenes…and image quality is quite good at close focus distances (any distance, really).
The lens has an aperture consisting of seven rounded blades. Starting around F5.6 you will start to see the shape of the aperture, but frankly this isn’t a lens where you will see much bokeh at F5.6 anyway!
Overall, the lens design here is clean and simple. There are no obvious bells and whistles, though the nice amount of sealing throughout the lens is a great selling point.
Tamron F050 Autofocus Performance
The OSD in the lens designation stands for “Optimized Silent Drive”, and, as with other lenses that I’ve reviewed with this particular focus system, it is not a highlight for me. It’s worth noting that Tamron has released more named autofocus systems than any lenses maker I’ve ever seen before. USD, RXD, OSD, HLD, DC, and PZD are some that spring to mind from reviews in the last few years alone. That’s not to say that other lens makers don’t experiment with focus motors; it’s just that Tamron likes to name them all! OSD is a somewhat misleading designation, as while I’ll cede the O (optimized) and d (drive), I’m not willing to give them the S (silent). While the focus motor is not like the old scratchy, buzzy micro-motors of the past, there is definitely some clicking that you will hear during focus…particularly when shooting in AF-C and as the focus motor makes tiny adjustments to accommodate for movement either of the camera or the subject. The RXD motors in the FE zooms are quieter and smoother by comparison.
This is, however, a better application of OSD than what I saw in either the 17-35mm F2.8-4 or the 35-150mm F2.8-4 (an otherwise brilliant lens!). The reasons for this is that on DSLRs where manual focus is typically accomplished by a direct coupling to the lens elements, the OSD focus motor had two major limitations: 1) It did not allow for full time manual override, and, since this is rare these days, you would often grab the focus ring and start to turn it and then feel like you were stripping the gears. If you switched to MF, however, there was no damping on the focus ring at all, so you had no resistance, making precise focus difficult. 2) There was no distance window on those lenses, and, because the viewfinder was optical, there was no electronic distance calculator. Manual focus just wasn’t a great option due to the nature of the OSD.
Fortunately those major problems are solved here. Because mirrorless lenses are designed for manual focus input to be routed through the focus motor (not a direct coupling), manual override is available when in DMF mode. All focus modes are supported along with every aspect of Sony’s hybrid AF system (more on Eye AF in a moment). Feel during manual focus isn’t particularly good on the F050, but neither is it completely without resistance as it was on those lenses. During MF there will be both a distance scale (in either the viewfinder or on the LCD) along with an automatic magnification of the focus area to help visually confirm correct focus. As always, of course, you also have the option of employing Sony’s manual focus aids in your camera like colored overlays. So functionally OSD works much better on mirrorless than it did on DSLRs.
But the function of focus still lags behind the RXD focus system of, say, the 17-28mm F2.8 RXD (which covers this focal length). The OSD motor here on the prime lens is noticeably slower and less smooth than the near-instant focus on the RXD lens. It’s fast enough for most situations, but major focus changes feel deliberate rather than speedy (more so in AF-S than AF-C). I think that the RXD motors have more torque and are thus able to focus faster and quieter. They are probably also more expensive to manufacture, which is probably (my guess) as to why they aren’t being employed here.
On a positive front, I had largely excellent focus results with the F050. In real world situations focus was confident and I didn’t run into the pulsing that I sometimes get with wide angle lenses on Sony when shooting landscape scenes with all focus points active.
Low light sensitivity was not exceptional (probably due to the only moderately wide maximum aperture). When a camera has a lens with a larger maximum aperture attached, it is able to open the aperture up during focus and let in as much light as possible, which helps the AF system achieve focus. In this case the limiting principle is the F2.8 aperture which cannot be opened any wider. This may be a consideration if you are often shooting in very low light conditions, though in less extreme, real world situations I didn’t really have any problems. I was able to focus fine with an 9-stop ND filter attached, for example.
Eye AF worked quite well overall, with both human and pet Eye AF locking accurately onto the subject.
In short, I had no concerns with the accuracy of the focus (it was excellent), but focus speed in the OSD lenses leaves me wanting a bit. The 20mm is perhaps the least offender in focus speed, though this is mostly due to the nature of the focal length. The 35mm was the worst in this regard of the three and the 20mm the fastest.
Finally, let’s talk about video for a moment. The F050 will not be a top pick for video shooters who are using on board audio recording. You will DEFINITELY hear some clicking through the onboard mic as the lens makes adjustments. Focus pulls are smooth and didn’t really show pulsing or hunting, but there is a clicking sound that occurs as the motor spools up the torque to start the elements moving for a focus pull. If you are recording audio separately, this isn’t a problem, but you will definitely hear it if you’re recording on camera audio.
Footage from the lens looks great as it the lens is optically strong and the biggest optical flaw (distortion) is corrected during video recording.
Where I will criticize, however, is that when filming a fairly static scene the focus doesn’t always stay still. It doesn’t do major pulses like some lenses, but the F050 is guilty of some unnecessary microadjustments where you can see tiny pulsing on occasion. The fact that you hear a little click when this happens also serves to draw your attention to it.
I did some work on a gimbal, however, and I was perfectly happy with the footage and quality of focus. My conclusion for both videos and stills is that the OSD focus motor works fine for the vast majority of work, but it isn’t as refined in the more difficult margins as some better focus systems including Tamron’s own RXD. To be fair, this is a budget lens, but so is the Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 and its focus system is definitely most sophisticated in both noise and confidence. I would recommend either the Samyang or the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD for video work.
F050 Image Quality
On most fronts there is a lot of good to report here, but first we’ve got to spend some time detailing a serious, serious liability; the Tamron 20mm F2.8 has some seriously bad barrel distortion. There is a mild amount of mustache pattern to the distortion, so it is better to use the correction profile in Adobe or similar software. I dialed in a +42 of correction, which generally straightened the lines out, but with some minor wave remaining. To give some perspective: I used a +4 to correct the 35mm and a +13 for the 24mm, so we are talking about a completely different class of distortion. The first image shows the distortion and vignette in a RAW file, the second my manual correction, and the third has the JPEG which receives in camera correction.
You can see that a minor amount of barrel distortion remains after the in camera correction, though I suspect it wouldn’t be visible at any other distance (the test chart was only a couple of feet away from the camera). If you are a JPEG shooter (or are shooting video), this isn’t a big deal, as the camera corrects everything fairly well, but if you shoot RAW, you will definitely need to use the correction profile to straighten out those lines, and even then it isn’t quite perfect.
I’m aware that the close focus distance of my test chart tends to slightly exaggerate distortion, so I thought, “It won’t be nearly as bad at further distances. It’s just being exaggerated by the close distance to the test target.” So I went into the field with the lens, and discovered that things still weren’t very positive at other focus distances. First of all, here’s the side of a commercial building with a corrugated steel exterior, shot from a more generation 15 feet (5m or so) away:
Ouch! That’s a LOT of distortion. The profile does a good, but not perfect job of correction:
How about at infinity? Here’s one with the horizon just slightly off center:
You can definitely see a bulge. Here’s what it looks like to correct that bulge, then with the crop constrained to those dimensions, and then the JPEG which shows that the in-camera profile manages to save a little more of the image:
If you compose with the horizon near the edge of the frame, things look much, much worse. Here’s the RAW version and the JPEG with corrections compared:
Here’s a look at the more extreme example with, then without the profile, along with the more moderate composition after having the profile applied in post:
I’m typically a fan of what Tamron does with their lenses, but I have to say that I’m disappointed by this performance. I’m somewhat surprised that they released a lens with this degree of distortion. You are definitely going to need to utilize either in-camera or in-post corrections, and this is definitely NOT going to be a good choice for architecture photography.
The Samyang 18mm has a wider focal length but much less distortion, though it does have slightly more vignette. I used an amount of +59 and a midpoint of 10 to correct the vignette from the F050, which is nearly three stops in the corners and a penetration fairly deep into the frame. The Samyang required both more in quantity and a midpoint throughout and also shows a bit of tint in vignette areas.
The comparison against the Tamron 17-28mm is more drastic, with the zoom lens at 20mm showing a tiny bit of pincushion distortion and less vignette as well.
The zoom lens has the advantage of being closer to the middle of the zoom range where optical deficiencies are minimized. Still, if one is deciding between the two lenses, this definitely might push one towards the zoom.
Fortunately everything else is very positive. The sharpness from the lens is quite excellent. Here’s a look at my test chart (I’ve corrected the distortion and vignette as much as possible to give us a clear look at the results):
What follows are three crops from the center, mid-frame, and corner:
What we can see is that there is good sharpness all across the frame along with good contrast that only slips a bit at the extremes. This is a very good performance, and if we compare it to the Samyang, the Tamron is clearly better (better sharpness and contrast) at every point in the frame:
The Samyang has less glaring flaws on some levels, but it also isn’t nearly as sharp at F2.8.
Ironically the strongest competition to the F050 is Tamron’s own zoom lens. Tamron’s zooms for Sony have been very strong, and because they’ve worked at keeping them light and reasonably compact, they actually are more direct competitors to these primes than what would have otherwise been. The zoom lens is a bit sharper and more contrast in the center and corner, with perhaps a slight edge to the prime at mid-frame:
Stepping back from comparisons for a moment, however, it’s important to recognize how good this is on a 42Mpx camera. Here’s a look at a real world shot from the F050 at F2.8 and a pixel level crop:
That amount of sharpness and contrast from what is a budget lens is very impressive. How about for landscape purposes?
Once again that is a very strong performance.
It is also worth noting that the “macro” performance is also excellent. There will be a bit of field curvature at play here, but at the center the resolution is really impressive.
Stopping down to F4 shows a clear uptick in both sharpness and contrast:
This is true across the frame. Stopping down to F5.6 shows a very slight improvement in contrast. At F5.6 all three of our lenses that we are comparing are very similar. The F050 has slightly more contrast than the Samyang, but it is a tiny amount. I would still give the slight edge to the zoom in terms of resolution and contrast across the frame.
Real world resolution from the 20mm F2.8 is impressive at smaller apertures:
Landscape images without a clear horizon line escape the barrel distortion being visible, and they look pretty great:
Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations (LoCA) are well controlled, with only a tiny amount seen in the most challenging of situations.
Lateral CA is also well controlled, with next to no evidence of green and purple fringing along the edges of real-world images:
I also tested for comatic aberrations (coma), which are most often seen at night with star points, and found that while there is a tiny bit of “wings” growing on stars at the edges of the frame, the F050 actually turns in a fairly strong performance here and delivers very crisp night sky images even at F2.8:
The bokeh of the lens is fine, though a 20mm lens gives you few opportunities to create a lot of defocus.
I’ve saved the greatest strength until last, as Tamron employed their BBAR coatings on this lens to help prevent flaring, and the F050 delivers perhaps the greatest flare resistance I’ve ever seen in a wide angle lens. I was essentially unable to induce any veiling or ghosting of any kind at any aperture value…even while panning across the sun and shooting video. Amazing!
This lens is much more appealing as a video lens than a stills lens on some levels because of the distortion and vignette being corrected in camera, and thus the stellar flare resistance, sharpness, color, and contrast can be shown off to fullest potential.
So here we are trying to render a verdict on a lens that both delights and disappoints. On many levels the Tamron 20mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 is a dream lens, combining good resolution with a compact, weather sealed build, a great focal length, and the creative possibilities inherit with a 1:2 magnification…and at a very reasonable price of $349 USD (1/4th the price of the Loxia!).
I’ve knocked the OSD focus motor a bit in each of these reviews (I haven’t liked it in any of the 5 lenses I’ve tested that have it!), but in many ways it is least objective here. No, it is that one glaring flaw of distortion that really plays havoc with my judgment on the lens. This is definitely a lens that needs correction of this optical flaw either in camera or in post, and this is not a lens you should choose if your priority is shooting architecture.
It’s really too bad, as the F050 is otherwise a wonderful little lens. I can give it an easy thumbs up to those of you who prefer to shoot JPEG, as your images will arrive looking great. Likewise for video shooters, who gain a lot of benefits without too many compromises (other than focus being a little noiser than desirable). If you shoot RAW, however, you’ll have to definitely do some work correcting that distortion. I would recommend springing for the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD if your budget extends that far. It has fewer flaws, more flexibility, and is still quite compact. It’s also more expensive, and money is a real consideration. If the distortion is a deal-breaker for you, and you have a limited budget, consider either the Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 or the Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD, which shares many of the strengths of this lens without that one huge flaw.
Pros:
Strong optical performance
Good close up performance
BBAR is awesome = excellent flare resistance
Excellent chromatic aberration control
Good color and contrast
Includes weather sealing
Excellent price to performance ratio
Cons:
Massive amount of barrel distortion
OSD focus motor is not silent nor as fast as some competitors
Lens can do some of micro-pulsing when continuously focusing in stills or video
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Tamron 20mm, withmytamron, Tamron, 20mm, F2.8, OSD, M1:2, Tamron 20mm F2.8 Review, Tamron 20mm 2.8 review, Tamron 20mm F2.8 OSD, F050, Dustin Abbott, Review, Autofocus, Sony a7RIII, Sony A7RIV, Sony a7R IV, Sony a9, Hands On, Video Test, Portrait, Video, Coma, Real World, Comparison, VS, Sony FE, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, 17-28mm
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
A couple of months ago I had a look at the Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 along with the 35mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 lenses. These lenses were part of a trio of highly similar prime lenses from Tamron at different focal lengths. The third lens was not ready at the time, and it was (to many of us) the most intriguing, as the 20mm focal length is a very practical one for landscape work and/or vlogging on the video front. Fortunately I now have the Tamron 20mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 in hand. It is a unique lens with both a wide angle of view and the interesting ability to also do 1:2 macro shots (a 0.50x magnification). This gallery will share photos from the lens that I take during my review period, and you can check back regularly to both see new photos and to check in for my final review of the lens. Photos taken with and review done on both Sony a9 and Sony a7RIII bodies.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Tamron 20mm, withmytamron, Tamron, 20mm, F2.8, OSD, M1:2, Tamron 20mm F2.8 Review, Tamron 20mm 2.8 review, Tamron 20mm F2.8 OSD, F050, Dustin Abbott, Review, Autofocus, Sony a7RIII, Sony A7RIV, Sony a7R IV, Sony a9, Hands On, Video Test, Portrait, Video, Coma, Real World, Comparison, VS, Sony FE, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, 17-28mm
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Tamron has started to jump into Sony FE with both feet. It’s first two zoom lenses (17-28mm F2.8 RXD and 28-75mm F2.8 RXD) have been very well received, and now Tamron is following up with not only the announced 70-180mm F2.8 RXD zoom but also three prime lenses (20mm, 24mm, and 35mm) that have only a moderately wide aperture (F2.8), but sport nicely compact, lightweight bodies and one other trick up their tiny sleeves: they are all 1:2 Macro lenses (one half life size). These are lenses that are somewhat similar to a lens like Zeiss’ classic 50mm F2 Makro-Planar…though with a smaller maximum aperture and costing less than a third of the price. I always have a few reservations when examining a prime lens that doesn’t offer an aperture advantage over a zoom lens, but we’ll see how each of these primes compares to Tamron’s zooms that cover the same focal lengths in the review of these lenses. One thing is sure: the macro(ish) performance of these lenses at least gives them a “killer app” not matched by the zoom lenses…and Tamron has priced them to move at $349 USD each. I started my series of reviews with Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD first, as the 20mm is taking a little longer in development. The full name of the lens is the Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD Di III M1:2, which is a mouthful, so we’ll refer to it by it’s internal code name (F051) instead. Here’s what those initials mean: OSD = Optimized Silent Drive (the type of focus motor), Di III = designed specifically for mirrorless (in this case Sony Full Frame E-mount), and M1:2 =1:2 Macro…which is one of the main reasons why this lens is interesting.
I’ve looked at the 24mm and 35mm lenses at the same time (they are releasing at identical times), and while researching, I’ve found an interesting quirk connected to that internal code of F051. The yet-unreleased 20mm F2.8 OSD has a lens designation of F050, the 24mm is F051, but the 35mm (which I have on hand) is code-named F053 (not F052).
Hmmm…
This makes me suspect that another lens (most likely a 28mm) is yet to come in this series. 28mm is a great focal length…and there aren’t a lot of options there, so this could potentially be a solid move for Tamron.
Is there a reason to choose this little 24mm F2.8 prime over, say, the excellent Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD? (you can see my review here) Ultimately that’s a question that only you can answer, but I’ll do my best to help answer that question in this review by doing some direct comparisons to that lens.
I’ve done the review on both Sony a9 and Sony a7RIII bodies…with a peek at how that magnification is affected by the crop factor on the Sony a6500 as well. Let’s jump in and explore whether or not the Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD makes any sense for you.
Part 1 of my video review covers Build and Handling + Autofocus Performance, so you can check that out here:
As mentioned previously, the F051 is designed specifically for Sony FE, though it can also be used on Sony’s crop sensor E-mount cameras where it has an equivalent angle of view of roughly 36mm. This makes this a very attractive lens for video work, as 24mm is a great vlogging focal length along with a classic wide focus length (but without the more obvious keystoning effect of wider focal lengths). But 36mm is also very close to the also-popular and useful 35mm focal length when filming in Super 35 mode on Sony. The same observations are true for stills, obviously, as well.
All of Tamron’s development to date for Sony FE has come without their popular VC (Vibration Compensation) system and instead relies on Sony’s Steadyshot Inside (IBIS) for stabilization. This has allowed Tamron to have less complex lens design and really focus on keeping things smaller and lighter, which is often the forgotten element of modern lens design. The F051 weighs only 7.6 oz (215 g), which is incredibly light for a full frame optic.
There are currently four autofocusing options at the 24mm focal length on Sony FE. Two of them are larger, heavier, more expensive F1.4 options, and the other two are much smaller and cheaper F2.8 options. The second F1.4 lens is the Sony FE conversion of the Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART. I’ve reviewed the FE version of that lens, and while it offers good value for money (around $820 USD), I doubt many photographers will be cross-shopping these two lenses for the simple reason that the Sigma is pretty huge by comparison. I weighed it and found that the weight was 768g (over 250% heavier than the 215g of the Tamron). It is also 126mm (4.75″) compared to just 63.5mm (2.5″) for the Tamron – nearly 100% longer. Physically the two lenses have very little in common. The Sony 24mm F1.4 GM is more reasonably sized at 445g and 92.4mm in length, though that is still over 100% heavier and nearly 50% longer than the Tamron.
The other F2.8 option is the Samyang/Rokinon AF 24mm F2.8, which is a truly tiny lens at just 37mm in length and 120g. It’s also the closest in price, with the MSRP being a little more expensive ($399 USD) but frequent sales (it’s been out for a while) making it potentially even cheaper. I haven’t tested either the GM or the Samyang yet, so I can’t comment on either lenses optical performance. What I can say about the Samyang definitely is that it doesn’t have weather sealing (the Tamron does) and definitely isn’t a macro-ish type lens (it has the lowest magnification figure of the group at just 0.13x compared to the F051’s 0.50x). You might choose the Samyang if size is your ultimate goal, though both reviews and user reports suggest that the Tamron F051 is almost certainly the winner in both image quality and autofocus performance.
The very popular Sony FE 24mm F1.4 G Master lens can obviously do things with its F1.4 aperture that the F051 cannot (as can the Sigma), so in one way there is no comparison between the two. But not everyone needs a G Master, and the idea of a small, light, optically good 24mm lens that costs more than $1000 less ($349 vs $1399) and happens to have 1:2 magnification (0.50x rather than the 0.17x of the G Master) might make the F051 an attractive alternative for some buyers. I will say this: as a consumer I’m thankful for options…at varying price points, sizes, and quality levels. Each of these four lenses have varying strengths and weaknesses, and we are fortunate to have so many options at the focal length.
Tamron has given us fairly strong value for money when it comes to the build of these little primes. They all have a LOT of shared design elements with each other and even with the FE zooms. One shared design element is the inclusion of weather sealing, starting with a gasket at the lens mount, several internal seal points, and a fluorine coating on the front element to resist fingerprints and watermarks (this also makes the front element easier to clean).
Few lenses at this price point offer that, and certainly the inexpensive first party options on any system would not. So far Tamron has included this on all of their FE lenses…and it’s very welcome!
Another shared design element is that every FE lens thus far has had a shared 67mm front filter thread. There are both pros and cons to this. The primary con is that this shared design element is a limiting principle in the size/shape of a lens. This lens probably could have been smaller than what it is. At 2.87″ (73mm) diameter, the F051 is almost the same as the GM (2.97″/ 79.4mm), which has a two-stop faster maximum aperture. The overall length of the lens is modest, but it could have been narrower than what it is. Fortunately the short, squat look is a rather attractive one in a lens.
The main upside (and it’s a big one) is similar to what Zeiss has done with the Loxia series. That shared diameter and front filter thread means that one set of filters can easily be shared across all the Tamron lenses (and in a very common size), and also anything like gearing or other accessories can be shared in a similar fashion. The shared filtering is a rather big deal to me, as I’ll obviously invest my filter money on the most commonly shared size, and this means that I’ll have a wide range of filters available to use with the lenses. I complained about EF-M lenses that non of them had a shared filter size in the first few years, which often meant none of them got filtered or that you were stuck using step-up rings of various sizes all the time.
You’ll have to decide whether this is a net negative or net positive for you, but it is clear that Tamron does have a design philosophy for these lenses.
The physical design is also quite similar. These little primes carry a strong family resemblance to the FE zooms, with a body made of mostly engineered plastics around a lightweight metal mount. This is finished in a satin black with a platinum-color (“luminous gold”, according to Tamron) accent ring near the lens mount. There is white lettering on the lens barrel with lens designation and other information, and no switches to be seen anywhere. I do prefer having an AF/MF switch, but you’ll have to rely on controlling that from within the camera.
There is a ribbed focus ring a few centimeters wide near the front of the short lens. The focus ring moves fine…though with no particular smoothness or quality. It mostly just does the job in a fairly uninspiring fashion. You’ll never mistake the action for a Loxia lens! While focusing the selected area of the image will automatically magnify to help you to visually confirm focus.
If you look at the front of the lens while focusing, you will find that the front element group is the group that moves to achieve focus, so you will see some movement forward and backwards, though all within the lens housing, meaning that this is still technically an internally focusing lens, as the the lens does not change length during focus. There are a few seal points near this area according the diagram, so Tamron has taken steps to assure that dust won’t enter here. If you have any further concerns, however, adding a protection filter is always an option.
The F051 has a small petal-shaped hood that comes with the lens. It bayonets into place precisely (with a satisfying “click”). There is no locking mechanism. The interior of the hood has plastic ribs intended to stop light from bouncing around.
The F051 can focus down very closely (4.7″ or 11.94 cm), which is the primary reason that it can achieve such a high magnification figure. This is essentially twice as close as what all the other lenses can focus down to. Just know that you will be VERY close to your subject when shooting at MFD, as that figure is from the sensor of the camera. Here’s what that looks like:
You might want to remove the hood to keep from shading your subject, and you’ll obviously need fairly good light on your subject, too. A wider focal length like this will have some keystoning and stretching of many subjects if they are off-position or have protruding elements (the reality of physics with this focal length and being that close), which is why this isn’t a typical focal length for macro lenses. You can see the very high magnification level here, however.
If you attach the F051 to an APS-C camera (or shoot in crop mode), that magnification level rises even higher (roughly 1:1), which is even more useful.
The “macro” capabilities (many contest if 1:2 constitutes macro) of the lens are a definite selling feature, and gives you many additional creative options when photographing different scenes…and image quality is quite good at close focus distances (any distance, really).
The lens has an aperture consisting of seven rounded blades. Wide open geometry is pretty good, with only some slight deformation near the edges of the frame (lemon shapes). It’s slightly better at F4 (though not perfect), but by F5.6 you (unfortunately) start to see shape of the aperture blades. The geometry is consistent, but it’s not really round.
Examining the bokeh circles reveals a fairly clean result with a bit of busyness inside but no concentric rings (onion bokeh). The outer line isn’t overly defined, which helps real world bokeh look pretty good.
Overall, the lens design here is clean and simple. There are no obvious bells and whistles, though the nice amount of sealing throughout the lens is a great selling point.
Tamron F051 Autofocus Performance
The OSD in the lens designation stands for “Optimized Silent Drive”, and, as with other lenses that I’ve reviewed with this particular focus system, it is not a highlight for me. It’s worth noting that Tamron has released more named autofocus systems than any lenses maker I’ve ever seen before. USD, RXD, OSD, HLD, DC, and PZD are some that spring to mind from reviews in the last few years alone. That’s not to say that other lens makers don’t experiment with focus motors; it’s just that Tamron likes to name them all! OSD is a somewhat misleading designation, as while I’ll cede the O (optimized) and d (drive), I’m not willing to give them the S (silent). While the focus motor is not like the old scratchy, buzzy micro-motors of the past, there is definitely some clicking that you will hear during focus…particularly when shooting in AF-C and as the focus motor makes tiny adjustments to accommodate for movement either of the camera or the subject. The RXD motors in the FE zooms are quieter and smoother by comparison.
This is, however, a better application of OSD than what I saw in either the 17-35mm F2.8-4 or the 35-150mm F2.8-4 (an otherwise brilliant lens!). The reasons for this is that on DSLRs where manual focus is typically accomplished by a direct coupling to the lens elements, the OSD focus motor had two major limitations: 1) It did not allow for full time manual override, and, since this is rare these days, you would often grab the focus ring and start to turn it and then feel like you were stripping the gears. If you switched to MF, however, there was no damping on the focus ring at all, so you had no resistance, making precise focus difficult. 2) There was no distance window on those lenses, and, because the viewfinder was optical, there was no electronic distance calculator. Manual focus just wasn’t a great option due to the nature of the OSD.
Fortunately those major problems are solved here. Because mirrorless lenses are designed for manual focus input to be routed through the focus motor (not a direct coupling), manual override is available when in DMF mode. All focus modes are supported along with every aspect of Sony’s hybrid AF system (more on Eye AF in a moment). Feel during manual focus isn’t exceptional (ever so slightly “gritty” feeling), but neither is it poor, either. During MF there will be both a distance scale (in either the viewfinder or on the LCD) along with an automatic magnification of the focus area to help visually confirm correct focus. As always, of course, you also have the option of employing Sony’s manual focus aids in your camera like colored overlays. Functionally OSD works much better on mirrorless than it did on DSLRs.
But the function of focus still lags behind the RXD focus system of, say, the 17-28mm F2.8 (which covers this focal length). Focus has a smoother feel on RXD, and focus acquisition speeds are noticeably faster. The 24mm has a slightly deliberate feel where momentum gathers for a split second before focus begins. This is similar to what I saw on the first generation Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC lens. It’s fast enough for most situations, but there is a noticeable lag before everything sets into motion. It’s not unusual to see a small pulse at the end before final focus lock is signaled. I think that the RXD motors have more torque and are thus able to focus faster and quieter. They are probably also more expensive to manufacture, which is probably (my guess) as to why they aren’t being employed here. That being said, I noticed a marked distance in focus speed between the F051 and the 17-28mm F2.8 RXD when purposefully making big focus changes (like from one foot/30cm to infinity). Smaller focus changes are fast enough that you won’t notice a difference.
On a positive front, I had largely excellent focus results with the F051. In real world situations focus was confident and I didn’t run into the pulsing that I sometimes get with wide angle lenses on Sony when shooting landscape scenes with all focus points active.
On a few rare occasions I did run into the glitch where the lens wanted to focus on a background rather than the foreground object much closer to the camera, like this:
What I wanted was focus like this:
In these cases the solution was typically to just touch the LCD screen with my thumb and put a Flexipoint right on the desired subject, though sometimes it required me to focus on another closer object first, and then return to my desired subject.
Low light sensitivity was not exceptional (probably due to the only moderately wide maximum aperture). In my low light torture test I was unable to lock focus with the F051 with either my a7RIII or my a9, and I was able to lock focus in the same situation with the Sony FE 35mm F1.8. I also wasn’t able to lock focus with the 17-28mm F2.8 RXD, which is what makes me think that this more about maximum aperture than anything else. When a camera has a lens with a larger maximum aperture attached, it is able to open the aperture up during focus and let in as much light as possible, which helps the AF system achieve focus. In this case the limiting principle is the F2.8 aperture which cannot be opened any wider, so the Sony had a 1 1/3 stop advantage of light, which means that it can let in more than twice as much light to help achieve focus. This may be a consideration if you are often shooting in very low light conditions, though in less extreme, real world situations I didn’t really have any problems.
Eye AF worked quite well overall, though it should be noted that there are some limitations with all wide angle lenses (or other lenses at greater distances) in that if the eye occupies too small an area on the sensor, the system will automatically switch to face detect. This obviously happens more often with a wide angle lens in that the eye typically occupies less area in the frame.
I ran two tests for Eye AF. One series was with the subject backlit by the sun (so less contrast on the eye) at three different focus distances ranging from about one meter (3 feet) to 6 meters (about 20 feet). In this scenario the easiest focus result is the close position where the eye is most easily detectable. Focus was perfect there. At the medium distance the eye was not detected in the backlit situation, and focus was off. At the furthest distance the system switched to face/body detect, and focus was excellent once again. I utilized myself as the subject and my wife as the photographer (she’s definitely NOT a professional), so there is some possibility of user error…but that’s always the case! In the second test, I moved the subject (myself) to a more front/side lit perspective where focus was easier and repeated the drill at three focus distances. The improved contrast and lighting made eye detection easier, and all three of these shots were perfectly focused. The conclusion is that Eye AF will work just fine in most situations.
Finally, let’s talk about video for a moment. The F051 will not be a top pick for video shooters who are using on board audio recording. You will DEFINITELY hear some clicking through the onboard mic as the lens makes adjustments, and the noise makes the focus seem a bit less smooth than what it actually is. If you are recording audio separately, this isn’t a problem, and I loved the footage from the lens which had a great quality to it (very punchy and detailed). Focus pulls are not incredibly fast, but they are fairly smooth, and there wasn’t any pulsing or settling when arriving on the subject.
Where I will criticize, however, is that when filming a fairly static scene (like one of my YouTube presentations), the focus doesn’t always stay still. It doesn’t do major pulses like some lenses, but the F051 is guilty of some unnecessary microadjustments where you can see tiny pulsing on occasion. The fact that you hear a little click when this happens also serves to draw your attention to it. My most-used video lens for my channel is the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD, which is noticeably better in this kind of scenario than the F051.
I did some work on a gimbal, however, and I was perfectly happy with the footage and quality of focus. My conclusion for both videos and stills is that the OSD focus motor works fine for the vast majority of work, but it isn’t as refined in the more difficult margins as some better focus systems including Tamron’s own RXD. To be fair, this is a budget lens, but so is the Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 and (to a lesser extent), Sigma’s 45mm F2.8 (two somewhat similar lenses for Sony that I’ve reviewed in the past six months) and I would call the focus system in both those lenses more sophisticated in operation.
F051 Image Quality
Part 2 of my video review breaks down Image Quality, Video Performance, and delivers a final verdict. Check out this video to see these results interactively:
There’s a lot of good news to report on this front, as Tamron has does a great job of delivering excellent image quality out of this little prime lens. The formal tests are done on the a7RIII (42MP) with real world tests down on either the RIII or the a9.
There is some barrel distortion and vignette that is exaggerated by the close focus distances of my brick wall test. Fortunately the distortion itself is very linear and corrects both easily and cleanly (no mustache pattern).
Both JPEGs and video will receive automatic corrections (if enabled), and the in-camera profile produces very clean JPEG results:
Though you can’t see it here, obviously, video is similarly clean. Very good news on that front. When compared to the 17-28mm RXD zoom (set at 24mm), there is unsurprisingly less native distortion on the zoom. I say unsurprising because the zoom is the middle portion of its zoom range where distortion tends to be lowest.
When comparing resolution and contrast, we find that the zoom lens is sharper and more contrasty in the center of the frame, while the situation flips in the mid-frame and corners where the F051 is the sharper of the two:
I’m not at all surprised by this result, as it essentially mirrors what I saw from comparison between the 17-28mm and the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 FE zoom. The 17-28mm is rather exceptional in the center of the frame but not quite as strong in the corners. The third shot in the series above shows that even though the F051 isn’t as sharp when compared directly to the zoom, in a real-world F2.8 shot it is delivering strong image quality even at landscape distances.
Stopping down to F4 shows an uptick in contrast and a very minor resolution improvement (particularly in the corners). The comparison to the zoom is the same – slight edge to the zoom in the middle, slight edge to the prime on the edges.
At F5.6 the F051 catches up to the 17-28mm F2.8 in the center of the frame while retaining an edge in the corners. That edge in the corners remains at all tested apertures. The 24mm F2.8 OSD is a very sharp little landscape lens, as these shots demonstrate.
While doing these tests I also noted that both lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberrations are extremely well controlled, with little to no purple or green fringing showing up in any of the high contrast situations I put the lens in. I shot a lot of light through this crystal and metal decoration as a torture test…and liked what I saw.
Another area of tremendous strength is the flare resistance of the F051. I was essentially unable to make it ghost or veil in any of the scenarios I put it in, so Tamron’s BBAR coatings are working a treat here!
The worst-case scenario did not involve the sun but the moon (final shot in the series above). A very bright moon (ruining my astro tests!) produced a bit of a ghosting pattern over the long exposure, but that was as bad as I could get.
Speaking of astro: this is a terrible time of year for astro. Almost every night is overcast, and the one clear night I got had a very bright, very persistent moon. I was able to get a look at coma, however, and the news is mostly good. There is little increased coma at the edge of the frame, with only the very start of “wings” growing on star points. This lens isn’t the best astro lens I’ve tested recently, but it does the job just fine and, for the money, is actually a good option.
I also felt like color rendition was quite good. Colors are rich and have good contrast. There’s nothing “cheap” about the end results coming out of the lens.
As noted previously, the F051’s ability to focus closely allows it to create a decent amount of bokeh, and image quality at close focus distances remains good.
I actually really liked the quality of the bokeh in this shot along with the tension between the dried weed in the foreground and the tree towering in the background.
This shot (and crop) highlights two truths. The first is that the high sharpness and low CA allow for great detail in the subject.
The second is at 24mm lens with a maximum aperture of F2.8 has a limited potential for blurring out backgrounds altogether other than in ideal circumstances. Still, I’m quite happy with close-up optical performance.
There’s a reason, however, that most macro lenses aren’t 24mm. At close focus distances there’s a good chance that some portion of the subject will be negatively impacted by the perspective distortion caused by a wide angle lens. This screw bit, for example, looks like it is slightly bowed in the image.
It isn’t. That’s just perspective distortion. It isn’t an optical flaw, per se, but rather a physical reality of a wide angle lens at close focus distances. Expect this to be even more exaggerated on the 20mm F2.8 when it comes out.
At the end of the way, however, there’s a lot to celebrate when it comes to the image quality here. The lens is sharp, has great flare resistance and chromatic aberration control, and delivers good image quality at all tested focus distances. Not bad for a lens this small and inexpensive!
Conclusion
So is a 24mm prime lens with a maximum aperture of F2.8 worth buying when there is a very competent zoom lens that covers the same focal length? Ultimately that question is going to be up to you, but here are the two most compelling reasons that I can see to consider purchasing the Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD M1:2 over the excellent Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD. The first is price. The 17-28 RXD is reasonably priced at $899; a relative bargain compared to competitors, but that is more than twice as expensive as the prime at $349. If you just want 24mm, there is no reason to buy the more expensive zoom, which, though light and compact, is essentially twice as big and heavy. The second compelling reason is if you want the awesome 1:2 macro capabilities of the F051, which can genuinely useful. It works well at minimum focus distances when used well, and there’s no question that the magnification provides new ways to frame a scene.
The F051 is a very strong little optical performer, but I’m not as wowed by the OSD focus system. It’s a little noisier than some competitors and is slower as well. There’s a good possibility that you will pick up some focus noise if you are recording in or on camera in a quiet environment. It got the job done and supports all aspects of Sony’s Hybrid AF, but it’s not as smooth and quick in operation as some other options. I wouldn’t consider it a deal-breaker for my type of use, but it’s definitely the main (only?) area that really drew any criticism from me. I would suggest you watch the video episode on autofocus to see if it falls within your “tolerance zone”. If it doesn’t, the autofocus on the 17-28mm is excellent, and that might be your preferred choice.
It’s a sign of the times that I offer up even that criticism, however, as just a few years ago the focus system would have been considered quiet, and none of us would have expected a feature like weather sealing in a lens so cheap. I would have been complaining that Canon (for example) didn’t include a lens hood in a $700 lens or that focus was so inconsistent that you might want to manually focus the third party lens instead. We live in a great age of photographer where even the bargain lenses like this one are shockingly good. So if the idea of a prime lens with a maximum aperture of only F2.8 doesn’t throw you, the reality of the lens certainly won’t. The Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD is a solid little lens and a lot of fun to use.
Pros:
Strong optical performance
Good close up performance
Excellent flare resistance
Excellent chromatic aberration control
Good color and contrast
Includes weather sealing
Excellent price to performance ratio
Cons:
OSD focus motor is not silent nor as fast as some competitors
Lens can do a lot of micro-pulsing when continuously focusing in stills or video
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Tamron 24mm, withmytamron, Tamron, 24mm, F2.8, OSD, M1:2, Tamron 24mm F2.8 Review, Tamron 24mm 2.8 review, Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD, F051, Dustin Abbott, Review, Autofocus, Sony a7RIII, Sony A7RIV, Sony a7R IV, Sony a9, Hands On, Video Test, Portrait, Video, Coma, Real World, Comparison, VS, Sony FE, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, 17-28mm
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Tamron has started to jump into Sony FE with both feet. It’s first two zoom lenses (17-28mm F2.8 RXD and 28-75mm F2.8 RXD) have been very well received, and now Tamron is following up with not only the announced 70-180mm F2.8 RXD zoom but also three prime lens that have only a moderately wide aperture (F2.8), but sport nicely compact, lightweight bodies and one other trick up their tiny sleeves: they are all 1:2 Macro lenses (one half life size). These are lenses that are somewhat similar to a lens like Zeiss’ classic 50mm F2 Makro-Planar…though with a smaller maximum aperture and costing less than a third of the price. I always have a few reservations when examining a prime lens that doesn’t offer an aperture advantage over a zoom lens, but we’ll see how each of these primes compares to Tamron’s zooms that cover the same focal lengths. One thing is sure: the macro(ish) performance of these lenses at least gives them a “killer app” not matched by the zoom lenses…and Tamron has priced them to move at $349 USD each. This image gallery looks at photos of and from the Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD (Optimized Silent Drive) Di III (made for mirrorless) M1:2 (1:2 Macro) lens. Photos taken with and review done on both Sony a9 and Sony a7RIII bodies…with maybe a peek or two at how it performs on a Sony a6500 as well.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Tamron 24mm, withmytamron, Tamron, 24mm, F2.8, OSD, M1:2, Tamron 24mm F2.8 Review, Tamron 24mm 2.8 review, Tamron 24mm F2.8 OSD, F051, Dustin Abbott, Review, Autofocus, Sony a7RIII, Sony A7RIV, Sony a7R IV, Sony a9, Hands On, Video Test, Portrait, Video, Coma, Real World, Comparison, VS, Sony FE, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, 17-28mm
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I’ve just spend some time with an impressive set of Variable Neutral Density filters from Freewell. This is the second time I’ve reviewed their products, and I’ve been pleasantly impressed both times by the innovation and quality of the products along with the reasonable pricing structure. In this case I reviewed their two different Vari-ND options: 2-5 stops and 6-9 stops. While some filter companies attempt to cover all this range in one filter, I think that Freewell has been wise to employ this segmenting, as I’ve reviewed a few others before that forfeited optical quality for larger range. You can both check out my video review below along with seeing some of the photos I took with the filters. I primarily used the the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD and 28-75mm F2.8 RXD lenses on a Sony a7RIII body.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Freewell, Variable ND, Vari-ND, Variable Neutral Density, 2-5, 6-9, Stop, Long Exposure, Magnetic, Swap, Filter, Filter Review, CP-L, Circular Polarizer, ND Filter, ND1000, ND64, ND64 + CP-L, Sony a7R IV, Sony a7riv, Sony a7r4, Sony a7RIV, Sony A7r IV Review, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, Samples Photos, Sample Video, Dustin Abbott, Review, Freewell Magnetic Review
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Sony a7RIII was the camera that really made me believe in Sony. It took a deeply flawed camera (though with some great strengths) in the a7RII and turned it into the most complete camera on the market at the time. It had a little bit of everything: great sensor, great autofocus, great video performance, and improved ergonomics. I liked it well enough that I immediately bought one (I had returned my a7RII loaner without a moment’s regret), and my a7RIII has served me faithfully for the several years. Sony has shown further signs of growth and maturity as an actual camera company, too, as they didn’t immediately abandon the a7RIII and continued to improve it via firmware updates, including the very significant Version 3 update that added several key features into the mix like real-time Eye AF, interval shooting, and Pet Eye AF. In some ways it is surprising that Sony has elected to replace the a7RIII so quickly (most Sony fans would have preferred the a7SIII first!), but after spending time with the new Sony a7RIV, I suspect that Sony is shaping a new market strategy with a couple of prongs.
Since the release of the a7RIII, both Canon and Nikon have released multiple cameras in their own full frame mirrorless universe (a space previously dominated by Sony), and, while the consensus remains that none of the Nikon Z cameras or the Canon R cameras are as complete as cameras like the Sony a7RIII or a7III, the a7RIV is clearly an attempt to Sony to further widen the gap with its competitors and maintain its market dominance. The second aspect of the market strategy that I see is to potentially create space for the a7IV to move a little more upmarket, which might create space for a new budget model to compete with the Canon EOS RP (and similar cameras) or for Sony to continue to reduce the price of the extremely competent Sony a7III to compete in that space. They have created that space by pitching the Sony a7RIV as a medium-format-competing, high resolution monster with a record (for a 35mm, full frame sensor) 61 megapixels of resolution. There is one significant misstep here, though, and that is that Sony has not allowed for any means of using a smaller amount of resolution when shooting RAW (outside of the crop mode). That means that if you are a RAW shooter, you are stuck always shooting with 61MP, which is, frankly, overkill in probably 95% of situations for 99% of all photographers.
The second image is a pixel level crop from the first. That’s a LOT of resolution to use 100% of the time!
In fact, anecdotal feedback from my YouTube audience suggests that few people were looking for a resolution upgrade here, and the sheer amount of resolution (32% higher) is actually more a deterrent to upgrading than an enticement to do so. And this is a shame, as in many other ways the a7RIV is the most complete, fully realized Sony camera yet. Let’s explore why together.
Prefer to watch your reviews? Check out my detailed, real world review here!
If you get lost in lengthy reviews, here’s a little bullet-point breakdown of what’s stayed the same, what’s changed, and what didn’t change but should have since the a7RIII:
What stays the same:
5-axis sensor stabilization with 5.5 stops of compensation (CIPA)
10fps continuous shooting with AE/AF tracking
Interval shooting
4K up to 30p and 100Mbps
Full HD up to 120 fps
1.44M 3.0-in LCD screen with touch sensitivity
NP-FZ100 battery
mic input and headphone output (3.5mm)
Same ISO range (native 100-32,000)
Similar dynamic range (close to 15 stops)
What’s different:
61MP vs 42.4MP
Autofocus improvements: 567 PD (74%W x 99%H = 86.5% coverage) vs 399 PD points (68% coverage)
Newer image processor and autofocus algorithms allow for better real time tracking.
Improved crop mode has higher resolution (26.2MP vs 18MP) and 325 PD points. Buffer grows from 68 to 204 in crop mode, making this an interesting sports or wildlife option.
Buffer depth drops slightly (from 76 compressed RAW files to 68)
More shots involved with Pixel Shift (16 vs 4) Requires Sony Imaging Software to combine.
Eye AF rather than face tracking during video
The hot-shoe has been updated to work with new accessories like microphones
Vastly improved viewfinder with 5.7M dot vs 3.6M dot. More real and natural (also crisper when zoomed in for focus confirmation)
Vastly improved grip is much deeper and now functional without accessory (though a grip extender is still welcome if you have big hands). About 4mm deeper but less than a mm taller
More weather resistance with increased seals
Both slots are now UHS-II compatible
Wireless tethering
Buttons and dials are improved in feel and positioning
What Should have Changed (but Didn’t!)
No MRAW or SRAW
Touchscreen execution still pathetic
No built-in GPS
No 4K60 option
What the bullet points can’t cover is how all of this plays out in real-world use, so let’s cover these areas in more detail.
Sony a7RIV Handling and Ergonomics
There are a number of key upgrades to the a7RIV from the a7RIII that have made it a far more useful (and usable) camera. You can see all of these changes by watching this video episode:
There are minimal differences in size and weight between the A9, a7R3, and aRIV, and, in fact, when I have all three in front of me I have to look carefully to determine which is which. The a7RIV is ever-so-slightly larger than the a7R3 with dimensions of 5.07 x 3.8 x 3.05″ / 128.9 x 96.4 x 77.5 mm and a weight of 1.46 lb (665g) vs 5 x 3.8 x 2.9” (126.9 x 95.6 x 73.7mm) and 1.445 lb (657g) for the a7RIII. The A9 has similar dimensions to the a7RIII but is slightly heavier at 1.481 lb (673g) due to a more robust build. Sony has used that extra millimeter of height and 4mm of depth well, as the a7RIV feels far, far better in my hands than the a7RIII. With the a7RIII I continually felt like my pinky had no place to go on the grip, and I resorted to continually using a grip extender to make the camera more friendly to my hands. With the a7RIV, I feel like the grip has room for my whole hand even though the camera is still considerably smaller than its DSLR counterparts.
That’s not to say that I don’t still prefer using a grip extender (I do), but I’m much more comfortable using the camera without one. The physical changes to the camera do mean that new accessories are required, like the VG-C4EM vertical battery grip. Fortunately the new body is shared with the new Sony a9II, so the accessories are also shared across that platform. No basic grip extender was announced alongside the new a7RIV, which definitely suggests that Sony has more confidence in the way the camera feels in the hand.
While the positioning of most of the buttons on the camera are very similar, the feel of the buttons are improved. The buttons have more travel to them (and are slightly more raised), which makes the tactile feedback more definite. My favorite improvement is to the AF-ON button, which I typically assign magnification to when shooting manual focus lenses, and it is many times over easier to find and operate by feel. It’s the little touches that make for a better experience.
Likewise the rear joystick has also been improved, with a better surface texture and more precise movement.
Both the front and rear control wheels have also been improved. The front wheel has received a slight cant upwards that makes it fall more readily to the finger, and the rear wheel has been moved up to a higher position on top of the camera body where it is easier to get one’s thumb on it. It is these little things that make for a better camera to the experienced photographer. All of the button and wheel positions have had tiny tweaks that have optimized their placement and performance.
Unfortunately there is still one glaring ergonomic issue that, frankly, boggles my mind. Sony continues to have the most half-baked touchscreen integration of any of the true competitors, and lags far behind the touchscreens in the most basic of Canon’s DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. The amount of things you can do is pretty limited, though, thankfully, you can use your finger on the touchscreen to move focus around while your eye is pressed up to the viewfinder. You can’t use the touchscreen to navigate menus, to navigate images during playback, to change settings, and, while you can now touch to focus, you cannot touch to release the shutter. What I find irritating is that there is no question that Sony is capable of doing better. I particularly find the lack of navigation ability via the touchscreen irritating. Both Canon and Fuji allow you to pull up the Q menu and make quick changes with the touchscreen. You cannot navigate Sony’s FN menu by touch. What I find frustrating is that there is no question that Sony is capable of better (they make smartphones!!!).
A close examination of all the doors and ports on the a7RIV reveal a much better implementation of gaskets and seals. The side doors and ports open in a more definite (and much less sloppy) fashion, and, when open, the doors covering the ports don’t hang in a way that interferes with operation any longer.
One of the single biggest criticisms of the a7R2 was the battery life, which Sony solved starting with the a9. The A9 turned this around by slightly expanding the grip to allow for a much larger capacity NP-FZ100 battery. This more than doubles the capacity, as the NP-FW50 has a 1020mAh capacity compared to the 2280mAh capacity of the FZ100 battery. The end result is that what was a weakness for the a7R series became a strength. The battery rating remains the same (530 shots), though I routinely exceed that by a fair margin. Using the battery grip will allow one to double that capacity.
Another long-overdue improvement is that now both card slots are UHS-II compatible, which allows both to benefit from the faster read/write times of UHS-II cards. I personally have moved over almost exclusively to the Sony Tough cards, which have more robust construction along with very high read and write speeds of around 300 MB/s. Many cards tout a high speed which is actually a read speed, but the write speed (the important one!) is much slower. The Tough cards are also Bend / Drop / Water / Dust / X-Ray Proof, so more ready for professional use. There is a solid argument to be made that Sony should have moved to a faster technology in this camera, one that is pushing more data due to higher resolution than any 35mm camera before. The buffer depth actually drops a little from the RIII to the RIV, and a faster card technology could have helped that. What is also obvious is that the delay problem while the buffer clears is still there even though the processing speed of the camera is undoubtedly faster to accomodate the considerably larger files. There’s room for both praise and criticism here. One final area to praise is that Sony has finally done the logical thing and made the top slot #1 rather than #2 (previous models had this reversed, which never made sense).
Sony’s 5 Axis in-body-image-stabilization (Steady Shot) works really, really well (particularly for stills). They claim more than 5 stops of stabilization, which might be a little ambitious, but the results are pretty fantastic. I’ve reviewed a lot of different IS/VC/OS/OSS lenses over the years and have a very good idea of what to expect at certain focal lengths, and, while the trope that IBIS isn’t as effective as lens stabilization is still pretty common, I frankly cannot tell a difference in everyday shooting. Sony does a great job with this sensor shift stabilization, and, to me, the benefit of sensor-based stabilization is the fact that it works for all lenses…including adapted lenses, vintage lenses, and wide aperture prime lenses. I was pleasantly surprised to put an adapted lens like my Zeiss Milvus 2/135mm on there via adapter and get solid results down to 1/8th and even 1/5th second shutter speeds. Having stability in a high-resolution body is even more important, as we will see in a moment.
One nice feature of Sony’s IBIS is that if you are using a lens with electronics (even an adapted lens), it will automatically adjust for the focal length. If you are using a lens without electronics (like the Laowa 15mm f/2 lens or similar lenses), you can manually set the focal length in the Steady Shot settings. I found that experimenting with that setting definitely made a big difference in the results and steadiness of the viewfinder image. It also made a difference in the smoothness of handheld video footage.
The a7RIV sports an intervalometer that is well-implemented for shooting time lapses, though I do wish there was an option for creating the timelapse movie in-camera, as downloading potentially hundreds of images and then creating the time lapse in software feels like unnecessary extra work. I would prefer to have a both/and option rather than either/or for this. Ditto for the Pixel Shift feature, which has expanded from 4 shots to a potential total of 16.
What is Pixel Shift? Pixel Shift functions by taking up to 16 photos (options are 4 or 16) while shifting the sensor one-half pixel in between, which results in getting massive amounts of information at a pixel level. Those (up to) 16 images are blended together (in software) to produce a single file with as much as 241MB, plus it eliminates things like moire and even increases color accuracy. This is particularly noticeable at a pixel level, where the file has much more resolution. Pixel Shift works best with a subject in which there will be no movement in between frames (architecture, for example), as there will be some delay between shots (though this is reduced from the 1 second intervals which were the shortest in the a7RIII). Landscape images might be marred if there is any breeze present.
After shooting you will have either four or sixteen uncompressed RAW files in camera (there is no automatic combining of files in camera, unfortunately). You have to combine these files in post afterwards, and, at least for now, this is unsupported by Adobe or other third party software makers even after several years of the technology being on the market. You are required to use Sony’s own Imaging Edge Software to combine the images. The end results are impressive, but, as things exist in the present, the technology has limited scope/applications. I actually prefer the 4 file option, which now creates a 61MP file (same resolution as normal) but with additional detail, contrast, and color fidelity due combining information from the four files. The downside is that the file size is roughly 4x higher than an uncompressed RAW, or about 480MB. Huge, in other words. But the 16 image file is a staggering 1.9GB in size. I have an incredibly powerful workstation (with 32GB of RAM), and Lightroom would not display the 241MP image at a pixel level for some reason or another.
A conversion to DNG in Lightroom resulted in 178MB and 664MB files respectively for the 4 image and 16 image options. In a couple of attempts, I didn’t actually find the 16 image file for me made an appreciable difference over the 4 image file (even when downsampled to equal size), and so it is highly unlikely to be a part of my regular workflow.
Here’s a look at a few pixel level crops from an image taken in normal compressed RAW (smallest file size at about 61MB) and the 4 shot Pixel Shift image (480MB):
You’ll be forgiven for thinking that the difference is not night and day. Yes, there is better contrast and slightly better resolution, but the different is not significant enough to use other than in incredibly critical situations. I suspect that Pixel Shift will be more of a novelty for most photographers.
Another feature I really wish was internal is GPS logging and geotagging. This is handled via a bluetooth connection to your smartphone and having the Sony Image Edge Mobile app active (and the Location Linkage set up). The problem? It doesn’t really work consistently, in my experience, leaving some images tagged and others untagged. You essentially need to be sure that the Bluetooth link is active before you start shooting (at the very least at the beginning of your shoot). I really wish this was handled internally, as the Canon cameras I’ve used with this internal GPS work much more reliably, though with at least some battery drain.
Sony continues to improve their electronic viewfinders, with another leap forward in the a7RIV. Mirrorless cameras utilize an electronic viewfinder, which is both a strength and a weakness. To date no EVF can compare to the clarity of an optical viewfinder (like that on DSLRs). The a9/a7R3 increased resolution from 2.359 to 3.686MP million dot, and the a7RIV/a9II furthers that improvement with a new 5.76 million dot EVF. It’s a major improvement, and I notice it particularly when magnifying the image. That being said, it is still a display rather than an optical instrument, and still has such limitations. Clarity isn’t as high as an OVF, though the gap is closing.
But there are also huge advantages to an EVF. You have much more flexibility in what can be displayed there, from information, overlays, and even image review. In bright situations being able to review images or even video in the viewfinder can be huge. When you switch into crop mode, the angle of view automatically changes, making composition easy. You can see real-time Eye AF tracking and be confident that focus is where it needs to be.
And, for me, the biggest advantage to an EVF is when using manual focus lenses. It shows true depth of field, for one, making visual confirmation of focus easier. You can easily magnify the image in the viewfinder, allowing you to nail focus every time. You can choose to add colored focus overlays (focus peaking) in different shades that will highlight areas in focus. This final method isn’t my favorite, personally, as it makes the shooting process less organic. One of the keys to being an effective photographer is the ability to visualize – to see color, light, and shadow – and I find overlays interfere with that. Still, it is my love for my manual focus glass that has been a primary catalyst in moving mostly to mirrorless bodies. Nailing focus consistently adds so much enjoyment to using these lenses…and the EVF is the single biggest reason for that. There’s still room for the technology to further mature, but the a7RIV’s EVF has definitely moved the ball closer to getting a more lifelike experience.
One final change is that the Exposure Compensation dial now has a lock to prevent it being inadvertently moved. If you don’t like using the lock, you have the option to leave it unlocked. It’s a small thing, perhaps, but it’s the little ergonomic improvements that make the camera more a joy to use.
All in all there are a number of areas of significant maturation in the a7RIV. The camera feels better in the hands and handles better than ever. There’s a massive scope for customizing the operation of the camera, from the dials to the buttons to even creating custom menus. If you are accustomed to either the a9/a7RIII/a7III, you will find that all the little details feel improved. Kudos to Sony for creating such a highly functional camera.
a7RIV Autofocus Performance
The a7RIII’s autofocus system inherited a lot of the technology pioneered in the a9 and was a HUGE improvement over the a7RII. While the difference isn’t as significant on the a7RIV, there is a clear and obvious improvement in real world use that goes beyond the specs. Speaking of the specs: the a7RIII had 399 phase detect AF points covering about 68% of the sensor. The a7RIV advances to 567 PDAF points spread out over 87% of the sensor. That leaves only the a9/a9II (and, oddly, the a73) in better shape with 693 PDAF points covering 93% of the sensor. These PDAF points are supported by 425 Contrast AF points in all noted models. The autofocus in the a7RIII was/is excellent, but the a7RIV is enough improved that it feels closer to the performance of the a9 than it does to the a7RIII. Find out more in this video episode here:
Sony managed to dramatically improve some areas of autofocus on the a9/a73/a7RIII via firmware (namely the Version 3 firmware in a7 bodies and the version 6 firmware in the a9). This allowed for Real-Time/Full-Time Eye AF, so Eye AF can be continually engaged without having to depress a button. It make a huge ergonomic improvement to this functionality. They also added the ability to switch between human and animal (Pet) Eye AF, which allows for much-improved tracking of animals eyes (which vary in kind from the human variety). This made a notable improvement when tracking animals. Real-Time face tracking during video was added as well.
The a7RIV inherits all of these technologies but has them built into the basic architecture of the camera. It shows, as autofocus just feels better executed in the small ways. One area, for example, is when using adapted lenses in Canon EF mounts. Many of them now function with near-native performance (at least for stills) and are noticeably more confident than on the a7RIII that I’m now so familiar with. Here’s a few with both a telephoto (Canon 100-400L II) along with my Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II:
The only place where the a9 still stands out as being better is when shooting high-speed action with longer telephotos. It still seems to be able to drive lenses a little faster and squeeze just a little bit more of tracking out them, though I mostly only noticed this when using adapted telephoto lenses. The a9 was the only camera to track a sprinter running right towards the camera at high speed when using an adapted Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II. Other than that, however, I felt like my autofocus performance was very similar to that of the a9.
Sony’s Eye AF works fantastic, delivering consistently focused results even with an F1.2 lens like the Sigma 35mm F1.2 DN ART lens that I tested during my review period with the a7RIV. I shot many F1.2 shots with the lens in a portrait session and for general use, with all the Eye AF results perfectly focused regardless of where I composed in the frame.
Likewise face tracking during video recording is better than ever. I feel like Sony has definitely caught up to Canon’s Dual Pixel AF tracking that for several years was the industry standard. I’m able to shoot my video episodes now without worrying about autofocus, as the camera naturally detects my face/eye and tracks it rather than the background.
One other interesting feature is the a7R3’s Silent Shutter mode, which, combined with the whisper quiet focus many of the better lenses results in such a silent operation that the only indication of a photo having been taken is the writing of the file to the card. This is pretty huge for events or quiet venues, allowing you to take photos in a completely unobtrusive fashion. There are a few quirks with this, however, including the fact that it doesn’t work with the anti-flicker mode. It appears to be an either/or thing, which is unfortunate considering that these should be complimentary rather competing technologies. It only seems to work with mechanical shutter, however.
Speaking of that anti-flicker mode. Anti-Flicker is designed to help off-set the cycling of some types of lights that result in uneven illumination or discoloration. This has been an area where Canon cameras are definitely better than Sony ones, though there is fortunately some improvement here. It seems to work a bit better than past iterations, evidence that Sony continues to slowly but surely grasp the little things that make for a more complete camera system, and this is incredibly important in winning over (and retaining) adapters of their cameras who are accustomed to slightly more mature cameras from Canon and Nikon.
The Sony a7RIV has a very robust focus system that compares favorably to any and all competitors. Sony has done yeoman’s work on this front over the past four years and is to be commended. The a7RII was way behind competitors; now Sony is the competitor to beat.
Buffer and Burst Rate
The a7RIII took a massive leap forward in burst rate and buffer depth over the a7RII, but unfortunately we have a mild regression in the a7RIV for the simple reason that it is pushing about 32% more information through the pipeline. In many ways Sony is to be praised for such a mild reduction in buffer depth and for retaining the same burst rate despite the massive resolution of the a7RIV, but there’s also no question that the market is accustomed to Sony delivering ever-higher specs. Here’s a chart that compares the shutter speed and buffer depth of some of Sony’s most popular models:
There is a mild regression from 76 (a7RIII) compressed RAW files to 68 in the a7RIV. It takes just as long as ever to empty that buffer, too. Impressively Sony has managed to retain the 10 FPS burst rate (with either mechanical or electronic shutter) of the a7RIII, which is impressive considering how much information is being moved.
For many people 68 RAW images will be enough for any situations. Cut that figure in half if you shoot uncompressed RAWs. I’ve tried just shooting medium JPEGs (26MP), and I managed to get 73 before slowdown, so obviously the camera is limited in those situations as that isn’t nearly the amount of information that 68 compressed RAW.
The a7RIV has an additional trick up its sleeve, however. It has an extremely useful, high resolution 26.1MP APS-C mode. When you are in APS-C mode, the camera shifts into a much deeper buffer depth. I was able to get over 250 compressed RAW or JPEG files before slowdown, and the buffer emptied in what was a very reasonable 25 seconds for so many files (about 27MB each) to clear. What’s interesting to me is that this is actually considerably more total data than what 70 full size RAW files represent, so perhaps Sony is actually limiting the full size buffer (heat protection?). What this means, though, is that the a7RIV is an excellent option for wildlife shooters who want to use the camera in APS-C mode…and that extra reach can be very, very useful!
Now that both slots are UHS-II you don’t have to worry about one of the slots potentially slowing you down. My preferred set-up is a “Sort” option where RAW files are written to Card 1 while JPEGs are written to Card 2. This gives me flexibility for what format I want to grab and also a kind of back-up on a separate card, though your mileage may vary.
The shutter speed and buffer depth are definitely competitive…particularly when one considers the huge resolution. Sony made a choice to advance resolution rather than improving on burst rate or buffer depth, but those migrating from the a7RIII to the RIV are not really losing out on anything, either.
Sony a7RIV Sensor Performance
In many ways the a7RIII’s sensor was little changed from the a7R2, which is understandable since the 42.4 Megapixel Exmor sensor with a base ISO range from 100-32,000 was that camera’s greatest strength. It was a back-illuminated sensor utilizing Sony’s BIONZ X image processor with a rated 15 stops of dynamic range at low ISO values. Sony decided that it would make a major jump in resolution from the 42.4 MP sensor in the a7RIII to a 61MP sensor in the a7RIV. That’s a jump from the 7952×5304 file dimensions of the a7RIII to 9504 x 6336 pixels in the RIV. That’s about 32% more resolution, and, though that is a great marketing statistic, in many ways it is also the way that the a7RIV is most compromised. The massive amount of resolution has created one huge advantage, however, and that is in the excellent 26.1MP APS-C crop mode. The strengths and liabilities of the sensor are explored in this video.
Resolution
This video dives deep in the realities of high resolution, and can demonstrate many of the points I make below.
First of all, let’s be clear about what I consider to be the single biggest liability to the 61MP sensor on the a7RIV; Sony still has not provided any MRAW or SRAW (Small or Medium RAW) options, meaning that it is 61MP all the time, which is often overkill in many situations. Many, many more people would consider this camera if they had the option to shoot at lower resolutions (and smaller file sizes) when the full 61MP was not needed. Options at, say, 45MP and 30MP would have been fantastic. One has three JPEG options (60MP, 26MP, and 15MP), so it’s a bit confusing why Sony doesn’t offer any RAW options. The only way to get a smaller RAW file is to activate the APS-C mode (26MP), but then one also activates a 1.5x crop, which changes the angle of view on all your lenses. This omission is puzzling, particularly since we had similar complaints about the a7RII and a7RIII.
So, as it stands, you are left with large and larger file sizes and all of the potential storage and processing slowdown issues inherit in adding 32% more resolution to an already high resolution camera. Here’s a look at how current models compare (the a9II and a7III will share the file sizes from a9 specs):
If you are shooting RAW, the minimum size (as it stands) is going to be 61MB for compressed, and 122MB for uncompressed. If you are shooting a portrait session, wedding, or event and shoot hundreds of images, there is going to be some serious storage requirements and you will need a recent, powerful computer workstation to be able to process those images.
The advantage, however, is that there is a massive amount of resolution to work with. This gives one incredible versatility in how you can frame an image. Take this photo, for example:
I only had the new Sigma 35mm F1.2 DN lens with me, and because of the physical location, I couldn’t get closer to the old mill. I didn’t love the foreground, and felt the image didn’t draw the viewer into the main event – that gorgeous old mill in the autumn scene. The sky is also quite bland here. So I did a 16:9 crop from the center of the frame and got this image:
What’s amazing, however, is that this deep crop still has the same resolution as the a9/a7III sensor, with plenty of resolution for even large prints. Imagine the possibilities this opens up for macro shooters, wildlife shooters, and even landscape photographers that can create entirely different framing of scenes from one location.
As previously mentioned, the APS-C crop mode is equally useful for the same reason. I like to assign APS-C/Super 35 to a button (C1, for me), so that I can easily switch back and forth between framing options. I find this incredibly useful at events where I don’t need as much resolution (and am more likely to deliver photos right to the client), as I can change up framing options on the fly.
Marketing hype for certain lenses (ahem, G Master), has created a somewhat false perception that only certain lenses will “work” on a high resolution body. My experience on both the Canon 5DsR and on the a7RIV is that this is very misleading. The sensor of a camera does not change the optical properties of a lens. What does change, however, is the amount of pixels that aberrations and optical flaws cover. Instead of a few pixels, purple fringing will cover 2-3x more…making it much more obvious at a pixel level. Ditto for the “haze” to textures that comes from surface aberrations.
Here’s a good example. I tested the new Sigma 35mm F1.2 DN ART for coma on both the a9 and the a7RIV. Obviously the lens has equal amounts of coma in both applications, but at a pixel level the comatic aberrations (wings growing on stars in the corners) is much more obvious on the a7RIV:
Is the lens performing worse? No. The flaws are just more visible due to high magnification at a pixel. When viewed globally, they won’t look any different.
My vintage glass that I tested (SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 and Helios 44-2) looked a little rough at wide apertures because it exposes the low contrast, hazy textures, and chromatic aberrations that older, less corrected lenses often have. But if I throw an inexpensive modern lens on there like the Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 (my review here), it looks great even at F1.8 (second image is a crop):
A serious advantage the a7RIV has over, say, the Canon 5DsR is the IBIS (in body image stabilization), that helps with motion blur. Like other aberrations, motion blur will occupy more pixels and make images look softer, so having good stability is extra important when shooting at higher resolutions. I actually saw very few images impacted by motion blur, though I did find trying to handhold images at low shutter speeds a bit more challenging for this reason.
If you want to see how a number of other lenses hold up, take a look at this video highlighted above.
There’s no question that there are many applications for this high resolution. I think that most photographers wouldn’t mind having the option of having 61MP available; they just don’t want to shoot every shot that high!
Dynamic Range
Dynamic range has become one those topics debated ad nauseum on photography forums and harped on by certain reviewers to the place where some perspective has been lost on the topic. It has become one of the key “stats” where brand fanboys either push their brand or bash another, causing many people to become disgusted with the term in general. That being said, there is no question that there are a number of situations where improved dynamic range gives the photographer (and particularly the post-processor) more latitude to fulfill their vision. This could be in the ability to recover a blown-out sky or shadowed area as a landscape photographer or the ability to balance a foreground subject with a background or sky for portrait photographers. I’ve also been able to save images where I captured something special but a flash didn’t fire, like in this key moment shooting a wedding and using a smoke bomb:
As DR has improved dramatically in recent years, I have found that I do exposure blending/HDR less often, as it is often possible to get the result I want out of a single exposure. This helps simplify my workflow and yet create images that fulfill my artistic vision. Dynamic range is the range of visible light that a sensor can record, and the Sony a7RIV boasts a rated 15 stops of dynamic range (essentially the same as the a7RIII), though this figure is at a standardized 8 MP downsampling (this is the DXO approach). While this is useful for standardizing test results, note that in most practical situations (at a native pixel level) that dynamic range is a little below 14 stops.
I did head to head comparisons with the a7RIII, which I’ve previously compared against a number of other cameras from Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fuji. What I found is that while there are minor variances, the end result is practically the same. You can recover shadows and highlights to essentially the same degree.
When recovering shadows, you start to introduce some minor noise and color cast issues somewhere between 3 and 4 stops of underexposure. The first crop is from a 3 stop image, the second is 4 stops, and the final is the original to show you how much shadow is being recovered.
You have a lot of latitude when recovering shadows on the a7RIV. You might see a little more noise than the a7RIII for the reason we discussed before; at a pixel level the noise introduced will be magnified a bit.
As is typical, it’s a little harder to recover highlights in the extreme. Two stops is no problem, but starting at three stops little “hot spots” start to appear where highlight information cannot be recovered. By four stops a lot of data is lost (as you can see in the second image below). The third image shows just how much overexposure we are trying to recover in that final image.
My typical recommendation if you are shooting a scene where you need a lot of dynamic range is to slightly underexposure, as shadows can often be more cleanly recovered than highlights.
While there isn’t really any progress here from the a7RIII, the a7RIV is one of the best cameras on the market for recovering highlights and shadows. You never know what is waiting in the shadows…
ISO Performance
I ran controlled tests with the a7RIV, the a7RIII, and the a9, and found pretty much what I expected. A high resolution sensor is at a serious disadvantage at higher ISOs because of the high concentration of pixels on the sensor area. The Canon 5DsR had a maximum native ISO of only 6400, and noise levels were already very high by that point. The a7RIV is orders of magnitude better, with much lower levels of visible noise and no strange color banding when the shadows are raised at ISO 6400.
That being said, the a7RIV does take a step back from the a7RIII. They both share a native ISO range of 100-32,000, but the a7RIII has clear advantages in both the appearance of the noise (less coarse) and lower levels of color shift/color casts at higher ISO values. What surprised me is that this was true even after I downsampled the a7RIV image to a7RIII dimensions (to learn what I mean by downsampling, I recommend that you watch this video.) You can see what I mean here:
The cleanest results at higher ISO values comes from the a9 (and I found the same to be true when I reviewed the a7III). A downsampled comparison from the a7RIV (which theoretically favors the a7RIV) shows that the a9 has smoother results (less apparent noise), but, perhaps more importantly, you can see that while there has a been a green color shift to the a7RIV image, the a9’s image has retained near perfect color fidelity. If your priority is shooting events in poorly lit venues, the a9 or a7III is your best bet, followed by the a7RIII, and then the a7RIV. You have to choose the right tool for the job.
The anecdotal feedback I’m getting from those who have upgraded to the a7RIV is that photographers feel that they are seeing a little more noise at lower ISOs than what they are accustomed to. That’s an unavoidable tradeoff for the increased resolution. There is a step back from what we saw on the a7RIII.
That being said, the a7RIV does a remarkable job of managing noise at higher ISO values, and if you were to compare it to the Canon 5DsR, for example, you would see just how well Sony has done in mitigating this liability of higher resolution.
Color Science
There has been a fair bit of debate over Sony color. When I did extensive comparisons with the a7RIII (against the Canon 5D Mark IV and Nikon D850), I found the Canon colors to be the most neutral, with the Sony color most likely to have a bit of green/yellow tint in the skin tones. I’ve found that to be less true with the passage of time, which suggests to me that at least part of the improvement has been that Adobe has gotten better with its color profiles and processing of Sony colors. I won’t rehash that argument here, and will instead reserve my comparison to the a7RIII.
When I did a side by side comparison with a portrait subject, I found essentially what I did when I reviewed the a7III; Sony seems to have responded to some of the criticisms of the a7RIII by slightly reducing saturation in certain color channels. Reds seem slightly more saturated (a bit like Canon) in the a7RIII compared to the RIV, and I prefer the look of the RIII skin tones in this particular example. The RIV skin tones look fairly neutral to me, but they are also slightly “washed-out” to my eye when compared with the a7RIII, which allows the yellows to be slightly more apparent. This could be (at least in part) because Adobe has gotten better with the a7RIII’s color over time; it could also simply be the behavior of the new sensor. The third image comparison below shows both images with minor tweaks to improve saturation and vibrancy.
I have no actual concerns on this front, however, as I have a catalog full of images from my review period that have fantastic color shot on a wide variety of lenses:
To see many more photos that will help illustrate these points, take a look at the image galleries here.
Video Performance
One of the strengths of the Sony mirrorless brand for the past five years has been on the video side of things, where Sony has been far more aggressive than Canon or Nikon in introducing video features. The trend of pushing the envelope ends here, however, as Sony introduced more evolutionary than revolutionary touches here. Codecs, framerates, and basic specs stay the same. The codec choices are mostly MP4 variants (XAVC-S) in a compressed IPB format that is limited to 100Mbs. 4K framerates are still limited to 24/25/30P, and Full HD (1080) footage up to 120P. The only difference is that in super 35 mode the image is downsampled from 6K and comes without pixel binning. This (in theory) will produce slightly better results than the a7RIII, which downsampled from 5K, though in a side by side comparison the difference wasn’t significant enough for me to spot. There might be other situations/environments where most difference is apparent. In another clip (not Super 35), I actually felt the a7RIV’s footage looked a bit crisper, so make of that what you will.
After comparing a lot of footage, in fact, I would say that now the full angle of view and Super 35 footage looks more similar in sharpness to my eye. I don’t feel there is any significant loss when electing for the full view now, though as always Super 35 also means you get the option of using lenses designed for that crop (APS-C lenses) without having vignette issues.
SLOG 3 is still available (with a stated 14 stop dynamic range!) along with a Hybrid-LOG Gamma (HLG) profile for high dynamic range video. You can see a lot of video in this final review episode:
While there are no big headline improvements on the video front (and thus a lot of people will write off any upgrades), there are actually two significant upgrades that I see. The first is autofocus-oriented, as real-time Eye AF is now available for video recording. When the a7RIII was released, I still felt like Canon had the advantage with its DPAF video focus technology, but I now feel that Sony has caught up on this front. The a7RIV has proven very stable for my video episodes, with great face tracking not marred by video pulsing. This is really important for someone like me and a host of other people that get in front of the camera or VLOG.
The second improvement is the introduction to truly digital audio capabilities through an upgraded hot-shoe (now referred to as a “Multi-Interface Shoe”). The ECM-B1M microphone is the first to take advantage of this, and this new microphone can do analogue to digital conversation internally to output a direct digital signal.
Better focus and better sound makes for better video, even if we didn’t get the 4K60 that many people wanted.
Earlier Sony cameras had two main areas people complained about for video work: battery life and overheating issues, but Sony had already largely solved those issues with the NP-FZ100 battery and it’s higher capacity along with better heat dissipation in more recent bodies. I hear essentially no complaints on these fronts from my viewers/readers, and have no real complaints of my own. My only real complaints on those fronts have been from my a6500, a camera that predates both improvements.
Sony’s EVF has an extra degree of usefulness when recording video, as you can playback video clips not only on the screen but on the viewfinder. I find this very useful if I’m recording in bright, sunny conditions where it’s difficult to see anything on the LCD screen. I can get better feedback on the levels of my footage that way, and the new higher resolution viewfinder is a treat.
Sony’s built in 5 axis Steady Shot OSS is undoubtedly useful, as it applies equally to whatever lens you may have mounted for video. It doesn’t really rival the smoothness of footage you can grab with, say, a motorized gimbal like the Moza Air Cross but it is certainly better than having no stabilization. I think Sony’s IBIS works a little better for stills than video, though.
So, even though there are no major headline improvements to video, video performance remains excellent (unless you need 4K60!!)
Conclusion
The Sony a7RIV is a surprisingly controversial camera. It is a camera loaded with upgrades, from improved ergonomics to improved autofocus to record-setting resolution. But it is this last point that actually creates the controversy. While there are certainly those who have responded to my numerous videos on the a7RIV stating that they value and are loving the extra resolution, many more have written to say that they would have preferred all of the other upgrades but a megapixel count staying near 42 (perhaps with a few improvements to the existing sensor). Ironically people are disappointed with Sony for not bumping up the resolution on the a9II (there were hot rumors over a 36MP sensor going in the a9II) while being simultaneously disappointed with Sony for increasing the resolution on the a7R series.
While this may seem unreasonable, I do understand the sentiment. I think Sony could have solved that problem with one minor change to the a7RIV; include the same RAW resolution options as they did with JPEGs (60, 26, and 15MPs). Even better would be to give us RAW options like 60, 30, and 15MPs. This would allow people to offset the liabilities of always shooting with such high resolution by reserving it for the times it was truly needed. Maybe it’s not too late, and perhaps they can add some option via firmware. As someone who has shot with the a7RIII since its release, I can certainly say that even 42MP is not always necessary or welcome. It’s also disappointing that Sony hasn’t managed to improve some of the little details like a lackluster touchscreen and the inability to access some menu options while the buffer clears.
That aside, however, the Sony a7RIV is a camera that shows a lot of signs of maturity. It feels better in the hands. It has better ergonomics, better button and wheel positioning, and better feeling doors and ports on the camera body. It’s very apparent at close inspection that more effort has put into sealing the camera from moisture and dust (though sensor dust continues to be an issue here!) The autofocus system feels very similar to the a9 in most situations, and there is a real and apparent improvement over the already excellent AF in the a7RIII. You will find that many adapted lenses perform more confidently, though they are becoming less necessary as Sony has enjoyed the strongest support from third party lens makers over the past two years of any system. The Sony FE lens catalog is truly mature now, with a variety of options at varying price points now available at most focal lengths (with perhaps the exception of telephoto lenses). Sony has even done a good job of mitigating many of the potential downsides of such a high resolution camera, with only minor hits to ISO performance and buffer depth. The fact that you can still get 10FPS with so much resolution is impressive.
While the Sony a7RIV is far more accessible than what was the Canon 5DsR, I can’t help but think that Sony has created a more niche camera here due to the extreme nature of the resolution. Perhaps this is intentional, and they are creating space for a mid-grade model (might the a7IV move a bit up-market?). Perhaps they overestimated the market’s demand for higher resolution. Time will tell. In the meantime, however, my conclusion is this: not everyone needs a camera with this high of resolution, but that doesn’t stop the a7RIV from being a truly fantastic camera with a host of genuine strengths.
Pros:
Record-setting resolution at 61MP
Improved ergonomics; the camera feels better in hand
Strong autofocus improvements (567 PDAF points) makes it very near the a9 in performance
No real compromises to frame rate or buffer depth despite the 32% higher resolution
Better weather sealing and more logic design to ports and doors
Video improvements – minor picture improvements, better AF tracking, better audio
26MP crop mode is genuinely useful, as is the increased buffer depth in APS-C mode
Improved, high resolution viewfinder is a treat
Cons:
Record-setting resolution at 61MP (No options for lower RAW resolutions)
Touchscreen implementation lackluster
Camera still takes longer than competitors to empty buffer
More visible noise at lower ISO levels compared to a7RIII
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Sony a7R IV, Sony a7riv, Sony a7r4, Sony a7RIV, Sony A7r IV Review, a7riv review, Sony, A7R IV, a7r 4, Review, 61MP, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Battery Life, Canon EOS R, Sony a7rIII, Video Test, Sigma 14-25mm F2.8 DN, Tamron 17-28mm F2.8, Sigma 35mm F1.2, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, 201p, Ergonomics, Sigma MC-11, Metabones, Vello, Sony a9
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.