The new Zeiss 24-70mm F/4.0 is finally in Stock and shipping in many stores: In USA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. And in Europe at Sony DE, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, SE, PT (Click on country name to see the lens site).
But how good is the lens?
Well DxOmark (Click here) just posted the full lab test results and writes:
Performance of the Zeiss Vario-Tessar is good overall but it’s not without some idiosyncrasies. On the one hand it has very good uniformity, barring a dip wide-open at 24mm, it’s sharp right out to the corners.
Control of other aberrations at the wide end – chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting isn’t quite what we would expect, but at all other focal lengths the lens performs well. Given the not unreasonable price of the lens (and the camera body for that matter), Sony has managed to deliver a balance of performance and value, while at the same time offering something different to the mainstream options. There’s little doubt it’s an attractive combination, but it’s not quite the resounding success we believed it would be.
And here are more recent tests:
Zeiss 24-70mm lens test by Tim Ashley and this is what he thinks about it in very short:
It’s not perfect but I think it is the single most useful lens in the world right now. I really do. And it is a whole barrel load of fun.
And Leica Boss writes:
flexible zoom with a lot of very impressive qualities that will probably never dazzle me… but will certainly get the job done well.
Unboxing video by TheDigitalDigest:
0 Responses
Not clear how it scored better than the Canon overall while actually scoring worse in each and every sub-category.
And considering the MP score was on a 36MP sensor vs a lowly 22MP its a bit rubbish. Canon actually scores quite well, so no idea how it does so badly in oval score. Also Canon is supposedly best at 24mm, which is rare on a zoom to be best at its widest setting.
You reminded me of Seinfeld. LOL.
“why do they call it ovomaltine? why not call it roundtine?”
See above.
According to “lens metric scores”, I’m not sure why it has better overall mark than Canon’s lens…
Because that’s based on more than a single datapoint for every metric. If you look for example at the MP graphs for every FL, the Zeiss is overall similar at 24mm, quite a bit better at 35mm to 50mm and only slightly loses at 70mm.
While looking at that, did you happen to notice the minor 22 vs 36mp discrepancy in the mp count of the respective cameras? I know fanboys suffer from a unique type of dyslexia where facts complementary to items not made by their beloved brand,almost magically become invisible , whilst the facts that support their bias become super bold.
Did you notice the obvious fact that Canon does not offer a 36 MP sensor?
These are scores with the best available sensors for native lenses. Whatever happens with more Canon MP, is a matter of guessing and quite irrelevant in the real world today. And before anyone mentions adapters, they affect IQ (especially corners), do not nearly offer the same AF experience (if at all) and increase size, weight and cost further.
No need to get personal as usual, it’s just a lens. But if you really can’t stand the scores, take it up with DXOMark.
Well considering the current shortage of native lenses adapters are going to be in very common use with the A7/r. Canon users are probably the most likely DSLR fans to adopt the A7r as they do not have access to a 36mp sensor. I agree totally about extra cost,bulk and lack of AF.
However , after buying a fotodiox adapter to play around with my Nikon lenses on the A7r , even with very strict shot for shot comparisons between my D800e & A7r , I did not see a determinable loss in corner quality { I am principally a landscape shooter } maybe those who shoot at very wide apertures may see it more though . I think that the lens adapter conclusions by Roger Cicala do not necessarily reflect real life results. I tried from 14mm to 300mm
I would just ignore Bob he seems a bit of a grump and for some reason you appear to be his current target. though he has a point that results on a 22mp camera are not going to be the same as those on a 36mp sensor.
I agree that going from 22MP to 36MP may well increase the measured resolution, but it also may not. For example, if you compare the results of that very Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 mentioned in the article above, between the D800 and D610, you will see zero measured gain going from 24 MP to 36 MP (in fact the maximum MPix results on the D800 were slightly lower, for some unknown reasons).
http://i59.tinypic.com/b63lt3.jpg
So that’s what I meant with a guessing game at this point.
As for the Roger Cicala article, you may well be right. I thought it came down to alignment and that in practise it most often is not perfect (yours may well be of course). Similar to the tolerances discussed related to the infamous light leaks from the A7(R) and various DSLR’s.
I think that the 24-120 is a pretty mediocre offering by Nikon standards certainly when wide open or at its longest focal length .I am assuming they did not use the exact same lens on each camera with slight sample variations being the culprit for the different score.
However when you compare decent lenses on 22 vs 36mp the difference is clear sometimes very clear.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-35mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-versus-Sigma-35mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon___1057_0_1056_0
Though I tend to ignore the “score” of a test on DXO generally speaking the data they represent is reasonably comprehensive though I have seen a few anomalous results.
I think that with many camera/lens/adapter tests the tolerances observed in the lab do not always have as much of a deleterious impact on real life shooting as the conclusions would have us believe. Obviously as a landscape shooter much of my shooting is done stopped down and at low ISO so i can generally use the sweet spot of any lens I use.
Great self-description there!
I think I’m on the same boat as everybody that we’re all a little disappointed that the FE 24-70mm doesn’t perform as well as the FE 55. That being said, I’m more looking forward to the wide angle zoom that is coming soon. Hopefully that lens will perform better than the FE24-70!!
http://www.minipixels.net | Automotive Photograph + Design
I can’t believe you were even remotely expecting it to come close to the FE55?
i know i know but the FE55 was unexpectedly good….nobody thought it would be a “Otus lite” in the beginning….
http://www.minipixels.net | Automotive Photograph + Design
From what I’ve seen from the FE 24-70 was surely disappointing. I was going to move all my Alpha gear and adapter to grab it, but it just didn’t fit the cost in my opinion. I hope the wide angle is on par with the 16-35 A mount.
Don’t hold your breath on the ultra-wide-angle. But, then again, the 16-35mm A mount is full of issues.
Having shot about 1,000 frames in all kinds of light and conditions with the FE 24-70 – I really can say it’s a lovable lens, and if you can ignore the corners at 24mm and deal with the “stop down a little to really improve image quality” (like all zooms) – you end up with a pretty fantastic lens.
I suppose I’ll wait to see more, If I were to buy it 24mm would be important to me, so I’m not really sure. You have a link to some of your shots?
That’s good enough for me since it is already better than its competitions, Sigma 24-105mm f4 DxO Score is 21.
The Sigma is tested on a 22mp 5Dmk111 and despite the overall score the Sigma does better than the Sony lens on a 36mp A7r in transmission, vignette and distortion, while equaling resolution. When tested on an A7r or D800/E the Sigma will outperform the Sony.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-STAR-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Sigma-24-105mm-F4-DG-OS-HSM-A-Canon___1253_917_1255_0
The difference between lenses tested at 22mp and 36mp is quite notable. Even Gods own lens the Otus 55mm lol cannot close the gap between 22 and 36mp cameras .
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-STAR-Otus-55mm-F14-ZF2-Nikon-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-STAR-Otus-55mm-F14-ZE-Canon___1242_0_1241_0
Thanks for the info. However by comparing the size and weight, I think Zeiss is still a better walkaround zoom than Sigma.
The Zeiss is obviously the best lens for the A7/A7r. It’s also the only stabilized, and weather sealed 24-70 f/4.0 available for the A7/A7r. Its definitely at the top of my list. Hopefully a 85mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 will arrive in the near future.
Well “best ” is a matter of opinion , if by best you mean best resolution, best transmission, best vignette and best distortion, best focal range the Sigma { on a 36mp body} will be best. If you mean best price, the Sigma will be still be best
If you mean most convenient { native mount and full AF} then Zeiss will be best. Personally I am going down the prime road with my A7r I have all the high end zooms I need for my Nikon gear. I would like a good 24 or 28mm around F2 . I am sticking with the FE 35 and 55 at the moment { very happy with them }
A lot of my work is outdoors in Canada. A native weather-sealed Sony lens is practically a requirement. I’d buy weather-sealed Sigma lenses, if they were available, but they’re not.
Two other measurements of Zeiss 24-70 are worth noting. The sharpness on 24MP NEX-7 is 7MP and on 20MP A3000 it is 8MP. First both of these measurements are surprisingly weak: same as the pancake zoom. This is in contrast to Canon and Nikon FF zooms which are usually pretty good on cropped sensors as well (usually around 10MP on 20+MP sensors).
And it is also interesting to see a clear proof that 24MP were too much for NEX-7 sensor. Effectively it’s worse than lower-resolution sensors. Let’s see if A6000 fixed that or is another failure of reason for the sake of high MP marketing.
I don’t care for APS-c score. This lens was designed for full frame and it rocks!
It can’t be worse than lower-res sensors. It’s the same lens.
The problem with this is that DxO doesn’t actually test the lens on all those bodies. It’s not like they actually mounted it on a NEX-7 and A3000 and got data. They just mount it to one body and extrapolate what it “might” be on a NEX-7 and all those other bodies, based on the sensor data.
This is why the lens sharpness data for the A77 is always so bizarre and far from reality.
A reference would be nice. I would say without a reference, this is plain crap. You are now officially a troll.
Why don’t I say the same? Site one place that they claim to test every combination on the bench? They will not and have not, because it isn’t true. They show results for over 20 Canon cameras for each lens. When they add a camera, lens results for every lens ever tested automatically appear. It takes hours to conduct a test. Do they spend hundreds of hours of labor every time they test a lens?
This defies logic.
And stop being so juvenile, pointing fingers and telling ‘troll’
That’s interesting, they should only publish data on cameras actually tested. The other data is invalid and misleading. This new lens does perform well and is competitive in its price range, give Sony credit for making some serious glass for this new A7/7r system.
The least you could have done before making (obviously false) claims, is read how they conduct their tests…
http://www.dxomark.com/About/What-is-DxOMark2/Test-result-reliability
And there are many more pages describing their methods.
I’m not saying all their lens results make sense (some really don’t, for example my 50mm f1.4 doing horrible on just my crop camera, scoring lower on resolution than my kitlens…), but they do explain their methods.
Look. Clearly DxO has developed an interesting algorithm, but they have absolutely obscured the details. Even their deeper technical documentation has major gaps and holes… As they must keep what is under the hood a secret.
Their technical marketing is fantastic, because it creates blind faith without showing the goods. It is carefully worded, as to be technically true but foggy.
Good luck telling us what a perceptual megapixel actually is, (we only know it is somehow based on a guess of the limits of human visual acuity) or why lenses are reported ‘best’ wide openopen (we only have a vague idea that it may be due to the tests being at a constant illumination and shutter speed, requiring escalating ISO at higher apertures). And why real world infinity focus is almost always worse then their pmpix charts show.
This is why, in direct communications, question on their own forums and technical reports, they never answer questions about results interpolation. Can I say we know for sure if they do or do not have 20+ Nikon bodys sitting there and do extensive, intensive testing on all of them for every lens… And go back to the manufacturers and get every lens ever tested when a new body is released (they have stated that they often borrow the lenses and bodies)? No… I cannot say for sure. But nobody can.
Actually, Stephen Shankland was invited to witness their tests and his testimony is that they are extremely rigorous indeed.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/
That doesn’t refute the central point – I’m sure the tests they actually do are completed with great care.
But take this thought exercise… open your mind for a second.
1. When a new camera body is tested, results on that body appear for every lens ever tested on that system. Instantly.The 70D review came out, and every lens ever tested for the EF mount appears as “tested” on the 70D
2. DxO notes that they ‘borrow’ lenses to do their lens analyses… Hmmm.
3. To believe they physically mount each lens to each camera to generate their lens data – we must believe that A) They have every lens ever tested in inventory AND do a bench test on each lens for every camera that comes in OR B) They go back and re-borrow every lens ever tested when a new camera comes in AND do a bench test on each lens OR C) They have a mathematical way of interpolating this data based on a limited number of physical lens tests and the archival sensor data
3a. In the case of Canon EF (full frame) – they report data on ~109 lenses. They claim to take “thousands” of frames for each lens test. I believe this is true. Let’s say it takes 2 hours (conservative) to test a lens/camera combo. This means 218 hours of labor goes into lens tests for every Canon camera that is tested. This is 6.2 weeks of labor in France. This doesn’t even include the camera tests – that they say can take days of labor.
3b. If, in fact, they just have all those lenses sitting there – waiting to be tested on each body that comes in… They have $166,558 in Canon EF full-frame mount lenses alone. Just sitting there, waiting to be tested, depreciating.
3c, Consider the reverse of this with bodies. This also would also mean, when a new lens comes in, they have every body ever tested for the system sitting there in inventory as well.
Food for thought. Is this reasonable to you? That a relatively small software-driven company keeps one of the world’s most complete archives of exotic glass in inventory at all times and spends weeks and weeks of skilled labor costs every time a new camera comes out?
It’s perfectly possible that they do. And you still have not presented any references or proof for your accusations (wich therefore are false).
What you’re failing to see is that it’s perfectly possible that they do – AND perfectly possible that they don’t. I personally don’t claim to know which it is (you seem completely assured that they do). I do believe it’s far more reasonable to think that a software company does some of these “Tests” by algorithm, vs. believing that a small software/tech company keeps an almost world record amount of camera inventory.
My mind is open, since I wasn’t and am not making all the assumptions…
And in your post above, again you suggest that borrowing means they do not have instant access when needed. We already know for a fact that they often have access to camera bodies before they are even available to the public. Sometimes LONG before that (see Canon 550D prototype tests they published for example). Does that make it hard to believe that the same contacts (manufacturers?) cannot supply them with lenses alongside the bodies? And how long do they borrow? Who’s to say they can’t use some/many of them for years? Sure, I doubt they have the very expensive lenses sitting there depreciating for years. But who’s to say that if not accessable through the manufacturer, they don’t have a deal with a lens rental agency?
IF you for some reason assume that they interpolate/extrapolate results between bodies (basically saying their repeated claims of testing every body and lens combination in practise, are lies…), why for example are we still waiting for any 16MP APS-C NEX lens results? Why aren’t the results perfectly consistent between bodies using the same sensor (hinting at other variances such as sensor alignment etc.)? You can’t explain that using the theory of calculation replacing measurement.
Sorry but I must question your statement about Dxo not testing all the combinations with each camera body. As far as I know Dxo does test all the body lens combinations fully, especially for zoom lenses. How else could they possibly provide such accurate lens corrections (at different zoom levels) for all the zoom combinations available in the Dxo Optics pro standard and elite software? That’s not possible to do without extensive testing and calibration of each lens / body combo. As a matter of fact Dxo has separate corrections for both RAW and JPEG images for most Camera / Lens combinations. I believe the Dxo mark info is just a byproduct of the extensive testing they do for their software applications. I know for certain that all the Dxo optics pro lens corrections for all my Nikon and Sony body / lens combos is far superior in Dxo optics pro elite than the Adobe Lightroom corrections which are very flawed and inconsistent. Also Dxo does state exactly which camera bodies are “TESTED” with each lens in their lens database. So I do not understand how you can claim otherwise with no apparent proof other than your assumption that it’s ‘to time consuming’
Another point to keep in mind is that with the resolution test results they are using “perceptual Megapixels” which a more subjective and real world measure than just test results. You may want to read up on the links below about how Dxo tests and reports their results before falsely accusing them of not performing the actual testing!
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Looking-for-new-photo-gear-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you
http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Sharpness
It isn’t plain crap without a reference it just isn’t proven. This isn’t even trolling, he isn’t knocking the gear but pointing out flaws in the way DXO operates.Why do people get so emotional about gear? It would be trolling if he was mentioning idiotic criticisms of a particular brand or model. All he is doing is talking about how DXO works….
I guess I’m a troll now to am i?
24MP is not too much/wasted, because an over-sampling can effectively reduce the noise
I like the lens and love seeing a high score, but DxO numbers are absolute horse droppings. these are so counter-intuitive to the actual use of the lens, it’s mind bottling.
They do appear to capture the modest drop in sharpness / contrast at 70mm, but really don’t detect the corner softness at 24mm in any of the lenses tested. But, that’s DxO. Facty, but faux objective.
I’m pretty impressed with how it holds up really nicely, overall vs. the stats for lenses like the A-mount Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8, the Canon 24-70f/2.8 v1. Realy, only the Canon 24-70L v2 is far better across the board.
Wrong, the Sony Zeiss is better across the board than the Canon lenses. It’s very clear from the tests.
That is a funny observation, but the numbers and field map of the EF 24-70mm f2.8 II on a lower res sensor surpasses the zeiss in every area. This is a $2k lens, so it’s nothing to cry about. And you cannot trust dxo anyway
What puzzles me is why the overall score is higher on the Zeiss when every individual score is lower.
This is the magic of DxO. A black box developed by very smart people that tells them a lot, but tells us a little.
Maria, why don’t you read his comments and understand what he is saying instead of just saying wrong! He made some points about flaws in the testing and mentioned how well it holds against all the other lenses but it isn’t strong in certain areas which is common knowledge, however these points don’t come up on the DXO tests!!
It’d be nice if DxO would finally also test the crop 16-70.
I made a test series of a building and used 24, 50 and 70mm with f/4, 5.6 and 8 on the A7R
you find the images in full resolution here in my flickr album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/sets/72157640650459604/
For comparison I loaded RAW images, developed in Lightroom 5.3 and OOC images of the f/4 images.
To my surprise the distortion is very high on the RAW images. On the OOC JPEGs the firmware did correct it very good, but you loose some content of the original image at the outer edges due to the corrections. In that case we don’t get full 24mm any more after correction.
I also found quite soft corners. Some tests for the OSS are also included.
Let’s hope, that we will get a profile for this lens soon in an update of the Adobe ACR.
Some “normal” images are here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/sets/72157640935764245/
Distortion at 1% but the graph shown something like 0.1%???
Why is the final mark of 25 better than the canon when the canon is better at just about every other measurement?