The following is a guest post written by Dierk topp. Please contact me (Andrea) at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com if you want to write an article to be published on SAR. Thanks!
—
Test of the new Zeiss Vario-Tessar FE 4/24-79 ZA OSS on the Sony A7R
This is no professional test and was planed for my own judgment of the lens. After looking at these images I hope, that we soon will get profiles included in the next Adobe Camera Raw!
Setup:
autofocus, tripod, horizontal control with bubble level, IR remote control
LR 5.3 default development, export JPG 92%, sharpening for screen during export
OOC JPEG images with camera defaults (I never use JPEG out of the camera and did not adjust any settings)
focal lengths 24, 50 and 70mm, with f/4, f/5.6 and f/8
I found severe distortions in all focal lengths and apertures in the RAW files. These distortions seem to be very good corrected in the camera JPEG with the effect, that you loose parts of the 100% image!
I added the OOC images with f/4 for these three focal lengths. EXIF is included in all images.
You find all test images in full resolution on my flickr album (Click here)
together with a set of the OSS test images, of course a complete individual result!
as example 50mm at f/4 from RAW
and OOC JPEG
P.S.: The new Zeiss 24-70mm is in Stock 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).
0 Responses
And please also consider to upload test RAWs to the Lensfun project! See http://wilson.bronger.org/calibration
Crappy lens…this is what happens when an electronic consumer company designs photo optical equipment and puts the Zeiss badge on it. Most copies are also decentered considering to the users on dpreview, freemiranda etc
The DPR and FM users are pixel peeping armchair experts that hardly ever take photographs.
Canon released a 24-70mm that performs below this lens in parameters ranging from size, to flare control, to contrast, to bokeh and even resolution… At a higher price.
So, what? You enlighten us to suggest we buy a $2,000 lens ?
I agree that his first sentence is bs.
However I can confirm that quality is quite often a problem with Sony during the past years (I could give you examples with highend Sony Vaio, upper class Camcorder and top end Bravia, too).
I own the 1018 and the 1670Z for my NEX7. Both have had centering issues.
The 1018 doesn’t have severe optical flaws, but the 1670Z has. And on top – the 1670Z does not have an engraved S/N – it is a LQ sticker…
Don’t get me wrong – I am neither nit-picky, nor am I a pixel peeper.
I am just a bit disappointed about the the qualitiy-to-price ratio.
At least the A-Mount range seems to have no issues at the moment (own the A99 with many G and Z). 🙂
I do not want to be overly rude, but I wonder if you have eyesight or perception problems? Because DxO mark measured higher resolution for Canon 24-70/4, despite it was used with 23Mp 5d3 vs Sony 24-70/4 used on 36Mp A7r.
Every measurement shew Canon’s advantage: higher resolution in general, much better controlled distortion (distortion once corrected will lower resolution, BTW), lower CA levels, higher light transmission, less pronounced vignetting.
Canon costs more though and I think both these lenses are overpriced.
would be interesting to see the results from the FE 24-70/4 Sony-Zeiss on either Nex-7 or the new a6k, although preliminary data shown elsewhere tell us it is even worse on a top-resolving APS-C sensor than on a FF one 🙁 !!
Not sure that’s a fair assessment givens the 35 and 55 zeiss FE lenses are spectacular
It’s not indicative of their lens making capabilities. The a-mount Sony zeiss 24-70 is among the best 24-70 lenses available – maybe only exceeded by the newer canon 24-70 mark II.
That doesn’t look so good. Perhaps Canon or Nikon 24-70 w/ Metabones would be a better choice?
Sony zeiss 24-70 for a-mount is great.
Is there a 24-79 lens??? A lot already elevated this slow zoom as a “crucial” one. It is hardly worth a look for me.
Improved A focus (speed/accuracy) in cameras would make them mildly interesting.
Consider it the future: no more going into lots and lots of effort to correct an objective by adding one or more correction lenses. Just correct it in software: easier, very much cheaper and good enough 🙂
Indeed – and it might even be possible to perform in-camera calibration so compensate for sample variations (in both lenses and cameras). I’m not quite sure how to achieve though. Test charts might go some way, but if you have to start compensating for long lenses and zooms (which will have lots of calibration points), it might be tricky – especially if you need rigorous test conditions. However, the use of automatic self-calibration is surely the way to go. Somebody will work it out.
Of course, it would require some in-camera processing to present the result as a type of pseudo-RAW (you wouldn’t want this just for OOC JPEGs).
Pseudo-RAW is not necessary. The Four-Thirds system shows the way: The lenses have the coefficients needed for correction in their firmware and transmit it to the camera. The camera stores them in the RAW. Then, every RAW converter knowing the formulae can apply the corrections.
OK – that’s another way, although it does require support in the converter, so it would be better if it’s some standard rather than vendor-specific. I suppose the advantage of having “true RAW” is that it’s transparent and means that there is scope for improved conversions in the future.
I think i feel the same with SEL 18105 G
Is that it? One focal length.
I am an A7r shooter and I bought this lens! But after one week end of extensive testing I just had to realize it is no good. Not sharp in center until 2 stops and never really in corners.
I was abel to return it and now I am a prime fan with 35/4 and 55/1.8 on this fantastic camera.
When there is a need for wide angels Sony 10-18 is very good with Lightroom lens profile. Even better than Canon 16-35 on Metabones and certainly smaller.
Looking forward on many new and good FE-lenses.
You must have had a bad copy which seems indicative of Sony’s QC. I am on my second copy of the 24-70 and it is fantastic. My 10-18 was good in the center and purple smeared softness in the corners, guess it’s just luck.
I got lucky too. Mine is great. The best 24-70 I’ve ever had.
do you have any samples. I was going to get this lens for event work with bounce flash mostly. I have the 35mm but the reach would be nice
there are lots of samples in my flickr stream. Search 24-70 FE to find them: https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=86537757@N00&q=24-70%20FE
I don’t like it at 24mm but I rarely ever shoot that wide. To me it looks close to the A-mount version. I can use this granted I get a good copy. Thank you
but when needed you can use it at 24mm and it’ll be fine.
Wayne here are some more. https://www.flickr.com/photos/26025618@N03/sets/72157642447592595/
thank you
Finally a photographer that actually has the lens and is commenting on it from experience and not just hearsay from other websites! I’ve used multiple 24-70 zoom lenses in the past including the Canon version 1 and the Nikon 24-70 and can confirm, like you, that it’s the best zoom I’ve used. I’m sure it isn’t as good as the Canon version 2 but it also is $1000 less and has OSS. Seems that the problem is Sony’s lack of quality control when it let’s these lenses out of the factory.
Canon’s 16-35 is one of their lower performing L lenses (the build quality isn’t great either). The Sony zeiss 16-35 is much better.
I returned my A7r. The system has too many problems. Both the 24-70, and 70-200 are demonstrating massive distortion problems.
There’s a 70-200 FE series for sale? I don’t think such a lens exists. The first shipment of that lens is April 14th… Only recently have you even been able to pre-order that. This makes me question you.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029862-REG/sony_sel70200g_70_200mm_f_4_5_6_g_lens.html
There are engineering samples already available to Sony’s select partners in Canada. If you know someone you’ll get a chance to try one out.
where are the photos or the link to the flickr gallery?
Admin you forgot to link to his flickr for the rest of the comparison shots.
I just found this post here at SAR and noticed the missing link:-(
I rented this lens from lensrentals.com to try on my A7 to compare with my fe35 and fe55.
Images shot at f5.6 and f8 tripod 2 second delay focused at infinity for landscapes.
My findings were consistent with other reviews I have read. Very sharp in center but edges suffer as compared to the primes. 24mm was really bad in the corners.
If I was shooting in a studio probably a great lens, but for me, this lens is a no go for my needs.
For now I will stick with my 3 primes, my last one being a Zeiss 85/4 ZM with Voigtlander adaptor small and light plus tack sharp. I Hope Sony releases a FE 85 prime and 135 prime
Why don’t you (for your purposes) treat the 24-70 at a 30-65mm as in that range it’s reasonably close to the primes. I also have the fe35 and the fe55. The images are pretty close at f8. My fe55 is the best lens i have on my a7r but when I compare them at f8 and with the zoom set to 55mm it really is reasonably close but more flexible. If I were shooting in a studio then sure the 55mm is the way to go. Just my .02c
I specifically tested those focal lengths and was disappointed with the results.
I would purchase the zoom for studio work on a second where corner sharpness is not an issue.
When I get some time I’ll post some example shots side by side with my excellent fe55. No doubt the fe55 requires less post work but at f8/55mm the corners are not bad on my copy of the 2470.
Thanks Steven, very helpful. This is just one more place where Sony scrimped with this system. They seem to be following in the tracks of M43: build cheaper lens, fix distortion in post, keep the price high. This compromise shows, even after corrections, because parts of the image lose quality. Clunky Canons and Nikons are definitely there to stay for now.
It is thanks to people like you that potential customers get information in advance, without having to bother buying, testing, scoffing and returning the toy.
The primes are exceptional
How does Zeiss make a 21mm tiny lens with no distortion and then make a premium zoom that distorts like this at 50mm!! . Distortion correction degrades micro contrast and also Zeiss’ image. RX1 has unfortunate barrel distortion too for a 35mm. These products target enthusiasts but surely Enthusiasts know a thing or two.
This is not Zeiss made, this is Zeiss branded Sony made.
Even for a person like me who doesn’t care much about distortion(the Speed Booster adds a lot of it), this distortion is unacceptable, especially at this size, this speed, this price.
I once considered adding this lens to my “to buy” list, but now seeing this it’s definitely not happening.
Admin can you correct get Dierk’s Surname please
That is his name…
oops. Yes his name is Topp, not Popp.
Love the 24-70 FE. It stays on my A7r
Here is the link to my flickr album with the test images:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/sets/72157640650459604/
and here are “normal” shots with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/sets/72157640935764245/
and this is my correct name: Dierk Topp :-))
Bad lens, period.
It’s (The FE Mount) an underdeveloped platform that should be avoided for the time being. I returned mine after week when I realized that it only has a single decent lens, which I also returned. I decided to buy the 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss instead which is producing stellar results.
I am going to keep mine and use Zeiss’ prime (55mm and 35mm) and Canon L lens.
Does the A-mount 24-70 Zeiss have this distortion? If not, then why this lens. This should be assessed.
no it does not. I had that lens and never saw anything like that.
If the A-mount version by Zeiss does not share this distortion, then how in the world could Zeiss allow this version to have such a significant issue!
I think Sony is abusing the agreement it has in place with Zeiss, and trying to maximize profits off of underdeveloped lenses bearing the Zeiss logo.
Sony’s SEL70200G is also having similar issues.
Is there any review yet of the SEL70200G ?
Yes. It suffers from the same problems.
I can’t find a review of SEL70200G on google. Can you provide a link?
It was posted on this site two weeks ago
The A-mount Zeiss does have quite strong distortion at the low end (24mm). Not that much like in the images above, but very much noticeable.
But, the A-mount Zeiss is much, much larger and heavier. It’s 80 x 110mm and weights ~1kg (3.2×4.4 in and 2.1lb). The FE lens is only 70 x 95mm and 420g (2.9 x 3.7in and 0.94lb). So much less glass and stuff to correct. It’s also 60% cheaper.
No it doesn’t. The SAL2470Z is an exceptional piece of gear. My next Sony Full Frame is definitely going to be an A-Mount.
I have both and was mounting the sal with the adapter on my a7r. I also tested the sigma hsm same focal length a mount version with the adapter. The FE does have considerable distortion but it’s sharpness is superior to the SAL2470z. I simply correct for distortion in LR manually at the moment.
The SAL2470Z is clearly the superior lens, because it does not rely on lens correction. Plus it’s a f/2.8, so it will easily outperform the SEL in low light environments.
incorrect. The SAL2470z barrel distortion at 24mm is 1.6% so it’s level of distortion is there too just not as bad and you do have to correct for it. Also the FE has OSS so you gain 2+ stops in many situations. Their optical performance is similar. I have both and as usual they are both a mixed bag of strengths and weaknesses. Your posts feel very troll’ish and why I’m responding to you I don’t know.
I apologize for my bluntness. I agree its 24mm performance is poor. I generally use the 24mm F/2.0 or 20mm f/2.8 for wide angle shots.
I doubt this review is representative of all of the SEL2470Z purchased. It very possible the reviewer just has a bad copy.
This review is leading me to believe that this lens is both overpriced, under-performing, which is certainly possible.
That’s right! G Series like Sony E PZ 18-105mm f/4 G OSS certainly help!
I have it, I like it. Lloyd Chamber likes it. Most reviewers like it. The experts here don’t like it. What does this tell us?
The reviewer might have a bad copy.
Could you take a couple of pictures with the same focal lengths without lens correction selected so we can compare them please!!!
I don’t believe those “reviewer” because It’s so easy to be a “reviewer” nowadays; all they need to do is say all the good things about the product, cover up the problem/issue and recommend the product. Then the “reviewer” will keep the product for free. I only trust the review with real picture like the one above. This lens is POS for the price.
I may have a bad copy and will ask Sony tomorrow.
you say, you “like” it. For what do you use it and did you do some similar tests?
For “normal” shooting I like it too, as I explained below and I like it especially for portraits, when manual focus is slow and the “victim” has to be very patient.
This lens is deliberately not corrected hardware-wise. Correcting in software is way, way much easier and cheaper and the results (after correction) are still brilliant. If you want to have top-hardware, get an Otus.
Or any other 24-70mm on the market. It’s dependence on lens correction is a clear sign that it should be avoided.
enough trolling now, please move on
He claims he returned his a7r with an FE 70-200 lens in another post. (he failed to check if the 200 even exists before posting). He is making this stuff up out of thin air.
I returned my A7r and the 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss because it was awkward and its ergonomics sucked. I attempted to use it with my SAL70200G2 where it was unbelievably unstable, and awkward to use. I returned it to along with the 55mm to Henry’s (www.henrys.com) because that have a 30 day return policy.
For $3299.99 plus $428.87 tax it should produced stellar results, but it didn’t.
Oh, and the SEL70200G is being tested by Sony’s select partners, and the results are the same it has the same issues and the 18-105mm, 24-70mm E-Mount lenses.
Two prominent photographers in TO (and friends of mine) are using/evaluating them currently, and the results are less than stellar. It looks like native Zoom lenses on the FE platform are going to rely heavily on the compensation.
Superkev go f-yourself
Troll BRWAT,
As has been shown it is highly unlikely anything you say has any truth to it whatsoever. To back track anymore you would need a 4 wheel drive. Begone and go harass another forum. PS I love how you edit your posts after you get busted.
Nice try
I suppose you couldn’t get anymore sleazily.
I didn’t edit anything, I just noticed you backstabbing me when I wasn’t paying attention.
Now go pound sand
as said, I planed the test images only for my own judgment, where I can use it.
My eyes are very poor and wanted a AF lens for the A7R. Up to now I only have and use primes with adapters and that means no AF.
I did and do not want to use it for landscape or architecture. Therefor it is definitely not usable.
What I like of this lens:
AF
zoom range
weight
and I found it great for portraits!
two examples:
first: 70mm f/6.7, two flashes (Nikon SB800 with radio trigger)
second: 70mm f/4, natural light from window
and the close up range, the last one: 70mm f/4
I own this lens and I do not have distortion anywhere near this level at any focal length.
Bad copy.
Are you shooting JPG images or processing RAW in the Sony software? Otherwise, the distortion is pretty prominent. But it’s really not a big deal that everyone is crying about. These test images are suffering from both distortion and perspective issues.
I just found this from Tim Ashley:
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/3/the-sony-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-24-70mm-f4-za-oss-hallelujah
you see the same distortions on his images.
Bad copy too?
Thanks for reviewing this product, you’ve saved many of us here from making another bad purchasing decision.
Distortion, corners at 24-26mm, and contrast at 70mm seem to be the “big” compromises of this lens. Bravo, I say. There’s no such thing as a completely corrected zoom, and these are the compromises I’d beg for – in order to keep the good features of this lens.
Photo shows the crappy distortion at 24mm. Not a brick wall lens. Because we all love photos of brick walls. I hang them on a brick wall in my home.
This lens is junk!!!
unfortunately this lens is the distortion king….I was anticipating Zeiss to do better than this 🙁
http://www.minipixels.net | Automotive Photography + Design