Image courtesy: Photozone.
Two top lens review sites tested the new Zeiss 24-70mm f/4.0 FE lens. And this is what they write about the lens:
The Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS ZA didn’t really convince us completely – not at this price point for sure. While it is a joy to use the lens thanks to its high quality finish and super smooth controls, the optical characteristics aren’t quite as impressive. Sony/Zeiss seems to follow the ugly trend of under-designing lenses based on the assumption that digital correction will fix the flaws
In terms of build quality, the Sony FE 24-70 Zeiss is excellent with an all-metal construction and that characteristic Sony and Zeiss matte black design. When it comes to image quality, however, this particular lens misses the mark. With less-than-stellar performance in sharpness, particularly in the corners at all focal lengths (and even stopped down), plus strong vignetting and distortion, the Sony FE 24-70mm ƒ/4 ZA OSS Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* didn’t meet our expectations.
As you see both reviewers are not very satisfied with the lens performance. A good lens…but not stellar as expected from a lens with a Zeiss badge on it. I hope Sony will take note of it and offer a slightly higher quality version zoom lens in future!
The Zeiss 24-70mm FE can be bought 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
No surprise there.
There is basically only one good full-frame e-mount lens on the market right now and it’s 55/1.8, which is an incredible piece of glass indeed, but worth 3 times more than Sigma 50/1.4 ART offering similar performance.
Oh, I looked up price not for ART edition of the said lens.
ZEISS ART EDITION — not a bad idea for Sony to adopt! Give the FE users a few lenses that offer kick-ass corner performance, they’d be physically larger — but they’d perform and look as good as a 17TSE.
Hi Andrew,
And I think that’s the real issue here with the Zeiss 24-70 — the 55 is such an outstanding lens that all others when compared to it look subpar! You can shoot the Zeiss 55 into the harshest light “wide open” and it just gets better & better. My Canon 85L never looked so good and its twice the price of the Zeiss 55……
Did you shoot 85L on A7/r?
No, I was never a fan of the 85’s focal length, I prefer something shorter, but Canon’s 50’s are very lacking, so that’s how I ended up with the 85L.
It’s not a fair comparison if 85L isn’t shoot on A7/r, especially comparing to 55/1.8 on A7r.
That’s not a fair test if 85L isn’t mount on A7r during the test. I think you will see a different result with 85L if it is mounted on A7r.
The characteristics of the lens are what they are and transferring it onto a foreign system won’t improve them.
Yes, compression and distortion won’t change (assuming tested on the same sensor size). What I am trying to say is the details, color and contrast will change from one sensor to a different sensor.
Correct, both compression and distortion will be the same. What I am trying to say is image details, color and contrast will be different from one sensor to another sensor.
I don’t worry about color & contrast – I’m not shooting film anymore. As far as detail is concerned, I’ve shot the 85L for 5 years exclusively, it’s a lovely lens, but the Zeiss 55 has it beaten easily if detail is your thing. Plus, *for the way I shoot @f/2* the Zeiss just looks better, with fewer nasties & better flare resistance etc. Credit where credit is due, I prefer the 55 over the 85L. ~Chris
So all these years later we still don’t have a high-quality E-mount zoom lens?
We do have more than one.
We just don’t have one that renders a 36MP resolution of black and white text charts at relatively close distances. If you are a brick wall or test chart shooter who puts the subject in the corner of the frame all the time, and makes 2meter prints to be viewed from 1meter away, then you may have to wait a while. Like forever.
I love my 24-70FE best lens I own and it lives on my A7r. The OSS works great and image quality is first rate. Guess I got a good copy!
Hi Craig,
I enjoy your work mate! I have a feeling this lens is more suited to public relations work, it’s lovely center-frame and has a nice “feel” to it. But, for those times its pointed at static subjects, especially if they’re at or around infinity it leaves you wanting for something better…….
Like you I wanted this lens for my PR/Video lens because of the OSS, but at 24mm its just nasty in RAW when pointed at static industrial subjects. Of course my only reference is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8ll and thats a pretty high bar. This Zeiss 24-70 reminds me of the Canon 24-105 @ 24mm.
Cheers,
Chris
PS. Could you check the port doors over the HDMI & MIC on your A7R for me? I have two A7R’s, the first has a really positive lock on each door, the new body does not!
Yes, I mainly shoot events / people so the 24-70 works for me. As far as the doors go mine are ok.
Are you shooting JPEG or RAW. If RAW, what software? I’m RAW with Apples Aperture (Fred Flintstone’s v3.5.1) I think it does basically zero corrections…..(:-)
I shoot in RAW and I use Aperture and my photos look great without any corrections. Just search my flickr stream for 24-70FE and you’ll see them.
Your subject matter is perfect for this lens, background defocus looks lovely too — plus all that contrast down in Sarasota doesn’t hurt! I enjoyed you reenactment shots & film, the cavalry girl wearing the hat is very engaging.
Yes, she was special. That pic was up north. I only winter in Sarasota.
The review truly hits the nail on the head : it’s an absolute shame that manufacturers produce fundamentaly flawed optics, and rely on correction to make them decent, especially at that price point. Shame on Zeiss/Sony. I happen to own the CZ 16-70/4 which I love, range is terrific and IQ is excellent, but it’s distorted as well, and NOT worth its price tag by any means.
“The review truly hits the nail on the head”
Yes it sure does!! I have had this lens for two months and really enjoyed it a lot. Gives me clear sharp contrasty pictures. But I see my standards are way too low. It was very good to read these reviews, otherwise I would have continued to enjoy this lens. Now I’m just very disapointed at Sony……
Ha.
Digital software correction is perfectly fine for cheaper lenses (like the entry level 16-50 PZ kit lens) but for a premium Zeiss lens such as this it is not acceptable.
This is a foolish snap judgment. There are more than half dozen image aberrations that are balanced in a lens design. Prioritizing the suppression of stigmatism and coma, suppressing negative flare effects, and having excellent high frequency detail in nearly all lighting conditions, supremely attractive contrast and color rendition, and prioritizing the 28-65mm range… In exchange for distortion, contrast loss at the extreme angles and a little LOCA in the corners is what I call smart thinking.
This is far better than prioritizing corner resolution and distortion and having a flat, lifeless image. Well, at least for taking actual photos, it is.
Of course, you can demand a small, image stabilized bag of prime lenses for $800… And I will demand a cat that poops gold nuggets.
If you like it that much, for being a lemon or a by name “zeiss” among other things, as the reviewers mention on their free to read test-sites,
Just Put Your Money where Your Mouth is!
Go and get this lemon and stop defending it if you like it that much 😉
no reason to call “foolish snap judgment” other people’s opinion..
I actually have been using it for a few thousand frames, taking photos of real things. I would say my opinion is more informed than one who read some reviews
“your opinion”.
Mr. calling yourself “more informed” than me or others for example 🙂 thank you very much..
Now next step is respect others have Their Opinions. (“Their opinions”).
no reason to call them “foolish snap judgment”.
-photozone’s Klaus may have his opinion, ok?
-SLRGear may have his opinion, ok?
I dont get paid/sponsored by anyone or ask for donations.. and thus i dont feel like calling people things 😉
Mr Leica Boss, I probably have a foolish snap judgment, but I agree with the others. You speak with your irony, insulting people and saying bulshit (“you can demand a bag of primes and I can demand gold nuggets blabla”) but sorry to tell you that demanding a lens with good quality at this price and named zeiss is something normal. Big zoom sharp from center to corner with no major distortion and flows exist. Plus it opens at f4 only. Well, I guess for the price you paid you don’t want to tell yourself you bought a shit, so it is normal you get angry reading those review. Enjoy your lens !
Here is the headline… Review sites that evaluate lenses based on a flat, black and white pattern, 4-10ft from the camera don’t like the corners at 24mm and reduced contract at 70mm. News at 11.
These review sites are a complete joke and I hope people don’t become data worshippers and miss out on very good lenses like this 24-70mm that render quite beautifully.
The flat black and white pattern is only one part of the review. There are many sample images included with the Photozine article.
While I agree with your comment for the most part and don’t doubt that this lens can produce good images, the only question I have is whether this particular lens offers good value for money. If people are paying top dollar I think the technical performance of the lens should match the outlay. To me it would be the same as buying any other item of technology, a car, etc etc.
Here is the only thing about ‘top dollar’ The lens is not cheap, but really same or less than its full frame peers. And it is much better at its best points, about the same at its worst. The value is modest, but not terribad.
Hi Bart,
I’m coming from a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ll on a 5D3. To be quite honest the Canon is in a different league to this lens. The look of the Canon is better, its sharp right into the corners and there are no surprises when you shoot with it. The Zeiss is almost schizophrenic by comparison, sometimes it just looks sublime, then on what I’d regard as no-brainer subject matter it just looks like crap. Maybe Craig Shipp nailed it — this is an event shooters lens. I really want to like this lens with its lovely build & OSS and for video it’d be lovely no-doubt, all the nasties corrected in the JPEG engine but for RAW shooters in programs like Aperture it’s a chore to work with.
Best,
Chris
Of course it is on a different league it’s way more expensive (near 2x price) it weights much more and it’s bigger. A lens like this would make the A7(r) unconfortable.
Optical physics being what they are I think this is more a “size thing” – bigger is better when we’re talking imaging circles.
But as I start to learn a little more about the lens, I start to realize that the design criteria may have been more biased toward the modern multi-media shooter. Mike mentioned it was a parafocal design, that’s a big plus for video guys as is the OSS. I won’t be keeping my Canon glass if I make the switch to Sony – but I will have to “re-learn” what I think I know though!
If you call this a good lens, Kit lens is excellent for it’s value.
If the 24-70 f/4 OSS was priced between $700-$800 max, I’d have been a good lens for the price … but at $1200 it is just worth it, save your money and stick with the kit lens.
On the other hand this lens renders some of the most delicious bokeh I’ve ever seen from a zoom lens. It puts my Nikon primes to shame.
I am looking at the photozone review and it states 4000 LW/PH in the center, around 3000 LW/PH at the border and ca. 2500 LW/PH at the extremes. Then I look at the *highly acclaimed* Olympus 12-40/2.8 (a direct competitor in size and weight). The Olympus achieves around 3000 LW/PH in the center, around 2500 LW/PH at the border, and around 2300 LW/PH at the extremes. What gives? It seems to me that the Zeiss crushes the Olympus….
I bought it to replace my Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. The Zeiss is half the size and weight of the Nikkor, and the optical performance seems to be even better, so I’m not complaining. I guess everyone was expecting Otus-like performance like the 55/1.8…
I also just checked the Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 review on Photozone. The resolution measurement doesn’t even cross the 3000 LW/PH mark. And for this lens they write “The Fujinon produced very impressive resolution figures in the MTF lab.”…
Sorry, but what you do is to include the FF sensor into the equation. The correct evaluation is by looking at line pairs/mm (lp/mm). Very often good m43 primes and zooms have more lp/mm but when multiplied with the sensor dimension the values are usually lower. The value per picture height therefore is not only considering the lens alone (a FF advantage; however all that theoretical resolution needs to be captured, so you need a very high resolution sensor to sample this. To resolve 4000line pairs/ph requires at least 8000 pixels, for example, not taking lens errors, shake… into account). Like Leica-Boss says: theoretical resolution and field usage are different parts. I never took a great picture only to throw it away because the corner was a little softer.
The 12-40 is really great, sharp across the field.
Photozone.de uses LW/PH exactly because they include FF sensor into equation. If you believe lp/mm is the correct way, then lenses made for 1/2.3″ are the best.
When comparing lenses you need to have as few variables as possible. How are you supposed to compare a LENS if you have metrics involving the sensor included? It is an advantage of full frame to be able to provide a larger number of lp/ph due to the larger size. But to achieve this I could even mount on a mediocre lens.
If I were to use the 55/1.8 on Sony or a m43 camera, the lens is not worse or better on the one or the other. It stays the same lens with all its merits or faults. But I now make use of the larger sensor area. So either we discuss lenses, or systems, but we shouldn’t mix.
Sensor size is not a variable. Use lenses with sensors they are designed to be used at.
>But to achieve this I could even mount on a mediocre lens.
Will I get more quality from e.g.18-55 if I attach it to full-frame camera?Olympus’ 15/8 body cap lens?
>”Sensor size is not a variable. Use lenses with sensors they are designed to be used at.”
Then it doesn’t make sense to compare lenses across systems and all this Canon – Sony comparison makes no sense.
To your second part.
I don’t know what you mean here because this is exactly what I said above. If you mount a lens (if it is able to cover the sensor area) on a larger sensor you get more line pairs/ph. Doesn’t mean the lens is better, only includes the sensor into the equation. Look at luminous landscape and joseph james equivalence article. But the guys above intermixed FF with m43 lenses and compared across sensors with different resolution. It’s always better to have a lens being designed for a particular sensor, but it’s very difficult to compare across formats and sensors.
> Doesn’t mean the lens is better,
It doesn’t. It means you are using incorrect way to reason which produces useless results. There are different criteria.
1. which lens is more testifying of how cool its designers and manufacturers were
2. which lens produces sharper pictures
According to your method, this lens http://www.photozone.de/pentaxq/687-pentaxq515f2845?start=1
is better than Oly’s 12-40 because it has lp/mm 50% better than the oly. (the oly gets more LWPH because it uses 2.8x larger sensor)
>on a larger sensor you get more line pairs/ph.
you are ignorant of how lenses are designed… in order to get greater image circle, lens designers sacrifice its lp/mm. lp/mm is not something which is the “quality” of the lens.
Sorry, didn’t say what you claim. I didn’t install a method of testing either. I was particularly referring to other comments above comparing lp/ph for different cameras and sensors, which is difficult and may not be ideal to qualify lenses at all. Sharpness is only one side of the medal and my comments were only related to that, not referring to other factors. Did you read what I have written? You are contradicting yourself, stating in one comment that sensor size is not a variable, then stating they are putting sensor size into the equation.
I just said that it is very difficult to compare lenses if you have several variables. The best always is to compare lenses designed for the same sensor type mounted on the same camera. Even better if it was particularly designed for that sensor. You are of course right in that.
But then lens comparisons make no sense, because all other lenses don’t full fill these criteria. And in order to compare you need to set up criteria. Besides sharpness there are other factors you certainly know of like light transmission, astigmatism, choma, flare… Only looking at lp/ph is not giving you all the details. If you see it the same way, too, fine. But stop claiming I installed a new way of testing for comparing lenses.
You did say: “The correct evaluation is by looking at line pairs/mm (lp/mm). ”
>But then lens comparisons make no sense,
Because of that, It’s lp/mm comparisons that make no sense. You intentionally ignored the 1/2.3″ reference.
FE24-70 produces sharper pictures than Oly’s 12-40. Period. You might call that “FF advantage” or cite any irrelevant things to make you sound scientific, but it won’t change the fact.
>Doesn’t mean the lens is better, only includes the sensor into the equation.
it doesn’t, it DOES say that your method of comparison produces useless results.
the ways could be thought as:
1. which lens is more testifying of how advanced its designers and manufacturers were
2. which lens produces sharper pictures
according to your reasoning, the pentax q 5-15 is better lens than oly 12-40, because it has more lp/mm, and the oly has more LWPH just because it is was tested on sensor 2.8x larger.
>but it’s very difficult to compare across formats and sensors.
it’s not. photozone already does this.
Also, there is no practical way to use m43 lens on E mount body and vice-versa. So for any sane buyers lp/mm comparisons are insignificant. The cameras, however, do produce same digital images which can be compared.
LWPH means “Line widths per picture height”. 4000 LW = 2000 line pairs.
oh god, you moron!
nice constructive criticism
Sorry, i am a little grumpy today…
Charles, your comment misses some of the most important practical aspects of this lens, paired with an A7r. When you downsample to a reasonable file resolution, and compare to other systems and lenses… Wow! The files are gorgeous.
Of course do you get wonderful files… The lens is very sharp in the center and you mount it on a A7r. You could mount a cheap Canon FD lens and get fantastic files – that´s not the point.
My only point is that you cannot compare the resolution chart (and here I mean the numbers) with another lens of another format that uses a different sensor and say: Look the Zeiss resolves almost 4500 lines – it must be “better” than this or that mft, fuji, dx etc lens. It´s just apples to hippos.
Btw, I don´t doubt that you can get sellable prints on a professional level out of that lens, it might have nice microcontrast and colors and whatnot and a good photographer knows how to make the best of it – but that was never the point of my comment.
so if the oly gives same sharpness as the zeiss in the corners, but worse in the center, the oly is better lens…. uh oh.
The lenses are not better they simply have an easier job , covering a sensor with a quarter the area of FF that has a 4×3 ratio { which uses far less of the extremes of the image circle than a 3×2 sensor}. The smaller the sensor the easier it gets to design optics , heck you can have a 25-600mm effective AOV lenses with a constant F2.8 on the likes of the Panasonic FZ200
As an experiment take the worst FF lens you can find and crop the sample image to 4×3 and low and behold the lens looks magically better. If APS and FF changed their sensor to a 4×3 ratio they would have instantly improved results with every lens mounted. ,There is nothing magic about it , you can get a 32mp 4×3 image crop from an A7R/D800
You are comparing apples and oranges. Look at resolution results for the new Zeiss distagon otus 1.4/55. On a nikon D3S it gives a resolution of 11mp, but on the D800 it gives 29mp resolution. You just can not accurately compare lenses on different platforms with different sensors.
DXO testing results
DXO aren’t testing every single camera, you know that, right?
On a side note, to Mike – Lens resolution increases with camera resolution. So a difference that you’re seeing is most probably a 32 mp sensor without AA filter, doing its job.
Yes, I do know that, but you do know your point is mute, right? Is it not clear to you that I picked two high quality professional nikon cameras to illustrate the point that sensor resolution makes a difference in these tests?
Stan of course that is right; it is the sensor doing its job. But Mike’s point is that given that sensor doing it’s job, you get better results with the Zeiss and the A7r than the Oly and the OMD. (see my reply above). I’m sure you don’t make this mistake, but a lot of people seeing the Oly as a much better lens would assume that this means that the absolute performance (normalised to a print size) would be better with the Oly, at least in the corners (given how relatively bad the Zeiss is). But this isn’t so, at least until higher MP m43 sensors come out. Which makes the Zeiss a portable option for someone coming from M43 who doesn’t want to take lots of lenses or bulk on hiking trips, but wants to exploit the FF sensor to it’s max on other occasions. In the worst case you lose nothing (exempt money!) and in the best you gain a lot.
Actually Mike makes a good point. On the one hand, the lens is disappointing in terms of taking advantage of the 36MP sensor; on the other the SYSTEM resolution of the lens and sensor is as good as the Olympus SYSTEM in the corners, and much better in the middle. So if you want to replace your M43 system, you will get overall better results when using this lens on A7r than the Oly on an OMD (and much better results using the best primes, of course)
If they produce a higher MP M43, of course, this may change, because it may well be that the Oly LENS is better.
But the thing to remember is that it’s SYSTEM (lens+sensor) resolution that matters, and that varies with different lens/sensor combinations.
I”m guessing that the Zeiss was designed to be fairly comparable in size to the fast M43 Zooms while giving as good or better quality at different parts of the frame, and more bokeh potential (F4 = F2 on M43 for DOF purposes.
If that’s so it’s succeeded; was it hasn’t succeeded in doing is being a zoom that is as good as good primes anywhere in it’s performance. But it would have to be a bigger lens to do that.
I think SONY already planned this… To get more people to buy the 16-35 and the 70-200. I ordered the lens, and haven’t tried it yet, but hey, sharpness is just half of the story.
Even if this is the case, it ruins the Zeiss reputation. The 70-200 is G-branded, if a G easily out-performs a Zeiss, how do they charge the extra premium for the Zeiss?
What nonsense. The Zeiss primes released for FE mount are fantastic.. easily worth the money…stop throwing the baby out with the bath water!
I’m not throwing anything out…but the 35 really isn’t something to get overprotective about. The 55 does perform above expectations, but the 35 is either 1.not compact enough considering what little amount of glass it has in it (the electronics don’t take up much space at all, it doesn’t even have OSS)2. could be sharper considering the price and speed 3. vigenettes seriously for such a slow lens. Depends on how you see it. For easy comparison, the VM 35/1.2 opens up two-and-a-half stops wider than this, performs similarly stopped down to f/2.8, is less than 1 “stop” larger, and only about half a “stop” more expensive. It even feels better built feeling how it weighs in your hand. In conclusion the FE 35 is either barely worth the money if you’re willing to throw away all that extra light and the useful aperture ring for AF or if you want absolute compactness, and in that case although it should be even smaller, it’s already the most compact you could buy. Or it could be not worth the money at all, if you’re used to manual and is willing to consider the VM.
1. Not compact enough!! have you even seen it. I’m more afraid I will lose it…if you need OSS on a 35mm lens you must have Parkinson’s disease…
2. Nonsense it is very very sharp from 2.8 onwards…Considering the price?!? It is bargain lens for the quality it provides compared to any other pro FF 35mm lens
3. From real shooting with this lens the Vignette is super mild. No issue there. If you want to be super clean a small vignette crank in LR or C1 fixes any vignette with no issues…As for the VM 35/1.2…”VM 35/1.2 opens up two-and-a-half stops wider than this, performs similarly stopped down to f/2.8, is less than 1 “stop” larger, and only about half a “stop” more expensive.” …So what you are saying is that you are going to pay more for a lens that is not auto focus and only gets sharp at 2.8 (pretty soft up to then)..That is hardly a convincing argument??…The Fe 35mm is very well built with a super smooth focusing ring…Sorry dude none or your arguments hold water…
Might I say the same for yours?
1.
a.If people lose lenses the size like this, then there should be excessive demand for the 16mm pancake, since people keep losing them.
b. Your only stating an opinion on how small YOU’d like it to be, which is not an effective argument. As I stated in the previous post, the lens could be smaller, because the components don’t take up the space it takes up. And this is based on the fact that the 35/2 for Contax G is one stop faster but similar in size, and it has a screw motor driving all elements which is larger than a supersonic motor driving only a focusing element. And personally, I, would want it smaller.
2.
a.”performs similarly stopped down to f/2.8″ means what it means. It is very close in performance at f/2.8 with the FE. It hints nothing at unusable sharpness when opening up wider. Which means, if as you say, VM at f/2.8 is bordering sharp, ” only gets sharp” at f/2.8, as you originally put it, then this is borderline sharpness is all that you get with the FE, just without the extra stops.
b. You just contradicted yourself. Of the similar sharpness between the FE and VM at f/2.8, you called one ” very very sharp” and the other ” just getting sharp”. The similarity in performance isn’t coming from my naked eye. It’s based on systematic test results, unlike your ” very very sharp”. Go check if you don’t believe me. No need to resort to sophism.
c. It’s relatively cheaper compared to other “pro” 35s because it’s that much slower, making it magnitudes easier to manufacture. “Cheap”, yes, “good value for money”, no.
3.” from real shooting” is another invalid argument, if this lens opens up to f/1.4, and has this degree of vignetting, I’d say they’ve done well. But at a maximum f/2.8, it’s a flaw in lens design. There are many fast 35s with acceptable vignetting in real shooting conditions, but with a much slower lens, it’s only appropriate if the bar is set higher.
4. Super smooth focus ring? Ease of use of fly-by-wire focusing put aside, does this replace an aperture ring? One thing I really like about Fuji is how they add aperture rings to they’re premium lenses. They’re’s so much easier to use compared to in-body controls.
Wow nice tirade….Where to begin…
Let put aside the size issue for a moment as you seem to be caught between wanting the smallest lens in the world conflicting with suggesting the Voigtlander which is in no way small…a bit odd but hey….
“systematic test results”…Oh yes now I understand where you are coming from…you read lots of test articles wow good for you…Let me know when you have actually used these lenses….
Why is having an external aperture ring supposedly better? aperture is aperture…How you get it is irrelevant..
Think that pretty much covers it??
The VM is less than twice as large but offering x5.6 the light. It’s VERY small, compared to such a slow lens at this size. You could shrink it into a body cap if you slow it down to f/8. Are you challenged? Incapable of thinking in proportion? Or are you trolling around?
I do have experience with the VM. It’s usable wide open, especially when there’s no ample light, sharpness is already fine at f/1.4. What point I’ve been trying to make with test results is how performance is similar between the two lenses at f/2.8. Even if tests have low validity, their systematic approach gives high reliability on performance comparison in cross-tests between lenses.
An aperture ring is much easier to use than a dial. Adjusting aperture is faster when the reading is on the ring instead of changing numbers (with a lag) on the screen.That’s why.
You are definitely a troll. The candle light is what the VM gets you under extreme conditions. The FE is so much slower it doesn’t even get you close.
No not a troll…just “challenged” by your nonsense..
I have nothing against the Voigtlander. It’s a fine lense….But the notion that the 35mm FE is over priced or over rated when it is smaller, lighter, well constructed, weather sealed, with fast autofocus and sharper through its range..Is a bit of a joke…When comparing a larger (less than 2x the size? is that an argument for or against?), heavier, non native mount, manual focus, non weather sealed lens…offering x5.6 the light..Perhaps I should point out that in the world of EVF that extra light doesn’t mean what it did for OVF. No advantage for focusing…
Let’s get this straight.
When I say this lens is big, I mean that it’s not small enough considering the aperture opening. There is no argument you could make over this, because Zeiss itself once made a lens faster, with AF, and of similar (if not smaller) size. A 35/1.4 at this size? Spectacular. A miracle come true. Beat Leica at its own game. 35/2 at this size? Snug fit. Just the amount of glass that should be put into a lens this size. 35/2.8? TOO FAT AND BLOATED!
Lighter? Of course, a sheet of metal and plastic on the inside is what gets you light. Less glass is what gets you light. Canon’s entry level 50/1.8 is light too. I’d take a full metal and glass lens over this kind of light any day.
Weather sealed? It just so happens that the mount itself is not sealed. See how far that’ll get you.
“Sharper”? Do you not understand what I’ve repeatedly stated? The FE is merely ever so slightly sharper than the ZM at f/2.8, Dpreview test on either a7 or a7r I don’t remember. Go do your research. **And while matching sharpness on respective apertures it opens up much wider.**
Non-native? For people who shoot manual (that’s many,many people using E-mount) that is a non-issue. My guess is you’ve never handled a pure manual lens, you’ve never had the experience of shooting it so you don’t understand the uniqueness of it and is biased that AF is undoubtedly superior.
You are incorrectly equating lightness as effecting image quality…Not sure why you think that is the case, as the 35FE image quality is excellent…To suggest that this lens is fat and bloating is laughable…
No mounts are weather sealed unless you have a underwater camera…I have used Canon and nikon for many years. They don’t have weather sealed mounts…next…
“so slightly sharper”..So sharper then…and cheaper…go figure..
“you’ve never had the experience of shooting it so you don’t understand the uniqueness of it and is biased that AF is undoubtedly superior.”.. On the contrary I have shot with every format under the sun. 8×10 4×5 MF 35mm film and digital manual focus and auto..Which is why you are taking such nonsense…how you change your aperture?? Who cares!!..change it with your feet for all I care…
The advantage of the 35 FE is that is has fast AF and a really great focusing ring for manual focus…The best of both worlds…
I am most certainly not “equating lightness as effecting image quality”. I have no idea where you got that. I am equating your kind of light to using cheap polycarbonates, which is the case.
The “image quality” is only very remotely related to the size of the lens. The aperture opening however is a much more direct influential factor. You don’t read what’s written and have a habit of deviating from the key points in the argument.
Is that so? From what I’ve heard, Pentax has the mount sealed, and Olympus has some protection there too.
Yeah, lose 82% of light gather capabilities for minimal sharpness increase. Good for you.
Nobody I know who’s actually handled manual equipment before has ever claimed that the handling of fly-by-wire focusing is even close to being able to be compared to focusing with brass helicals. You must be “special”.
As I said there is a lag in the display when you change the aperture with a dial. It’s not as intuitive as changing it on a ring with engraved readings. For this, it doesn’t really matter if the ring is electronically or mechanically coupled, but for the focus ring it does.
You know what? This fooling around is getting boring. Most of the time you’re dodging me instead of making valid arguments against my statements. Either you’ve completely missed the point, or never gotten it, or there is something terribly wrong with you cognitive abilities.
“Is that so? From what I’ve heard, Pentax has the mount sealed, and Olympus has some protection there too”….From what you have heard..awesome..
“brass helicals”…Give a break I guess I must be “special”..On the contrary the “fly by wire focusing allows for much finer focusing that purely manual. Which is particularly noticeable with an EVF when you punch in.
There is no lag…what are you talking about??
Dodging you what are you talking about. I am answering your comments directly!! With quotes and everything…haha
It is definitely overpriced: it costs more than Canon 35/2, which is about as good at equal apertures, a stop faster and stabilized.
Yeah the canon 35/2 is very good optically and cheap..Wouldn’t put it on par with the ziess though…But the build quality lets it down. It is a shocker. Which makes the good optics more of a surprise…
I like my canon 35mm f2 concave f16 version better than my fe 35mm 2.8. But it is heavy and can’t AF. I got lucky and got it for 80.00 because the seller clearly did not know which version they had. I also like the
Voigtländer 40mm F2.0 Ultron SL II better as well, that lens is really nice.
> Wouldn’t put it on par with the ziess though…
Stop this BS about «zeiss»! It’s a Sony, zeiss did nothing with this lens, Sony just paid them a royalty and then zeiss said they “control” design and production. This is pathetic!
On the comparison Sony vs Canon side: take a look at the respective resolution charts on photozone.de. Canon at f2.0 mounted on 5d3 shows the same LW/PH figure at corners as FE 35 at f2.8 used on A7r (36Mp without blurring filter). This alone shows the Canon has higher resolution. So, you are right. Canon is not «on par» with FE 35. It is better. And I don’t really take «build quality» argument. IMO canon’s one is good enough not to worry about. I would rather afraid of FE 35’s centering issues 😉
PS I am not a canon fan. I just wonder about what happened to these hordes of sony fans who are insisting Sony’s prices are OK. Sorry, but €800 for f2.8 lens which is still below top performers is kinda strange at least.
Only calling it Zeiss because that is what it is called. It could be made by Tamiya for all I care…
Charts..Well yes but others such as DXO show the 35FE with better resolution so hey…Happy with however you want to see it…
As for centering issues…I have seen enough lens shenanigans from Canon, Nikon and Hasselblad to know that there is not a lens manufacturer under the sun that has any more or less issues than anyone else…Don’t get me started on out of calibration AF on canons…
I am yet to hear anyone who actually owns this lens to complain…That probably says enough about the price…
I don’t even notice the vignette unless I use the sony lens profile in lightroom it really is not that bad.
the 35mm is very compact but I like my canon fd 35mm 2.0 better. It is almost as sharp focuses closer and it is faster. I like the pictures better and It cost me less than 100.00 but it is heavy and does not have AF. To be honest I really wish sigma had a FF 30mm I would def get that instead. I personally think the 35mm is overpriced. I just got the 55 for 680.00 with a ebay coupon but its raining like hell outside so I have not giving it a proper test
Ah ha, FD, good choice. I think they should charge no more than $500 for the FE, not a cent more. It really could and should be either smaller or faster. Right now it looks to me like a puny piece of glass in a large shell, like the cheap 16mm pancake. Since there’s the rumor about a 35/1.4 coming up, they should just make this f/2.8 smaller.
Hard to believe Zeiss would release such a sub-par lens (or at least allow their name on it). They’ve got some great lenses but I agree, having some ‘dogs’ in the line-up is not good for their reputation (and after they did so much to increase it by creating the Otus).
Come to think of it, Zeiss’s name is on phone modules and bridge camera lenses, they’re not exactly careful with their rep.
Careful don’t make me bring up some of Voigtlanders tacky history as per your post below….
Voigtlander’s done great pushing technology forward, half a century ago, but eventually it lost to cheaper Japanese competition and bad decision-making. Now it’s just a brand name under Cosina. There’s no “history” of the current Voigtlander worthy of mention.
I like your positiveness.
The 70-200 is a very good lens, I get mine yesterday. At 70mm and 5.6 is sharp like the Zeiss primes. The center seems pretty good for the most of range, no noticeable distortion, vignette, maybe some CA at f4. The AF is great (after the update).
The only cons I have is the lens is huge and heavy as an DSLR lens. But the build quality is really good. The 24-70 definitely have some IQ compromises for the size, but not the 70-200.
Good to know, thanks… I have mine on order..
The bokeh is horrific. And the lens looks enormous compared to the body. Ok. You have a more compact full-frame body. But what is the point when you hang it around your neck and it points down. Looks ridiculous,
… and you own this SONY A7 / A7R camera and 24-70mm FE Zeiss Lens ? I am sure you do not. Are you a pro photographer ? I am sure you are not. … so why are you making these comments. Jealousy or stupidity … Let me guess.
So you have to be a ‘Pro’ photographer before you can have a valid opinion? The next time you go out for a meal and don’t like it, remember that you can’t comment on it unless you are a qualified chef. You absolute imbecile.
It seams too, that your favourite place must be McDonald fast food chain. Having opinion on taste of food is one thing, and tell French Chef how to cook a dish is completely something else. You can prove ti your self in Paris when you get there. Let me know how it was …
BY THE WAY your insulting language is helping me in my guess if it was Jealousy or Stupidity …
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
“You can prove ti your …” Hahahah. And you have the audacity to quote Einstein.
… sure …
Using zoom lens is kinda feeding in mcdonalds.
This is just plain stupid. Own the lens and body or not, people have right to make comment.
… LOL …Ha Ha Ha … Hilarious …
While the zooms are likely to remain big on the full frame body I think the point is about having options. Mount a big telephone on the body and I’m not gaining a lot over my Nikon D700. However, mount a smaller prime (35mm or even the 55mm) and I can fit it in my jacket pocket. I can’t do that with the D700. It’s a nice option to have, and one I take advantage of often.
Oh well…
Sony with revenue of 70 billion USD a year most likely know how to do a business. That said, they have enough experience and expertise to create a master-piece like ILCE A7R camera. If Zeiss start to collaborate with SONY in same token they Zeiss know what they are doing. Zeiss and Leica optics are second to non and these optic weight importance to those who knows how to operate them. There is an ocean of schmucks for whom what ever they touch is never enough, because they have no idea what they are looking at.
I can insure you, that Mr. Henri Cartier-Bresson will laugh at them is same time when taking another master piece photograph with his humble equipment.
Are you high? HCB shot Leica. There is nothing humble about Leica.
Hmmm not really I ever was … Term “humble” in my comment apply to time and price when Leica was introduced in Europe. There was a lot of other cameras which in that time where better choice for semi and pro photographers.
It is interesting, that nowadays some people even do not know, that there was 35-mm film before.
I’m so glad I kept Canon 24-70 L II for my A7R.
Well, that it’s certainly a better lens. Much bigger, much more expensive.
My opinions…
1) A talented photographer can make a lot of great images with an NEX-3, a kit lens, and that’s it.
2) Expensive, well-made bodies and glass are only truly required for that fraction of shots cheaper gear can’t get–and skill is still required to bridge the gap just as much as the better gear.
3) If mirrorless is at least partially about a smaller form factor, this lens fails.
4) Zeiss appear to have cut corners on this lens, and the value-for-money proposition might be poor, but the jury is still out as to how relevant that is in the field.
This is true that composition, lightning, subject, etc. is what really matters in photography. However having a better gear will allow even yours not-the-best photos to look pleasing to an eye as sometimes you’re not working towards art.
as a hobbyist photographer i’d much rather have good gear because i can get more enjoyment out of using it 😛
The well made stuff is also for people who require gear that can function without being delicate with it. For instance, I own the inexpensive Sony 85mm 2.8. It’s a descent lens, pretty sharp, the AF could be faster – however I do not take it outside my studio for pro event shoots because it feels very fragile. I feel like if it bangs into one of my sony zeiss lenses in my bag it will break and I don’t want to be throwing it around when quickly changing lenses outside.
The best Sony lenses are A-mount.
The best Minolta lenses 😉
No the FE mount primes are incredibly good. The 55mm 1.8 is insanely good and the 35mm is also tack sharp.
Aaaand thats just 2 primes… Against an array of great lenses in A-Mount. It seems to me that FE system will turn out to be a “primes only” system, due to mediocre zoom lenses.
Thats too bad, IMHO, alot more consideration would be given to A7 if it had a couple of native, small, good zooms to go along with it.
Considering that the FE mount is not even 6 months old, verse the A-mount that came out of the ark…that is a bit short sighted….The A7 is no more ‘primes only’ than any other camera system…The trouble with the 24 – 70mm is not that it is a bad lens. But that the 35 and 55 are just sooo good. Of course the role out of FE mount will continue regularly well into next year. As far as I am aware no more A-mount…
As said before the 24-70 is not sharp in center until 2 stops down and at corner not at all! The primes are outstanding! Sharp all over even wide open. I returned my 24-70 after one week testing.
A7r is so good it needs fantastic lenses and 34-70 is not good enough.
Most A-mount lenses are terrible when held to their competition in the same class and typically vastly overpriced regardless. Get real.
I went to the store to try this one out a few weeks ago and decided to compare it with the 28-70 kit lens. Obviously that was not a very technical test but comparing the two it was hard to tell enough of a significant difference to justify the vast difference in price. I ended up buying the kit and the 35mm zeiss for less than the cost of the 24-70. Very glad I came to that conclusion as the 35mm zeiss is a great lens and stupidly sharp.
The kit lens is actually very decent. People dismiss it because it’s a ‘kit lens’ – but it’s one of the best kit lenses out there and deserves more credit than it gets!
Sure, it was not taken with enthusiasm righter after sales start, but it looks like a bargain now and quite good performer, in comparison to sort_of_crappy 24-70.
I’ve purchased a Sony A7 and it is still being shipped to me now, when it arrives I’m thinking of trying out the Zeiss 16-70mm crop lens for it. The main reason is that it is smaller in size and would be easier to take around. However I am limited to the crop format for it. I know some purists would think its blasphemous to use a crop lens as the main lens on a full format…. but yeah… I’m still looking around
What do you guys think?
I have an a6000 with kit lens and 55-210 on order for the wife. If it was me I wouldn’t invest in Sony until they get their mirrorless lens lineup in order.
I like Sony a lot but most reviews I have read about E mount lenses aren’t very good. Sure there are a few here and there but after years in the mirrorless market their lenses should be better optically.
I use a Nikon d800e, and d700 professionally and have the Fuji X-T1 on order now as well for when I want great image quality without the weight of a dslr.
Fuji is making some great lenses around their X system. Quality and price they make more sense to me at least if you print big and want the very best from a lens. For my wife, she will only print occasionally and isn’t a pro so the kit lens and a zoom is fine for her.
i’m surprised you didn’t just buy a cheaper Fuji for your wife because of the lens interchangeability. I’ve already been invested into sony for a long time, I have the NEX 5N, 5R, RX1 and previously the NEX 6, and I have the 30mm macro, 50mm f1.8, 18-55, 16 pancake and UWA and Fisheye adapters as well as many third party manual focus lenses with adapters. I know Sony lenses are not the best but price to performance ratio it is pretty good
I started investing into Sony before Fuji came out, otherwise I might have considered that Option. I know the limitations of Sony E-mount cameras, but I am still slowly searching for that one “perfect” camera for me, so far the RX1 comes very close, but I got the A7 so I can sell the RX1 and get the RX2 when it comes out. In the mean time I’d want to get a decent quality and small/light weight zoom lens for everyday things, but the 16-70mm is still quite expensive being $1000
I would get the 28-70 FE, as it is so damn cheap $260 USD.
It is a great lens to keep around.
I agree, 28-70 FE is cheap and not bad at all. I am verry happy that I invested the money in this kit lens, a metabones adapter and some Canon EF prime lenses instead of the 24-70 Zeiss.
how good or bad is the kit lens? I wanted an standard zoom for some videos and casual shooting, but for what I tried the 24-70 is not great at all.
I know the 28-70 is ugly and fells very cheap compared to the Zeiss, but what about the IQ?
I sold mine but it really is not that bad at all but I used it for mostly bounce flash nothing with natural light. I much prefer my canon fd 35mm 2.0, 50mm fd 1.4 and the fe 35 & 55 although I am thinking of selling one or both of those and sticking with manual.
ah yes, the kit lens, maybe i’ll see how these lenses compare at the local camera store, but the local stores don’t stock the 24-70 yet for comparison. Hopefully my A7 will arrive soon!
There are as many limitations to Fuji’s system as there are to any other mirrorless system.
You do know, that with the A7/A7r can fit most lenses given an adapter…
The 55mm zeiss 1.8 is near optical perfection, sharper than trolls tongue!
I have a very good feeling about the upcoming lenses for the FE mounts. I would suggest you give the A7r a shot as it is a great camera as you should know being the owner of the d800e, you essentially take that camera and stick it inside the a7.
Borrow from someone ( if you can ) Leica R series lens and try it. You will be amazed.
“I’ve purchased a Sony A7 and it is still being shipped to me now, when it arrives I’m thinking of trying out the Zeiss 16-70mm crop lens for it.
…
What do you guys think?”
Buying $1600 FF camera for a crop lens on which $700 A6000 will perform much better (resolution, autofocus, sequential speed)? Well, it is dumb of course. 🙂
but the A6000 can’t be used as a full frame camera with my film lenses 😛
if I had the choice, I would have a full frame with A6000-like OSPDAF, but I’m still waiting on that camera 😀
This is so surprising given what an excellent performer the a-mount 24-70 is, sharp wide open and razor sharp stopped down a bit. Perhaps Sony should have stuck with the Sonnar design for the FE lens.
As a 24 – 70 is such a useful lens I wouldn’t be surprised if they are adding a 2.8 version to the roll out list
Merely duplicating A’s lens lineup? I hope Sony has better ideas than this.
Sony has already announced that they will not be making ANY FE or E lenses faster than f4, because the system is designed for small size and weight, NOT for performance.
What nonsense. The 55mm is f1.8 (2nd sharpest 35mm format ever made). The 35mm is 2.8….you are talking out your ars/e…
perhaps he means not make any zooms faster than f4? I think they will change their mind once they hear all the strong demand for a larger aperture zoom (as many people are willing to put up with weight in exchange for shallow DoF)
Hope the next wide angle is a 16-35 f4 Vario-Sonnar without OSS.
Yea, everyone is going to complain at first about being overpriced, them they see the score at the dxO, the lens turn in a masterpiece.
My guess is Sony optimized for size. If you want a heavy, stellar lens, Sony wants you to buy the A-mount and adapt. The strategy makes sense.
Good studio portrait lens, but not very good landscape lenses at any f stop I compared this zoom to the 2 FE primes which both smoked the zoom
Yep, folk are queuing up for F4 24-70 lenses for portraits lol Unless you are only shooting head shots with the subject bang in the middle the corners , distortion, vignetting and sharpness are all major weaknesses . It is the old mirrorless argument yet agin , ,price doesn’t matter , performance doesn’t matter as long as it is smaller
Nobody actually queues up for any of the 24-70 2.8 lenses for portraits for any reason other than the budget says to buy thw most versatile lens available. Not one of them is amazing at 70mm f/2.8. Which is why the 85mm L/N/Zeiss lenses exist: for real portrait work. And at 24-70 there is simply not enough difference in bokeh between f/4 and f/2.8 to argue. Even the light gathering difference is nearly moot with the iso characteristics of today’s sensors.
I had such high hopes for this lens after hearing about the first two primes, but with it under-performing like this at that price, no thanks. Hoping for a Sigma or Tamron autofocus zoom that is cheaper with better IQ, but we might be waiting a while.
By IQ, you only mean sharpness. In the corners. Maybe distortion at the extremes. Because that is basically the only areas to be disappointed.
…and ugly “onion rings” nervous bokeh,
Vignetting is bad, distortion is bad, sharpness is bad,
Is there anything left that is good?
Eh. The bokeh is exceptional on this lens. Try it for yourself instead of relying on dodgy review sites.
And the center sharpness is very high, too.
What else is good? It is the size and weight of the Olympus 12-35, a micro four thirds zoom. That is an incredible feat.
If you want the performance of a lens 3 times the size, you should probably buy a lens 3 times the size!
For the rest it is stabilized, parafocal, great for video.
“It is the size and weight of the Olympus 12-35, a micro four thirds zoom.”
There is no such thing as “Olympus 12-35, a micro four thirds zoom.”
There is Olympus 14-35/2, a four thirds zoom, and there is Panasonic 12-35/2.8, which is much smaller and lighter than the Sony 24-70.
There is also Olympus 12-40/2.8, which has longer zoom range, properly weather-sealed and still smaller and lighter.
That was a typo, I meant the 12-40/2.8, which is about the same size and nearly the same weight at 430 vs 382 grams. The Olympus has a 10mm longer zoom range, but the Sony is a stop faster.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#487.393,482.412,ha,t
The Sony is f4 the Olympus f2.8, so the Sony is not faster. f-stop stays f-stop. The Sony has shallower DOF though unless you go to the minimum focus distance which is much closer for Olympus.
Both are very good lenses.
It has shallower DOF and better total light gathering why oh why is only Olympus fannyboys who cannot comprehend this ?
The Zeiss FE is properly weather sealed. Believe me. I’ve more than tested that.
Pity that 12-40 tends to fall apart oh well at least it is a Pro lens lol
well said!
Agreed. Even DXO shows it outperforming the 2.8 L and N from red and yellow. I’ve loved mine. The vignette doesn’t bother me: as if people aren’t utilizing lens profiles for everything anymore. Hell, Panasonic just cooks the profile in.
I see no reason why people complain. It’s not a $2000 lens. It acts like most $1200 prosumer lenses out there, in my experience.
You need to try more lenses then because it does not act like other similar lenses. Plus DXO… really for lens testing? One of the worst sites for lens testing.
Not everyone composes their photos so the subject is in the middle though. It is not an incredible feat that it is similar in weight and size to the Zuiko. They have achieved the size by cutting corners. Poor edge performance i.e. soft, distortion, slow at f4 etc.
I had it on pre-order but ended up getting the 28-70mm FE OSS lens on ebay for $327 instead and it works great on my FF VG900.
Unfortunately its called Tessar for a reason. The lens is actually small and lightweight for a FF zoom lens, and feels REALLY great on the A7. But def theres a IQ compromise for the size.
Hope Sony release an 24-105 f4 G OSS to smoke this one.
Zeiss making junk just for Sony……
Well played Sony.
ZEISS gave nothing save permission to use their label. All design and manufacture was done by Sony.
I’ve spoken with Zeiss engineers. They were very familiar with the designs of the Sony Zeiss glass. I didn’t ask about business relationship, but it is clearly more than just selling a brand label.
Zeiss is highly involved with the Sony label lenses, with technicians on the floor at Sony’s optical facilities.
I’m happy with my 24-70. A great travel lens.
Same here! I got the 24-70mm when i saw the photos posted users of the kit lens
A big disappointment for me, who is considering a A7R – SYSTEM. A SYSTEM camera (“ILC”) is nothing without lenses. Now there are two great lenses and two shit lenses for the E-mount FF. Not worth considering at the moment. If it is FF, it MUST be supported by glass on the same level.
Sony seems obsessed by introducing “groundbreaking” cameras, but do not care about lenses. Or are their lens designers totally incompetent? Don´t think so.
Knowing Sony’s history, I know that getting A7/r is a gamble. Fortunately, getting an adapter for Canon to use my L lens is an option for me.
I’m still really baffled by all the negativity. So I took the Photozone resolution charts of the acclaimed Canon 24-70 f/4 (± same price) and put them next to the FE lens (attached image). Now, I do realize the Canon might be able to resolve more detail on a better sensor. However, these are the results from a year ago based on which many praised the Canon lens (e.g. “impressively high”). So why does the Zeiss, with higher numbers (sensor tech aside), get put down so much?
Same story on DxOmark, with a grain of salt the Zeiss resolves 15mp while the Canon resolves 13mp on a slightly lower resolution sensor. So if the Canon lens on a 5D3 is that exceptional, such a great zoom lens, then why would the Zeiss on an A7 or A7R be so terribly bad?
I feel like the Zeiss is being punished because the 36mp sensor can resolve an incredible amount of detail (with this lens at the center of the image). The corner performance seems to be similar to other lenses and I feel like the Canon could have a similar characteristic on a higher resolution sensor.
Just because lower resolution sensors capture a flatter field in terms of sharpness, doesn’t mean the respective lens is more uniform. Ans since when is uniformity such a deal breaker, look at Leica lenses. Or even the highly praised Fuji primes.
“The corner performance seems to be similar to other lenses and I feel like the Canon could have a similar characteristic on a higher resolution sensor.”
Sorry, No. Look at the tests from this article http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=14492. The corner performance of Canon EF 24-70 F/4L beat the crap out of Zeiss 24-70 at 24mm and 70mm at all apertures. Both lenses were mounted on A7r. The tests validate the test data and conclusion from Photozone.
Eh, sorry but the comparative crops on that site have different zoom levels? Object are not the same size. That’s nonsense considering the comparison is on the same sensor.
And in that test, the only lens doing any crushing is the f/2.8 Zeiss. On the dragon images the Canon does look a bit better, but on the building images the FE looks distinctly better. Definitely not a black and white difference like people tend to portray.
Not sure why 70mm test show different crop size on Zeiss F4. The building test still showing how soft the corner is even at F11; the texture on the wall is muddy on Zeiss F4.
In the corners the Canon reaches more than 80% of the performance in the center, the Zeiss about 60%. Scaling down to the resolution of a canon sensor, this possibly gives less than stellar values. The question is, how noticeable is this lower resolution in large prints. I usually don’t look at pictures from a few centimetres distance to search for corner softness, especially if I’m not doing fine art prints and most objects are oriented in the centre anyway.
I agree with Mike. On paper, this new lens looks better than 24-70 ZA almost everywhere except for speed, light falloff and distortions. Sensible compromise, I would say.
No. Quite frankly, this lens is a disaster. Check out the MTF curves at Sony’s website: http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sel2470z.html
The large divergence between the radial and tangential curves highly indicates extreme astigmatism and this is why the lens has poor measured MTF values. I have no idea why anyone would publish curves with such poor MTF curves, but hey… Sony’s lack of consistency shows up again.
According to Zeiss, Sony MTF curves are drawed by graphic designers so I would not take them too seriously.
Quite right lol, Sony employees would obviously make the lens look worse than it is , why wouldn’t they lol
Yeah that clearly shows how terrible the extreme corners are at 24mm, Canon is better wider open than Sony at any aperture.
The “acclaimed” 24-70/4L IS? Since when?
that one is a weaker cousin to the 24-70/2.8 II
not to mention you lose alot of resolution correcting for that lofty 3.8% distortion.
This sounds like one of the Contax SLR zooms, poorest of that crop. 35-70 C/Y ?
I think you meant for 28-70 C/Y. 35-70 is a better lens that could rival many primes.
Can’t wait to fork over my money for this brick. What a winner. PASS
People seem to judge Sony to some weird standard that not even Canon or Nikon can follow and don’t. I have the Canon 24-70 and the Zeiss 24-70 both suffer from some softness and barrel distortion…what Canon user has not seen that?
I bought the Zeiss 24-70 as a walk around, day trip, easy to use family event lens so it works for me and I don’t have any real complaints…pricy sure…how much is the Canon 24-70?
If you want amazing quality buy a PRIME lens and call it a day. The 35 & 55 released are tact sharp and amazing…better than I have seen even from the Canon 1.2…for a little less money and a third of the weight.
How bad the corner is on Zeiss 24-70? See it yourself: http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=14492.
That Canon 24-70 you own must be a Mark 1. Otherwise what you say simply doesn’t make any sense to me. The Canon 24-70 F2.8L Mark II (which I have) is superb optically, its only weakness is lack of stabilization. It is MUCH better than the Sony F4 versionj (even at F2.8).