DxOmark (Click here) posted the full test results of the new 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II lens:
As with its sibling, the new lens coatings have had a somewhat mixed effect on the sharpness levels across the field. While it has improved uniformity at 70mm, there are several instances where sharpness levels have dropped. It’s particularly noticeable at 50mm in the mid and outer field position. Overall, though, the lens is good performer. The addition of AF compatibility with the contrast detection AF capabilities of the E-mount cameras (using an optional adapter) and the weather sealing are significant benefits over its predecessor.
The new Zeiss A-mount lenses are in Stock in USA:
Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM II in USA at Amazon, BHphoto and at Adorama.
Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA SSM II at Amazon, BHphoto and at Adorama.
130 Responses
As I was saying…
“The addition of AF compatibility with the contrast detection AF capabilities of the E-mount cameras (using an optional adapter)… …are significant benefits over its predecessor.”
It’s all about compatibility with the E-mount.
That’s what I said when these upgrades were announced — That it might actually be more about E-mount compatibility, than anything about A-mount.
If you were updating A-mount lenses, you would start with lenses that really need updates.
So perhaps this was really primarily about simply adding greater E-mount compatibility.
You’d have to be on crack to pay over 2k for a lens and then mount it on an E mount body.
I think most of the people buying these will be buying them for A-mount, but at least they won’t be as pi$$ed when, in another year or two, they have to replace their A-mount bodies and find there are only E-mount bodies…
I’m down to just 5 A mount lenses now. Sold another off a few days ago. At current prices, I might pick up the 85mm 1.4 Zeiss and just rock it till A mount is no more. I’m trying to get into FE mount, I’m just not feeling it yet. At least not the lenses.
They’ve still got a little ways to go (for the lens line-up), that’s for sure. I’m still all A-mount for my FF stuff; so far just APS-C (a6000) on E-mount. Overall I like the form factor for the e-mount cameras, though not sure I’d ever love shooting a 70-200 f/2.8 mounted to one of the current models. I suspect will get an E-mount with DSLR form factor at some point, though, for those pros/enthusiasts who still want/need that.
That doesn’t make any sense as the whole selling point of E-mount is high image quality in a compact form factor. If Sony made them in an SLR sized body, what reason would a Canon user have to switch? Canon already has the #1 lens line up in the world, so if its the same size, I’d stick with Canon.
Uh, because they can adapt their Canon lenses to a superior body?
Let’s face it. Canon makes great bodies too and no one believes that more than Canon users. The notion that more than a handful of Canon users would adapt to a Sony e-mount is crazy talk.
Yeah — anyone saying A7RII is a better camera than 1Dx hasn’t shot with a 1Dx.
This being said, I suspect A99II will be Sony’s first offering that can compete with 1Dx — fingers-crossed! And when I say compete, I don’t mean that it will cause Canon users to jump ship, but that it will compete or outperform spec wise and keep A-mount photographers like you and I from switching to Canon.
Guess you would have to shoot with both cameras to make that judgment. The sensor on the A7rII is in a different class with the Canon sensors being one to two generations behind.
I’m talking about the full package — overall performance. The fastest continuous shoot rate in a full frame camera combined with the best AF performance and an unlimited buffer. The 1Dx is bullet proof for its designed usage & Sony has no current competitor right now.
And conversely, Canon has no competitor for the A7RII right now and likely never will. The 1Dx is a great camera and excels in specific areas, but the overall package is too narrowly focused (no pun intended) for most users. So far no camera has demonstrated the focus tracking ability of the A7RII demonstrated by Dpreview, that represents a significant advantage for most users. And we know the sensor will likely have a 2 to 3 stop advantage in dynamic range and more resolution. To some these advantages out weight the 1Dx’s attributes.
Did you forget 5DS? It might not boast the ISO performance, but it does have greater resolution.
I like the 5DS but like the 1Dx it’s very narrowly focused, and only showing a minor improvement over the 5DM3 in dynamic range and perhaps slightly inferior ISO performance. The 5DS lacks a dedicated microphone input and 4K internal recording, which really limits it use for video. Definitely a great studio or landscape camera but not well suited for other applications.
and you benefit from that when you… what actually do??? Do you really expect an advantage in a say 40*60 cm or even 80*120 cm print??? And who is printing in that size regularly….?
Go back and read the comment thread. Emph suggested Canon had no competition for A7RII, but 5DS is Canon’s competition.
I don’t use nor want the 5Ds. I don’t care how it performs. I don’t care if people on this forum assert that A7RII is better.
I don’t want either camera.
Perhaps some, but many Canon users were pretty excited to see the Canon lenses focusing very well on the A7RII so not so crazy. Time will tell.
Actually, I hope that you are correct and I am wrong. If Sony does well that is good for me because I am heavily invested in Sony. I don’t think I am wrong but as you said, only time will tell. If there is movement it is likely to be in some sectors not others. One size does not fit all when it comes to cameras and that is the part of the equation most often overlooked in this forum.
Are you kidding? Have you ever shot with a 1Dx?
Uhhh definitely not for the compact factor.
Why would they make the 70-200 f4, 90mm, 35 1.4, etc.?
Only Sony knows.
Wesley, look at the size of the bodies man! Also, hold the E-mount 70-200/4 in one hand and the A-mount 70-200/2.8 in the other and tell me which is lighter. It’s always been about a size & weight reduction in that system.
These FE lenses are the same or bigger then the DSLR counterpart.
Size & weight reduction made sense with the a7 & that went out the window when A7ii got heavier.
Even with the f/4 one, it would handle better with the battery grip increasing it’s compactness. Same dimensions & weight as the Nikon 70-200 f/4.
I want the a7ii without the stabilizer…put on a slim sized prime lens & now the FE system makes sense again.
If all future E-mount 2.8 zooms are as large & heavy as A-mount counterparts, E-mount makes zero sense to me anymore. Might as well stick with the amazing A-mount kit I already own, or dump and switch to Canon.
Seems we can’t cheat lens physics unlike camera bodies so expect similar sizes unless there’s a breakthrough in optic design.
True — that’s why I don’t necessarily believe A-mount is going away at all, but being retooled. Since the lenses will still be the same size, it actually puts E-mount at a disadvantage because the bodies are unbalanced with the heavy/larger F2.8 zooms which makes for poor ergonomics and bad user experience.
Sure, Sony can make a larger body, but Sony already has larger bodies with an established, mature lens line-up and some of the finest glass currently available. There’s no reason A-mount can’t be mirrorless too. The only reason it’s not is because focal plane PDAF wasn’t quite as good as a traditional, dedicated PDAF module — but we all know those days are numbered.
the overall quality is actually better, even with that “bad” Sony glass… at least if you don’t stick with you A7 kit lens….
My problem is all the lenses I want or have are large. I only shoot full frame for fast glass. What would sway me is that DSLR form factor E mount body. Even the A7II isn’t big enough in my opinion. I’ll take mine upsized please…heavy on the 1.4’s. I won’t touch a 70-200 F4 so 2.8 big boy needs a big body. No way around that.
If you want to full sized body, you’re better off staying A-mount or dumping the system for Canon.
not Canon… goto Nikon, Sony sensor, large body and great optics, too!
Nikon ergonomics suck and Canon has more extensive glass and better pro support. I’d go to Canon over Nikon any day.
What’s not to like? The 35 1.4 kicks ass, the batis are outstanding, the 55 1.8 is a compact monster, and the 90mm macro just blew away Canon’s. The optics are there. Pricing, especially compared to the current fire sale on A-mount, is another matter.
There are the both Batis lenses and the Loxias. If you are into wide angle, the native 16-35 Zeiss for e-mount is great. The Sony 28 too. And the new 90mm macro is said to be really a brilliant lens! Even the Sony G 70-200 isn’t a bad choice. Not on par with the new Nikon 70-200/4 but close enough for every hobbyist or also most professional shooters I would guess. The lack of long lenses is a downside of the e-mount. And the lack of a high performance 24-70/f4 AND f2.8.
That’s my next lens- the 16-35. Mentally, I don’t want to part with more than 1K. I’m not really into macro and already have the old minolta. The 28 might be on my list as well. Gotta have that 16-35 though.
I own both and just can say they are worth the money. Can’t wait to test these lenses on my a7rll..
Which will give a better overall quality image:
This lens mounted on the a99 or on the a7rii?
The fact that I’d have to make that distinction is a pure product of Sony engineering. More resolution may not be desirable- I personally think 24 is enough. Just ditch that AA filter. Which will give you the better user experience? I guess that remains to be seen.
AA filter and the mirror… (I use and like A-mount, but the argument for it is becoming weaker and weaker with each new E-mount release)
AA filter has nothing to do with lens mounts — it’s simply a design decision based on the camera engineering team, and there are pros & cons to removing it.
Filter or not, if anyone has trouble getting a great image out of an A-mount camera, even the “old” A99, it’s not the camera.
I know it has nothing to do with the mount; we were just discussing things that give the A7RII possible IQ advantage other than MP count.
Resolution… Better noise performance. Possibly better dynamic range (need to wait for testing).
So if you’re going to spend $2k on this lens, you benefit more by sticking it on a7rii than the a99.
And you’ll get better iq on the a7rii with this lens, over the FE 24-70/4.
I think the law of diminishing returns applies here. I’ll wait to see those A7RII RAW files and independent reviews. If your going to spend 2k, your going to look for a native body.
A99, however, has 14-bit RAW in single shot mode. I’d say at ISO 100 it would be really close.
a99mII
Ok… Show me an image taken with your a99ii….
I will be happy to. After you send me an image from your a7rII.
why.. when the body is about 3.5k, everything is fine 😉
I think we’re going to see that across the board given the “one mount” strategy Sony is now trumpeting with the A7rII. Its only a matter of time before BSI and the new AF trickles down the line and then to APS-c bodies. A-mount homers rallied behind these announcements to say its not dead – ironically it looks to be the final nail in the coffin.
I wouldn’t say that.
If you read the original Sony press announcement, Sony was more focused on supporting the full potential of A77II 4DAF tracking. It’s tough to build out a high speed / high performance SLT line up without a basic set of lenses fast enough to support its potential.
I suspect that getting these lenses ready a midst the pressure of building out an E-mount lens line up is why there’s been so little A-mount releases lately.
I can’t wait till the A99II is announced so all the naysayers will shut up!
I don’t doubt there will probably be an A99II, but I doubt we’ll ever see an A99III. Welcome to the end of the line…
Impossible to guess before the A99II is released. If it sells well, there will be no reason not to make an A99III.
Options…
Ditto!
Not many people found the mirror to be a pleasant thing to live with.
Says who?
Myself included. The loss of light due to mirror is somewhat annoying. I hope they could remove it in future models.
What light loss? Are you really going to try to convince me you can see a difference between ISO 100 & 125? LOL
I’ve been shooting professionally with Sony SLTs cameras for almost 3 years — from bright sunlight, to pouring rain to commercial studio work. I’ve covered sports, fashion, portraits and documentary work.
I hate to break it to you, but if you couldn’t get a good photo out of an SLT camera, you won’t be able to get a good photo out of an E-mount camera. The only impact SLT has on IQ actually giving you sharper images by removing the vibration from a flipping mirror. They also help allow for a faster continuous shooting speed. Test after test after test shows any ISO advantage from DSLR to SLT to be negligible at best.
Sure, if you compare A99 to recent cameras it will fall behind, but that’s because its sensor is starting to show its age, not because of SLT.
Should Sony release an A99II with a new 24 MP BSI sensor it will out perform every DSLR camera on the market right now for its combination of continuous speed, tracking and high ISO performance.
I don’t doubt the future A99ii would be great. But as the picture shows, A77ii is showing noticeable noise beyond ISO 100, which is what SLT does NOW. Since you stated you are a pro I suppose you have a way to fix ISO at 100. But that doesn’t apply to average users.
It indeed takes good pictures, as well as Canon’s 5D3 or even 1dx (although they are considered dead or dying by some people). I know pros who own 4 Fuji XT1 and work professional with those, which might possibly be considered hilarious.
The 3rd paragraph of your statement is widely used by Fuji folks and Canon folks in spec talk defending the use of out-dated tech in current models and selling for high prices. And that attitude has been why Sony/Nikon folks keep mocking them. I am a bit surprised to see it being applied to Sony’s product on a Sony forum, especially after that breaking mirror video uploaded by Sony AUS.
I think if people are going to be forgiving on SLT, then they shouldn’t make things harder for Canon/Nikon/Fuji/etc.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4b744537d138f001444ce23c2c7b81c27e8e05936ec34856b684f1c86e768c31.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/54a0c54570778d7f9135f2c654cdea665f0fd7f0a0c5ce590519925d52fa7b1e.png
LOL quit quoting specs and reviews and say something when you’ve actually shot legit work extensively with Sony SLT cameras (which you clearly haven’t).
Any photographer knows that lab tests like these do not show how cameras perform in real world scenarios.
Had you worked with A77II, you would know it performs excellent considering its pixel density and easily holds its own against the A6000 which uses the identical image sensor without SLT, and outperforms the Canon 7D Mark II in overall image quality which boasts a similar resolution (again, without SLT).
I’ve shot sports professionally with A77II for the past year and my images turn out crystal clear through ISO 800, with well controlled noise through ISO 3200 and wide dynamic range — particularly in the highlights.
I used to have a6000, a57, a77 and a7. Again, as I pointed out, you talk like typical people in Fuji/Canon forum. They would also use the same statement on you.
The lab shots by DXO do not reflect real world use but they are done under well-controlled environment hence provide equal ground for comparison. If I do the same thing on two bodies, why can’t I compare them?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/669c08e3852c634366320a03c01b9a2d28cabcfae95c53ade7d5ea81a653859d.png
1347 vs 1013 is negligible, hence the identical “Overall Score”.
As far as DXO suggests, 25% is slightly noticeable. (1347-1013)/1013*100%=33%. It is more than slightly noticeable according to the testers.
You also need to count difference between A99 and A7ii.
But even DXO ranked them both 82 — identical overall performance.
However, all these numbers are meaningless if you can’t compose or manipulate light and exposures to begin with. Every camera out there right now is capable of taking amazing images — it’s what you do with it that counts.
I suggest you spend less time looking at image samples of blank black screens from some “lab” & get off your computer and shoot!
DXO scores consist of 4 parts. The whole discussion we have is about 1 of the 4 parts, ISO sensitivity.
As stated earlier, for average users for everyday use, environment can’t be easily controlled. REMEMBER YOU ARE PAID TO TAKE PHOTOS AND OTHERS ARE NOT.
Yes, my livelihood depends on my photo work, so believe me, if my SLT cameras couldn’t perform well under a variety of circumstances I wouldn’t use them, but they’re dependable & perform great!
I do not care about DxO scores, and for the last time, the differences you’re seeing there are negligible when it comes to making a great image.
A great image is about light, composition, color or tone, emotion and rarity. Focus on understanding light and exposures and you’ll be able to take great images no matter what you shoot with!
Sry, I was just trying to be a jerk. Of course your statement is valid and I agree to it all. How I respond to you is how typical hardcore Sony fanboys would respond to users from other brands.
I have seen more than once on this website that Nikon is called a dying system; and Sony is always better, in specs, in constructions, in whatever aspects.
For people who are after results other than process, they probably would think specs is the only thing that makes a great photo. I used to think alike but different now.
Of course composition etc. are important. Doesn’t change the fact that a translucent mirror takes away light reducing S/N ratio, especially felt at higher ISO values.
Nobody is saying that there isn’t. However, even at high ISOs, SLT bodies hold their own against their DSLR equivalents released at the same time, and, after the RAW is processed, it is near impossible to tell a difference — especially in a print. Again, if you can’t get a great photo with an SLT camera, the problem isn’t the camera.
I would always take take lower ISO if possible. Less work in PP. How much light is the SLT blocking? According to many sources (lenstip did a review not long ago and even discussed here at SAR) it is about a little less than 1/3 of the light you are blocking. Of course by changing aperture we block light, too, but in addition SLT technology blocks more. When looking at wedding photos and details of faces like eyes, etc., it makes a difference whether I use ISO 1000 or ISO 1600 for _me_. Of course it is not a huge difference, but noticeable. Doesn’t mean you can’t get a good photo with SLT cameras. But if I had the choice, I would not want it.
ISO 1000 vs 1600? LOL The difference is more like ISO 1250 vs ISO 1600 which, if you ever shoot photos, you’ll find that any visible difference is negligible at best and that, after post processing, there is no visible difference.
Again, there is a greater difference on paper than there is in real world use. Photographers have been using A99s at weddings for years with no complaints. I use A77II for sports regularly, which arguably has even worse ISO performance than A99 — and I use it up to ISO 3200 with no issues. Sure, I’ll gladly take any ISO advantage, but as long as SLT provides an advantage in terms of speed & AF performance for A-mount, I’m thankful to have it.
I don’t find it negligible. I prefer as much detail as possible, esp. when cropping, which is always a possibility as you are not able to be in the right spot all the time. The pictures of a D7100 I used some time ago where only o.k. for me at ISO 3200. Parts of your image often need PP, boosting shadows, for example, showing noise easily (and in DR the D7100 has almost 1 ev advantage over the A77ii (Dxo measurements)). It is fine that it is o.k. for you.
I do crop (shooting sports I have to) and 24 MP gives me plenty of room to work with. Additionally, I too love detail which why having a system with an arsenal of AF Zeiss lenses is so nice!
It’s important to note that the 1EV advantage has more to do with the D7100’s 14bit output vs A77II’s 12bit output which helps greatly with noise control and post processing.
I wish A77II were 14bit, but then I would be giving up a certain amount of speed. There’s always a trade off, but A77II is probably a more well-rounded package with greater versatility thanks to the new 4DAF system, extended buffer, XAVC-S video recording with zebra stripes, etc.
No disrespect, but if you need to boost that much shadow area, you didn’t expose the image properly to begin with. I recommend switching from multi segment metering to spot metering so you will have precise control over the focus of your exposure.
High dynamic range scenes cannot be properly exposed all the time. Consider a church ceremony in summer with beautiful glass windows. Expose to the right to not blow out the windows and you have to push shadows. We do this professionally, so know quite well when to use spot or matrix metering.
You should let the windows blow out & expose for your subjects’ faces. Here, read this book, it will greatly help:
http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Freemans-Perfect-Exposure-Professionals/dp/0240811712
The overall score is not only build of one value but by a weighted sum of the individual scores. Your conclusion is incorrect.
a mirror is not adding noise…. 😉
What I wrote is reducing light.
As for the SLT, it seems A99, A7ii and RX1R use the same IMX157. (source: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/491094-some-recent-image-sensor-trend-mainly-sony-exmor/)
Unless source is wrong or huge difference present between these sensor although they are all 157 series, the SLT plays a big part in this.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a8a420a90a371d7e1d63d17c8719b104854ed814b21d262f0f2eecbe675ecb7f.png
For the last time, it ain’t the SLT mirror. Go back and compare A77II and A6000 and Canon 7D Mark II, and you’ll see the difference is negligible.
What you’re seeing here is Sony engineering simply learning how to better implement the same sensor and squeeze greater performance out of it.
Negligible… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/84c5eba4b824dea8ac457aa3a655f3ad706cb1ad3a7341fe75b20f5845aac739.png
LOL Absolutely negligible in a real world scenario! What you’re seeing here is the color filter array in the A77II amplifying the color a bit more which is why it outperforms A6000 on color depth.
Once you apply NR, it would be tough to distinguish which is which.
Oh, right. (With XT1 there is no need to buy a full frame because today’s apsc are so great in performance that you can’t see it in most real world scenario. )
Better to go in the measurements tab and switch to screen instead of print. More accurate for RAW shooters. Scores above are from print.
i think theres been minior revisions to the sensor, and the later cameras have better processors and bits which help too..
Troll
Many people don’t find trolls a pleasant thing to live with.
I’d like to see the A99II as well, but the fact Sony is actually turning a healthy profit on the A7 cams after years of losses, promoting “one mount” and its focus on FE lenses is really telling.
The lack of low cost APS-c cameras in the A-mount lineup is also telling, that’s where the bulk of DSLR’s are sold to casual photographers – and Sony dropped out of that segment ages ago. I don’t think they can make a profit on A-mount cameras with just the A77/99, and given its small user base lens sales aren’t keeping imaging in the black either.
I just don’t see a business case to continue to produce A-mount bodies with the A7RII and future upgrades to the E-mount line. Soon we’ll have the BSI sensor/AF in a 10+FPS body, with great AF-c tracking and such.
The new sensor and AF makes the SLT and the giant A-mount redundant. Sony tells us it can all be done with adapters now, regardless of whether that’s true. The A7RII is the beginning of a complete consolidation of the A & E mounts. Just my opinion.
But your comments are based on the old photography industry which doesn’t exist anymore.
Like it or not, the #1 selling camera today is an iPhone. Understanding this change in the market, it makes perfect sense for Sony move all amateur/low end offerings to small, compact E-mount cameras.
A-mount might be a niche market, but it’s already got 10s of 1000s of users already invested in glass who are waiting for a new camera. Seems like a no brainer for Sony to continue supporting them as long as they keep buying. Those users however, won’t be looking for a new A58II, they’ll be looking for an A99II, potentially an A88 and/or an A77III. So, Sony’s shift in A-mount to a high end / performance-oriented line-up also makes sense.
A-mount still trumps E-mount for ergonomics, processing speed / buffer and AF-tracking in sports scenarios. There’s a good reason Sony doesn’t demo A7RII shooting pro cycling or even a soccer match.
That “old industry” still has 3/4’s of the market split between two companies – Canon and Nikon. Regardless of the decline, they still pull in the lions share of revenues. Sony has found its niche that makes them a healthy profit – FF mirrorless.
The A-mount shift you speak of only makes sense if they can make money – and I’m betting that’s not the case. Sony has dumped legacy products that weren’t profitable in the last couple years and I fully expect the A-mount camera to go the same route. They don’t care about the sports shooter niche, for everyone else the on sensor AF will continue to improve and what the A7RII can do is more than enough for most. A-mount glass works with adapters, but Sony only makes money selling new bodies and glass. I really don’t think they care about current A-mount owners either given what little has been done to update/expand the A-mount lens lineup in the last few years.
Again, just my opinion – Sony wants us to move to the A7’s. The A99/A77II is just going to be let twisting in the wind as the “one mount” becomes its imaging mantra. Its coming – my guess after the 7 new lenses are announced and the A7III and A7sII become reality.
I’m happy to be wrong, just seems like everything is falling into place for a quiet goodbye to the A-mount.
It’s foolish to speculate until we see what Sony releases this fall — whatever they release for A-mount (or don’t release) should answer a lot of questions.
You realize that that is a DXO statement right? Nobody from Sony has made a statement that these lens updates are for e-mount purposes.
So with both the 16-35 and 24-70, no clear cut IQ improvement… IQ actually worse in some ways. Though DXO basically says that in real world shooting, the new coatings may offer some benefit.
These “upgrades” are just odd — No tangible IQ improvement… Many many other A-mount lenses in far greater need of an upgrade (upgrading screw drive lenses to SSM? Upgrade the way outdated 35/1.4?) So basically, it’s just new coatings and a tweak of the SSM, with a price bump.
If you’re really continuing the A-mount, then where are the REAL upgrades and new lenses?
And if you’re really winding down the A-mount, while even bother with a little update like this?
The SAL2470Z was laggy. Why produce cameras like A77II if you don’t have lenses equipped to track fast enough? Before these updates, only the SAL300F28G2, SAL70200G2, SAL70400G2 and SAL70300G2 truly supported the top 4DAF tracking speed of A77II. As I’ve been saying for over a year now, these updates are very telling about the forthcoming A-mount flagship, and the direction of A-mount in general: it’s all going to be about speed and performance now!
You forgot the 500 F4 G
Thanks for adding that in! Yes, Sony 500/4 G SSM absolutely supports A77II 4DAF Tracking! But thanks to Sony updating the Zeiss 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8, we’re now covered from 16mm – 500mm (even longer if you add the 1.4x TC or 2x TC).
These results surprise me. I own the new SAL2470Z2 and definitely it seems sharper than the SAL2470Z, which I owned previously. It also tracks significantly faster.
Its possible your earlier 24-70mm was a bad copy or you feel it is sharper. The optical formula is the same and coatings can’t significantly improve sharpness of a lens.
AF speed should be much faster though.
My SAL2470Z was mint — even had a realignment performed a few years back — as I generally do with most of my glass periodically.
I’m sure in a studio setting, it would be tough to tell the difference (which is how DxO tests),
but where I’m seeing major improvements is documenting sports athletes in
natural light. From AF tracking speed to image quality, I’m seeing a
performance boost everywhere.
The biggest difference that I see with SAL2470Z2 is dramatically reduced ghosting and way better controlled lens flare — night and day from the original! I can shoot into the sun much more easily now while retaining a greater level of sharpness than before. I’m absolutely loving the new lens & I highly recommend the upgrade to everyone considering it!
So now even DXO is saying you’d only buy this A-mount lens because it will work better on FE? Jeez. I’ve jumped ship to FE, and it was painful, but this is getting comical. Why doesn’t Sony just come out and say they’re definitely going to keep making A-mount bodies, or that they’re definitely dropping the line?
Because they can continue to milk A-mount sales for some time without having to do much on the development front. But I would think the time will come within the next two years where A-mount will stop seeing any new product activity and then it will slowly go away. Just my opinion 🙂
Olympus did the same thing with 4/3.
Because they already said repeatedly that they are keeping A mount system.
What do you expect a personal phone call from their Chief Exec ?!?
I’m not convinced, but apparently you are. Time will tell who’s right.
I’ve been using the sal2470 and sal1635 mark 1 for weddings, the results are outstanding and so far I plan to keep them at least for the next 10 years to get the most out of their values. with nano coating, I would say you only see the difference when you take landscapes that prints 2×4 type of feet sizes. no groom or brides are going to do pixel peeping! they only care about how they look, the mood of their photos and the priceless moments in their big day.
Sony ranks no. 8 for best Customer Service: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/generalmoney/the-2015-customer-service-hall-of-shame-and-fame/ar-AAdiO5T?ocid=mailsignout#page=14.
Lipstick on a pig?
Ok the first pig makes me more money than all my other Amount lenses combined. It’s my main stable workhorse. It is meant for abuse and doesn’t need all weather seal because it’s already super tight. Repair shops question the validity of weather sealing claims anyway. It’s just a marketing tool and free words to justify a meager upgrade.
Come on folks… the dang lens has a 1/4 focus throw. Don’t tell me the first doesn’t focus fast enough when it’s shifting the ring a couple of millimeters for moving target. Find me a subject that V1 cannot track. Show me a real world difference that V2 can do but V1 cannot.
Stop inventing ghosts to kill Sony. No one asked for an update to this already fantastic lens. But we have asked for USM updates to the 135/1.8 and 85/1.4 for half a decade now. Where is that update Sony? Where are your ears to listen to what consumers request instead of the false flags you raise to claim saving us with. Sony is the “S” in BS.
That’s my problem with Sony. When canon releases 70-200mm II and 24-70mm II and 16-35 II, sharpness increases a LOT. When Sony releases 16-35 II and 24-70 II, sharpness decreases. WTF seriously ?
I dream of a world with Sony A7RII and Canon lenses (with no adapter whatsoever) …
Do not believe DXO here. I own the SAL2470Z2 and SAL2470Z and I can assure you, I’ve noticed a performance upgrade across the board.
Bought both sal2470z2 and sal1634z2 and dxo results don’t correlate with real life. These lenses are amazing. In fact dxo rated my old lens sal1680z on a77ii way sharper than the new lenses which I found to be total bs. In addition, photography is way more than the specs n numbers of equipment
Topdog, I’m loving mine as well! You’ll especially see a major difference shooting into the sun. There is a major reduction in ghosting and way better controlled lens flare vs the original.
I’m going to assume the Sonys were very good already so it’s not possible to increase it by “a LOT”.
Lens variation pretty much makes the 1pt decrease negligible.
The new AF and coating against flare must be the major reason for ver. 2?
The 24-70 F4 is conveniently excluded. Well it’s a POS after all. The bread & butter optic isn’t there.
^^ I believe that updating the coatings and AF was far far easier to do than redesign a lens from using a body based motor to a lens based motor.
True I would think most people would have preferred Sony didn’t tamper with these two lenses. I too use the 24-70mm and neither do I find the AF slow or have a big problem with flare and I use it to shoot landscapes too.
And given that these lenses are substantially more expensive than their predecessors is a bit hard to swallow.
@BrendonF:disqus, I’m glad they updated them w/the faster AF circuitry, but you would have to shoot sports, reportage and lifestyle work to fully appreciate!
ZA 135 F1.8 SSM please.
85/1.4 ZA SSM too!
Yes, that too~
Also if possible they should update the 85 with the tube won’t extend when focusing, making it full IF~
That would make it too large though!
Hmm, maybe just longer? I don’t know…
I’m no lens engineer or something~ =D
I loved my 135mm f1.8 but found the limited DSLR-style focus with the LA-EA4 to be just too frustrating and ended up selling it. I’d love to have a version that’s usable on an A7 body.
Indeed. Without SSM, AF is pain in the neck with the LAEAs…
But the revision 2 of each Sony G/ZA lens seems to be much more expensive than the original, well at least at my place. Hopefully they don’t make it more expensive on the 135 SSM
It would definitely be more expensive with the addition of an SSM motor and associated AF circuitry.
I think that is reasonable but the 70-200G SSM II is much much more expensive that the first iteration and I don’t see any new stuff added for the G2…
I bought the upgrade specifically because the original was my most used lens, ever. If you shoot sports, you’ll see the difference immediately.
In terms of IQ, the biggest difference you’ll see in SAL2470Z2 is improved clarity/sharpness and way better flare control while shooting into the sunlight. Also, the increased AF speed will help capture the decisive moment at weddings.
The SAL2470Z was my most used lens, but SAL2470Z2 is an all around better performer!
Something isn’t right here. Take a look at how much worse the lens rates on the APS-C cameras, the A77 specifically:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zoom-Carl-Zeiss-T-24-70-mm-F2.8-ZA-SSM-SAL-2470Z-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-77-versus-Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T-STAR-24-70mm-F28-ZA-SSM-II-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-77__224_734_1538_734
To take a step back in score from 15MP rating to 9MP?!?
And if you look at the field maps, they are way off too. Could this be another bad sample they tested? It doesn’t seem that DxO tests multiple samples to ensure it isn’t sample variation.
For a lens that is optically the same but has improved coatings, weather sealing, and improved AF, we shouldn’t be expecting a step back in optical performance. Equal, sure, maybe even a tad improved. But not a step back, especially not by this much.
I’ve owned the mark I version for over 4 years now, it is a beautiful lens and have never let me down. I have used it for architecture and street photography mostly with some landscape thrown in for good measure. Like the 16-35mm Mark II I cannot personally see the point or justify moving to the mark II, come to that unless money is no object who could?
the upgrades might be to unify the coatings process or to slim them down, or maybe the new ones are cheaper too…
electrics could again be a replacement of stock parts
as for canon users switching, 2 main reasons, 1)canons sensors suck in some areas
2) “ooh small light and wonderful!” which is decreasing with every release, and canon could get close with body weight if they wanted, specialy if you factor in adapter weight.