Image courtesy: Photozone.
According to plenty of reviewers the Zeiss FE 24-70mm lens seems to not be worth of the Zeiss badge. The latest harsh critic is coming via Ken Rockwell whom compared the A6000 vs A7rII and Canon 5Dsr image quality performance. And the real weak spot in his comparison seems to be the Zeiss FE 24-70mm lens:
The reason the Sony A6000 & 16-50mm OSS look about the same as the Sony A7R II and Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS is because the Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS is pretty soft in the corners, so the better performance of the 16-50mm OSS renders the $598 combination about the same as the $4,300 Sony combo. Ouch, sometimes the truth hurts — sorry Sony.
Lately also Matt Granger shared his very negative opinion about the lens. More lens reviews with the same kind of conclusion can be read at Photozone. and SLRgrear too.
I guess we really need a new 24-70mm f/2.8 FE zoom soon. And please Sony…it should be really good (a Zeiss badge alone doesn’t do it) and it should be NOT more expensive than the [shoplink 40693 ebay]Nikon 24-70mm[/shoplink] and [shoplink 40694 ebay]Canon 24-70mm[/shoplink] lenses!
Reminder: Maybe that “SEL2470 GM” lens registered lately by Sony in Russia will finally be the one 24-70mm lens we were waiting for?
237 Responses
Solution: LAEA-3/4 SAL24-70Z F2.8
I love my 24-70 FE lens. Works for me!
Craig, you summed it up with a great reply.
I’m guessing you are pretty content with your life and your photography.
I don’t understand why people get so emotional if someone makes a comment that contradicts their views or has a critical opinion on some piece of equipment they own.
I don’t get what Sony wins from “collaboration” with Zeiss.
Batis lenses are designed by Tamron.
The only e-mounts designed by Zeiss are rather unimpressive Touits and manual Loxias.
It’s painful to look at SEL24F18 and SEL50F18 — similar build & IQ yet prices differ 3-4 fold.
Blue badge, higher price point, arguably tighter design standards
Z24-70 and Z16-70 are not “tighter” in any way
They are also not priced differently from similar Canon or Nikon lenses.
The 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 are though
Well, this just might be due to that primes have less points they can fail at.
This doesn’t excuse poor variation with zooms.
Have the SEL 50 and the Zony 24. Get your eyes checked.
Canon 22/2: three times cheaper, two times lighter, 2.5 times shorter and still sharper.
Great, if sharpness is your main priority in a lens.
WHAAAA? why don’t you use singlet lenses then?
Price, size, weight. And I don’t particularly fond of 24/1.8 rendition: typical japan glass, nothing to rave about.
I read reviews before I buy, so I never have owned $ony zei$$ 24/1.8.
DXomark rates sel50 and sel24 both at 13 megapixel mounted at nex-7 with zei$$ having more lateral chromatism. sel50 has OSS and more elements (9 versus 8) and more ED elements so I don’t see why sel24 should be more expensive
You shouldn’t compare a 50mm vs. a 24mm especially with DXO scores. 50mm is the “ideal” focal length for lenses. If you can’t make a good 50mm lens you shouldn’t be making lenses. I like my SEL 50mm and I like the color it renders but it doesn’t compare to the Zony 24mm. 24mm has much better mirco contrast and the colors really do “pop”. I bought mine used at $600 which IMO was a great bargain and OSS isn’t as big of a need at 24mm.
The 32mm Touit and the 50mm Touit macro are also outstanding.
Your 50 vs 24 point assumes we’re talking about FF SLR lenses. But we’re not but about aps-c mirrorless so it’s 75 vs 36 and because it’s mirrorless it’s easier to design 36mm (where even simple planar design works)
What is this mysterious microcontrast which only people can see and avoids any numeric evaluation?
32/1.8 outstanding? it’s as sharp as smaller sel35/1.8 oss and better only in having more convenient FL
50/2.8 don’t know about IQ of that one, but it has been designed in collaboration with Fuji.
Given all of the above, the 24mm Zeiss stands up to the Leica Summilux very well indeed. It bests it in some areas, holds its own in some, and falls slightly behind elsewhere. Overall this is a stunning performance. There is little vignetting, even wide open, and corners have very good resolution for a lens of this focal length and format. CA and flare is more of an issue with the Zeiss though.
Those photographers who have been clamouring for fast primes for the NEX mount are starting to have their requests met. With the 24mm f/1.8 Zeiss Sonnar Sony has produced a lens which photographers will find more than exceeds expectations. At $1,000 it isn’t inexpensive, but then considering how well it holds up to the industry’s benchmark, costing almost 6X the price, it actually is a relative bargain.
https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-nex-7-rolling-review/#24
The link you posted compares this to FF lens which is 1.5x wider and faster and used on inappropriate camera – BS. There’s nowhere Zony is sharper, despite you claim.
So just because Leicas are overpriced you think Zony price is ok? No.
Zony 24/1.8 is does worse than Canon EF-M 22/2 STM which is about $200 well maybe except maximum magnification. Is it fair to sell $1000 a lens which costs to produce as much $250 lens and performs like $200 lens?
The touit lenses are Fuji designed, http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-09-09 There is a story about it never released.
Is Zeiss still designing and producing their own lenses / glass or is it all sub-contracted to others ? If it was the case then we could call Zeiss lenses “brand engineered”… as the only Zeiss matter in there would be the logo and the proprietary coating… That would make for a very expensive coating…
Thanks, I know about 50/2.8. What about 12/2.8 and 32/1.8 ?
f/2.8 is so boring
make it f/2.2-2.7
No! Make it at least fixed f/1.4. That wouldn’t be boring at least.
I think the real issue is that the Zeiss primes (and the 16-35 for that matter) set the bar very high. It’s not that the 24-70 is necessarily bad, but it certainly falls short of the standards of the other fe Zeiss lenses.
If it’s even remotely close to any kit lens, Sony & Zeiss blew it.
Nonsense. Kit lenses are slow and usually not made from the best materials, but there is nothing that suggests their performance within their range is poor, in fact many are very good, just that their usage range is limited.
I never said different. I actually like the 16-50 for what it is. Point is a Zeiss branded much much more expensive lens has a lot higher expectations. Far from non sense.
Is the 16-35 any good ?
I like the fair test of comparing the Sonys with IS enabled and the Canon without. Especially as the 24-70 edge looks awfully like movement and not blur.
what is the shake which blurs only corners leaving center sharp?
Rotation…
Nice. I just think that with IS enabled, there is the possibility of the OSS correction lens or the sensor moving in some way. It would’ve been more useful to have conducted the test without IS. If the results are the same then fine, the lens is probably at fault.
If mounted on a tripod, IBIS will seriously soften your image. It is advised to turn it off, when on a tripod. If I recall right, OSS is just as bad on a tripod.
The Zeiss 24-70 “sucks” if you are looking for insane corner sharpness. If you need maximum corner sharpness, you should use a prime lens or that Mark II Canon zoom.
On all other counts (center sharpness, bokeh, coatings, size, weight) this lens is a winner.
Ken Rockwell is a moron: “The key discovery here is that the $598 Sony A6000 & 16-50mm OSS combo is about as good Sony’s top of the line, so I potentially just saved you $3,700.” – 100% bunk. That crop sensor lens combo cannot produce the same amount of subject isolation and low light performance as the full frame combo.
I’m sure for taking direct flash photos of his fat children there IS very little difference.
? I guess I have to look at his review now.
> it should be NOT more expensive than the Nikon 24-70mm and Canon 24-70mm lenses
LOL
It shouldn’t be more expensive than Canon 24-70 f/4, let alone Canon 24-70 f/2.8!!!
But, right now one can buy a f/2.8 lens from Canikon for almost the same price as the current FE 24-70 f/4 (exactly the same price if you go for Tamron, which is a very good lens according to reviews)
Canon 24-70 f2.8 at Amazon: $1900, Sony FE 24-70: $900 to 1100.
Again he’s using Russian pricing, which is the exception, not the rule.
He should be complaining to Sony Russia.
I don’t think it has anything to do with Sony Russia — retailers bought stocks of CaNikon lenses earlier when rouble was stronger, so anything newer is expensive
Then blame them! Blame the Russian government! Blame whoever you like. But he acts like it is some worldwide Sony conspiracy to overcharge compared to the competition.
Well, aren’t Sony guilty in that they aren’t No1 in still camera market and release a7rm2 two years earlier? xD
Its largest problem appears to be large sample variation (which doesn’t fit blue badge either). Those tests mostly show bad corner performance at the wide end while DXOmark shows corner performance at the wide end to be be similar to the competition (Canon et al, pretty good for a FF zoom), better in the mid range yet a bit worse at the long end.
if QC is bad then so be it. No one has time to play with the good copy game.
It doesn’t make sense though, I thought one of the main selling points of putting the Zeiss badge on Sony lenses was that they were using the same Zeiss QC processes? Have Zeiss slipped up or are Sony pulling the wool over our eyes?
f/4 was too slow anyway. It seemed like a lousy design compromise from the start.
I can’t wait until they finally release a 2.8 zoom, then everyone complains how big and heavy it is, and that it doesn’t make sense on mirrorless
Reminds me of the 16-70 vs. 16-50 discussion in APS-C.
What a shame! The most useful zoom range. Same as the 16-70 for AFS-C E mount. Both have soft corners.
Sony is great at innovating bodies, but slow and not-so-innovative with high-quality lenses. The lack of a corner-to-corner sharp FE general zoom is one reason I haven’t abandoned my Nikon gear yet.
If we could somehow combine Sony’s innovative bodies with Fuji’s knack for creating stellar and practical lenses, you would have the ultimate mirrorless system. (Yeah, I’m just dreaming out loud.)
FE primes are highest quality AF lenses available in the world, above fuji and nikon. Zooms are still somewhat behind, but thats just a first gen.
FE 55 destroy the Fuji 56 and is much smaller.
FE 90 even get OSS and it is just $50 and covering FF just 5mm more on the diameter.
I had the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G AF-S (and Canon 24-70mm f2.8L MkI) and honestly thought it was a dog compared to my (now departed) FE24-70.
very true and horrible how few E and FE lenses they have turned out – it is now impacting the sales of A7 R S 72 r2 s2 bodies – I am waiting on a 24-70mm F2.8
sony and fuji together would be be a perfect combo
I never had THAT zeiss in my hands but some time ago I’ve compared Zeiss 16-80, Sony 16-50, Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50. Among these lesnese Zeiss 16-80 was the most expencive and the worst one. The winner was Sony 16-50 with Sigma 17-50 slightly behind. If this Zeiss FE 24-70 is something like 16-80, then I can perfectly understand why it is hated so much.
Anyway, there ARE great lenses, made by Sony, so the situation is not that drastic.
isn’t the sony aps-c kit the worst kit lens in existence? or is there an other 16-50?
A-Mount 16-50mm f2.8 SSM.
I assumed he was talking about the A-mount 16-50/2.8.
But no, I think the E-mount 16-50 is OK. I got pretty good results out of mine. I couldn’t stand the powerzoom though, so sold it.
The e-mount 16-50 is OK, but the a-mount 16-50 is superb. When the image quality really matters and I want the convenience of a zoom, I mount the a-mount 16-50 via adapter. I wish Sony would put out a similar lens for e-mount.
He was actually talking only about A-Mount lenses. Its obvious when he mentions the Sigma and the Tamron 17-50s. The 16-80 is the A-mount f3.5-4.5, aka SAL1680z
Yeah, I got that, thanks.
The E-mount 16-50 is pretty bad without its corresponding lens profile following everywhere it goes to clean up the mess it leaves in the corners. Distortion and vignetting are worse than a cell phone.
It is a generally sharp lens however, if you’re a casual shooter who really only ever inspects the central 1/3 area of the image. And that’s all it is meant to be, a great walk-around lens.
All mirrorless systems are still growing. They’re ready for prime-time for many beginners and consumers / prosumers, but the more speciality features / lenses you need, the more you’re going to have to carefully research the right system for you. And that right system may still be an OVF DSLR system, or a Fuji X-mount, or whatever.
He is talking only about A-Mount lenses…. Sony ones are SAL1680z and SAL1650, with latter being one of the best, if not the best lens on a market of that type. The only one that is better is a recently introduced Sigma 18-35, which is sharper and faster, but also is shorther in focal length, larger, heavier and more expensive. The rest, even from Canon and Nikon, are debatable. You’d have to pick the most important characteristic, because each excels in something but lacks in something else.
I own the SAL1650, and love it, but one thing that I dont like is the mustash distortion at 16mm. Zoom in to 17-18mm and its gone. 18-50mm range can be used without lens corrections.
The built quality of the 16-80 wasn’t up to sony/Zeiss standards, but it definitely was one of my favorite lenses on the a700. And I still have it around on the a700 for infrequent use and it still works like a charm. Loved the range and always had consistent sharp images. The 24-70 f4 on my a7ii does the job, but nothing special. It’s a great walk around lens, and I like constant aperture but expected more from the sony/Zeiss brand. The 24-70 2.8 was the best in its range I ever used on the a99 (and even compared to canon). Maybe not from a technical point of view, but the 3d ness (if there such a thing) and detail of the pictures made with this lens were always excellent. I’m even a bit sorry I sold the lens with the a99, but the weight difference compared to the f4 makes up for a lot. And the size the lens would take on the 7 series when used with an adapter (and the reduced amount of focus points) kept me clear from even trying.
I disagree. Yes, many CZ 16-80 needed good maintenance and calibration in service to correct front or back focus, but after then it is absolutely sharp from center to corners, easily outperforms any other 5x zoom in the market. More to say, it’s distortion is much better corrected than the 16-50 and at 16mm it’s the sharpest lens in corners wide open of all above (mind that F/2,8 3x zooms are another league, but CZ16-80 still can compete with them). A picture taken with 12Mp A700 and wide open 16-80 at 16 mm is sharper in corners than picture taken by any E-mount zoom with 24Mp A6000. 16-50, 16-70 or 18-55 corner sharpness wide open is a joke.
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/141-zeiss-za-16-80mm-f35-45-dt–sony-alpha–review–test-report?start=1
I would like to see a comparision of this 24-70mm against the A Mount 24-70mm 2.8 Zeiss, and even throw in the 28-70mm FE Kit lens for good measure. I think the A Mount lens must be much better, but I have not had time to really use it since my LA-EA3 arrived. I will have a go at it this weekend if I can. The A Mount lens on the adapter is much heavier than the native FE though.
I think this is more interesting:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/341-sony-a7-and-classical-rokkors
Most of the old Minolta primes are excellent even 30 years later. I have the 200 2.8 APO and for it’s size and weight it is one awesome piece of engineering. I don’t have the 16-35 A Mount lens that they are comparing it to, but the crops speak for themselves.
Minolta 200 2.8 APO – Agree, great lens!
In the DXOmark mtf measurements, the FE spanks the A mount 24-70 at the wide end and midrange.
which one? the version 2 they had was a bad copy, dropped a ton of sharpness vs the version 1 :
sony have poor quality control atm :
Throw in the Minolta 28-70mm f/2.8 G – I have that lens and love it. Worst lens hood design ever – basically useless – but a fantastically sharp lens that renders colors beautifully. Great bargain if you don’t want to shell out 2k for the 2.8 Zeiss.
I’ve taken some excellent pictures with the 24-70, it’s only real weak spot is of course at 24MM on the corners, but it’s a zoom.
Don’t know what these bozos are doing wrong if they can’t get good pictures out of it
yeah, but you’re getting a kit lens quality at Zeiss prices. If I’m going to drop north of 1 grand on a 24-70 f4, I expect it to be better than the cheaper canon equivalent.
Have you actually tried it or are you judging based off online tests?
Well I had the kit 28-70 and the 24-70 blows it away on so many levels. BTW the Canon 24-70 F4 is $1000 so it’s not like this is so much more expensive. (PS you can shop around, I paid $850 for the 24-70Z).
Nothing wrong, just the Canon zoom is better. Or the Zeiss f2.8 for that matter.
Once tried FE 24-70 at the exhibition. It feels ace and renders beautifully. Such a pleasure to use!
7 blades? No.
At F4 this should be the kit lens
Ken Rockwell is the biggest photography scam out there, why would you take his “review” seriously..?
Correct but the 24-78 seems to be universally bashed in reviews so Ken was on the right side of his coin flip reviews this time
Well, he was looking for something to show the A7rii under the worst possible condition, and then of course he turned to the 24-70 corners, as everybody knows they are sh*t.. (and compares it to one of the best Canon zooms). And yes, it is a bit of a shame what Zeiss aka Sony delivered there for a premium zoom. And then, we know what the good lenses are, and what could be done to show the difference between the A7rii and the 5DR :o)..
His website looks like crap~
it is a bit old fashioned 🙂 but it rates high on search engines – partially as he he has been around for a long time but also as it is simple and loads fast – but after reading his review of the Fuji X100 how incredible it was and practical to use shooting the kids running around I bought one 🙁 – the worst focusing camera I have ever owned – yes IQ and color pretty nice and looks great but worst AF I have used – even my X20 blows it away in AF – yes I got the X100s later which is a bit better in AF but images not as nice – so I take with a grain of salt what he writes
Ken may be the closest thing we have to a Donald Trump of photography, but his (Ken’s) brutal honesty is very welcome in this day and age, IMO. I’d rather take his reviews seriously, with a grain of salt, than listen to ANY of the fanboys out there who blindly praise a beloved brand just because they’re proud to own it.
To Ken’s credit, he tests / owns both Canon and Nikon (and Sony?) gear. I’ve lost count of how many other advice-givers on the internet there are who have to caveat everything they say with “I don’t know much about Canon / Nikon because I’ve never held one for more than 5 minutes, but…” Or, of course,they just don’t mention such disclaimers at all.
Basically, the photo industry needs more folks like Ken Rockwell. People who aren’t afraid to speak their minds about the drawbacks and silliness that goes in both in cameras and gear, and among photographers and trends in general.
Yeah, lol, we need more like him and you, who can overblow and exaggerate issues and stick to their bias with resolve.
I bought the 24-70 about three weeks ago for street photography and family stuff and so far I love it. I think its great as a general walkabout lens and its good value now that prices have dropped. It’s never going to be as sharp as a prime – but I don’t expect that when you get the versitily of a zoom. And for many of us f4 is plently large enough on the aperture – with such good performance at high ISO I don’t need the wider aperture for low light and I’m not into shallow depth of field. And if a wider apperture would mean a bigger, heavier lens, then I would prefere to keep things as they are. There is distortion, I notice it a lot at the wide end (shooting RAW) but it only takes one click in lightroom to adjust it so that’s not a problem for me. I am not sure but I suspect it might be slightly wider than 24mm to alow for the slight cropping that occurs when you correct the distortion. I am very happy with my Ziess 24-70 for street and general walkabout.
The rear element 24-70 is quite far from sensor so they also should have made it into collapsible design
Ken Rockwell:
“I support my growing family through this website” blah blah bla
Better send his family some contraceptive measures before them overrun us all …
Really? Is it really no good? Sheesh! I must be doing something wrong…
Great picture! As I understand Rockwell doesn’t really say the lens wouldn’t be good for such pictures, he is only saying that the A6000 with 16-50 can do the same thing – which I believe.
Dirk, thanks. As per my response to ‘Astro Landscapes’ above there are many factors behind choosing a system and budget is one of them. If a ICLE-7 owner asked my opinion I’d say it was a decent lens and not one that ‘sucks’.
But it does suck!
It has the quality of the 15-60 APS-C, one of the worst lenses Sony makes, right up there with the SEL 16 2.8
I beg to differ: the 1650 is, when stopped down at least once, a small, lightweight, inexpensive all-round zoom lens with very good IQ from 16 to 35 mm. The only shortcoming is the lack of a hood which can (and should) be inexpensively fixed by adding either a screw-on or (re-) use the hood of the SEL1855 via a filter step up ring.
BTW, when using the 1650 at 16 mm and processing RAW in Capture One, you can get a usable field of view of 15 mm AFTER automatic lens correction! Not bad for a cheap kit lens.
automatic lens cap would be nice, and option to retain lens from retracting when you don’t want it to.
No, you’re not doing anything wrong, however in none of those images do I really see “corners that matter” so to speak. Especially that first image, you might as well have captured it on a cell phone with all that vignetting.
All of the images, by the way, look like they could have been captured on an A6000 with a 16-50, and that is half the point that Ken Rockwell and others are making: Sure, the gear ‘aint bad, but unless you’re really pushing the envelope what reason do you have to purchase a $4K system when the $600 option delivers nearly identical results?
TLDR, if you shot these images from a tripod or at a non-insane ISO, you’ve been duped out of $3K+
I agree. If you are starting from nothing then the A6000+16-50 is a very good product to consider. But I already had a system built around the ILCE-7 bodies and needed a straightforward lens for event work. I only discovered after owning the 24-70 for about 6 months that it was pretty decent for landscapes as well. I suppose I take issue with the term ‘sucks’ in the original headline which is a bit extreme. I think if you are starting an A7-series system then it is a lens to consider as a good all-rounder.
These days, there are two things at play far more aggressively than ever before: impossible standards, and incredible value. With the likes of Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and Rokinon hitting the market pretty hard, pricey name-brand lenses are expected to be absolutely flawless, corner to corner, if they want to command such a $1K+ price tag like the 24-70 FE does.
As it stands, by today’s standards for incredible value, the optics of the 24-70 FE, although good, really shouldn’t be wearing the Zeiss sticker, and the lens shouldn’t cost more than $500-600.
Of course keep in mind that it is indeed a kit lens, and if you look hard enough you can find it for about that much in basically NIB condition.
BTW, Nikon and others are guilty of the same business tactic. Take Nikon’s 24-120 f/4 VR for example. It MSRP’s for a whopping $1200, yet isn’t optically flawless either, (though it’s better than the Sony, between 24mm and 70mm) …lo and behold, you can find it for $500-600 either NIB or as part of a deal when you buy a D750 or D610 or something.
TLDR; I agree with you. The 24-70 FE is a great walk-around lens, and plenty sharp for even landscapes. But if you up and buy one at full MSRP, that was a mistake. :-
Ouch, & I agree.
“duped out of 3k”..
are you talking about the 24-70 or an a7r2?
I’m talking about the quote in the original post, listing a total camera system that costs $4300 as a whole, versus a $600 kit. I don’t know how they got those numbers, ask Ken Rockwell. Sounds approximately correct though. An A6000 + 16-50 is about $3K less than an A7 II and 24-70 Zeiss.
Are those images supposed to be impressive? All I see is over processed snapshots.
Apologies if the irony in my post did not come through. I was not claiming that the images were in any way impressive just that I’ve been pleased by the results I got from this lens. I bought it for event work but increasingly I also use it when I am photographing urban and countryside landscapes. I didn’t buy it with that intention in mind and indeed I have, according to popular opinion, better glass to work with for that purpose. I just felt it unfair for public statements like “the lens sucks”, or “it is poor” to go unchallenged when for a lot of users this would be a good addition to their A7-series system.
I’d be interested to see sample photographs that you have that support the opinions expressed in the comments here that the lens is poor in performance and IQ.
Worst distortion lens I’ve used and a lot of lens variation for a Zeiss.
Just a moment. That rumored new lens is SEL 24-70, not FE 24-70!
SEL is Sony manufacture code name for FE
No, for E as a whole, though the focal range suggests nothing else.
SEL is the lens model number prefix for e-mount (both APSC and FF). SAL is for A-Mount.
So FE 24-70/4’s official model number is SEL2470z, while a 24-70/2.8 in A-Mount is SAL2470z
LOL – well I tend to agree that some of the very costly Zeiss lenses are not all that impressive for the money – of course some are like the FE 55mm F1.8 etc and so disappointed how Sony has pumped out the bodies like crazy yet few Sony branded lenses at a more affordable price –
No F2.8 zooms either like a 24-70mm and 70-200 FE etc –
I know ken Rockwell has been around for some time but I take with grain of salt what he says – I got burned big time few years back after reading this raving review of the Fuji X100 –
To him it was this amazing thing and great for chasing the kids with and shooting fast action 🙂
I must say that my Fuji X100 is the worst focusing camera that I have owned and I have owned a lot of cameras – yes it renders nice Fuji color images and it looks nice – but rest is slow slow – mine just collects dust – yes my X100s is a bit better – but that thought me to take Kens reviews with a grain of salt – I hope at least these reviews will drive the price down on some of these Zeiss FE and E lenses
The trouble with Rockwell is he bases his reviews about 80% on manufacturer press releases and other people’s reviews, so about 80% has some truth to it and the rest is bullplop. To a newbie who finds his site due to the high page rank on Google, they don’t know any better so don’t know which bits are nonsense or where to find more reliable information. Basically his site has no reason to exist but to generate revenue for himself, it’s redundant at best and very misleading for new photographers who don’t know to ignore him.
Everyone keeps mentioning Ken, but there are numerous other sources who agree. How bad it is depends on your own tastes- but it certainly doesn’t stack up. Get ready for MKII sooner than later.
Why is this new news to so many people? Everyone has known this is a sub-par Zeiss lens since the first wave of reviews came out well over a year ago. Rockwell is years late to this Sony party and he’s shown up s___faced drunk.
What precedent has there been for it to be as good as or better than a Canon / Nikon equivalent, and yet more affordable? The Zeiss 35 FE is rather expensive, and about the same performance. Same goes for most of the other lenses that have an equivalent from either Canon or Nikon.
Sony is not in the business of under-cutting; all companies are hurting right now as camera sales decline. Sony is in the business of simply offering a more cutting-edge system, period. It will cost about as much, and weigh about as much too BTW.
If you want optical flawlessness, there is no free lunch.
Sony’s initial mid-range zoom offerings were aimed at the most likely early-adopters of such a system: casual shooters who don’t mind letting camera software / Adobe lens profiles do quite a bit of heavy lifting to make off-center image quality look half-decent.
This is the same business tactic that Nikon used over the past decade or more, BTW. In the war of OVF DSLRs, Nikon first attacked Canon’s Rebel lineup with their superior D70 etc lineup, and THEN worried about full-frame and pro bodies later. And we all know how that turned out… Nikon wound up on top of the heap (partly thanks to Sony sensors, of course) in both the FX and DX categories, at least as far as image quality goes.
TLDR; Sony has a very solid business tactic right now, and they’re going to succeed hugely, BUT it ain’t gonna be dramatically cheaper than CaNikon, sorry.
You kinda are convincing me to buy Nikon gear, but I get where this is going…..
When the dust settles, we can safely assume that Nikon and Canon will “survive” the mirrorless revolution. Then, the question becomes, which company do you trust to deliver the specific type of camera that is right for you, with the most comfortable interface, customizability, etc? I personally could be totally happy with any of the big three; it just takes a short while to get used to the interface and then I’m mostly good to go aside from a few quirks in each.
I tend to like Nikon as a company for at least giving the appearance of wanting to satisfy mid-end consumers with pro-like gear, moreso than Canon.
I tend to like Canon as a company for delivering to-die-for exotics, such as the 11-24 f/4 and 17 TSE. They’re also a generally solid camera body maker, from the 7D 2 to the 5D 3.
I tend to like Sony as a company for being the underdog that is forced to innovate more than the others. If you want cutting edge technology in certain areas, Sony will always be at the front of that.
Hey would switch to Nikon in a heart beat if they only had an EVF.
1.) Eventually, both Nikon and Canon will have DX and FX mirrorless options. It’s only a matter of time, and “doing it right” since they’re market leaders.
2.) “In a heartbeat” is not in Nikon’s vocabulary. They are the tortoise, and simply hoping that all other hares out there are getting really sleepy. 😉 To their credit, though, when they do make a big move, (D3, D800…) they usually get it VERY right, the FIRST try. (D3 being the low-light dream camera, D800 being the landscape dream camera…)
why do they need mirrorless?
Why do “they” need mirrorless? The answer has less to do with mirrorless being “cutting edge technology” or DSLRs becoming obsolete, and more to do with the overall camera market’s shrinkage. Mirrorless cameras, plain and simple, are cheaper for camera companies to manufacture. Especially on the Nikon front, where their high-end DSLR bodies still maintain mechanical operations for both autofocus and aperture control.
Nikon released AF-D technology in 1992, which means they were probably developing it in the late eighties!
Imagine trying to dock an Apollo mission craft to the modern ISS, and that’s approximately the same time gap in technology we see today.
TLDR, imagine a mirrorless Nikon D750 or D810, and a fully electronic line of lenses (SWM is now ubiquitous, and “E” is popping up more and more) …that offer $1-2K+ in total savings when you’re buying a basic kit of 1-2 bodies and 3-4 lenses. Plus, throw in more technology than is currently possible with either existing DSLR, such as on-sensor hybrid AF, focus peaking, in-body stabilization for fast primes, and hey, maybe even 4K video. 🙂
DSLR can have IBIS (and indeed had it before mirrorless came), 4k, ospdaf as well. I don’t understand why you’re mentioning focus peaking, are we talking about AF cameras?
So how would be a mirrorless Nikon D810 be better? Even if manufacturer can save some costs by removing mirror, lenses are basically the same (but you need better motors in lenses for OSPDAF)
In this highly competitive and shrinking market, saving costs even in a small way may be more crucial than you’re thinking.
I don’t think a mirrorless D810 WOULD be better, personally. I’d rather they keep the optical viewfinder, and just improve live view and/or do the other things you mentioned. A DSLR can certainly have everything from IBIS to focus peaking, if it wants to.
What I do like, however, is fully electronic lenses. I also like lenses that don’t use the excuse of a shorter flange distance to cut corners on quality (pun intended?) so they can save a few ounces / bucks. In other words, I’d probably be pretty happy with a Nikon D820, D850, D-whatever. If I one day decide I really want to see an EVF when I also lift the camera to my eye, and not just when I use live view, then maybe bringing back interchangeable viewfinders would be able to offer that. But I doubt that’ll happen.
So, I’m not really speaking to my own preferences or hopes here. I’m just saying that I think the shrinking of the camera industry altogether is going to cause Canon and Nikon to do certain things, and switching at least just the baseline consumers to mirrorless does seem like a good idea.
A mirrorless camera can have sensor z-shift (for fast focusing with large aperture primes), sensor tilt (to have t&s with any lenses, esp. macros & teles), can have built-in polarizer and ND filter (so you don’t have to change them by hand)…. that would significantly expand creative options. Lenses like 85/1.2 would get thinner if focusing was moved into sensor. Mirrorless camera can have zoom eyepiece. But people want to turn mirrorless into a DSLR.
This is a good point. Whilst Sony have been making non stop new versions and updates the others are sitting back and learning.
Problem is they are sitting back a little too long and are actually losing customers.
This, while partly true, is mostly a fallacy. If you look at the actual numbers, Canon and Nikon are holding quite a significant margin in the mirrorless world, even with their current half-hearted attempts. And, while yes there is a decline in sales of the DSLR duopoly in recent years, there has also been a decline in sales for Sony themselves. Not necessarily identical, but the point is that the camera industry itself is shrinking, more than Sony is “stealing” any business from Canikon.
That isn’t to say that Canon and Nikon appear to be asleep at the wheel. They do need to get their butts in gear within 1-2 generations, or they’ll really start to lose market share. As I said earlier, when beginners as me “what camera should I buy?” …I’ve completely run out of reasons to recommend a beginner DSLR as opposed to a Sony or Fuji etc. Even the low-end full-frame DSLRs, aimed at hobbyists and part-time pros, are difficult for me to recommend instead of an A7 II…
I bought one second hand for about $800. The guy who sold it to me said he returned 2 copies of the 24-70 previously before he found the right one (which he sold to me). I find it to be just fine but its pretty obvious there is huge sample variation, which is why some people like it and others hate it.
Generally sample variation is leaning on the side of 80% good vs 20% bad, but in the case of this lens it appears its closer to 50/50.
For $800 its a great lens (if you get a good one), the color is much nicer than the kit 28-70, which I also own.
A new f/2.8 24-70 would be great, but if its going to be bigger and heavier (which of course it would be) then I wont be buying one. It defeats the purpose of why I switched to mirrorless.
This might verry well be true, but Ken Rockwell sucs even wors…
Ken Rockwell should keep track of what he is saying since he change his statements quite often …
Frankly, he shouldn’t say anything at all.
For what it’s worth, the A-mount 24-70 f/2.8 is excellent. From about 35mm-55mm it has little to no distortion, low vignetting and it is super sharp corner to corner. At the extremes, sharpness is still great in the centers, but just “ok” in the corners. At 24mm it has the worst vignetting – its the weakest point.
The SAL28-75 f2.8 is awesome as well!
Zoom lenses will always be inferior. I never buy em’ myself.
Try Sigma’s f1.8 18-35mm.
LOL. Zeiss or better. I usually try for the Leica piece I need, but my next lens will probably be the 85mm Batis.
Sigma is laughing all the way to the bank. Do you actually take pictures or are you just an equipment fetishist?
Not with my money. I have Leica lenses and love them. You should try one. The difference is not subtle.
Try Sigma 24-35 F2 or 120-300mm F2.8
Is Zeiss trying to do what VW just did, i.e., destroy the reputation of Made in Germany. I know, the lens is not made there, it just has the Zeiss badge but this may exactly be the problem. Zeiss Zeiss lenses have rarely failed to deliver.
It is made in Thailand, not Germany
Yeah many people are lead to believe these are designed by Zeiss too, which they are not. Nothing about it is Zeiss except for the badge.
Thanks for the info. Zeiss must be nuts to have its brand destroyed in this way. I would get a Contax lens mount Adapter and buy the old Zeiss Zeiss lenses made for this mount.
Actually it’s because it doesn’t that Zeiss keeps doing this. I don’t know why either, you do remember crappy phone cameras branded Zeiss? They obviously didn’t affect Zeiss’ lens sales. I’d prefer German made Zeiss, when circumstances allow it, but the overwhelming majority isn’t German made anymore, for example the ZM 35/1.4 I’m considering to buy.
I think it is called brand dilution. That is why Smart cars do not carry the Mercedes star even though Smart is a Daimler Benz company. They do want to keep the two brands separate. May be Zeiss is making more money from license deals than from lens sales. Buy Sigma.
That is exactly my point. It is swindle. Nothing against the Thai. They are good at other things like food and massage (no irony intended!).
It’s just *one* lens people. I don’t think one lens can destroy a major manufacturer’s reputation, else *no one* would be in business.
Larry, the issue is that Sony is ripping off photographers by sticking Zeiss labels (authorized by Zeiss) on lenses that are neither made nor designed by Zeiss and more often than not (do your research) turn out to be poor value for money. Is Zeiss trying to develop the reputation Sigma had in the early 80s, I wonder. Sigma has come a long way. You should read the article on the internet by the late Fritz Pölking on the “evolution” of the German camera and lens manufacturing industry I found some years ago. It says it all.
That blue Zeiss badge has been affixed to so many crappy Sony point-and-shoots, crappy video cameras, it goes on and on. But the lens world is interesting. There are to many casual lens buyers who spend thousands on great optics. And it’s because of this that Zeiss has gotten away with wh–ing out their brand name like they have– photographers pay abtention and know which Zeiss lenses (and labels) can be taken serious.
I think Zeiss is growing pretty fast right now and they seem ambitious. During periods like this there will be mistakes made. While the 24-70mm f/4 isn’t abysmal, it wasn’t a successful design either. But most Sony/Zeiss glass is good to great. The FE 55mm, 35mm f/2.8 and 1.4. Plus all the great a-mount collaborations (zooms and primes).
The article you mention sounds interesting. I’ll see if I can find it. But I do think Zeiss is headed in a bold new direction and will probably do well in a very difficult segment.
The SONY 24-70mm f/4 FE is not that bad lens, not bad at all … for what you pay and what you are gonna use this lens for this lens is perfectly OK.
I made a whole photoshoot with this lens in studio for food photography and ad agency was very happy with result so client was … images will go on packaging, social media and bus shelters.
This lens is a solid part of my “tool-box”.
Clients don’t pixel peep. It’s only the photographers who draw these discriminations.
Not everyone that buys a camera is shooting portraits in a studio…
That’s quite obvious but what’s your point?
It’s overpriced in my opinion. For having bad corner performance and relying too much on distorsion correction, the Zeiss badge and the price tag is way too much for such a lens. Nice things are size, contrast and weathersealing.
the f4 zooms are a compromize to begin with. still compactness is the main advantage of mirrorless. am i the only one who hopes for F2.8 zooms with a shorter range? I want speed rather than zoom range. I have the sigma 24 – 60 2.8 a-mount lens, and it’s half the weight of the 24-70 zeiss. With good resolution, a FF body and a sharp lens, you can just as well crop your way from 60mm to 70mm focal length in most cases. If an 80 – 150 F2.8 could be made significantly smaller and lighter than a 70 – 200 F2.8, i would go for the former any day of the week.
The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS is considerably better and hence why I use that on my Sony A7RII instead of the Zeiss
That is interesting! Are you satisfied with the AF speed and which adapter are you using?
I’m a landscape photographer so auto focus isn’t important for me. I have a 7D2 that I use if I’m shooting wildlife etc. The auto-focus is acceptable for slow moving stuff though. I’m using the Metabones IV
eer 7R2 🙂
I would do the same thing, even if the AF wasn’t that great.
I have this lens and I love it. It’s sharp and the color and contrast is fantastic. I use it mostly in the studio and as a lightweight walk-around lens. The distorsion is very noticeable in raw but disappears completely in post processing.
I’m with you on this. I’m very happy with mine and it makes the perfect partner to the A7S.
I can only assume there is a quality control issue, which is unfortunate.
Care to show a sample or two?
While I do understand your curiosity, I’m often puzzled as to what you might discover.
I’ll ask you to take my word that my lens is excellent, which is justified to an extent in that no customer has ever complained about ‘soft corners’. Also, verifying lens performance requires specific tests and the vast majority of what I do is very different. Trying to determine if the corners are on the same focal plane is nigh on impossible.
I hope you won’t mind if I don’t search through endless pictures to find samples and I dislike ‘test shots’ intensely, whether taking or inpecting.
I don´t understand how anyone can say that 24-70 has a good image quality when it’s the same IQ of 16-50 APS-C lens, which is abysmal.
Are your standards that low?
Am I to understand that you have tested every single example of this particular lens, as well as those of the 16-50?
Unless you have then you simply cannot make such a broad statement.
I won’t deny that questions need to be asked about quality control, or that bad copies do exist, but mine is very good and I’m happy with it.
Curiously, in my experience the same accusation that many level at the 24-70 f4 could be directed at the 24-70 f2.8, which is often held up to be a stellar performer.
I owned two because the first had to be returned owing to the most appalling corner softness. It was the one occasion of any lens I’ve ever used that I could see the problem even without knowing the plane of focus. It was shocking and, I might add, the 24-70 f2.8 is a much more expensive lens.
As to my standards, I find your tone deeply offensive.
Do you even own the 24-70? Please tell me you aren’t judging it by what you read on blogs, because that would be embarrassing. I’ve owned this lens since May and I’ve used it extensively along with my Zeiss Loxia 2/50 and I like them both for different reasons. I’ve also owned Canon’s 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I and Sony’s version is equal in IQ in my eyes.
I agree. I must have a great copy of something because I have no complaints besides wishing it was an f2.8. Works really well on my A7S and A7ii!
Rockwell, in the realm of the modern pro shooter, is pretty mediocre. He’s always heavy with the ad hominem nonsense and has always come off as the self-professed lord and master of all things visual.
I am always entertained by his hyperbole but I never take him or his reviews seriously. He’s a prime example of “who you know” being of greater benefit than “what you know.” When his imagery surpasses his attitude perhaps then I’ll develop a different opinion of him.
But I won’t be holding my breath.
Agreed. I don’t even bother checking his reviews. He’s useless IMHO
I own one and find it just fine for general walking around photos. Defiantly not as wonderful as the 55mm but, it is good enough.
I do wish that it was possible to have one that is 24 to 135 or so. I find that 70mm is just a little short.
I still want that high quallity 40mm i keep dreaming of
I know it only starts at 28mm, but the Sony FE 28-135f4 Lense is quiet good and has a nice zoom range. Too sad its so damn expensive cause its done for video in the first place 😀
I just don’t see it in my copy.
I’d like to join the whingers, and have SOMETHING to complain about, but not only is mine sharp corner to corner, but it blows the doors of my Canon 24-105, which was my old ‘good enough’ benchmark. Would love this to go to 105 though…
Maybe I’ll have to take some more photos of brick walls again, but it looks good to me.
The canon 24-105 is not a sharp lens but has great color.
Figured it out – All were shot at 24, which according to SLR Gear is where this lens is worst (along with 70).
How do you ‘test’ a zoom lens at one end of the range and extrapolate the results for the rest? Oh, I forgot, it was Ken Rockwell…
A zoom is most likely worst at the two ends, if the two ends are bad enough that says something about the overall quality.
To make matters worse zooms don’t get the nominal range, so your 24-70 is actually something like 27-65, if even then the two ends such then that’s even less usable range.
I know primes aren’t their nominal focal lengths either but zooms are just worse.
The only issues with this lens (like the 28 prime) is the ridiculous amount of distortion, which is REALLY BAD. Would understand the conclusion if he was testing raw files with no correction, but that’s a bit like testing the lens with the cap on (or testing only the rear element).
Once corrected (in Lightroom anyway) scrubs up just fine (although 24f4 still a little soft at corners … so makes a great ‘pigeon pair’ with the 16-35 which is average at 35…)
The Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art Lens with an LAEA3 or LAEA4 adapter will blow it out of the water. Someone mentioned the Canon 24-105 f/4, but can’t compare that, it’s an old design. The Sigma blows it out of the water. The size and AF would still belong to the FE2470, but not the image quality nor the price, especially if you own an adapter already.
I had 2 copies of this lens. It feels great, color is great, contrast is zeiss-like, but the sharpness is so-so and does not improve much stopping down.
The Zeiss or newest Tamron f/2.8 with an adapter will be much better.
I’d jump at the Tamron if it was FE mount
Take the E away and your problems are solved.
I don’t understand. How do these people know that the world doesn’t actually look exactly as the lens sees it. I mean for all they know the universe became distorted and solid objects momentarily lost cohesion at exactly those spatial and temporal coordinates. I mean we can take those images as evidence of this right?
I just want to take beautiful images.
Not so concerned what the real world looks like.
yes Ken Rockwell uses Amazon, Adorama and BH photo affiliate links to try and sell it. If I dislike a product I’d remove my affiliation of it. Strange I’d say. Seems he is just an attention wanna getter.
wish there was a “Dislike” link! Given all the advertisement affiliate links around it!!!
you can put the Canon 24-70 L on the Sony, good luck putting the Sony 16-35 on the Canon, Kens’s post was totally worthless too
Only zoom I’ve used that’s near perfect is the one on the X-Vario Leica. (Won’t sell it for any $)
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/guest-post-a-second-opinion-on-the-sony-zeiss-fe-24-70mm-f4-lens-by-stefan-grosjean/
Seems like someone’s stirring the pot. So now we NEED to buy the 24-70 2.8…
Give the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art Lens a try. This is an A-Mount lens, but if you already own a LAEA4 or LAEA3 adapter, it is definitely worth. As far a sharpness, it will blow way the FE2470 & 24-105 f/4 Canon lens. The FE2470 will edge it out in terms of AF & Size, but I’ll take the Sigma anytime in terms of picture quality and price.
If Sony released that lens with just a Sony badge and a lower price tag (way lower than Canon 24-70 F4 L USM) then I’m quite sure everyone would be happy. The 24-70 F4 perfoms just okay except on corner sharpness and distorsion (heavily corrected) but such a poor performer having a Zeiss badge really hurts Zeiss reputation… The only good points I see for that lens is contrast, size and weathersealing. Not even the construction quality is near to the 24-70 F2.8 ZA SSM I or II.
I am quite surprised at how many folks are defending the Zeiss and bashing Ken Rockwell. Even though I don’t hold him in the highest of standards, you can’t argue with sample images. Its quite clear that the Zeiss with the A7RII is nowhere near the Canon 24-70 2.8II towards the edges at 24mm. Now drop in the fact that the Zeiss costs $1100 while the Canon costs $1799 and is a stop faster too.
Don’t defend Sony for its mistakes. Bash them as much as you can & be vocal about it. Hopefully, Sony will realize their mistakes & try to fix them.
The Zeiss should never have been labeled as a Zeiss (Or G for that matter) and should have been sold at probably $600-$700 as a standard Sony lens offering. This should not have been a premium (Top of the line) offering at all. There is absolutely no excuse for a $1100 Top of the line lens to perform as bad as it does at 24mm & 70mm
Well, Rockbottom could have compared the Sony 2470/2.8 A-Mount lens via adapter on the A7RII. Or he could have – much more interesting – put the Canon 2470/2.8 onto the A7RII. That would have shown what the cameras actually are capable off. Several have reported that the latter combination AFs sometimes faster than native Canon bodies. While his comparison remains entertaining and again shows the Sony-Zeiss 2470 not to be really worth its price, he compares a Canon lens costing almost double to the Sony. Why? He also could have taken the CANON 24-70/f4 and compared that to level out the playing field.
It remains a trademark of Rockbottom to needlessly going just a step too far into the unfair direction just to (IMHO) intentionally drive up enraged traffic to his website so that he can feed his family 🙂
You *can* argue with the sample pictures he posted. He doesn’t have a track record for honestly– in fact his track record is a mixed bag, with dishonestly a part of it.
It’s been common knowledge since it came out (among Sony fans non-fans alike) that the Zeiss 24-70,, f/4 isn’t very good. That’s why they don’t sell many and it’s always heavily discounted. I don’t think anyone is trying to defend this Zeiss lens or Sony cameras– it’s just that what Rockwell claims is idiotic far past the point of common sense.
I wouldn’t take any image he posts as irrefutable evidence.
If enough people actually believe Rockwell’s claim, I will gladly rent an a7r II and the Zeiss 24-70mm lens, then post a video of me creating the images from beginning to end– no messing around with anything– so you can all see real OOC images, and also how full of s___ Rockwell is.
“He doesn’t have a track record for honesty …” is quite an understatement.
I use the Zeiss 24-70 on my A7Rmk2 as a general walkabout lens and I think it was worth every penny of the £800 it cost me from my hight street store. About £400 cheaper than the Canon. I think its a great lens for street phototraphy, travel etc. I realy like it.
Bunk. The Sony should be compared to the similarly priced Canon 24-70 f/4 L. Where I live the Sony is $900 and the Canon $800. One carries a Zeiss badge, the other an L ring. The Canon is a slightly larger and a bit heavier. But at least we’d be comparing apples and apples.
I don’t know if you’ve ever compared these two lenses yourself, but the Sony is significantly better. Especially at 35-50mm the difference is insane. In this range the Sony behaves like a prime and the Canon like an average zoom.
Now, due to the Zeiss badge this lens is optimized a bit differently than your average Canon lens. Color and 3D pop are often favored to corner sharpness on nearby flat subjects.
I’ve always found this Sony Zeiss quite stellar for a zoom. Nevertheless I only use it for event photography taking pictures of people, when I need the convenience of a zoom. In this case I need center sharpness, bokeh, and 3D pop. This lens delivers that by the truckload.
Bs – look at the pics he took of his grandkids with the lens. They are tack sharp. He pre decided the A7rii is a hobby/toy camera and took the lens with it on his review.
This stupid site is again trying to turn the A7 cameras into a DSLR. We don’t want bigger dummy. Nice job siding with Ken on the sel2470z.
No reason to be rude.
I had a similar experience comparing my 1650, 18105 to two (1) copies of the 1670 Zeiss lens for APSC. Again, the corners of the much more expensive 1670 were clearly inferior to the cheaper zooms at all focal lengths and even at f8. Maybe this is a design “characteristic” of Zeiss but we live in 2015 and have become accustomed to get good sharpness with consumer lenses over the entire frame, at least when stopping down. The Sony-Zeiss zooms 2470 and 1670 just don’t deliver that. Example pictures and review are on my blog luxorphotoart.
The Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4 isn’t a great lens, maybe not even a good one, but this:
“the Sony A6000 & 16-50mm OSS look about the same as the Sony A7R II and Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS”
is a heinously idiotic thing for even Rockwell to say.
The 16-50mm e-mount lens itself is also a seriously sub-par lens. Totally usable but far from great. Rockwell just baits people with stuff like this. He’s turning from from a shill into a negligent shill.
e16-50 is small and comes in a kit (and does not have that zombifying blue sticker), so it can be forgiven
No question, this is true. However, if you ask me, not the blue badge bothers me, instead it is that outrageous price. But I know what you mean.
it bothers me that people speak of delusional “microcontrast” and “zeiss colors” because of that sticker
Haha, same here. LOL
Back in the film days, I was shooting with Leica-M for almost 15 years. I loved the lenses, but I never could bear it when people talked about bullsh*t like the “leica look”. Which could mean both, optical quality (sharpness, contrast) or optical flaws (all kinds of aberrations, coma, stray light).
Andrea, are you just trying to stir the pot on SonyAlphaRumors by posting these idiotic 2 years too late observations by the moron, Queen Rockwell?
The godmother of all morons, Ken Rockwell. 😀
Wow do u own a ken rockwell voodoo doll?.
Sometimes I wish I would have one. LOL
Ken Rockwell may be one of the most terrible morons in photography land, but he is successful. His reviews have top Google rankings, almost everytime. I have often found his reviews in the first position, above the manufacturer homepage or wikipedia.
Every mention, or better a Hyperlink, of Ken Rockwell and his reviews result in positive synergies for both.
… you are kidding an’tch yu … ( which makes me worry about those reading K.R. site …)
Yes, the ‘Zeiss’ 24-70/4 is a very poor lens. Sony should have originally just made it the kit lens for the a7 series, since it pretty much performs as one. Then it’s big advantage is that the kit lens starts at 24mm instead of 28mm and is constant f/4, and you can upgrade to a proper pro 24-70mm f/2.8 real Zeiss lens (which takes the place of the current 24-70/4).
Bunk.
I just want to state what cannot be stated enough: the fact that kenrockwell.com lacks a comments section is a testament to the ignorance being posted on that site. Opening up comments on those pages would inflict a tsunami of comments debunking the nonsense this guy posts.
Anyone serious with photography knows this. It is just unfortunate that first-time users might buy wrong gear due to Ken Rockwell. Of course one glimpse at this man’s “photography” would instantly reveal his photographic incompetence. This is why his “reviews” sparsely contain real world samples.
Therefore, to protect newcomers, it should be repeated everywhere: Ken Rockwell does not know what he’s talking about.
That would be a disaster for Ken Rockwell. The lack of a comment section shows that he knows what he’s doing (with his website, not photography). The comment section would be flooded with angry posts about his highly biased and often false statements, and with tirades about the lack of any kind of photographic skills.
I adore Ken’s site for it’s simplicity and it’s well presented specs. In that regard it is very informative. But as soon as he throws in his personal opinion (the main thing we want to see in a review, right?), I immediately feel the urge to tell him to STFU. So, a comment section at Ken’s site would we very unwise.
By the way, I’m not a big fan of Jared Polin, but when he said, that Ken Rockwell is dangerous for photography, I have to say he’s damn right.
With that 3.5-5.6 aperture ? Well I’m definitly not giving it any $$
What’s with the op deleting messages? Can’t take criticism then get our of this business. I’m not in favor if larger cameras and express my opinion. Op continues on quest to turn thes cameras into DSLR with larger bodies and dual card slots. How successful was a,-mount with that strategy?
1. As Shichun said, the aperture range is anything but perfect.
2. All X series lenses rely heavily on software correction. Again, even if the output of the X-Vario is gorgeous, it is anything but perfect.
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t have been a bad batch of lenses, once in tests of DxO Mark it did really well.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-FE-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-lens-review-Good-value/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-versus-competition
That’s a good example of how poor the Sony 24-70 is–the Canon 24-70 shows more perceived megapixels even though the Canon was tested on a 22 megapixel camera and the Sony & Nikon were tested on 36 megapixel cameras. The Nikon lens is a less expensive 24-120, which I’ve never recommended, but you always give up some sharpness for extra zoom range.
Based on DxOMark’s numbers, and comparing similar pixel density (and extrapolating some) the Sony seems to be 40-50% less sharp than the Canon and Nikon equivalents. The Sony is also slightly more expensive.
Reading you post I wonder where my Sony 24-70 FE come from since one I have is good.
Look at the pics Ken took of his grandkids with the fe 2470. They are very sharp. There is plenty of detail available from this lens including corners. Trey Ratcliff has no issues with the lens for landscape photography nor Colby Brown nor luminous landscape. Seems only the DSLR biased have an issue.
I like Ken Rockwell, and our testing agrees with his… but why would you do a sharpness comparison through a glass window?! Obviously the maximum perceived sharpness will be limited by the optical qualities of the window.
“I like Ken Rockwell…” I knew it.
But seriously. Ken concludes: “The key discovery here is that the $598 Sony A6000 & 16-50mm OSS combo is about as good Sony’s top of the line, so I potentially just saved you $3,700.”. Do you agree with that in all seriousness?
Uninformed beginners take this serious. This is dangerous misinformation.
I’m not a friend of your conducted publicity stunts (in this regard you do the same tricks as KR), but I respect you because you are at least a skilled photographer, which Ken Rockwell is not. So your “liking” of KR is still a little disturbing to me.
If I could be a world-class hacker for a day, I would hack Ken’s site to automatically mail giant grains of salt to all viewers. They certainly need it.
But, “dangerous misinformation”…? Not really. He has a damn good point: whether shooting through a window or not, most consumers are wasting their money getting the more expensive camera, if they’re not truly pushing the envelope of possible image quality.
Keep in mind that a lot of these major photography websites don’t just cater to us “discerning” folks who pixel-peep enough to know the difference between a $600 system and a $4300 system when we see it at 100%. (Even though most of these pixel-peepers probably don’t make a print more than once a year, no larger than 8-12″, but that’s beside the point.)
With that in mind, regardless of how good the A7 and 24-70 are, wouldn’t you agree that most consumers are better off just spending the $600 and being happy taking their casual snaps?
You need to look at his review again. Now his review is glowing except wide open at 24mm. He really likes it now. Too strange.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/24-70mm-f4.htm
Right at the beginning of his review:
“Both the Sonys had both optical and sensor stabilization, and the Canon had no stabilization of any kind.”
Interesting.
His kids really are fat. You guys weren’t kidding.
I don’t think he needs any more help with his “growing” family. Normally I might not joke like that, but the way his begging links to page after page of awful photos showing his kids engaged in idiotic activities– it looks like the photographic world’s closest thing to Honey Boo Boo.
Larry. I think you are taking this all too personally, it’s a camera review. You are stooping pretty low to start attackimg some guys kids.
Well, Ken Rockwell is a jerk who knows nothing about camera and shoot JPEG
I’m not attacking anyone’s kids. Please.
Given the way he throws pages of his children’s images at users in a tactless attempt to generate sympathy/donations, I don’t think having a laugh at what’s been thrust in front of me is outlandish.
And it isn’t “personal” at all– his presence here oscillates between really annoying and mildly humorous given his own decision to promote himself that way.
Don’t worry. I can tell you that I also sometimes feel the temptation to make fun of his family, but believe me, it’s unnecessary and superfluous. 😉
It may be correct that his kids are fat and definitely not what I would call “cute”. However, I think it is totally unnecessary to make jokes about his kids. I do not say it is morally wrong or overly rude, I just think it is superfluous, because KR gives us so much reasons to laugh about him and not his kids.
I know many people, totally unrelated to “serious” photography, who have a better eye with their family pictures. When I see KRs embarrassing, painfully talent-free photographs and then at the same time his constant claims how well he knows what “real” professionals do and need, I’m terrified by the fact that this moron is influencing so much ignorant people/beginners with his crap.
So shame on KR, not his kids.
I don’t give 2 sh__t’s one way or another about someone else’s kids. Someone mentioned that they were fat and I thought that was funny. It’s that simple.
It’s not personal, and I’m certainly not shaming the kids. If Ken didn’t use enormous amounts of pictures of them all over his site then they (obviously) would have never been mentioned. Ever.
I certainly apologize to anyone who took my comments personally or were offended. I simply saw the kid observation as part of the sideshow on display provided by Rockwell– I had/have no malicious intent. And sorry myNameIsCondor- didn’t mean to offend.
I really wish Rockwell would transition fully into critiquing high-end audio.
Don’t get me wrong. I fully understand the temptation to make even slightly offending jokes about KR. It wasn’t my intention to call you rude or offending.
And yes, he should stick with his high-end reviews.
Yep – definitely one of the recommended fe lenses.
It wasn’t so bad if he didn’t make his kids look orange.
Two of my favorite KR quotes, just for you:
“Raw looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future.” K.R.
“The latest trick of making dual-exposure composites from single raw files actually can be done just the same from a JPG; just open the JPG (exposed for the highlights) in Photoshop and apply the LEVELS or CURVES command to the layer representing your shadows.” K.R.
KR has completely changed the write up for the sel2470z lens and it’s near glowing. He doesn’t like the soft sides at 24mm wide open but that’s the only real negative I’m seeing. He tends to start off with a template in his writings and then adjust later. Idk but this is completely different from the first time I read it. I’m sure SAR won’t correct anything. Here is the link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/24-70mm-f4.htm