Sony Alpha Rumors Reports Trash the FE 24-70

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by TedG954, Sep 22, 2015.

  1. TedG954

    TedG954 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2014
    South Florida and NE Ohio
    Ted Gersdorf
    I was very disappointed in reading the latest reports about the Zeiss FE 24-70. It literally said that the 16-50 kit lens was equal or better than the 24-70.

    I've been very pleased with my 24-70.
  2. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    Yeah, I've never understood the piling on this lens seems to get. It worked very well for me (until I sold it to buy the 24-240), and whenever I compared it to any of my old legacy primes, it outshone them.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 1, 2015
    If the FE 24-70 f/4 is trash, what would they call the FE 28-70 (that sells for less than half the price)!!??

    I've heard very little about the 24-240, but for me it fits a niche not otherwise filled. What do you think are its 'pros?'
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    Well, the main pro would its range, obviously. Though it performs better than most in its class, it's still a superzoom, and those seeking the absolute best IQ should look elsewhere. I'm happy to trade a little IQ for that kind of versatility.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Promit

    Promit TalkEmount Rookie

    Sep 1, 2011
    But see, that's the thing - half the price. People feel that the 24-70 f/4 is overpriced for the performance it delivers. I have one and it's definitely subpar from an optical standpoint...but I like the way it renders and it's been a good size and range for casual use. (Plus I got a reasonably good price.) Right now I'll switch to primes for critical sharpness and plop the zoom on when I'm not trying to resolve every pixel across the frame. It's not an ideal situation, but it'll do for now.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Alex66

    Alex66 TalkEmount Regular Subscribing Member

    Dec 23, 2014
    I thought mr Rockwell was a bit notorious for not actually reviewing half the stuff he gives an opinion on? atlas in some Nikon circles but anyway I would take his opinion with a pinch of salt. Personally with lenses I have looked for reviews/opinions where the reviewer uses the lens to take photographs as we would when we go walk about. I don't care about test charts or how regular those there bricks look* either. What is important is what the final images look of a street scene or a wood or a portrait and so on, there is more to a satisfactory lens than edge to edge mega sharpness and it being distortion free.

    *I did a CD cover for a local band that is mostly brick walls.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Deebs

    Deebs TalkEmount Rookie

    Sep 14, 2015
    Rockwell only tested it at the 24mm at in the corners.
    The 24mm corners in this lens seem to vary quite a bit from copy to copy; the 70mm corners seem to universally a little soft.
    But it's terrific in between at 28, 35 and 50! Much better than the Canon 35-70f4L at 50 (though worse at the extremes)

    So for a 24-70 of small size for a constant aperture, I think it's really pretty good. I don't think there's anything that is better in its range at every point except for the Canon Mk II 24-70 2.8. And that's a much bigger, more expensive beast.

    Sure if you want the highest quality you need primes. And maybe there's scope for a super high quality shorter range zoom if we want a small but very good zoom (a better than kit 28-70 or 35-70, maybe)

    But if you want 24-70, and you don't want huge, and you want constant aperture: this lens is a pretty good compromise. Weird how everyone has gone sour on it.

    There is some variation involved I'm sure: the sample Photozone tested is clearly worse everywhere than the samples others have tested. The one DXO tested seems to perform about the same as mine.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 1, 2015
    I've got both the 28-70 and the 24-70. I got the former as part of the used A7R kit (virtually for free - you can get these lenses really inexpensively) and purchased the latter with the understanding that it was considerably 'better' (I don't remember all the 'better' details, aside from the Zeiss label). The 24-70 is recognizably heavier and larger than the 28-70, I suppose larger to gain the extra light at the long end - but I wouldn't swear by that, and heavier because there is more metal and glass in it than there is in the 28-70.

    I never made a direct comparison in IQ only because I understood that constant aperture was a characteristic to be valued (but to this day, I don't see why). I personally don't place a lot of value on the constant aperture only because, while it gathers more light at the long end, it compromises same as the wide end.

    What I would really like to see more than either of these for my A7RII is an AF 35mm f/1.2 with more ED glass for a clearer image. To date, the best images I have taken with my A7RII is the 28mm f/2. (I also really want a long lens >200mm f/2.8 but that's completely out of scope for this thread.)
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Aug 6, 2011
    All lens design involves compromise. The Canon lens compared by Ken Rockwell is far larger, heavier, and more expensive. The Sony lens was built to sacrifice some corner sharpness.

    As Ken Rockwell says in his "Analysis Overall": "Overall, there's no real difference here for rational print sizes. You may see more barrel distortion in the Canon shot because it's the only camera here that doesn't compensate in-camera for lens distortion."

    With the Sony system currently, if you want the sharpest, most pixel peepable corners at 25mm, there is the Batis.

    I think the best, most balanced review of the Sony 24-70 is from Tim Ashley:
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. pbizarro

    pbizarro Guest

    This lens was made to shoot travel, street, and events. Mostly made for event photography, where corner sharpness is not critical.

    It is not very good for critical landscape work, for two reasons: heavy distortion (that after correction stretches the corners leading to softness, even at f8/f11); and inherently softer corners.

    The lens today costs around 1000 Euros, which seems a bit steep. But again, if you use the system, and shoot events, it is very good.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    Why would you be disappointed when someone else trashes the lens if you have it yourself? As soon as I have a lens I couldn't care less what others think about it.

    There's been written a lot about this lens, good and bad, and that's understandable because this lens certainly has weaknesses but also strongpoints. I replaced the FE 28-70mm by this one because color and contrast of the 24-70mm is really nice IMHO. I can live with unsharp corners at 24mm and having to stop down a bit at 70mm; incidentally, I have tested a total of 6 copies and all of them had unsharp corners at 24mm even stopped down to f/11. I wouldn't want to be without the flexibility offered by a autofocus standard zoom lens. I'm generally happy with what I come home with in a technical sense when using it, and that's what counts in the end I think.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  12. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Yeah, it sucks so bad I take it wherever I go. It "sees" just like I do, no surprises. An excellent lens for my work.

    (A7RII, HVL-F60M, SEL2470Z at 65mm. ISO400, 1/50, f9, Pattern metering. Bounced flash off of wall at my left.)

    Last edited: Sep 13, 2016
    • Like Like x 5