edwardkaraa
New member
I was planning to, but SAR came with this new rumor about ZA 14/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4 and 200/2, so I decided to wait for a while to see if this rumor has some truth in it.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
edwardkaraa
New member
Jae, I used to have the 35-70 used on a 1Ds2. While the resolution and micro contrast are as you would expect from Zeiss and even more, the 3D isn't that great. It is also very difficult to focus, even with the split image screen. I did a comparison with the ZA 24-70 before I sold my Canon and Contax gear, and at close range, the ZA smoked the Contax at all FL and apertures. At infinity, as you can guess, the Contax was better only in the corners. The resolution of the ZA is simply unbelievable on 80% of the frame. I know the resolution of the sensors is not the same, but the 16.7 mp of the canon are kinder on the lenses than the a900.
No, you are missing the point. It is one of the best lenses there is, of its type. The Canon version in particular, is something I have shot with a lot (a "good copy" mind you) on the 1DS, 1DSMKII and 5DI and I can state that it does not hold a candle to the ZA.
Just to reiterate, I have all of these lenses and have absolutely no hesitation to point out a dog, if it is a dog. But the 24-70ZA, on the A900, is a absolutely the best of its kind that I know of. It may not be overwhelmingly superior to the Nikon version (don't have any direct experience with the Nikon version shot with the D3X), but it is the best of its kind currently available.
I went back and looked at some of the pictures when I was doing back-to-back testing between the 24/2, the 24-70ZA and the 16-35ZA and seems like the 24-70ZA and the 16-35ZA are pretty much the same at f/2.8.....extreme corners being soft.If I'm shooting in that range exclusively, I'm putting on the 16-35 anyway....
The 24-70ZA starts beating the 16-35ZA at f/4 and f/5.6. The 24-70ZA is near blameless at around f/5.6 (corner-to-corner, edge-to-edge) and perfect at f/8.
So for the overlapping range between the 16-35ZA and the 24-70ZA, I would give the edge to the 24-70ZA. Either I have a super 24-70ZA or I have a sub-par 16-35ZA or I have a fairly representative sample of both.
I will try and post some of these images, so you all can judge it yourselves...
edwardkaraa
New member
I can confirm your observations as I had reached the same conclusions.
One thing about the extreme corners. The 24-70 at 24 has the most distortion in it's entire range while the 16-35 at 24 has almost none. I can notice the rectilinear stretching of the 16-35 in the corners which reduces resolution, almost what software distortion correction does to the image. The 24-70 has more distortion but clearly better corners.
As for 28-35, they are very strong with the 24-70, 35mm being actually the sweet spot of the lens. To be fair, this FL range on the 16-35 is excellent at infinity. The weaknesses shown by online reviews are due to strong field curvature at close range, which coincidentally helps produce the incredible 3D especially at the 35mm FL.
Lonnie Utah
New member
This is what I was getting at with my original post.
Of course, being a landscape type person, the times when I shoot at F/2.8-F/5.6 are very limited. So if the (any) lens is soft at those apertures, it's not a problem because that's the effect I'm looking for when shooting wide open...
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
Which is part of why I don't give much weight to online reviews. Unless they explicitly state they refocus for each area tested, like when a lens is actually used for real-world photography. Results that don't predict real-world behavior are rather pointless IMO. If a subject is along the left side that's where you focus...
douglasf13
New member
Here is an old post of mine that shows the pretty strong field curvature situation with the ZA 24-70 at 24mm on the A900. I think that many people's opinions on the corner sharpness of this lens is tied to how dead on their center focus is. Slightly moving the center focus point sharpens the corners right up (at least on my copy.)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=34571577
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=34571577
edwardkaraa
New member
Yes, of course Douglas. I used to achieve this by manually focusing at around halfway between the center and one of the lower corners, in landscape situations of course. Either that or just choosing one of the peripheral AF points. This is of course when shooting the kind of landscapes where the entire frame is at infinity, similar to a flat reproduction shot. In my experience when the subject is somewhat three dimensional, like landscapes with a foreground, the FC will allow some extraordinary DOF effects not possible with a fully corrected lens. I was so happy to read the latest article by dr. Nasse at Zeiss about the planar design, because all my non educated theories that used to be faced with skepticism turned out to be correct.
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/en_CLB_40_Nasse_Lens_Names_Planar.pdf
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/en_CLB_40_Nasse_Lens_Names_Planar.pdf
douglasf13
New member
Yeah, it just goes to show how limited lens tests can be, since sharpness can vary so much across the image field at various distances, and it often leads to pleasing 3D effects.
Dave_Anderson
Member
Hopefully your idea of mothballing includes storing with fully-charged batteries that you swap for fresh ones periodically... otherwise you'll run down the internal lithium cell that keeps the clock running and remembers your settings. That internal battery is not user-replaceable...
Hank Graber
New member
I have an old Minolta 50/2.8 macro which has a wonderful signature and is my "standard" lens ( I could be happy with just a 50) I've also got a Sigma 70 Macro for product shots and portraits.
I had the 24-70 Zeiss but I've never warmed up to zooms and I hated the size of the Zeiss, to me it seemed huge. I sold it. I plan at some point on picking up the Minolta/Sony 135 STF and maybe an old Minolta 24/2.8. I really like the look of the Minolta glass.
I had the 24-70 Zeiss but I've never warmed up to zooms and I hated the size of the Zeiss, to me it seemed huge. I sold it. I plan at some point on picking up the Minolta/Sony 135 STF and maybe an old Minolta 24/2.8. I really like the look of the Minolta glass.
Agree. Sometimes people start losing credibility when they "authoritatively" comment on things that they have not used.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Have used all these Sony/Zeiss lenses and I was not happy. All other Zeiss glass I used form Contax and Hasselblad was just in a different league. I cannot understand why people think and believe that the Sony/Zeiss lenses are Zeiss. They have the name but other than that they are just miles away form real Zeiss glass. They are truly missing the real Zeiss signature, at least for me. So why be happy with something which just carries the name but otherwise cannot come up to the expected quality?
I find the Nikon and Canon counterparts (I am talking about the high end lenses of these brands) much better. And I would suggest anyone just test some of the Olympus SHG glass, this is something I have never seen anywhere else in terms of IQ, micro contrast, resolution, rendering etc.
I find the Nikon and Canon counterparts (I am talking about the high end lenses of these brands) much better. And I would suggest anyone just test some of the Olympus SHG glass, this is something I have never seen anywhere else in terms of IQ, micro contrast, resolution, rendering etc.
pegelli
Well-known member
I would be interested which other lens you think outclasses the Sonnar 135/1.8 ZA.
Btw, from what I understand the ZA's are designed by Zeiss and produced to Zeiss specs and tolerances. That's why they provide a Zeiss serial number in addition to the the Sony serial number. I know everybody likes different aspects of lenses but saying they're not "real" Zeiss lenses because you personally didn't like them is a bit extreme in my mind.
picman
Member
Well whether or not you like the Sony Zeiss glass is your personal opinion and you are of course entitled to it. In my opinion these lenses are great and I too can compare with my large collection of Zeiss lenses for my Contaxes and the thousands of slides I have from that era. Moreover I have tested the Sony Zeiss glass against some expensive Nikon glass before deciding which way to go, and here too in my opinion there was no doubt. I strongly preferred the Zeiss rendering. If you fail to understand why other people consider these lenses good and genuine Zeiss then there is not much I can add. With all due respect and without any animosity, I am afraid this is entirely your problem.
However, your claim that these lenses are not Zeiss is totally incorrect. Please read the statement from Zeiss concerning these lenses which they formulated as an answer to a question in a different forum (Zeiss Flickr).
BEGIN QUOTE "The lenses for Sony are genuine ZEISS lenses. They are developed in cooperation with Sony and manufactured according to our specifications in Sony facilities. A special ZEISS measuring technology and original T* anti- reflex coating is part of the manufacturing process there. ZEISS lenses are subject to a complete examination at Sony and Carl Zeiss colleagues are partially involved in the production process to guarantee the quality of our lenses. Additionally we guarantee over audits and samples that the production conditions meet to our requirements.
Best regards,
Carl Zeiss Lenses Team "END QUOTE
picman
Member
No Comment.
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/home.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/planart1485za.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/sonnart18135za.usage.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/distagont224za.usage.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/variosonnart281635za.usage.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/variosonnart282470za.usage.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/home.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/planart1485za.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/sonnart18135za.usage.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/distagont224za.usage.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/variosonnart281635za.usage.html
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/alpha/variosonnart282470za.usage.html
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I must admit that the 135/1.8 ZA is an outstanding lens. But for me this is the only one from the whole Sony/Zeiss lens lineup. And frankly there is now 135 same aperture from Nikon nor Canon. But the 2/135 L from Canon is at least on par with that Zeiss lens.
But form the other lenses, especially the zooms, none of them comes only close to their Nikon and Canon counterparts.
This situation for me reflects why I think the Sony FF strategy is not taken to be serious, because they simply do not follow up with lenses designed in the traditional Zeiss quality, nor do the introduce enough new Zeiss lenses at all for the Alpha mount.
But of course, this is my personal take and no one has to believe what I do. But for me it worked out that way.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I could not care less what marketing BS tells us and in this case it is marketing BS. All which is written and published by Sony and Zeiss may be true very well, but it does not solve the original problem: that these new Zeiss / Sony lenses are far away from the quality and flare other (former) Zeiss lenses had. So coming back to my initial statement - I do not care what any of the marketing guys says to public and to press.
Result is what counts for me and not words!