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!

Sony 24-70 F4 Lens

philip_pj

New member
And of course it must be kept in mind that for a given output size much less enlargement is required of the a7r compared with a lower res sensor..people casually inspect at 100% no matter the pixel dimensions.

Point taken re the MTF, it's certainly not textbook for a $1000 plus lens, calculated at that. The issue I see is people wanting a do everything lens with stabilisation for say landscapes, and being seriously disappointed at 24mm - a situation made worse by the design unsuitability of the 21mm and 24mm Super Elmars and other wide symmetrical lenses.. The pressure is on to make a 3x 24-70 from the market unfortunately.
 

nugat

New member
When I get my Tessar 24-70/4 I will be curious to do an experiment and compare prints from the wide open Tessar+A7r and Zuiko 14-35/f2+Olympus E5 (12mpix).
 

mjm6

Member
All of this discussion has me depressed! I was really hoping the 24-70 would be a great all-around lens, and now maybe it's clear, not so much.

In my mind, this raises the comparison to the kit lens. Clearly, not as wide at the wide end, but otherwise, is there enough difference in performance to justify the price difference?

Secondly, it would be really great if we had some idea what the next lenses are planned for release, because if they intend to produce a, say, 20-35 zoom in a year, then the overall lesser performance of the 24-70 might be somewhat irrelevant to many people once the overlap can be used to chose the better performer.

This one (rumors only, here) shows a 16-35 coming:

More job cuts at Sony (including one camera factory) | sonyalpharumors

I think this one is the official roadmap that has been released:

(SR3) Two new FE lenses coming in March? Zeiss fast prime and Zeiss f/4.0 zoom likely! | sonyalpharumors

The rumor is a WA zoom in March to be announced. That's where the 16-35 conjecture is coming from in the top link I suspect.

If that is the case, I believe I could get behind the 24-70 even if the performance isn't stellar at the wide end.


---Michael
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Until someone here gets it in there hands and runs some quality tests than we are guessing but I do NOT expect it to be better than any 24-70 currently on the market from Nikon, Canon or Sony. But I have seen some nice images from it so depending how much of a pixel peeper you are and your intended needs than its hard to say if it works for you. Given the glass i see you have ( jealous) than its not going to match any of those. LOL

Your more a lens whore than me, i think we need to balance things out send me that dang Leica R 28mm Elmarit NOW. ROTFLMAO
 

mjm6

Member
Hahaha!

Guy, I only have both kits because I love the small size of the M line, but frankly, detest the RF interface (not specifically of the M9, but in general, RF cameras are just not my cup of tea for my subject matter). My primary shooting is architectural subject matter, and I'm way too fiddly to comfortably accept the framing inaccuracy that I get with RF's.

I am going to sell the M stuff very shortly, now that I have the a7R to go along with the a900. I just need to figure out if any of the M lenses should be kept for the a7R first.

Oh, I LOVE the 35mm summilux M (Mandler pre-ASPH)... I'm not sure I can part with that one, so I really hope it performs well on the a7r (probably not). Love the 50mm lux (E46) too... Not a big fan of the ASPH rendering of the modern Leica lenses (too nervous in OOF areas), so I chose pre-ASPH mostly when I put together the system.

These days, I am kicking myself that I didn't buy an 50mm E60 Lux R and a 35mm Lux R a few years ago before the pricing went into Absurdialand.

If I decide to sell the 28R (actually, very likely, it doesn't get used much), I'll let you know before I post it.


---Michael
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Rf is a love and hate kind of thing. I used to like it but my eyes are not getting any better and I find the Sony setup really good for my eyes now even better than my Nikon as well. Big item I can confirm what i am doing much faster. This has not been brought up yet and I should have mentioned this in my article but I am much quicker confirming in my mind what i am getting at a much faster pace. That means a lot to me.

As far as glass i am just not sure on the M with the A7r that info is scrambled all over the place. It would be nice to know if your 35mm Lux M works good. The rest of your M should be fine I would think. Im kicking myself as well as i had every dang Leica R lens around and just about every M lens as well. Im glad to have the Leica 19mm and would love the 28mm elmarit but over 2k for one is absurd anymore. I just can't justify it today.
 

nugat

New member
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 MTF is attached. It does not look much worse than that of Tessar FE 24-70/4 but the units are not directly comparable. Here Sony chose 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm while for the Tessar they (Zeiss?) use 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm.
An extrapolation points to the conclusion that the new glass (Tessar) will be certainly better from 28mm. Not to say that it has a fixed aperture value throughout the zoom range.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Guy
Rf is a love and hate kind of thing. I used to like it but my eyes are not getting any better and I find the Sony setup really good for my eyes now even better than my Nikon as well. Big item I can confirm what i am doing much faster. This has not been brought up yet and I should have mentioned this in my article but I am much quicker confirming in my mind what i am getting at a much faster pace. That means a lot to me.
I think RF is all about practice - my eyes are standard issue old eyes (they used to be so good) - but I still find RF focusing faster than the A7 . . . . but only when I'm in practice.
As far as glass i am just not sure on the M with the A7r that info is scrambled all over the place. It would be nice to know if your 35mm Lux M works good. The rest of your M should be fine I would think. Im kicking myself as well as i had every dang Leica R lens around and just about every M lens as well. Im glad to have the Leica 19mm and would love the 28mm elmarit but over 2k for one is absurd anymore. I just can't justify it today.
AS you say - M lens information is scrambled - but I think it's because the performance of M lenses on the A7 is a mish mash. Personally I've no problem with 75mm and above - below that I can't be bothered to work out what does work and what doesn't . . . the exception being that the Noctilux can be fun.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
You need to get a A7r Jono and test out what works and what don't. LOL

Your turn to be the guinea pig. ROTFLMAO
 

jonoslack

Active member
You need to get a A7r Jono and test out what works and what don't. LOL

Your turn to be the guinea pig. ROTFLMAO
Hi There Guy
I already did that:

WATE - fine
24 elmar - not great
28 'cron - rubbish
35 FLE - useable stopped down, but still dodgy corners
35 Summarit - better, but still not as good as on the M
50 rigid 'cron - fine - but without the presence it has on the M
50 'lux - as above
50 0.95 - fun
75 'cron - fine
90 elmarit M fine
135 APO telyt - fine

C/Y 28-85 dodgy corners at 28 - otherwise fine
R lenses:
60 macro Elmar
35-70 f4
80-200 f4
all fine.

I had it for a weekend, took over 1000 shots and then took it back. My problem was two fold:

1. I thought it was going to be an answer for M lenses - it isn't - I really don't think it's worth bothering (I do have an M to put them on though).

2. The Clanky shutter - everyone's talking about Shutter Vibration on tripods, but I found I needed 3x the focal length on the A7r to hand hold because of the clatter - on the M I need 1/2 focal length - that's 2.5 stops.

I'm enjoying the A7 for my R lenses - I can easily hand hold at 1x focal length - IMHO it's not worth bothering with RF wide angles on full frame mirrorless - and I don't think it'll change - It needs software correction, and why would Sony do that for someone else's lenses? (any more than Leica does). You have the right idea using that lovely 19mm R lens (I wish I had one)

Bring me an A8r with an EFC and a quieter shutter and I'll have another go (but not with wide M lenses) - I like the camera, but I just don't see why it has to sound like someone stamping on a tin can . . . 3 times! Worth mentioning that I've liked Sony cameras for some time - A900, A77, A65 and many different lenses - I like the A7 as well.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I'm very fortunate that I have a particularly good example of the ZA 24-70 (though only after being sent back to Sony because it developed a reluctance to focus at infinity properly - but they did a fine job of fixing so it was better than when new).

I find that with the extra heft of that lens with the EA4 adapter I have no shutter vibration problem. Of course, it's not delightfully light like the 55/1.8 EF but it is more versatile, naturally. I don't think I'll go for the EF version as my ZA is such a proven performer.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Not to go to far off topic but I love the manual focus of these ZAs than you have AF when the need arises. Only AF lenses that have any feel manually focusing. Sorry Nikon/ canon but you suck at manual focusing. Flame suit on

Oh and love the focus lock button on the lens
 

jaree

Member
Sony's MTF figures (even for the ones with the blue Zeiss sticker on them) are pointless and mostly fantasy land. Searching on Google will bring up a thread or two with a response from Dr H Nasse on what he thinks about Sony's published MTFs.

What we need are real tests from pros and trusted members of this forum. Guy, Mark, Tim and others on this forum for example.

-- Eeraj

Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 MTF is attached. It does not look much worse than that of Tessar FE 24-70/4 but the units are not directly comparable. Here Sony chose 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm while for the Tessar they (Zeiss?) use 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm.
An extrapolation points to the conclusion that the new glass (Tessar) will be certainly better from 28mm. Not to say that it has a fixed aperture value throughout the zoom range.
 
Back to the 24-70 anyone receiving anything here in the states
I have one on the way from a Japanese seller; should be here next week.

I'll definitely share results as soon as I get it. (I picked up a 28-70 a while back to tide me over, but it gets little use as I find it quite disappointing on the a7R.)
 

nugat

New member
Sony's MTF figures (even for the ones with the blue Zeiss sticker on them) are pointless and mostly fantasy land. Searching on Google will bring up a thread or two with a response from Dr H Nasse on what he thinks about Sony's published MTFs.

What we need are real tests from pros and trusted members of this forum. Guy, Mark, Tim and others on this forum for example.

-- Eeraj
I found this:

Zeiss FE 55mm lens is on par with the Zeiss Otus at medium aperture! | sonyalpharumors

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:56:47 +0200
From: “Hoenlinger, Bertram”

Dear Mr. Lau,

Thanks for your request.

The MTF data for all Sony lenses (including the Carl Zeiss ZA lenses) are created and published exclusively by our partner SONY. We do not have had influence on the published MTF charts.
So please contact Sony directly about the measuring methods and further details of their MTF data.

Best Regards

Bertram Hoenlinger

Reply – 2
(From Dr. Hubert Nasse who had published the guide for reading MTF diagrams in Camera Lens News)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:14:05 +0200
From: “Nasse, Hubert”
Dear Mr. Lau,

the curves which are shown in some Sony brochures have been “processed” with some freedom
by the graphics designers of the brochures. They are scientifically not valid, easily to be seen in
some cases where the figures exceed diffraction limits. So they should not at all be compared to
the data which are published by Carl Zeiss.

With best regards


Assuming these letters are legit, they say only the obvious: every manufacturer uses a different methodology. Do we know how Zeiss tests their lenses? Do they have a double-walled test chamber ammortized from external influences?
Is Sony's marketing to be trusted? Hell, sure, like any other salesman.
Are "Guy, Mark, Tim and others" better than Sony and Zeiss in testing lenses?
I don't know. Are they to be more trusted than corporations? I think so.
The thing I know here is that lens testing is more art than science.
MTF charts give an idea, same as a car's specs.
When I see a graph reaching 100% contrast for 5 or 10 lp/mm I know it's "optimistic". No real lens has 100% contrast. But also 5 and 10 lp/mm are pretty meaningless. "Creative graphic design" is more difficult for 20, 30 or 40 lp/mm, where it counts. In cinematography I am interested in 70lp/mm contrast to be around 70% (Zeiss Master Primes). Thats where the picture looks really "sharp" on the screen.

As for "independent" lens testing... Arguably the most popular photo site in the world for years had lens tests that often showed system resolution higher than Nyquist limit (more lines than sensor pixels). All of their tests were worthless because they misunderstood the definition of Nyquist limit.
DxO today claims that Sony FE 55/1.8 has T=f=1.8.
Possible? A lens with no transmission losses? Only if it has a built in amplifier.

PS. Not long ago one CERN team published a "discovery" of some neutrinos travelliing faster than light. After a year's re-testing the culprit was found--uneven length of cables carrying data.
 
Top