Sony 24-70 F4 Lens

[tashley]

The IBIS. Is amazing isn't it? But I think as partial recompense that the OSS, more useful auto ISO and better high ISO performance help compensate. I'm totally with you on the weather sealing. It's not an easy decision but shooting the two side by side tells me how it pans out for me - and I'll just use my D800 if (if?!) it rains!

 

[nostatic]

believable weather sealing, excellent IBIS and the lovely 75 f1.8 to name a few!).........

The 75/1.8 is one of *those* lenses. If you like 150mm, almost worth buying into the system just for that lens. Plus with the IBIS, I could shoot at like 1/5 and get usable images.

Being in southern California, I don't understand this whole weather sealing thing. All my cameras are safe from 72 degrees and sun

 

[tashley]

OK guys, I just spent the day shooting this lens in a testing sort of a way, and also comparing a lot of files from it to those shot at the same places from the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 on a D800E.

Many things to say:

At 100% the Sony files look a bit more processed, even with the same develop settings. I suspect more RAW pre-cooking is going on. But by 50% or, I am strongly guessing in print, that disappears.

The Sony lens has much more distortion so if you correct it, you'll lose frame width and slightly compromise the very good micro contrast. It also has a lot more vignetting at most lengths and apertures, and the correction of that will boost noise more in those areas though at low ISO and 50% it's hard to see.

Then I did the most peepy thing I've ever done. I compared my harbourside series between the two and though the series were shot from slightly different positions on different days, they were all 'best of a lot' and were all tripod, ISO 200. I looked at them with no lens corrections and the same sharpening and Camera Standard for both.

I looked at 24, 35, 50 and 70mm and at F8, F5.6 and F4.

I gave a simple S>N or = or N>S for each pair.

On centre, out of 12 comparisons, there were 9 S>N and 3 =
At the edges there were 5 S>N and 4 N>S and 3 =

Nikon edges tended to be better than Sony at 50 and 35mm
Sony edges tended to be better than Nikon at 70mm and 24mm, by a big factor at 24mm

Neither lens is wonderful but as I work towards my holy grail of 'what's the best mid-range zoom on a 36mp sensor' I am homing in on the Sony, despite its many irritations.

The bad news is that I casually shot a hunt that was passing through today. The light was very poor, and I was running and gunning with hopeful shutter speeds and OSS and middle ISO, but very few frames were good. I think the F4 means that trying to AF on moving subjects in a hurry in poor light isn't a great idea but in good light, the lens is a reliable focusser and is always very sharp on centre at any reasonable aperture and every focal length. The edges are a bit disappointing at the extremes of the range but seem a touch better than the Nikon, and in the 35-50mm range where the Nikon has slightly better edges, the Sony's are easily good enough.

I have a feeling that this is going to be a complex lens to master. I have left side weakness that comes and goes and might be down to the angle at which I hold the camera but I think it's more likely some optical issue. But you really have to look for it and it isn't by any means always there.

My next task will be to shoot a comparison at F5.6 and F8 and 50mm versus the 55 F1.8 and though it certainly won't be as good, I suspect it'll be closer than people would guess...

 

[mjm6]

I have a feeling that this is going to be a complex lens to master. I have left side weakness that comes and goes and might be down to the angle at which I hold the camera but I think it's more likely some optical issue. But you really have to look for it and it isn't by any means always there.

Since this lens has OSS, is this a likely effect of the OSS not 'homing' correctly? I haven't seen the optical information on how the OSS works, but if it tilts an element then it clearly could be the source of the problem, even if the rest of the system is functioning perfectly.

---Michael

 

[tashley]

Yup, that's one of much suspicions. I had lenses before where that seems the most likely answer. What I would ideally do is turn OSS off, get a good shot and make it repeatable until OSS went back on - but that could take a looooong time!

 

[jlindstrom]

After reading all this, despite issues, I have the feeling I'm going to like this lens. And at this point have no regrets in pre-ordering one...

What strikes me interesting is that Tim found it to be better than the Nikon 24-70/2.8. It's interesting because this lens has got already quite a lot of "bad rep" from people even when it hasn't hit that many capable hands (such as Tim's). Why I find this interesting, is that the Nikon mid-range is part of the "holy trinity" and considered a "jesus lens" by many.. yet, here it's getting beaten by the new Zeiss. I guess many of the internet critics are just out there to bad mouth things..

I will wait for more of Tim's (and others) findings with much interest but ultimately my choice will be exactly that.. MINE!

//Juha

 

[tashley]

Juha, I hope you do give the lens a try but a word of warning: evaluating a lens in the field is quite personal and subjective and others with different needs and biases might not share my opinion. But, and for me this is a big 'but', I find that even the faults are quite nice in a way: switch to the right part of the zoom range and you have large prints that are sharp all over. Shoot outside that range and you have the effect of great sharpness and micro contrast on centre and a gently dreamy, vignetted falloff into less sharpness. On several frames I have shot, I really like this effect. It might even qualify as a zoom, a look lens and a laser in one package. It's not what I thought I wanted, but I am coming to like it for what it is.

 

[jlindstrom]

Tim: I absolutely will. I'm expecting to get mine within couple of weeks, already paid for it too

My "testing" won't definitely be scientific, but purely subjective and based on emotion/feeling I get from the lens. So, I will take pictures like I normally do and at some point I'll know whether I like it or not.

My comparison lenses from last years are somewhat cruel, as I shot the Leica M for past several years and lately had the last generation of pre-asph summilux 50 and elmarit-m 90 on the M9. I loved those lenses. When I happened to nail the focus, they were drop dead gorgeous. So the A7r and the 35/55/24-70 Zeiss have a high set of standards to meet.

For me the center sharpness is by far most important. I'd say if 4/5 of the image is really sharp and the rest aren't half bad either.. I'm almost certainly a happy camper. My framing is normally at close center, somewhere around rule of thirds. For my capabilities as a photographer currently it's enough to worry about the main subject!

//Juha

 

[Viramati]

Hi Tim
Not that I use OOC jpeg's but I was wondering if you had done any testing with these to see how the software handles the distortion and vignetting issues and whether you are seeing a loss in IQ and and increase in noise. I only ask this as it may give some sort of indication as to how eel LR will handle the RAW files when a lens profile becomes available. thanks

 

[sflxn]

The comparison with the Nikkor 24-70 is very interesting. It was my most used lens on my Nikon, and I was happy enough with it. However, I also did sell that lens to focus on primes with the newer high resolution cameras. I'm starting to have a different opinion of this FE lens.

 

[psy501]

..hi..longtime reader-seldom poster here..i would like to second tims experiences with the lens..i tested it (no pics right now that i can share, so you have to take my word for it....) against my canon fd 20-35/3.5 L and regarding the sharpness falloff in the corners the canon really is quite worse than the sony zeiss..

..so its easy for me to make the decision: if i want a high quality walkabout/travel lens or take pics where the corners are not that much important and want one with af i will gladly keep the 24-70..for landscapes that are made to be printed BIG there are enough primes in the closet..

..but its not really a cheap lens, of course..

 

[jonoslack]

The IBIS. Is amazing isn't it? But I think as partial recompense that the OSS, more useful auto ISO and better high ISO performance help compensate. I'm totally with you on the weather sealing. It's not an easy decision but shooting the two side by side tells me how it pans out for me - and I'll just use my D800 if (if?!) it rains!

Hmm
We did a 6 hour walk across the fells near Keswick yesterday - everything got soaked (everyone's everything) - the Olympus was over my shoulder or in my hand for the entire walk and the only problem was finding something dry to get the water off the lens - a lot of the time it was actually streaming off the camera - which was left on.
Maybe it's a speciality requirement - but I wouldn't have liked to carry a D800 with a 24-70 Nikkor all that way in one hand. Shooting easily with one hand is another advantage of the E-M1.
I got lots of boring photos, but despite the bad light and dodgy conditions the camera didn't screw up a single shot.
Your report seems to say that often you'll get a much better shot than the Olympus could possibly produce . . . . but sometimes you'll get no shot at all (or a poor one) - so I guess the decision is for absolute consistency or absolute quality.

Obviously, these comments only relate to using the cameras with a zoom as a 'walkabout'. Which is relevant to us, but not to everyone.

 

[tashley]

Hi Tim
Not that I use OOC jpeg's but I was wondering if you had done any testing with these to see how the software handles the distortion and vignetting issues and whether you are seeing a loss in IQ and and increase in noise. I only ask this as it may give some sort of indication as to how eel LR will handle the RAW files when a lens profile becomes available. thanks

I have shot a lot of RAW + JPEG and compared them - the camera under corrects the distortion (I assume so as to make it look 'acceptable' without chopping too much of the frame) whereas the LR Lens Correction profile I linked to somewhere above does a more through job and crops more but for my money over corrects the vignetting. I'm not crazy on the JPEGS.

 

[tashley]

Hmm
We did a 6 hour walk across the fells near Keswick yesterday - everything got soaked (everyone's everything) - the Olympus was over my shoulder or in my hand for the entire walk and the only problem was finding something dry to get the water off the lens - a lot of the time it was actually streaming off the camera - which was left on.
Maybe it's a speciality requirement - but I wouldn't have liked to carry a D800 with a 24-70 Nikkor all that way in one hand. Shooting easily with one hand is another advantage of the E-M1.
I got lots of boring photos, but despite the bad light and dodgy conditions the camera didn't screw up a single shot.
Your report seems to say that often you'll get a much better shot than the Olympus could possibly produce . . . . but sometimes you'll get no shot at all (or a poor one) - so I guess the decision is for absolute consistency or absolute quality.

Obviously, these comments only relate to using the cameras with a zoom as a 'walkabout'. Which is relevant to us, but not to everyone.

I quite agree, but it's rare for me to go out in the rain for a shot unless I really want that shot, in which case the Nikon will give me the quality I want for a purposive shot. If it looks only like it might rain I take the Sony with hand grip and either stick it inside my coat like Napoleon when it rains, or keep a dog poo bag in my pocket… it's fine with light spots or drizzle but I wouldn't 'do a Ming' with it in the shower!

 

[Deleted member 7792]

Link to landscape series , all downloadable at full size, shot at 24, 35, 50, 70 at F8 for comparisons, sharpening at 60/0.7/70/20 and clarity at +12 with Camera Standard profile...
Tim Ashley Photography | Sony A7R with 24-70 F4 OSS | _DSC1319

Tim,

Thanks for taking the time to perform these tests and share your results. For my use, I'm saying "Yeah, baby, yeah" in my best Austin Powers voice. From your landscape scenes and the brick and stone planar subjects, the lens appears to perform very well at f/5.6 and f/8, and acceptably well wide open. By the time I get a lens of my own sometime in March, Adobe will likely have a LR profile that cleans up [some of] the distortion. Like many here, I'll have primes in the same focal length range, but a mid-range zoom is a real advantage for traveling light and shooting spontaneously. Thanks again. :salute:

Joe

 

[slickster]

Tim

I'd like to add a whole bunch of thanks for all your work judging this lens ......and quite frankly your overall contibutions to this site. I have learned to pay special attention to your kind and thoughtful contributions.

Monty

 

[Paratom]

Hmm
...so I guess the decision is for absolute consistency or absolute quality.
...

I guess this decision only has to be done if absolute portability is also requested.
Otherwise a D800 or another pro DSLR or a Leica S could combine rugged, weatherproof body with absolute IQ. I wouldnt want to carry it for 3 hours in one hand, but no problem if you use a shoulder strap.

I agree it would be really nice to have the sensor and IQ of the A7r combined with the speed and weatherproof body of the EM1.

I wonder if anybody has "tested" how weatherproof the new Leica M would be.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I never warmed up to the FE 35 as I had just a okay copy of it. If this is as good as the 35 than its worth it for me to have it with the bonus of some other focal lengths. I really only need this for PR type shooting and frankly I would leave this home when doing landscape. For travel and walkabout sure this maybe great and maybe even better on the A7 since it would be less demanding. What's bugging me here though although a fix is coming in certain software is the distortion levels even going up the focal length . For PR that may not mean much but it still bugs me a little. I'll buy one in a month or so. Not really in a hurry and need one mid April for a convention type event.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW and maybe I should start a thread on this but my fear using FE lenses is Sony maybe half baking our raws since its reading FE glass in the EXIF data . Its a concern no one really as any proof of except Sony themselves, I'm not a engineer and don't pretend to be but bottom line I don't want anyone screwing around with my raws except me.

It's just a thought at this point

 

[D&A]

BTW and maybe I should start a thread on this but my fear using FE lenses is Sony maybe half baking our raws since its reading FE glass in the EXIF data . Its a concern no one really as any proof of except Sony themselves, I'm not a engineer and don't pretend to be but bottom line I don't want anyone screwing around with my raws except me.

It's just a thought at this point

Guy, in other words (in typical NY parlance), they're "cooking the books?"...LOL!

It's seems quite acceptable these days for other manufacturers I suppose to do the same (for various reasons), so I suspect this is just the beginning of such a trend.

My preliminary impression of the Sony FE system (besides how versatile and good it is).... is they spoiled everyone with their 55mm f1.8 and to some extent their 35mm f2.8....so now its expected other lenses will live up to these two.

Dave (D&A)