Tim:
Thanks very much for all the great review work you've done. It has been eye-opening to see how subtle the approach needs to be to fully appraise a zoom lens. But you know every good review ends with a conclusion section where you give the executive summary (conclusion for dummies, I call it) and finally attach a number score (and possibly an award named after one of the transition metals in the periodic table: gold, silver, tantalum, plutonium, etc). So my humble question to you is if you were going to use this as a walk around lens with the A7R how good would you say it is compared to 24 - 70 lenses you've used on other mounts? 4=great, 3=good, 2=fair, 1=tragicomic? Of course feel free to add as many other details and comments as you care to. This stuff is invaluable to someone looking to plunk down many hundreds of the hard-earned dinarii on a new lens.
Respectfully yours in GetDPI.com
John
Ah! The good old $64,000 question...
It is better than the Nikkor 24-120 but has a shorter range. It's better than the Canon 24-105, ditto. I can't say what it is like regarding the current Canon 24-70, which is supposed to be very good.
The key question for 36mp addicts is, is it better than the Nikkor 24-70 F2.8G?
IF one is happy to trade the F2.8 for F4 + OSS (I am) then I think it is: if you took the very best performance of the best focal length at the best aperture of the Nikon, then it would slightly, very slightly, surpass the Sony Zeiss. However, the Sony Zeiss is useable at all apertures, and I don't think the Nikkor is - it is parlous at the wide end. I posted
this recently in another thread and it pretty much answers the question.
But in summary, for my needs I give it a 80% where 100% is what I would really like (something pretty much as good as a prime by F5.6 at every aperture) whereas I'd give the Nikkor about a 70%. The Nikkor weighs more, costs more, does less (at least in my use so far) but feels a bit more industrial in construction.
I won't be using the Nikkor unless I am in poor light (very grey days, dusk, indoors with poor light) because the Nikkor's trump card is more accurate low light focus - partly because it is phase detect and partly because it is F2.8 - but only as long as you are using the central 'cross hair' sensels on your D800/E. For reasonable to good light, especially with focus away from the central zone and especially if you have time to work methodically, the Sony Zeiss is a notably more useful lens for my needs.
Having said all of the above, I have sent mine back today because it is a bit soft on the left at wider FOV and the right at 70mm. This is not at all unusual in mid range zooms, my 24-70 Nikkor is not perfectly symmetrical and I went through several 24-120s before giving up. I hope I'll get a slightly tighter copy soon, but even if I don't, the comments above apply.
Final Score: 3.5 out of 4 given the constraints of designing these things and the quality of the competition. My knowledge of precious metals is limited so I'd give it a Golver, or a Sold.
Final word: at 50mm and F8 I can use a bit of PP to make it look near as damn it as good as the 55mm F1.8, the 'best AF lens DXO has ever tested'. Sure, that is the peak of the zoom's performance but I see its softer edges at other apertures as something I can work with positively and creatively. I wouldn't have chosen them but I will find ways of using them.
This was a crucial lens for my continued engagement for the system. If it hadn't been good enough I'd have given up.
I ain't giving up!
