tashley
Subscriber Member
Thanks Mark - I try quite hard to discover the stuff that a lab don't tell - and it is great to hear that other people have found the same phenomena!
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!
Excellent review of the Zeiss 24-70 f4
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
tashley
Subscriber Member
Honestly, a properly shot A7R file with a really good lens loses nothing to most MF other than resolution for the higher pixel count backs. It has very slightly less colour depth, maybe risks ultra-mild posterisation with some extreme scenes, but has better noise characteristics at anything over 100ISO and slightly better DR.
But I keep an IQ 180 for when I want the full sugar rush
Last edited:
My right brain agrees with you, my left brain fully disagree.
All tech data are in favor of the little Sony but I simply can't find the natural look of the S2 I'm now using in the Sony A7r.
Equalized raw files can give very close print results technically but, still, everything is more present and alive with the S2. (Tried the A7r with the Zeiss 55mm f1,8, 50mm Sonnar, 35mm Zeiss and 24mm Canon T/S).
This tiny left brain difference makes the Sony lose any interest to me (casual and low light shots apart).
All tech data are in favor of the little Sony but I simply can't find the natural look of the S2 I'm now using in the Sony A7r.
Equalized raw files can give very close print results technically but, still, everything is more present and alive with the S2. (Tried the A7r with the Zeiss 55mm f1,8, 50mm Sonnar, 35mm Zeiss and 24mm Canon T/S).
This tiny left brain difference makes the Sony lose any interest to me (casual and low light shots apart).
Same thing I've experienced. The S2 stands alone in its' own place as far as look and feel, and nothing I've had the pleasure of working with challenges it based on that subjective visual criteria.
Frankly, I think that's a good thing. A place for each tool.
The A7R is a nice portable, very versatile and fun kit for a lot of different types of photography. But, if I'm doing a portrait, or want to delve deeply into some subject matter and explore it … I always use the S2. It is a matter of "creative trust" … the Leica S2/S lenses never seem to disappoint.
It's all a very personal point of view.
- Marc
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Thorough and great review, thanks!
jlindstrom
Member
You know, I have zero experience with Leica S-system and/or any MF system for that matter. And same goes for pro works or requirements. But I think I can understand where you're coming from, especially with the creative trust thing.
With my humble shooting, I always get the best pictures with system I trust and enjoy.
Currently the A7r is that system with the few lenses I have. But would be sure interesting to try something like Leica S sometime.
For that matter, I'm getting R8 on monday.. another interesting trial
Anyway, back to topic. I shot the 24-70 in Tallin earlier this week. Was a real joy to use, but in dimly lit inside shots I think I bummed the focus. I'll see when I have time to process the shots. In many ways ran into what Tim was talking about.
Would have had the need for a fast 90 or even fast 135 for sure, preferably with OSS. A 135/2 OSS would be the killer :bugeyes:
//Juha
tashley
Subscriber Member
I have to accept your experiences on the S2 - mine were less positive but I had one of the first copies and there were 'issues'. The files sure were lovely but I tend to feel for my own use that by the time I've tweaked to my satisfaction, I don't see any substantive differences with the IQ180 other than pure resolution and in some limited types of scene, a slightly better subtlety of tonal graduation that would be lost on most viewers.
I know I have a reputation for being fairly picky but in truth I'm all for "easily good enough" - what I really hate is "should be good enough but isn't"...
I know I have a reputation for being fairly picky but in truth I'm all for "easily good enough" - what I really hate is "should be good enough but isn't"...
My initial experiences were similar Tim … in fact, I did a test demo in Florida while on vacation, and rejected it. Later I tried it again and went for it based on the images.
I think it may be a matter of using a particular tool until you don't just understand it, but have a feeling for how it matches up with how you see things . I'm serious about the whole "Creative Trust" aspect … not trust as in it reliably works, but that you like the way the images look on a consistent basis to the point that you come to intuitively trust it'll be there. I think it takes time for that to happen.
I'm sure what it is that I'm seeing would be lost on most viewers, but I'm not all that interested in someone else's take on the things of photography I personally enjoy. Content being the same, if it's missing others may still like the image, but I feel robbed of that little joy derived from those subtitles.
I've only had two recent tools that I enjoyed that way … the M9/MM and the S2 … and no amount of "tweaking" and fussing with other cameras has produced the same results in a consistent manner. That I sold my M9P in anticipation of the M240 turned out to be one of my less than astute moves. If something clicks with you, stick with it.
Yep, it's all so very personal.
- Marc
tashley
Subscriber Member
I totally agree but, truth be known, I'm more asymmetrical than a kit lens on this one: I'm very interested during the pre-purchase and learning phase, thereafter extremely interested if they agree and totally indifferent if they don't...
jonoslack
Active member
Indeed Marc - I still have my M9 and my MM, love them, but never use them, because I much prefer the M240 in every way.
I'm becoming increasingly enthusiastic about the A7 . . . . but I'm only getting useful competence rather than passion. Maybe that'll change!
tashley
Subscriber Member
That's because you need an A7R and 55 1.8
jonoslack
Active member
I can't feel passion about anything with a second class EVF and a shutter that sounds like someone stamping on a tin can . . .twice! But I should have the 55 1.8 soon enough.That's because you need an A7R and 55 1.8
Marc, well put. If one's interest is in making great images, its foolish to spend too much time learning new gear. Its much more important to spend as long as possible in the 'I know my kit backwards' phase.
I agree re the MM. It just does what its supposed to do, every time and with suuuuch ease. part from when the thing locks up in discreet mode once in a blue moon
I agree re the MM. It just does what its supposed to do, every time and with suuuuch ease. part from when the thing locks up in discreet mode once in a blue moon
The S2 is massive compared to the A7R, so the two are not really in competition. That the A7R comes 'somewhere close' is one heck of a compliment. Lets not forget Zeiss has said it will produce manual focus lenses in E mount. It will be very interesting to see if they deliver a higher level of micro contrast and general 'image presence'. Even if not, I'm just not going to use a Leica S2 in the same way, so there i no comparison to be made (neither could I afford one anyway!).
As a general point, I believe that Sony will be smart. These cameras have made such an enormous splash that I would be amazed if the very young system is not expanded upon and diversified within 12-18 months. By this, there could be higher spec 'pro' bodies and all sorts. The Nex was successful, but this has potential to be something else entirely. Sony will be smart and reinforce success. It would make no business sense not to do this.
As a general point, I believe that Sony will be smart. These cameras have made such an enormous splash that I would be amazed if the very young system is not expanded upon and diversified within 12-18 months. By this, there could be higher spec 'pro' bodies and all sorts. The Nex was successful, but this has potential to be something else entirely. Sony will be smart and reinforce success. It would make no business sense not to do this.
tashley
Subscriber Member
But the EVF IMHO is better than good enough - and the shutter, well, you get used to it. It's ages since I even noticed it. But I honestly think that until you've spent a week or two at least with an A7R and the 55, the amazingness of the combo just won't have fully sunk in. Really really.
The construction of the lens is mostly metal, this quality of the lens is pretty good. I purchased this lens because I need the constant F4, plus the 24 mm on the wide end, which compare to the kit lens, the wide end is at 28mm. The review is based on using this lens with Sony A7. I am sure most of the photographers who are looking into buying this lens had done their homework from different website already. We all understand that, the edge performance is not as good as Sony's 24-70 f2.8 A mount lens. The edge performance only got better at F5.6 and higher, till F16. There are some hint of purple fringe in heavy contrasting background, but they can be easily fixed with Adobe Lightroom.
This is a great walk around lens, I am just not 100% sure if the picture quality gain is up to twice the price of the 28-70 kit lens.
Low light focusing is not as good as the kit lens or the 55mm f1.8. and the focusing speed is not fast either. 1 or 2 out of 10 shots the focusing just refuse to focus.
Focusing speed is okay during the normal daylight. But it is still not as fast as the 55mm 1.8 or the kit lens.
This is a great walk around lens, I am just not 100% sure if the picture quality gain is up to twice the price of the 28-70 kit lens.
Low light focusing is not as good as the kit lens or the 55mm f1.8. and the focusing speed is not fast either. 1 or 2 out of 10 shots the focusing just refuse to focus.
Focusing speed is okay during the normal daylight. But it is still not as fast as the 55mm 1.8 or the kit lens.
dierk
Well-known member
Tim, thanks for a great review!
I did some tests, when i got mine and was very much surprised and disappointed about the severe distortions at all focal lengths.
You seem to get the same results.
For comparison I loaded images from RAW (LR5 developed) and the OOC in full resolution of different focal lengths and apertures.
You find the them here at my flickr album
I did not get it for landscape or architekture, but I found it very good for portraits and i like the close focusing. Samples are in this album
I did some tests, when i got mine and was very much surprised and disappointed about the severe distortions at all focal lengths.
You seem to get the same results.
For comparison I loaded images from RAW (LR5 developed) and the OOC in full resolution of different focal lengths and apertures.
You find the them here at my flickr album
I did not get it for landscape or architekture, but I found it very good for portraits and i like the close focusing. Samples are in this album
tashley
Subscriber Member
Regarding the distortion, it was absolutely to be expected and I am surprised that you were surprised! Distortion has shown itself in recent times to be one of the easiest compromises to make in complex, compact zoom design - the fantastic Olympus 12-40 has a lot of it too - because it is one of the most easily fixed in post. Purists don't like this and they are very welcome to that view: I prefer to assess the overall quality of the finished image.
In any event, no one is going to shoot these lenses for architecture unless they are very confident with corrections in post. In fact the wide angle Rodenstock lens I use on my Alpa tech camera with IQ180 back, my preferred solution for architecture, requires lens corrections. Nearly all lenses do, if you want perfect rectilinearity. And given that fact, the only issues AFAIAC are 1) the quality of the files after the correction... and 2) how much of the FOV do you lose by making corrections.
An advantage with the A7R is that you see in the finder the 'after' FOV and that the lens seems a touch wider than advertised at each focal length so as to allow for the post corrections FOV to be about right. You don't get that on a Rodenstock.
I will by buying a Canon 24 TSE to use for architecture on the A7R. You need the right tool for the right job. But in the meantime the 24-70 with corrections can be used for most work without problems.
Regarding AF speed: to me it seems fine, and generally very accurate. It isn't as fast as the very fastest DSLRs or the Oly E-M1 but it is usually least fast enough - however, lenses with slower maximum apertures can get a bit stressed out in low light.
For me the focussing systems on the A7r are good enough and flexible enough to meet my needs very well and in fact I get a higher keeper rate than I do with a D800E, though YMMV according to your style and subject matter!
In any event, no one is going to shoot these lenses for architecture unless they are very confident with corrections in post. In fact the wide angle Rodenstock lens I use on my Alpa tech camera with IQ180 back, my preferred solution for architecture, requires lens corrections. Nearly all lenses do, if you want perfect rectilinearity. And given that fact, the only issues AFAIAC are 1) the quality of the files after the correction... and 2) how much of the FOV do you lose by making corrections.
An advantage with the A7R is that you see in the finder the 'after' FOV and that the lens seems a touch wider than advertised at each focal length so as to allow for the post corrections FOV to be about right. You don't get that on a Rodenstock.
I will by buying a Canon 24 TSE to use for architecture on the A7R. You need the right tool for the right job. But in the meantime the 24-70 with corrections can be used for most work without problems.
Regarding AF speed: to me it seems fine, and generally very accurate. It isn't as fast as the very fastest DSLRs or the Oly E-M1 but it is usually least fast enough - however, lenses with slower maximum apertures can get a bit stressed out in low light.
For me the focussing systems on the A7r are good enough and flexible enough to meet my needs very well and in fact I get a higher keeper rate than I do with a D800E, though YMMV according to your style and subject matter!
Last edited:
After much soul-(lens)-searching I just sold what remained of my fuji gear to cover the cost of this lens. I have never been a great lover of zooms but I think this lens will have it's place on the the A7. the Leica M and 28 summicron will still be my main lens for nearly all my work plus the FE55 on the A7 but I can see me doing landscape work maybe with the 24-70 on the A7 and the WATE on the M. Anyway time will tell and since buying the A7 the fuji kit hadn't been out of the safe. Have tried using the FE28-70 lens profile in LR5.3 which does an OK job until the update arrives