Excellent review of the Zeiss 24-70 f4

[mlynds]

thanks for the thoughts, it is hard I think I've made a decision and then a few hours later it changes and think I have settled with the other lens (this will also be the most money I have spent on a lens). I have read about everything I can find on the 24-70 and have decided it seems like a decent lens for what it is and the people that aren't happy with it really just had unrealistic expectations more than anything.
I used a pany 25mm 1.4 on my em5 as my main lens for most of the time and enjoyed it. I like the fact it makes me slow down and think a bit more than a zoom.
But then looking at that comparison between the 24-70 at 50mm and the 55mm on Tim Ashleys review the looked basically the same. So thinking if the zoom can get to that level then maybe thats the better option albeit at a slower aperture.
What would you rather?
an ok zoom and an amazing prime or a decent legacy prime and a good zoom?
I would love to see a direct comparison between the kit zoom and zeiss zoom. Does the zoom still have the zeiss look to it and can it give that pop and 3d look the zeiss lenses are famous for? Thanks.

 

[mlynds]

Ok just looked at review you linked to Guy and I think that my have swayed me to the 55mm, it truly looks like an amazing lens. At least then I will know I have one of the best lenses I can get but with the zoom I can see myself always being in doubt and still wanting the 55mm. I can always use the kit zoom when I need the convenience of a zoom. Also the kit zoom and 55mm together I think weigh similar to the 24-70 by itself. Then may pick up the 24-70 in the future sometime second hand or something. I'll probably change my mind in another hour.....

 

[fotografz]

Hi everyone,
I'm new here but need some advice! I recently made the change from an em5 to the a7 and am really enjoying it. I have the kit lens and then a number of good legacy primes. I'm wanting to get a good native lens for the a7 and am tossing up between the 55mm 1.8 and the 24-70.
Which ones going to give me the biggest jump in image quality and be most worth the money? my legacy 50mm is a pentax smc 1.7.
I mostly do landscapes and adventure outdoor photography but do dable in a bit of everything and am leaning towards the zoom due to practicality while hiking and climbing but am wondering if it's worth the cost over the kit lens. I find the kit lens ok but not very inspiring, it gets the job done, but not much more.
I can't help but thinking the 55mm just sounds like the more special lens and more of a must have lens for the system. I'm quite partial to that FL and it sounds like one the best 50mm lens ever made which makes it quite appealing compared to the lukewarm reception of the 24-70.
Any thoughts would be appreciated!

IMO, all the current FE lenses are uninspired … they get the job done well, but lack what Guy termed "Mojo" … that may change as Zeiss digs into the FE mount and delivers more choices.

The FE 55/1.8 is the darling of the science mavins that seek validation with test charts and such. Yet, to me lacks any subjective character that endears it to some creative sensibility that is almost impossible to describe, but you know it when you see it. So, it may be the best 50mm for MIT graduates, but whether it's the best for photographers is highly debatable.

Fortunately, you can bolt on lenses that do deliver that personalized "Mojo" … like Ben Rubinstein has demonstrated with some $150 lens he owns.:thumbup:

- Marc

 

[iiiNelson]

You can't go wrong with the 55 FE. It's one of the best lenses I've ever owned (and I've own/ owned some really good ones.) Many who say it's overpriced are either solely looking at the focal length/ aperture speed (compared to competitors) without using it or just don't like Zeiss. To each their own though.

 

[jfirneno]

Ok just looked at review you linked to Guy and I think that my have swayed me to the 55mm, it truly looks like an amazing lens. At least then I will know I have one of the best lenses I can get but with the zoom I can see myself always being in doubt and still wanting the 55mm. I can always use the kit zoom when I need the convenience of a zoom. Also the kit zoom and 55mm together I think weigh similar to the 24-70 by itself. Then may pick up the 24-70 in the future sometime second hand or something. I'll probably change my mind in another hour.....

Mylands:
If you have a large group of pictures to base your decision on find out whether most of them are spread across the 24 to 70 mm focal length or just around 50mm. This might tell you whether your style of shooting needs the zoom or the prime. If it's not clear then go out and shoot with the intention of finding out. If it's still not clear maybe get the kit lens and try that out first. It's supposed to be a decent zoom and it's much cheaper.
Regards,
John

 

[mlynds]

cheers john, I'm definitely familiar with primes vs zooms and had a good set of both on my old em5. And am quite partial to 50s and I already have the kit zoom but was thinking about upgrading it.
So Think I'll get the 55mm and I've found a cheap yashica 28mm 2.8 ML which sounds decent and will cover my wider angle needs. Then I would have the 28 and 55, a tokina 90mm f2.5 macro (bokina) and a nikon 180mm f2.8 ais ed plus a 2x teleconverter and that would be my optimal IQ kit. then i can just use the kit lens and maybe 55mm when i need to go lighter and need more convenience and autofocus when climbing and bigger outdoor missions etc. Then eventually when I can upgrade the kit to the 24-70 when i can.

 

[jfirneno]

cheers john, I'm definitely familiar with primes vs zooms and had a good set of both on my old em5. And am quite partial to 50s and I already have the kit zoom but was thinking about upgrading it.
So Think I'll get the 55mm and I've found a cheap yashica 28mm 2.8 ML which sounds decent and will cover my wider angle needs. Then I would have the 28 and 55, a tokina 90mm f2.5 macro (bokina) and a nikon 180mm f2.8 ais ed plus a 2x teleconverter and that would be my optimal IQ kit. then i can just use the kit lens and maybe 55mm when i need to go lighter and need more convenience and autofocus when climbing and bigger outdoor missions etc. Then eventually when I can upgrade the kit to the 24-70 when i can.

Hello Mylands:
I mistook the nature of your question. I have the 55 f1.8 and think it is very sharp. I'm currently using an adapted (LAEA3) Sony mount Tamron 28-75 F2.8 zoom as a walkaround but definitely would like an FE mount zoom instead. The 24-70 sounds really good but I'm holding off to see what other lenses are coming out soon (after all you can't buy everything at once!). I'd like something wide angle (17-35?) and then something longer (135?, 70-200?). Decisions, decisions. In the meantime I've got a bunch of Minolta and Sony glass that I use adapted. Patience, patience.
Regards,
John

 

[horshack]

The FE 55/1.8 is the darling of the science mavins that seek validation with test charts and such. Yet, to me lacks any subjective character that endears it to some creative sensibility that is almost impossible to describe, but you know it when you see it. So, it may be the best 50mm for MIT graduates, but whether it's the best for photographers is highly debatable.

If you look at the contents list on the 55 FE box, 'creative sensibility' isn't listed. I think that means it must be supplied by the photographer.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm actually thinking of returning mine . I bought it March 10th at Amazon which I think I have till April 10th. Think I'll go for a really nice 351.2 or 1.4 . Looking at the Voightlander 35 1.2 . Still noodling what to do here I have a couple days.

 

[tashley]

I wouldn't sell mine unless I exited the system, which I can't see happening an time soon. And if I had to choose between it and any other lens, it would be it without a doubt.

 

[Barry Haines]

I wouldn't sell mine unless I exited the system, which I can't see happening an time soon. And if I had to choose between it and any other lens, it would be it without a doubt.

It's a comment like this that makes me feel Tim has an exceptional copy of this lens.
But in all honesty I have looked at other reviews of the 24-70 and they don't inspire me quite as much as Tims review to get one personally.
I will probably stick with my 2 primes 55/1.8 and CV35/1.2 for now.
But I need a wide for my A7R...I am torn between the 21/2.8 and 25/2 Distagon's...I know you have the 21/2.8 Tim and Guy has the 25/2...Any advice regarding which has the better image quality on a A7R would be most appreciated...I have seen Guys review of the 25/2 on the A7R but I can find very little on the 21/2.8 on a A7R...Apologies for taking this slightly off of topic...Barry

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The Zeiss 25mm F2 is simply one of the best around its of a newer design. I tested it against many other 24mm 1.4 both canon/ Nikon and smokes both of them also it's rated better in the corners than the ZA 24 f2 and has a simple distortion and easy to fix. The 21 has mustache distortion big, big front element but rated very high. Personally I shot them both but not at the same time. I think the 25 has the edge and also a more used focal length. Today I have the 25mm f2 and just picked up a Rokinion 14mm in Sony A mount. It's between 25 and 50 is why I bought the zoom and it's okay but I'm seriously considering going back get the kit zoom which I really don't need the highest quality but get a outstanding 35 . I had the Zeiss 35mm f2 3 times now and its awesome and totally under rated. But this time I looking at the CV 35mm 1.2 but need more data on it for the A7r. I want a killer look in the 35 since I have in the 55 the clinical lens.

Now I think I have a decent copy of the zoom but it's all over the place with corners and crappy at 70mm which really is not good. So you get a 28 to 60 out of it, which cuts the ends off.

 

[Barry Haines]

The Zeiss 25mm F2 is simply one of the best around its of a newer design. I tested it against many other 24mm 1.4 both canon/ Nikon and smokes both of them also it's rated better in the corners than the ZA 24 f2 and has a simple distortion and easy to fix. The 21 has mustache distortion big, big front element but rated very high. Personally I shot them both but not at the same time. I think the 25 has the edge and also a more used focal length. Today I have the 25mm f2 and just picked up a Rokinion 14mm in Sony A mount. It's between 25 and 50 is why I bought the zoom and it's okay but I'm seriously considering going back get the kit zoom which I really don't need the highest quality but get a outstanding 35 . I had the Zeiss 35mm f2 3 times now and its awesome and totally under rated. But this time I looking at the CV 35mm 1.2 but need more data on it for the A7r. I want a killer look in the 35 since I have in the 55 the clinical lens.

Now I think I have a decent copy of the zoom but it's all over the place with corners and crappy at 70mm which really is not good. So you get a 28 to 60 out of it, which cuts the ends off.

Very many thanks Guy - Most appreciated.
Since having the A7R I have had to do a complete rethink of all of my lenses...Most have now been ebayed (Leica M, Voigtlander, Zeiss ZM's) and I am starting all over again.
The trouble is that the 55/1.8 FE is so good that it's hard to find an equivalent fast killer lens in the 35mm focal length that doesn't weigh a ton...I have settled for now on the 35/1.2 Mk2 unless a fast 35mm native lens comes along later...My 35/2 Biogon was excellent on APS-C but it came second place to the 35/1.2 on the FF A7R as far as I was concerned.
The 25mm Distagon in ZF.2 mount is similar in weight to the 21mm so that's a tie.
Size wise, filter size, vignetting, reduced distortion and the newer design are all pluses in favour of the 25mm I personally feel.
But I am not that fussed about the difference in focal lengths as I am in IQ between the 2 Distagon's - DXO score seems have the 25mm in front of the 21mm like yourself, so I am currently leaning towards the 25mm at the moment and perhaps adding a 14mm Samyang later for fun.
Anyway thanks again for answering so quickly and I apologise to others for taking this slightly off topic...Barry

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Barry love to hear more of the Voightlander 35 1.2

 

[Barry Haines]

Barry love to hear more of the Voightlander 35 1.2

Guy...I doubt I can tell you very much that you probably don't already know.
The lens has a lovely solid feel about it that I like a lot, certainly better than most the other Voigtlanders I have owned to date.
As others have said before me, it has the old fashioned Leica lens look about the images, not what you would expect from a modern ASPH at all.
The focusing is more buttery smooth than the cheaper Voigtlanders and click stops positively and nicely (my copy does at least).
It does render quite beautifully wide open if you are prepared for a loss of sharpness, it doesn't glow quite like a Noctilux or 58/1.2 Rokkor but I would still describe it as fairly soft in contrast.
It sharpens up quite nicely by f2.8 and is sharpening evenly across the frame as you stop down to F8 it's sharpest aperture. Likewise the contrast improves dramatically by f2 and upwards.
The lower contrast kills any microcontrast when shot wide open.
It's not as bitingly sharp as 50mm Summilux Asph F1.4 in the center wide open (But what is!).
It compares very favourably IMO with the 35mm ZM Biogon which is similar in sharpness aperture to aperture...The 35mm Biogon has more colour shift (by a fair bit) over the 35/1.2 on a A7R.
The vignetting and LOCA at F2 is much improved on the Voigtlander than the ZM Biogon IMO...you don't feel you are peering into a porthole window that needs PP.
The hood is fairly expensive extra - When the Zeiss DSLR ones come for free...Quite a lot of people don't bother with the hood as it increases the size somewhat, especially as this lens is not so prone to flaring...None the less I still purchased the hood and leave it on permanently...Hope that helps...I will post some samples in Fun with the Sony A7 and A7R series....Later on...Cheers Barry

 

[Viramati]

Another vote for the CV 35/ 1.2 v2. I would agree with Barry's evaluation of this lens. I also find it pretty easy to focus wide open on the A7 even with the shallow DOF that it has a 1.2

 

[Cindy Flood]

I agree with Barry, also. I also would give a big recommendation to the Cameraquest close-focus helicoid adapter. It is well worth the cost.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

So, I'm not a Sony guy.

Can somebody summarize how many lens mounts/lens lines Sony is up to now?

The fact that this company seemingly abandons an entire line at the drop of a hat would give me pause. As we all know, Nikon has gone out of its way to NOT do this, perhaps suffering competively along the way as a result of that decision. However, they did gain brand loyalty because of it.

Canon went through a similar upheaval ONCE and the tremors are still vibrating.

Where does that leave us with Sony?

 

[Cindy Flood]

So, I'm not a Sony guy.

Can somebody summarize how many lens mounts/lens lines Sony is up to now?

The fact that this company seemingly abandons an entire line at the drop of a hat would give me pause. As we all know, Nikon has gone out of its way to NOT do this, perhaps suffering competively along the way as a result of that decision. However, they did gain brand loyalty because of it.

Canon went through a similar upheaval ONCE and the tremors are still vibrating.

Where does that leave us with Sony?

Sony took over Minolta. The Sony A mount is the same mount as the Minolta mount. I still use some Minolta lenses on my A99 and on my A7r (with the Sony adapter.)

Sony then brought out the E mount. Those lenses work on the new A6000 and on the NEX cameras. They also work on the A7s in crop mode. The A7s have an E mount, but require a full-frame lens (unless you want the crop), called FE (full-frame E).

I am heavily invested in the Sony system, and that leaves me a happy camper with Sony!

I don't know what lines were abandoned at the drop of a hat. What are you referring to?

 

[philip_pj]

'it's hard to find an equivalent fast killer lens in the 35mm focal length'

I can recommend the RX1, I got one after I saw a shot Tim took of a garage wall - true story.

Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M 240 with 35mm F1.4 FLE - some observations

It is a similar lens to the FE55 in several aspects - very flat field, well-behaved bokeh, strong from f2 to f11 at all focal distances and excellent corners > very versatile.

Two more reviews of the 24-70 zoom just up:

Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS (Sony SEL2470Z) - Review / Test Report
Sony Lens: Zooms - Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* SEL2470Z (Tested) - SLRgear.com!