Menu
What's new
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!

Good/bad copies of Sony 24-70 f/4 lens?

pegelli

pegelli

Well-known member
The 24-105 might be a better lens, but a good copy of the 24-70 is no slough either. Biggest advantage of the 24-105 is the 35 mm longer focal length at the long end.

However the 24-105 is (over here) 65% more expensive, 55% heavier, 14% thicker and 20% longer, not insignificant differences in my mind.
Smaller size and weight are the main reason I got the 24-70 2nd hand from a friend who got the 24-105. I think we're both very happy with our choice. He values the length advantage of the 24-105, I value the size/weight advantage of the 24-70. I think lens choices will always be a compromise and will lead to different results for different people.
 
A

Antonio Correia

New member
pegelli said:
...However the 24-105 is (over here) 65% more expensive, 55% heavier, 14% thicker and 20% longer, not insignificant differences in my mind.
...I think lens choices will always be a compromise and will lead to different results for different people.
Click to expand...
Agree with you !
55% heavier ? :rolleyes:
 
iiiNelson

iiiNelson

Well-known member
pegelli said:
The 24-105 might be a better lens, but a good copy of the 24-70 is no slough either. Biggest advantage of the 24-105 is the 35 mm longer focal length at the long end.

However the 24-105 is (over here) 65% more expensive, 55% heavier, 14% thicker and 20% longer, not insignificant differences in my mind.
Smaller size and weight are the main reason I got the 24-70 2nd hand from a friend who got the 24-105. I think we're both very happy with our choice. He values the length advantage of the 24-105, I value the size/weight advantage of the 24-70. I think lens choices will always be a compromise and will lead to different results for different people.
Click to expand...
Fair enough and to each their own. I should probably caveat it all with a “I have little use for most 24-70 lenses.” Just doesn’t cover enough focal range to be useful enough to me as a do it all lens.

Something that starts in the 24-28 range and goes to the 85-120 range will always be preferred by me personally even if it added some mass. As you say though, it’s all personal preference but when I think of a general walk around lens I picture something that covers wide angle to portrait telephoto ranges. 70mm is sort of an in between extremely short telephoto and very long normal-ish range for me. Maybe it’s just me or my expectations were too high for the 24-70/4 given the price I paid for it new but it’s one of the two lenses made by Sony I couldn’t wait to rid myself of (the other being the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8). For me neither were up to snuff for my own personal uses - but I also realized the above... though the 24-70GM made me question my thoughts when I tried it out at the same time I tested the 24-105 (which is really an excellent lens).

If a person is looking at the 24-70/4 I’d also recommend taking a look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8. It’s on the small side as well and will give you an extra stop. Also it performs comparably to many primes as you can see in this video.

https://youtu.be/PKa4fodaKTE
 
Last edited:
picman

picman

Member
tashley said:
I'm no longer in the reviewing game but last year I wrote this in-depth look at the lens and there is a section on sample variation.

In short, there is a chance you'll need to go through more than one copy to get a good one, but a good one is really worth having.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and I am lucky to have a very good copy. Hence I never understood the negative comments on line, but sample variation is a possibility of course.
 
iiiNelson

iiiNelson

Well-known member
picman said:
Absolutely, and I am lucky to have a very good copy. Hence I never understood the negative comments on line, but sample variation is a possibility of course.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of it stems from price to performance. I think if this lens was priced in the $600-900 range people wouldn’t complain. When it was new it was going for $1200 and I don’t think the performance warranted that price personally.
 
A

Antonio Correia

New member
I have not yet understood how you guys evaluate a good copy of a lens.
How do you separate a good from a bad copy of a lens ?
What do you do ?
How ?
Which tests am I supposed to perform ?
Never Googled about this, it is true... :(
 
MGrayson

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
In how many industries is "keep buying and returning until you get a good one" accepted practice? Rarely, an appliance, car, or meal has to be sent back, but it's a black mark on the sales or service provider if it happens regularly. A clothing item may not fit, but it is rarely defective.

I am more amazed than merely disturbed that this is not just tolerated, but expected from major lens manufacturers.
 
iiiNelson

iiiNelson

Well-known member
MGrayson said:
In how many industries is "keep buying and returning until you get a good one" accepted practice? Rarely, an appliance, car, or meal has to be sent back, but it's a black mark on the sales or service provider if it happens regularly. A clothing item may not fit, but it is rarely defective.

I am more amazed than merely disturbed that this is not just tolerated, but expected from major lens manufacturers.
Click to expand...
I think a few things are at play.

First, its the internet and both problems and praise are exaggerated. Second, people have different levels of “acceptable” performance. Third I don’t know that the QC is as bad as some people make it out to be but I do believe every company has customers with a poor anecdotal experience that’s very real. Fourth every company has had some problems but people get picky about which are worth downplaying and which are the end of the world and worth shouting about for years. Fifth because the internet people are now looking for problems where before ignorance was likely bliss. Sixth if it was actually a bigger issue I think we would’ve seen massive class action suits happening in this extremely litigious society.

Personally, I’m just kinda over the shock culture. I use cameras from many brands (like many here) but choose what works best for me and my workflow at the time. Some cameras I’ll likely never get along with for completely subjective reasons and that’s fine too so long as people understand where I’m coming from. My favorite camera I’ve owned and used was the M9... it was full of problems but at base ISO air was special... I hated the successor and the M10 seems to have righted many of the “wrongs.” The best camera I’ve owned (maybe not the best camera in the world but best that I’ve owned for going on 4 years now) in the A7RII... its not for everyone but the IQ is special and it’s extremely versatile. I’m strongly considering the Panasonic S1/S1R because of the increased size and I think the video looks better than Sony with less work on my end. I considered and tried the Leica SL back in January 2016 and thought the lenses were great but the camera was “too simple” for me personally. It’s a capable camera for many but wasn’t for me. I miss the Leica 35 Summicron and if I got the Panasonic there’s a great chance the 35 APO-Summicron SL would be on my list to eventually purchase... maybe the 90mm too... Fujifilm has QC issues with the XH1... they regularly ship feature deprived cameras (for the time) and are celebrated for firmware updates that bring their feature set on par with their competition. They also were shipping GFX lenses in them that had loose parts rattling around. Nikon has oily sensors. Can’t recall anything with Canon at fault from a QC standpoint. Leica S has focus motors failing. Hasselblad has a rough launch with the X1D and they’re still are doing damage control for the delays (fair or not). All that is to say every camera company has problems. I don’t think the issues with the 24-70 are the norm either. You rarely hear and read any of those issues from the premium Sony lenses and that’s really all I’ve bought outside a few. QC has likely improves for Sony and there was likely some growing pains associated with scaling up operations... its normal (for instance see how many recalls Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen issue as they grew compared to when they were smaller to use the car analogy). Look how many fewer recalls are issued with American made cars once they die scaled production. Both trended in opposite directions.

Back on topic though.
 
pegelli

pegelli

Well-known member
MGrayson said:
I am more amazed than merely disturbed that this is not just tolerated, but expected from major lens manufacturers.
Click to expand...
I bought plenty lenses, I've never had to send one back because it was defective or decentered. I think that problems are much more often reported on the internet than problem-free cases. Also Jim Kasson expects that good lenses are sent back due to inconsistent/inaccurate testing. I think these two facts are causing the angst that the majority of lenses are defective but in my mind this is an overstatement. Secondly, even if true what can I as a simple customer do about it? I just test new lenses and will send it back if there is a problem, but as said it hasn't happened to me yet. I know it's only one datapoint with a small sample (relatively vs. the total # of lenses sold), but it's the only one that matters to me.
 
iiiNelson

iiiNelson

Well-known member
pegelli said:
I bought plenty lenses, I've never had to send one back because it was defective or decentered. I think that problems are much more often reported on the internet than problem-free cases. Also Jim Kasson expects that good lenses are sent back due to inconsistent/inaccurate testing. I think these two facts are causing the angst that the majority of lenses are defective but in my mind this is an overstatement. Secondly, even if true what can I as a simple customer do about it? I just test new lenses and will send it back if there is a problem, but as said it hasn't happened to me yet. I know it's only one datapoint with a small sample (relatively vs. the total # of lenses sold), but it's the only one that matters to me.
Click to expand...
Also who knows how many are returned and then are sold again as “new.”
 
picman

picman

Member
Antonio Correia said:
I have not yet understood how you guys evaluate a good copy of a lens.
How do you separate a good from a bad copy of a lens ?
What do you do ?
How ?
Which tests am I supposed to perform ?
Never Googled about this, it is true... :(
Click to expand...
I use test charts to do an indoor verification of the decentering and resolution and I also do some outdoor shots. Thus for instance my first copy of the 16-35 Zeiss f4 was decentered and had to be returned. Second copy was fine. The 24-70 was fine from the first copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top