Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 opinions solicited re: landscape

[mhespenheide]

I know this is a tough thing to answer, but what's your opinion on the performance and value of the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 zoom?

I'm primarily a landscape guy, so I'm looking for corner-to-corner resolution, primarily between f/8 to f/16. Maybe sometimes f/5.6, but not too often.

I have what I think is a good copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 zoom; I tried two of them and kept the one that was noticeably better. I rented a ZA 24-70 for a long weekend last fall and wasn't blown away by it, but it might not have been enough time to learn the ins and outs of the lens. I do think I got the AF adjustment pretty well, even on the rental. Unfortunately I'm now starting to get even more neurotic about image quality -- which to my mind is a combination of resolution, color separation, and micro/macro contrast.

Can anyone offer any thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark.
(cross-posted over on FM's alternative forum, as well)


representative work, if you're curious:
http://markhespenheide.com/landscape/landscape.htm

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Mark
I've used it for literally thousands of landscape shots and really like it. Sharp,contrasty and with excellent colour. FWIW!

All the best

 

[picman]

Hi Mark,

You can see some of the landscape pictures I took with this lens both with A700 and with A900 on http://www.zeissimages.com/index.php

I just started uploading today.

I really love this lens for landscape photography.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[MP7]

I am too considering buying this lens. Where does diffraction begins on this lens?

 

[kit laughlin]

+1 re. Jono's and picman's comments. This is an excellent lens on FF. I have never shot it beyond ƒ11, so can't say where diffraction begins.

 

[MP7]

I should have bought this lens from Kit.

 

[kit laughlin]

Guy and I both are two of the most reliable resellers of top notch gear here!

I substituted the excellent 50/1.4 and the Sony Zeiss 85/1.4 (and the Minolta 24/2.8). I am only using primes now, but that 24-70 Zeiss is as good as zooms get, in my experience, as good as Nikons 24-70/2.8. I could not pick between them, IQ-wise.

 

[Quino Terceño]

I think that ƒ11 is as far as you want to go before diffraction sets in.

I rarely use mine since I rather shoot primes (35mm and 85mm FL). But as you can read everywhere it is fantastic at 35mm.

 

[Ocean]

I should have bought this lens from Kit.

I have Kit's lens. While I only started using it on my A900 for few days, I really like it. I agree with Kit that the Zeiss ZA 24-70/2.8 is as good as the Nikon 24-70/2.8 but with difference strength.

 

[douglasf13]

As I've mentioned before, this lens is very good in its class. However, it does have corner issues in many circumstances at 24mm, so don't always expect corner to corner sharpness at 24mm.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I got this lens so the 850 could act as a backup to my M9 - something I can throw in checked luggage to have on hand just in case. It's very good, about as good as these zooms ever get. Soft in the extreme corners at 24mm, but it doesn't take much zooming (magnification) to stop using that portion of the image circle. Maybe even before it gets to 26mm. Whether it's a problem depends on your needs; doesn't bother me. (My Leica WATE is also slightly soft in the extreme corners at 16mm, and it doesn't bother me either. I just never have significant image content there.)

For me a 70-200 or 70-300 zoom is where a DSLR earns its keep. And the Sony 70-200/2.8 is great. I'm happy enough with the CZJ 35/2.4 Flektogon, Pentax SMC 50/1.4, Helios 44-2 (58/2), and other M42 lenses that I occasionally feel throwing the 35/2.4 and 50/1.4 in luggage for backup purposes might work just as well and I should really sell the ZA 24-70...

 

[MP7]

Hi Kit,
You sold the ZA135 and kept the ZA85, what makes you go this direction? I would like to know since I am also considering the 85mm as well. If the 85mm is due to shorter focal length compare to the 135mm, then how good is the Sony ZA85 compare to the Canon 1.2/85L?


Jan,
I agree with you regarding to the 70-200. My question to your is how good the Sony 70-200 compare to the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark II?

 

[kit laughlin]

Hello MP7,

For me and the work I am doing presently, the 85mm focal length just works better in the studio. As well, I have both the 100/2 and the 100/2.8 macro (the ƒ2 Minolta, and the ƒ2.8 "Sony". I find myself using the 85 for portraits, where it pretty much lives at ƒ2 (and I find it to be as good optically as the 135) and the 100 macro is used anywhere between ƒ2.8, where it is really sharp, to ƒ8, where it is as good as any lens I have.

I have no experience with the Canon 85/1.2, so can't comment there—what I can say is that any differences in rendering cannot be viewed as "faults": all are superb lenses. Any will make great images, IMHO.

 

[MP7]

Thanks Kit

 

[Tony Beach]

My copy was very good even wide open across its zoom range, and from 30mm and longer it was also very good edge to edge, but for edge to edge resolution wider than 30m I considered it pretty poor. I sold my copy and now shoot most of my landscape photography with a Schneider 28/2.8 Super Angulon PC.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Keep the Tamron and by the 16-35 CZ. You won't regret it.

 

[edwardkaraa]

My copy was very good even wide open across its zoom range, and from 30mm and longer it was also very good edge to edge, but for edge to edge resolution wider than 30m I considered it pretty poor. I sold my copy and now shoot most of my landscape photography with a Schneider 28/2.8 Super Angulon PC.

I would be very interested to hear more about your impressions of the super angulon, Tony. Thanks!

 

[Tony Beach]

I would be very interested to hear more about your impressions of the super angulon, Tony. Thanks!

At equal magnification, it matches my Sony 50/1.4 and Sigma 105/2.8. The shift function is great to have in the field as it allows me to set my tripod up level and then adjust the FOV while avoiding converging lines (except in relatively extreme circumstances). Flare is reasonably well controlled, and vignetting needs to be watched for as it is shifted past 8mm; by 10mm shift I'm at f/16.

I have to watch the aperture and the focus rings though, because if they get inadvertently bumped a shot can be messed up without my being aware of it, same with the aperture lever which I sometimes forget to engage before taking a shot -- so I end up keeping a mental checklist when using it.

My other niggle with the lens is that no EXIF data on the aperture used is recorded. I blame Sony for this mostly though as it would have been possible to manually put the maximum aperture and focal length in (which my D200 and D300 cameras allow) and then have the aperture recorded.

For most users who are not routinely doing landscape and architecture, I would recommend the Zeiss 24/2 instead. The Super Angulon has no AF and it's relatively slow for an expensive prime (although faster than Nikon's 24/3.5 PC-E).

 

[edwardkaraa]

Thank you Tony! Do you feel the Schneider has any special drawing style? Closer to Zeiss, Leica? In terms of micro contrast, 3D, resolving power?

Cheers,
Edward

 

[Tony Beach]

Thank you Tony! Do you feel the Schneider has any special drawing style? Closer to Zeiss, Leica? In terms of micro contrast, 3D, resolving power?

Cheers,
Edward

No different than the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 (that I see) in that regard.