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!

Sony 24-70 F4 Lens

tashley

tashley

Subscriber Member
Well, I agree with all the above. An MTG graph is more useful in identifying relative performance across the frame and across apertures, than it is for comparing lenses to other lenses.

Even if there were an absolute methodology that all manufacturers stuck to, we still wouldn't have much of a useful guide to the lens in real world use. Different photographers tend to shoot in different ways and a lens that is fantastic for portraits might be weak for landscapes. And a lens that has sharp edges and corners on a 3 metre distant brick wall (and there are photographers for whom that sort of performance matters, I am one of them) may be soft at the edges at landscape distances.

Similarly, field curvature and focus shift can combine to make tests very hard to understand and execute. The shape of a scene can make a poor lens look great or a great lens look poor.

Case in point: I have been testing my 24-70 OSS indoors on bookshelf type shots because the weather is filthy outside. I am so far none the wiser. It takes a lot of shots on a lot of subjects at a lot of distances at a lot of apertures to develop a subtle view of what a lens can do.

So the 24-70 so far looks just fine, and very nice on centre. But it will take me a LOT more frames before I know if it is as good as the Olympus 12-40mm when shot at various distances and apertures and then printed to about 20" - and that is my current gold standard...
 
N

nugat

New member
The Olympus 12-40 is supposed to be as good as the gold standard Zuiko 14-35, although the latter is f2. I'll be testing my Zuiko against Tessar 24-70/4 when I get it.
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
tashley said:
Well, I agree with all the above. An MTG graph is more useful in identifying relative performance across the frame and across apertures, than it is for comparing lenses to other lenses.

Even if there were an absolute methodology that all manufacturers stuck to, we still wouldn't have much of a useful guide to the lens in real world use. Different photographers tend to shoot in different ways and a lens that is fantastic for portraits might be weak for landscapes. And a lens that has sharp edges and corners on a 3 metre distant brick wall (and there are photographers for whom that sort of performance matters, I am one of them) may be soft at the edges at landscape distances.

Similarly, field curvature and focus shift can combine to make tests very hard to understand and execute. The shape of a scene can make a poor lens look great or a great lens look poor.

Case in point: I have been testing my 24-70 OSS indoors on bookshelf type shots because the weather is filthy outside. I am so far none the wiser. It takes a lot of shots on a lot of subjects at a lot of distances at a lot of apertures to develop a subtle view of what a lens can do.

So the 24-70 so far looks just fine, and very nice on centre. But it will take me a LOT more frames before I know if it is as good as the Olympus 12-40mm when shot at various distances and apertures and then printed to about 20" - and that is my current gold standard...
Click to expand...

Sending good weather now. Its 81 in Arizona. Where did winter go
 
tashley

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks Guy - that good weather didn't arrive yet. Slower delivery than a new Sony lens....

ROTFL
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
tashley said:
So the 24-70 so far looks just fine, and very nice on centre. But it will take me a LOT more frames before I know if it is as good as the Olympus 12-40mm when shot at various distances and apertures and then printed to about 20" - and that is my current gold standard...
Click to expand...
HI Tim
I wait with baited wallet - incidentally, do you have the kit lens 28-70 as well?
my copy is remarkably good.
 
Godfrey

Godfrey

Well-known member
thompsonkirk said:
What's the point of a small camera with a humungous lens like that? IMO it's what's called a self-defeating behavior.
Click to expand...
Why? I thought the point of a good camera body was to fit good lenses and make photographs. The best lenses to cover 24x36mm format simply tend to be bulkier than pocketable camera lenses. Particularly mid-range zooms.

I often don't understand the assumptions and expectations on these forums. The Sony A7/A7r bodies are not particularly small, they're similar in size to a standard 35mm film camera (Olympus OM-1, Nikon FM, Leica M4-2, M9). Lenses which are best for digital sensors tend to be larger than lenses designed for film cameras.

These Sonys may be the smallest FF, interchangeable lens digital bodies yet on the market, but they're still not small cameras. To me, the FF DSLRs on the market (and frankly most of the top end Nikons and Canons since the auto-focus, motor-film drive generation took over) are bloated monstrosities, which is why I refused to buy one.

I suspect that many have simply forgotten the lithe, svelte thing that a Nikon FM2n, Pentax MX, Minolta XD-11, or Olympus OM-4 actually was. Even the "big" Leicaflex SL or Nikon F/F2/F3 don't seem so big once you were swinging an F4s, F5, or F6 around for a while.

The A7 and the lenses I use on it remind me so much of my favorite Nikon FM and F3 from ye olde daze ...

G
 
tashley

tashley

Subscriber Member
I just spent half an hour photographing some lilies in my studio with a remote flash trigger and two 500W lights, using the A7R with the 24-70. IMHO not good for this kind of work, a LOT of quite fat purple fringing, even at F8. Not that it was designed for jobs like this but that and the large amount of distortion in uncorrected frames are not great signs so far. I need to use it for some outside stuff when the weather clears but my hopes are falling: the visual signature of the lens so far says 'compromise' and, to add to it, I may have a slight decentering. Pha!
 
Knorp

Knorp

Well-known member
Sorry about your efforts, Tim. But I would have been genuinely surprised if you had come up with an other conclusion.
The lens is a pig ... :cry:

I'm with Jono: the humble 28-70 is pretty decent by comparison.
Kind regards.
 
J

jlindstrom

Member
I'm actually surprized.. why on earth would someone make a decent, cheap kit lens to be better than the expensive premium choice? Or for that matter stick a Zeiss logo on a crap lens?

It hinders the Zeiss premium image in a big way and also makes customers second guess their future lens choices as to whether get a native FE mount lens or something else.

From a marketing point of view just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Oh well, maybe the "out in the wild" shooting by Tim will reveal something good to counter this dissapointment..

//Juha
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Damnit the lens I was after on e-bay someone got to it. Zeiss 25mm F2 ZF.2 Nikon mount...

I'm pulling my hair out now. Really hard to find used
 
mjm6

mjm6

Member
Guy,

You have to first remember to stop talking up a lens until AFTER you buy it! Hahaha...

I know you didn't do too much of that, but I did notice a mention about it in another thread...

No, I didn't buy it... but the conversation did make me look into what lenses people were discussing a little, especially as the 24/25mm FL is one of my favorite.
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yea should keep my bloody mouth shut. someone stole it right from underneath me. Hope they choke on artichokes. LOL
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I can't simple find one for 1200 /1300 unless I go to Hong Kong. I was waiting for my auction to end before I can pull the trigger on it. Ill go get lunch and calm down. Anyone browsing around and see one let me know. There is a Canon mount but I don't want to buy another expensive adapter. I have my Nikon adapter
 
Knorp

Knorp

Well-known member
So much wanted to have at least one native FE OSS lens and this 24-70/4.0 seemed to fit the bill.
Oh well, let's see what's next in line: the 70-200/4.0 OSS ?
But why-o-why is it white ... :facesmack:

:chug:
 
tashley

tashley

Subscriber Member
Knorp said:
Sorry about your efforts, Tim. But I would have been genuinely surprised if you had come up with an other conclusion.
The lens is a pig ... :cry:

I'm with Jono: the humble 28-70 is pretty decent by comparison.
Kind regards.
Click to expand...
I dearly hope you're wrong! The 28-70 sounds like it does well on the A7 but my copy, on the R, is basically an APS-C lens with a wide image circle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top