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

jonoslack

Active 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?
//Juha
Hi there. I suspect that the 28-70 is quite a lot easier to design than 24-70. Added to which the kit lens isn't that cheap £450 in the UK.

Still
We're off walking in the lakes for a week and three systems is too many, so after much heart searching the A7 stays home and the EM1 with it's lovely 12-40 is coming as a companion to my M kit. (I guess I also trust the weathesealing on the Olympus better too!).

My son Silas is taking an M6 and a mint condition Nikon F100 which he just bought for£145. Film only!:eek: I used to love my F100, what a fantastic camera.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Hi there. I suspect that the 28-70 is quite a lot easier to design than 24-70. Added to which the kit lens isn't that cheap £450 in the UK.

Still
We're off walking in the lakes for a week and three systems is too many, so after much heart searching the A7 stays home and the EM1 with it's lovely 12-40 is coming as a companion to my M kit. (I guess I also trust the weathesealing on the Olympus better too!).

My son Silas is taking an M6 and a mint condition Nikon F100 which he just bought for£145. Film only!:eek: I used to love my F100, what a fantastic camera.
Good choice and have fun.
Get yourself a weather-sealed car too ... :p

Kind regards.
 

fotografz

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:
Because white absorbs less heat for the sport shooters roasting in the open sun :cool:

I guess Nikon never got that memo. :LOL:

- Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Good choice and have fun.
Get yourself a weather-sealed car too ... :p

Kind regards.
hi Bart
I think I have a weathersealed car. the hire car people delivered it through the same flood that caught my car! Despite being warned.

my car is still firmly in the garage and will be for some time. :(

PS I am taking the Monochrom (oh yes)!
 

jlm

Workshop Member
been watching that horrendous UK weather, looks devastating wishing you the best
we had ours in my neighborhood a year or so back with Sandy. 8' water level rise can be quite destructive.

a few locations nearby:
restaurant


this is the entry to a six story apartment building; imagine coming downstairs to this, but before the water receded:


a not-so-waterproof car (had been completely submerged, then poleaxed with that debris


all of the above within a few blocks of our home, which was fortunately 4' above flood level
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I have just written a hugely long piece, hit Post and got no server and lost everything I'd written so here is a much simplified version.

Today I shot harbour side aperture series with the A7R and 24-70. All focal lengths, all useful apertures, several iterations. I chose the best and compared them at 24mm, 50, and 70mm with F5.6 to my archive of shots of the same scene from:

D800E with Nikkor 24-70 F2.8
Oly E-M1 with 12-40 F2.8

People who read my review of the Oly lens will know that I contentiously (but correctly, naturally!) said that at 24mm it beats the Nikon combo for a 22" print because of the Nikon's less than good enough edges. As it happens, it does so at 70mm too, though loses at 50mm. Naturally I wanted to know how the new Sony lens fares against this competition.

Results are provisional. I couldn't place the tripod exactly where I usually do (there's a boat in the way) but I do know this scene very well after thousands of shots with hundreds of lens/camera/ focal length/aperture combinations. However (I know, I know, thread useless without pictures) I won't post images now because I want to do comparison shots (in more clement climactic conditions) that will stand more as evidence than opinion.

My opinion, however, after making prints and doing at lot of pixel peeping is that if edge performance for a 22" print is paramount, the Oly still wins by a little: but overall, the Sony beats both Oly and Nikon. Much more detail and fidelity and less noise than the Oly on centre, sharper edges than the Nikon at 24mm and 70mm and, though not as good at 50mm at the edges, notably more detail on centre and much less aliasing.

It is a compromise lens. I would have preferred it to be twice the price and have much better edges even if it weighed more but overall, against the competition that I own, it is the more useful lens. Edges are treatable and are as I say just about OK at this print size, centre is very good indeed, files overall win out. It is better than I feared if not as good as I dreamed. And when it isn't good enough for the shot you want, change it for a 55mm F1.8 and beat just about anything but an Otus or medium format but at a fraction the size and weight.

Pending a lot more testing, I am tempted to think that this might become my favoured travel and walkaround lens though I do need to do some distant landscape shots...
 
Last edited:
...It is better than I feared if not as good as I dreamed...
Tim, I like this line. I too dreamed for this lens to be stellar. It is a zoom after all so I am not sure why I let my dreams become so unrealistic. I am really struggling whether to continue my wait for this lens or start looking for an excellent wide angle prime to pair up with the 55mm f1.8 instead.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Mark, for my way of shooting, a mid-range zoom is absolutely essential. I have learned from long experience of my own laziness that when casually travelling or taking a hike, a zoom is all I will carry even if I have packed a load more. Of course if I am actually out to take specific images then I will take good primes, but for when I am ostensibly doing something else but want the ability to get good quality shots if something interesting crops up, the zoom is non-negotiable. So much so in fact that if this lens was notably less able than the Nikon 24-70 I would have got rid of the entire Sony kit and used the Oly for this purpose and the D800E for 'real' work. But as it is, I can increasingly imagine a world with far fewer cameras and lenses than I currently have!
 
Tim, I ordered the zoom to use in a similar way you describe. In fact, that is why I switched from the RX1 to the A7R - too use the zoom. However, I am afraid that my very positive experiences with the RX1 may have lulled me into dreaming that an A7R with zoom could yield similar image quality.

I originally got the RX1 to have a small travel camera for times when I didn't want to lug around my Leica S2 kit and photography wasn't the purpose of the trip. Then, I found a small pouch that the RX1 would fit into and began to carry the RX1 in the pouch on my backpack shoulder strap when hiking for serious photos with S2 kit. It was convenient to have the RX1 handy to pull out for a quick grab to help evaluate the scene and determine whether it was worth the effort to setup a tripod and shoot the S2 for a proper image. To my surprise some of those RX1 sketchbook type photos turned out exceptionally well and worthy of printing in their own right.

I went for the A7R and zoom in hopes the image quality will be good enough to leave the S2 kit behind on excursions where the bulk and weight would be a burden, but I still want to do some semi-serious photography. This is where my dreams for the zoom may be too high. I also got the 35mm f2.8 for use on the A7R when I want a small package, but expect to use the zoom the majority of the time. I am beginning to think I would have been better off keeping the RX1 and not bothering with the 35mm for the A7R, but at the time I didn't want to get myself in the position of wanting to carry 3 cameras at the same time.

I look forward to your more detailed review of the 24-70mm and sample images. The estimated shipping date for my 24-70mm is still a couple weeks away.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Mark, I am uploading today's shots at the moment and will post a link soon. They aren't perfect but I think they're pretty useful...
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
OK, here we go. All files are Camera Neutral in LR, with 60/0.7/70/20 sharpening (a touch more than I'd usually use for a prime on this camera) and clarity +12. Each main focal length at F4 thru F8 (diffraction kicks in visibly by F11, not terrible but there's no gain in edge sharpness). All the files can be downloaded as 92% quality Adobe RGB jpegs, at 100% size though I suggest looking at them at 50%.

Tim Ashley Photography | Sony A7R with 24-70 F4 OSS
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Corner performance is one thing, but what about (barrel) distortion, Tim ?
With bated breath and baited wallet looking forward to your shots.
There seems to be a glimpse of hope ...

Kind regards.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Mark, for my way of shooting, a mid-range zoom is absolutely essential. I have learned from long experience of my own laziness that when casually travelling or taking a hike, a zoom is all I will carry even if I have packed a load more. Of course if I am actually out to take specific images then I will take good primes, but for when I am ostensibly doing something else but want the ability to get good quality shots if something interesting crops up, the zoom is non-negotiable. So much so in fact that if this lens was notably less able than the Nikon 24-70 I would have got rid of the entire Sony kit and used the Oly for this purpose and the D800E for 'real' work. But as it is, I can increasingly imagine a world with far fewer cameras and lenses than I currently have!
Tim, your last sentence may be considered heresy on this site. You can never have too many!

Just as well you didn't post this on the MF forum - Dante would excommunicate you.

(Shh - I agree with you!)
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Lol, you guys...

Bart, the distortion is uncorrected in my shots and is pretty strong. I will be doing some illustrations when I write the lens up in full. Until LR has corrections it's hard to see what the end end result is.

Bill, heretics normally end up getting burned but I've been burned by the camera industry so many times already that I'm toast before the witch trials begin!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Lol, you guys...

Bart, the distortion is uncorrected in my shots and is pretty strong. I will be doing some illustrations when I write the lens up in full. Until LR has corrections it's hard to see what the end end result is.

Bill, heretics normally end up getting burned but I've been burned by the camera industry so many times already that I'm toast before the witch trials begin!
Tim, thanks for posting these!

RE: Distortion … I brought a couple of your shots that showed the obvious distortion into LightRoom, then manually selected and applied various other brand lens profiles … notably Canon 24-70/2.8 and Nikon 24-70/2.8 (Canon 17-40 also worked to a degree) … while not perfect for obvious reasons, it is quite close and gives some notion of what a corrected file will look like … (maybe it would be a bit better working with a RAW file?).

With a proper LR profile, the FE24-70/4 looks to be worthy of adding … because I use a mid-range zoom exactly why you do … at times I am lazy … (actually, for some paid work where everything is moving at a rocket-sled pace, it is often hard to do without one).

Of course the nice added feature is Optical Stabilization which most mid zooms do not have including the ZA24-70/2.8.

- Marc
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I also tried a couple of other profiles Marc and found as you did that they were close but not perfect, on the RAW files. The distortion is moderately complex as far as I can see, I'll shoot a series for it soon and try to get an idea of when, where and how much moustache there is on top of 'the usual'!

I'm totally with you on the stabilisation - I've been shooting using Auto ISO today, with shutter speeds at around 1x focal length and OSS on, and it just works, allowing me to think about the image - err, and the filthy weather. I gotta try the lens on some other types of subjects, early signs are that it's only moderate for landscapes. It has an odd contrast drop off toward the peripheries that makes it look like lower resolution than it actually is, as far as I can see. But I do think, oddly, that it might be nice enough for certain kinds of portraits when shot wide open. Maybe...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I also tried a couple of other profiles Marc and found as you did that they were close but not perfect, on the RAW files. The distortion is moderately complex as far as I can see, I'll shoot a series for it soon and try to get an idea of when, where and how much moustache there is on top of 'the usual'!

I'm totally with you on the stabilisation - I've been shooting using Auto ISO today, with shutter speeds at around 1x focal length and OSS on, and it just works, allowing me to think about the image - err, and the filthy weather. I gotta try the lens on some other types of subjects, early signs are that it's only moderate for landscapes. It has an odd contrast drop off toward the peripheries that makes it look like lower resolution than it actually is, as far as I can see. But I do think, oddly, that it might be nice enough for certain kinds of portraits when shot wide open. Maybe...
Yeah, people stuff is my main interest and application for a mid-range zoom … half the time I vignette such images to bring attention to the subject anyway.

I noticed the edge contrast drop-off also … but when you zoom in there is more detail than was apparent at first.

24mm is most used for documentary type stuff in close quarters … like a chaotic Bride getting ready shots with all her attendants … or shooting a dramatic angle of some sort. Anything really critical and I move to a prime like the ZA24 on this camera, or move to the Leica S2 over any mid-zoom I've used to date … including the ZA24-70/2.8 for the A mount cameras.

Thanks again fro taking the time and trouble to do these, and looking forward to your further comments!

- Marc
 

nostatic

New member
I'm totally with you on the stabilisation - I've been shooting using Auto ISO today, with shutter speeds at around 1x focal length and OSS on, and it just works, allowing me to think about the image - err, and the filthy weather.
This is one of my main interests in the lens, particularly for video. Today I shot my son's improv class performance. All handheld, had the RX1r and A7r/55. The battery on the RX1r was low (forgot to bring the spare), so I ended up using the A7r for video (small theater, another "don't want a loud shutter going off" location). Looks great but handheld there is some shake. The stabilization on the RX1r works really well for video, hoping the OSS in the 24-70 would do the same.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
An added benefit of stabilisation is that it makes magnified manual focus a lot easier at everything over 35mm focal length...
 
Top