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
- Thread starter ecsh
- Start date
Godfrey
Well-known member
Re: Bingo! I got a good one
It's all a matter of specifying what the spec is, and what the acceptable variation limits are. Most consumer goods have wide variation tolerances so you have to analyze the performance of a specific lens with your personal tolerance for quality in mind. For those who are more demanding, this is going to result in more exchanges looking for a good example.
The 24-70mm f4 has been tested, and then tested again, and again. :dh2:
It certainly is a nice lens, but apparently not a great lens like the 55mm FE.
Many of the tests are at 100%, and when comparing the 24-70mm f4 to other lens most are having difficulty "seeing" big differences.
I have asked a few reviewers of the 24-70mm f4 if they can "See" any difference in the images from that lens vs images from the 28-70mm Kit lens at "normal" magnification. Most have agreed that the advantages to the 24-70mm vs the 28-70 are the extra 4mm on the wide side (even though this is where the lens appears to be less than tack sharp); and the build quality.
I cancelled my pre-order for the 24-70mm with an A7, and got a 28-70mm and saved $900 (75%). I plan on using this saving towards the purchase of the 70-200mm f4.
After, these many tests, is anyone else ready to step forward and admit that, just maybe the Kit lens is really good enough, and that the 24-70mm is not worth 4x the price?
It certainly is a nice lens, but apparently not a great lens like the 55mm FE.
Many of the tests are at 100%, and when comparing the 24-70mm f4 to other lens most are having difficulty "seeing" big differences.
I have asked a few reviewers of the 24-70mm f4 if they can "See" any difference in the images from that lens vs images from the 28-70mm Kit lens at "normal" magnification. Most have agreed that the advantages to the 24-70mm vs the 28-70 are the extra 4mm on the wide side (even though this is where the lens appears to be less than tack sharp); and the build quality.
I cancelled my pre-order for the 24-70mm with an A7, and got a 28-70mm and saved $900 (75%). I plan on using this saving towards the purchase of the 70-200mm f4.
After, these many tests, is anyone else ready to step forward and admit that, just maybe the Kit lens is really good enough, and that the 24-70mm is not worth 4x the price?
There is nothing to admit here. Some of us are willing to pay 5x the price for that extra 3% increase in quality. Is the Leica Summilux-M 50MM worth 5x the times the price of Zeiss ZM 50 Planar?
With that out of the way, I don't know how good or bad the kits lens is as I don't have it. I am sure however, that it is good enough. For most people.
With that out of the way, I don't know how good or bad the kits lens is as I don't have it. I am sure however, that it is good enough. For most people.
nostatic
New member
I shot both. The 24-70 is better IME. On some shots it compares favorably with the 55/1.8. And it isn't 4x the price - if you buy separately (which you have to do with an A7r) it is $500 vs. $1200. However the kit lens is respectable, and only the individual can decide if the extra $$$ is worth it. To me it is, if nothing else for the better feel (build quality) and it being faster at the long end. Ymmv.
jonoslack
Active member
Well, I suspect that the experience of the users suggests that there is a continuum, with a bad 28-70 at one end and a good 24-70 at the other.
I only have the 28-70, but I'll probably get the Zeiss if I decide to keep on with the A7. On the other hand, my 28-70 isn't just 'respectable', it's really good, sharp to the corners wide open from 28mm - no special treatment required, it just works . . . . and I'm quite fussy about lenses!
I'm not willing to step forwards and say the 24-70 is worth 4x (?) the price . . . but a good copy of the kit lens is certainly good enough (as a zoom of course, not suggesting it's a competitor for a good prime)
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
For my needs with this type of lens I have been thinging since I have a great 25,40,55 and 85 that maybe get the kit lens again for the PR stuff. It was a good lens
tashley
Subscriber Member
I think the truth is that, on an A7R, the kit lens really is not good enough, nowhere near. Whereas the 24-70 just about is.
davidbogdan
New member
Mine came in yesterday and I spent a little time with it today. I did a handful of shots at my matching primes focal lengths and, although not perfect, I'm quite satisfied.
I also went through many images shot with my A900 and corresponding focal lengths from the CZ 16-35 f/2.8 / CZ 24-70 f/2.8 combination from over the last few years...And I found that, contrary to all the moaning and groaning going on, the FE 4/24-70 looks to be a very worthwhile acquisition .:thumbup:
db
I also went through many images shot with my A900 and corresponding focal lengths from the CZ 16-35 f/2.8 / CZ 24-70 f/2.8 combination from over the last few years...And I found that, contrary to all the moaning and groaning going on, the FE 4/24-70 looks to be a very worthwhile acquisition .:thumbup:
db
m_driscoll
New member
Picked one up this afternoon...I have absolutely no thoughts of my own...yet.
Cheers, Matt
Cheers, Matt
m_driscoll
New member
After rigorous testing (by others) and much discussion (by others), I'm probably OK with this lens. Thank you all.
Cheers, Matt
Cheers, Matt
W.Utsch
Member
Some other thoughts:
The new A6000 looks not to bad as a second body!?
Would only use it wit FF FE lenses, sold all my APSC's with the NEX 7.
If AF performance is as good as promised, still to be seen, the A6000 with the FE24-70 would be a great combination as a second body.
On APSC the lens will be a extremely good 35-105 with OSS for events people etc....
And i think the price of the 6000 is seductive...
What do you think??
The new A6000 looks not to bad as a second body!?
Would only use it wit FF FE lenses, sold all my APSC's with the NEX 7.
If AF performance is as good as promised, still to be seen, the A6000 with the FE24-70 would be a great combination as a second body.
On APSC the lens will be a extremely good 35-105 with OSS for events people etc....
And i think the price of the 6000 is seductive...
What do you think??
Werner:
I am also very interested in the A6000 because of the reports of excellent AF (including tracking motion). However, I think some of these sensor-based PDAF cameras from Sony depend on specific algorithms for the lens being used to give excellent AF. I think I'd have to know what lenses are and will be usable for this good autofocus. I'd also love to have a cheaper camera to handle some of the people shooting applications.
Regards,
John
tashley
Subscriber Member
Just a little heads up of an interesting thing I found today whilst doing the groundwork for my upcoming review of the 24-70 F4 OSS: I always do a focus shift test with a Spyder target and was curious to see what I might find, because there are some occasional inconsistent and unexpected behaviours. During the course of that test I discovered something i haven't seen before - a slight forward focus shift at 70mm as you stop down. Really. The POF remains in pretty good focus but the centre of the field of focus is certainly shifting forward a bit. So moral: at the longer end, focus stopped down!
tashley
Subscriber Member
Of course not. By definition not. Focus shift refers to the tendency of a lens to shift its filed of focus further (more usually) or nearer as it is stopped down. I assumes that the lens is focussed wide open and then not refocussed as the aperture changes. This is exactly why lenses that exhibit focus shift are are a potential train smash on rangefinders and are not a problem with auto focus systems such as that of the A7R.
However... a lot of people, me included, choose to use MF in magnified live view even with AF lenses, and this is much easier to achieve with accuracy when the lens is wide open and the DOF is helpfully thin, assuming a lens that doesn't have distracting aberrations wide open.
So the take away from this little nugget is, be careful with this lens at 70mm if you are planning to focus manually and to shoot at apertures smaller than F4.
Briefly tried the lens out today and decided to pass. It seemed well made but was just too big for my way of working and F4 just isn't enough for me. Of the few shots I took I was amazed by the amount of distortion visible in the RAW files when importing into LR5 and find it hard to believe that when a profile is released that there won't be a loss in IQ due to this.