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!

Pixel Paradise: A7R with 24-70, 28-70 and 55 F1.8 compared.

jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
tashley said:
Final word: at 50mm and F8 I can use a bit of PP to make it look near as damn it as good as the 55mm F1.8, the 'best AF lens DXO has ever tested'. Sure, that is the peak of the zoom's performance but I see its softer edges at other apertures as something I can work with positively and creatively. I wouldn't have chosen them but I will find ways of using them.
Click to expand...
Thank you Tim
I'm convinced.
 
T

turtle

New member
Tim, did I hear you say that you would 'make it work'? You do realise this goes against the cardinal rule for reviewing equipment, which is you find a flaw, throw your hands in the air in defeat, write an open letter to the manufacturer, then go back to ultra-demanding photographic needs (pets, fences, brick walls, the lawn...) :D

My attitude is the same as yours. This is the mid range zoom they have made.... can one make it work and produce great images or not?
 
tashley

tashley

Subscriber Member
Yes one quite certainly can. It's going to live on one of my bodies full time so as to keep the sensor nice and clean and when I travel I'll pack the 35 F2.8 just in case. The other body will have the 55 F1.8 almost welded on...
 
J

jfirneno

Member
tashley said:
Ah! The good old $64,000 question...

It is better than the Nikkor 24-120 but has a shorter range. It's better than the Canon 24-105, ditto. I can't say what it is like regarding the current Canon 24-70, which is supposed to be very good.

The key question for 36mp addicts is, is it better than the Nikkor 24-70 F2.8G?

IF one is happy to trade the F2.8 for F4 + OSS (I am) then I think it is: if you took the very best performance of the best focal length at the best aperture of the Nikon, then it would slightly, very slightly, surpass the Sony Zeiss. However, the Sony Zeiss is useable at all apertures, and I don't think the Nikkor is - it is parlous at the wide end. I posted this recently in another thread and it pretty much answers the question.

But in summary, for my needs I give it a 80% where 100% is what I would really like (something pretty much as good as a prime by F5.6 at every aperture) whereas I'd give the Nikkor about a 70%. The Nikkor weighs more, costs more, does less (at least in my use so far) but feels a bit more industrial in construction.

I won't be using the Nikkor unless I am in poor light (very grey days, dusk, indoors with poor light) because the Nikkor's trump card is more accurate low light focus - partly because it is phase detect and partly because it is F2.8 - but only as long as you are using the central 'cross hair' sensels on your D800/E. For reasonable to good light, especially with focus away from the central zone and especially if you have time to work methodically, the Sony Zeiss is a notably more useful lens for my needs.

Having said all of the above, I have sent mine back today because it is a bit soft on the left at wider FOV and the right at 70mm. This is not at all unusual in mid range zooms, my 24-70 Nikkor is not perfectly symmetrical and I went through several 24-120s before giving up. I hope I'll get a slightly tighter copy soon, but even if I don't, the comments above apply.

Final Score: 3.5 out of 4 given the constraints of designing these things and the quality of the competition. My knowledge of precious metals is limited so I'd give it a Golver, or a Sold.

Final word: at 50mm and F8 I can use a bit of PP to make it look near as damn it as good as the 55mm F1.8, the 'best AF lens DXO has ever tested'. Sure, that is the peak of the zoom's performance but I see its softer edges at other apertures as something I can work with positively and creatively. I wouldn't have chosen them but I will find ways of using them.

This was a crucial lens for my continued engagement for the system. If it hadn't been good enough I'd have given up.

I ain't giving up!
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim:

Your Golver Award rating has me Sold (oh boy).
Honestly, 80% is more than enough for me. I've managed to take some of my favorite shots with an ultra wide angle that had corners that truly were mush (especially without live view and magnification assist). I think I'll get along with an AF OSS mid-zoom as a walkaround. Lots of fun.

Best regards,
John
 
P

philip_pj

New member
First things first: Tim, you put the better known review sites and 'commentariat' to shame, this is exactly the hands on 'all of process' analysis needed - not more 'weak corners at the extreme wide end', which most all mid zooms show as a trade-off for the extra functionality of a 3x. You buy one for the whole range and the point re keeping the sensor clean - both ring true for those who need to minimize down time given over to lens swaps. Too much of this can make you feel like a 4x5 shooter -;

I agree this is the key lens for the FE system, it has great specs but had to about match the DSLR Canon / Nikon offerings overall, so sophisticated users can buy an a7r / 24-70 kit and be well pleased. Just to add something people might find - what will eventually do in the mirror flappers for non-pros is the first time they pick one up after using an a7 /a7r for a while..they feel a bit like something made in the Soviet Union, lol.
 
tashley

tashley

Subscriber Member
Philip, thank you. I am planning on a full review at some point but I want to wait for my replacement lens: decentered elements can play havoc with tests and not just the optical ones: colour shading tests get skewed too.

One thing I want to test is my hypothesis that at those focal lengths and apertures where edges are soft, there's no real focus technique that helps much (as there often is with lenses where the cause is primarily field curvature) because with this lens I think the primary cause is astigmatism - the limited MTF available suggests that, as does the visual signature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top