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 F2.8 GM Tests

V

Vivek

Guest
Thanks Guy. Sounds like, the fact that you know two (not sure if that includes me or not) people returning their copies and that yours is perfect does make me feel that I just got unlucky. I will return and repeat and see what I get. But if you look at, for example, this file I think you'll probably agree that this is a bad copy of a good lens rather than a representative copy of a lens which has had to make major design compromises....
Tim, Have you considered changing you dealer since you seem to have string of bad copies from Sony/Zeiss?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tim, Have you considered changing you dealer since you seem to have string of bad copies from Sony/Zeiss?
Trust me it's nothing to do with the dealer - they are extremely reputable and they also never, every question a return. I couldn't wish for a different dealer.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Trust me it's nothing to do with the dealer - they are extremely reputable and they also never, every question a return. I couldn't wish for a different dealer.
In that case, if i were you, i would ditch Sony. Life is too short to be fiddling around with multiple samples of a nascent system with too few lenses.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
In that case, if i were you, i would ditch Sony. Life is too short to be fiddling around with multiple samples of a nascent system with too few lenses.
Ahh but your are not me! I use my Sony stuff more than any other system and when you get the right copy, their lenses are great. As for too few lenses - that's a Vivek windup, right? :p
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Ahh but your are not me! I use my Sony stuff more than any other system and when you get the right copy, their lenses are great. As for too few lenses - that's a Vivek windup, right? :p
If the use pertains to testing, it certainly makes sense, Tim.
(fwiw, There are even blog articles on how to test a lens with diy instructions)

You tell me if this system has fewer lenses (not considering the ones involving adapters and specialty manual focus ones) or not.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
If the use pertains to testing, it certainly makes sense, Tim.
(fwiw, There are even blog articles on how to test a lens with diy instructions)

You tell me if this system has fewer lenses (not considering the ones involving adapters and specialty manual focus ones) or not.
Fewer than what? I mean, I've had Leica, Phase One, Canon and Nikon systems and a brief foray into Micro 4/3rds and actually for the range of lenses I want, I have, with the recent new arrivals from Sony in FE mount, as much choice as I could want in native glass and a massive range of other possibilities with adaptors. For me, wide availability of lenses is one of the defining features of the system.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Yea the right side looks like it's smearing or just plain out of focus. Weird
Thanks for looking Guy. It's quite odd isn't it? No problem at 24 and 50mm and the smear shifts to the left hand side at 70mm but it's basically not useable as a zoom. Time to swap it out.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yea your the 3rd one I heard the same thing. Complicated lens design, so not really surprised in a way. My thinking there is a element alignment out . Could be very minor though but causes the issue. I'm assuming this though. Being a zoom they are pardon this term but built a little lose as all of them are because it has a lot of internal movement with zooming. It's my guess though but from what we know not all focal lengths are not great at every focal length. The weakest on this zoom is 70 although at F4 on center it's very good bout corners I would say F 8 to be safe. Not the case on the other side at 24mm which is actually brilliant even wide open but corners I would say get really good at F 4 and 5.6 optimum. So you can see that difference but totally the same as every zoom as there always seems to be a weak spot somewhere. This zoom will kick a lot of primes to the curb though from 24-50 and that's pretty amazing
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I've cancelled my 24-70mm F/2.8 order. It's huge lens, I have the Zeiss F/4 variant already which is not perfect, but pretty decent and I don't want the risk of sample variation.

I think I'm a prime man at heart. Less to go wrong. I will spend the money saved on a prime or two.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I've cancelled my 24-70mm F/2.8 order. It's huge lens, I have the Zeiss F/4 variant already which is not perfect, but pretty decent and I don't want the risk of sample variation.

I think I'm a prime man at heart. Less to go wrong. I will spend the money saved on a prime or two.
Quentin, I do understand that and I'm also quite averse to size and weight and have a pretty good F4. But I can honestly say that this lens, when I get a good copy, will be a must-have. It is really, really, really good - like having a whole load of primes with you. Honestly.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Quentin, I do understand that and I'm also quite averse to size and weight and have a pretty good F4. But I can honestly say that this lens, when I get a good copy, will be a must-have. It is really, really, really good - like having a whole load of primes with you. Honestly.
Tim

Noted, and I have been impressed by Guy's testing, but once you get a good copy, how do I know I will?

These quality control issues have plagued lenses from most manufacturers for years. I tend to trust Zeiss more than most because every lens is supposed to be checked. My worst experiences have been with Nikon (a 120mm VR zoom lens) and with Sony Zeiss 24-70 F/2.8 ZA for a Sony A900 I used to own (replaced with a perfect copy that I still have, now gathering dust).

I thus tend to trust primes more because they are less complicated (love my Loxia 21mm F/2.8 and G Master 85mm F/1.4), and often faster, smaller and better. I'm aiming for "medium format" digital quality, no less and we are more or less there in 35mm format - if we get the right lenses (as an Hassy H5D owner, I am like you in a position to judge). A dodgy zoom can ruin your day if a critical shot is spoilt!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yea it's sometimes a crap shoot but at least with this GM the number is really low . Not mass hysteria at least.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Yea it's sometimes a crap shoot but at least with this GM the number is really low . Not mass hysteria at least.
Guy and Quentin,

I picked up a replacement today and it is still dodgy and in exactly the same sort of way. I can't run a comparison new against old though on Thursday I will be able to replicate some of the test scenes I shot the first copy on but today I shot another scene, a cityscape that I often use, and we have very blurry right hand side at 35mm and that shifts to the left at 70mm. For my own comparison I shot my 24-70 f4 lens on the same scene and though the f2.8 is better in the areas where it has achieved focus, overall at these focal lengths and especially at f4 and 35mm, the F4 lens absolutely trounces the f2.8 version. Simply no contest because the blur on the side at 35mm is so bad on the more expensive lens.

So that's two in a row now...

I'm away from base and LR has gone irreperably wrong on the only machine I have with me (it's an older machine and I can't update to a version that reads the A7RII files, patch fails) so these are exported from Photos to TIFF and imported into an older version of LR for viewing but no adjustments, then to JPEG for uploading. That means I haven't been able to sharpen etc as I usually would, but it's a level playing field between the two lenses at least. Take a look.

With the F4 lens
With the F2.8 lens

Both AF on the central mid-distance flat building with two windows. I will need to shoot these again with all due rigour on but I think it's clear the F2.8 lens has an issue, again....
 
Last edited:

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Tim

I'm lying in bed looking at these shots on an iPad, and if Im honest, neither impresses me. In fact both are shocking, with the Zeiss worse on the left and the G Master garbage on the right in your samples.

It just reinforces my preference for prime lenses.

It's depressing. Truly.





Guy and Quentin,

I picked up a replacement today and it is still dodgy and in exactly the same sort of way. I can't run a comparison new against old though on Thursday I will be able to replicate some of the test scenes I shot the first copy on but today I shot another scene, a cityscape that I often use, and we have very blurry right hand side at 35mm and that shifts to the left at 70mm. For my own comparison I shot my 24-70 f4 lens on the same scene and though the f2.8 is better in the areas where it has achieved focus, overall at these focal lengths and especially at f4 and 35mm, the F4 lens absolutely trounces the f2.8 version. Simply no contest because the blur on the side at 35mm is so bad on the more expensive lens.

So that's two in a row now...

I'm away from base and LR has gone irreperably wrong on the only machine I have with me (it's an older machine and I can't update to a version that reads the A7RII files, patch fails) so these are exported from Photos to TIFF and imported into an older version of LR for viewing but no adjustments, then to JPEG for uploading. That means I haven't been able to sharpen etc as I usually would, but it's a level playing field between the two lenses at least. Take a look.

With the F4 lens
With the F2.8 lens

Both AF on the central mid-distance flat building with two windows. I will need to shoot these again with all due rigour on but I think it's clear the F2.8 lens has an issue, again....
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tim

I'm lying in bed looking at these shots on an iPad, and if Im honest, neither impresses me. In fact both are shocking, with the Zeiss worse on the left and the G Master garbage on the right in your samples.

It just reinforces my preference for prime lenses.

It's depressing. Truly.
I'll have one more try. Fortune favours the persistent.
 

ShooterSteve

New member
This is very sad indeed. How Sony can sell a lens for $2200 and have QC issues is very disappointing. Considering their service is also questionable, it's hard to want to invest in any of their new lenses at this time.

The count is back down to two people. I don't consider it a QCexcept for those two people so far. The sky is falling don't apply here
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Viramati

Member
Tim I really feel for you, what a pain. I am sorted of tempted by this lens but the hassle of trying to get a decent copy sort of worries me. When I bought the Loxia 21 it was slightly decentered but I decided that with Zeiss it was better to send it back for service and within 3 weeks I got back a perfect lens. Now if only you could do this with Sony but I should imagine the chances of getting them to correct the lens to within it's parameters would be be a nightmare if my past dealings with there service department are anything to go by. Also as good as the dealer is I wonder if they then resell your rejected lens as an open box return and then some poor other punter has to deal with it or do they return it to Sony. I ask this as I see one very reputable dealer here in the UK already has a 85 GM listed as an open box return
 
Top