Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Zeiss ZA 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM
#1
Good but I expected a little more at 24mm ... and there's the well-known bokeh issue.[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/600-zeiss2470f28ff"]http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/600-zeiss2470f28ff[/url]
#2
Despite its name, the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 does not seem that much better than the Nikon and Canon equivalents. Guess for a given focal length range and aperture, there is a limit to how much one can achieve optically.
#3
another useful PZ review for lonely sony land thank you - maybe i should make a comment being one of the sony few here, but i'm afraid i don't know much techo stuff -



- anyway, i have this lens and find it nice in the centre as reviewed, and apart from being a tad soft in the extreme corners really not too bad at the edges - that is if i focus towards the edges?? - hmmm -



the problem i did have when i bought it and was checking it out was the bokeh at 50mm and f2.8 - not nice and not too unlike a mirror lens, but it seemed to be somewhat isolated to around these settings as i remember, so i haven't been there since and the reality for me is that i don't use this 24-70 range a lot -



so maybe not perfect but it does make nice pictures for the family album if you're trying to limit the heavy lifting on tour by carrying only one weighty lens and camera - and it does focus close - but it's not a lovely cz prime



[Image: 1225869326_SGYuZ-O.jpg]

a900,[email protected], 1/125th, f22



+ this shot i took ages ago @24 & f2.8 and already posted elsewhere - (well i can't remember anything recent at this length and lens) -

[Image: 1225880530_B3KSe-O.jpg]
#4
Frankly I've always been wondering about the hype about these f/2.8 standard zooms in general. They're too short to be useful for portraits (compared to much cheaper primes a la 85/1.8) and not really any better than more moderate f/4 zoom lenses but exceedingly more expensive.

The Zeiss remains a good lens, of course, and it should be easily possible to work around its limitations in most scenes.



Klaus
#5
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1300881071' post='7043']

Frankly I've always been wondering about the hype about these f/2.8 standard zooms in general. They're too short to be useful for portraits (compared to much cheaper primes a la 85/1.8) and not really any better than more moderate f/4 zoom lenses but exceedingly more expensive.

The Zeiss remains a good lens, of course, and it should be easily possible to work around its limitations in most scenes.



Klaus

[/quote]



Thanks for supporting the A-Mount, I'm sure that the Sony community appreciate the efforts.



Some general comments:

-In the forums (like when reading this post), Sony FF is missing from the Lens Review menu.

-In the Zeiss ZA 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM test (and I think in all the Sony tests), the "poor/fair/good" scale is missing from the resolution chart.

-Maybe you can add a resolution chart that shows "best in class" performance to show how good/bad the tested lens performs. For the Zeiss ZA 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM, you could have compared with the ZA 24/2.0.

-For the bokeh evaluation, you can also show how a "good" lens performs. For example the ZA 85/1.4 but also the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8.
#6
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1300881071' post='7043']

Frankly I've always been wondering about the hype about these f/2.8 standard zooms in general. They're too short to be useful for portraits (compared to much cheaper primes a la 85/1.8) and not really any better than more moderate f/4 zoom lenses but exceedingly more expensive.[/quote]

I'm not a personal fan of short f/2.8 zooms either, but there's some considerations... for starters, I'm not aware of a current standard f/4 zoom in Sonyland, only the more affordable Tamron derived 28-75 f/2.8 filling the lower cost end. The other area for a f/2.8 lens might be "low light priority" shooting, where DoF considerations might be secondary. Of course a prime could get more aperture there, but sometimes you just need the zoom...



Having had a look at current UK street prices for Canon, the difference between the 24-70 f/2.8L and 24-105 f/4L isn't that great anyway... best street price £950 and £800 respectively.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#7
Seems a lot like Sigma's 24-70



Sharp center, somewhat weak edges, low c/a, nasty bokeh.



How would you compare the Sigma with the Zeiss?
#8
[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1300909701' post='7053']

Seems a lot like Sigma's 24-70



Sharp center, somewhat weak edges, low c/a, nasty bokeh.



How would you compare the Sigma with the Zeiss?

[/quote]

I don't remember seeing the bokeh of the Sigma being anywhere near as "nasty" as what we see here.., just a little less smooth than the Nikon and Canon.
#9
From photozone review of the Sigma lens:



[Image: bbk1.jpg]



Would you like a side of onion rings with that?
#10
[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1300930160' post='7057']

From photozone review of the Sigma lens:



[Image: bbk1.jpg]



Would you like a side of onion rings with that?

[/quote]

Hehe yikes, I had not seen that.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)