I just bought a new Sony A77 and I got the 16-50 with it. Now, I have always wanted the Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70, but I am trying to figure out if I want that or a 70-200 2.8 instead. Not really sure how much I would use the 70-200, but I keep thinking it would be nice to have in case. Would the 24-70 be much better than the 16-50, or am I just getting the Zeiss name. I appreciate any help I can get. Thank you.
I say the following is best:
Keep the 16-50, it is made for the body, it is the right range, and Sony put plenty into it, it is very sharp and has few faults especially as a 'kit' zoom, might be the best one so marketed.
So that gives you ~24-75mm, very useful for most needs, and at f2.8. Its about half a heavy as the ZA zoom, much cheaper. You then have a free hand to buy more (!), free of the burden of doubt about the gen purpose lens.
So that is a fast modern Zeiss on a top sensor, with 75mm reach, you get the centre res, so if it is a Planar, all the frame will be great on APS-C. The sensor will not get past it.
Zeiss have also the new 25mm f2 for Canon and probably Nikon F mount. We have high hopes for this one, and any corner issues don't matter on crop sensors. The design looks like they did the job well. Here is a link: http://www.zeissimages.com/showreplies.php?qid=850
Jorge liked it. F mount ZFs fit Sony via a Leitax mount (as good as original).
As ken says, always keep up with firmware with Sony, they get so many cameras out the door, its hard for s/ware to keep up, and we see good improvements in f/w for most bodies, the A77 will be no different.
A 70-200 (native or Sigma) is an obvious second lens. Since you have $2000 you can splurge for the Sony G lens. That or Zeiss 135/1.8 + something else.
WozniakMac wrote:
I just bought a new Sony A77 and I got the 16-50 with it. Now, I have always wanted the Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70, but I am trying to figure out if I want that or a 70-200 2.8 instead. ...I have around $2000 to spend.
$2,000 will just about cover a 70-200. You'll have a small gap from 50 - 70 if you keep the 16 - 50, but the 70-200 is a really useful lens for a variety of uses, and since Alphas have in-body stabilization you don't have to weigh the same options that Canon users do with regard to IS or non-IS.
Of course, you've used a 70-200 on your Nikon, and you know the FoV it gives (although on the A77 it'll look a bit longer due to the crop factor), so if you really don't think you'd use it then that's another matter.
Being a prime guy, and loving the rendering of the 135/1.8 I say go for that
I used a 70-200 on crop for motorsport and only really shot at either 70mm or 200mm.
