Archive 2014 · Sony FE 24-70 lens
p.1 #1Sony FE 24-70 lens
For those sitting on the fence: a Chinese website Shows the first full size samples on A7R
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=254&t=3732365&p=1
For travel, it will be ok for me. Some jpegs look mushy, like lossy compression.
One shot @24 mm shows wave distortion (not much, but visible), so I suppose the firmware didnt correct for distortion.
Carsten
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=254&t=3732365&p=1
For travel, it will be ok for me. Some jpegs look mushy, like lossy compression.
One shot @24 mm shows wave distortion (not much, but visible), so I suppose the firmware didnt correct for distortion.
Carsten
Jan 15, 2014 at 02:44 PM
p.1 #2Sony FE 24-70 lens
Thanks for posting the link Carsten, I have one on pre-order. Like you my goal is for travel/casual use.....still hard to judge even with these shots.
-Tim
Jan 15, 2014 at 04:55 PM
p.1 #4Sony FE 24-70 lens
thanks Carsten. Hard to judge and conclude anything with these shots. I have high hopes for this lens. guess we'll find out in a few weeks.
Jan 15, 2014 at 05:09 PM
p.1 #5Sony FE 24-70 lens
looks good to me.
I early await reports on it's size/weight and build quality, as well as focus speed on the A7.
I early await reports on it's size/weight and build quality, as well as focus speed on the A7.
Jan 15, 2014 at 05:14 PM
p.1 #6Sony FE 24-70 lens
I am really on the fence about this lens. I usually use primes, but I am looking for something reasonably weather proof I can use but still retain high image quality when I travel or am climbing. Not sure if this lens is worth it or just buy one of the FE primes and then stitch when I want wider. I doubt it will replace my primes, but maybe as travel/rainy day lens.
Ryan
Ryan
Jan 15, 2014 at 05:34 PM
p.1 #7Sony FE 24-70 lens
Thanks Carsten for the link
I also have one on order, and should be arriving within the week.
Having the M240 and M lenses, I have been so mindful of not increasing the size and weight of my gear, and when I first received the FE 55, I thought it would negate the advantages of the A7/r. But in use, you don't even notice the FE 55, as it is light and ergonomic. In fact I find the A7r and FE 55 lighter than my M240 and 50 Lux. I am hoping the 24-70 will balance well, and the ergonomics work easily.
The IQ looks very good, and I really like the color transitions and rendering combined with the A7r
I also have one on order, and should be arriving within the week.Having the M240 and M lenses, I have been so mindful of not increasing the size and weight of my gear, and when I first received the FE 55, I thought it would negate the advantages of the A7/r. But in use, you don't even notice the FE 55, as it is light and ergonomic. In fact I find the A7r and FE 55 lighter than my M240 and 50 Lux. I am hoping the 24-70 will balance well, and the ergonomics work easily.
The IQ looks very good, and I really like the color transitions and rendering combined with the A7r
Jan 15, 2014 at 06:27 PM
p.1 #8Sony FE 24-70 lens
Unfortunately, Sony's JPEGs are so horrible that one can't really tell anything until we see RAW files. If I were to buy into this system, Id probably start with this lens and the A7.
Jan 15, 2014 at 07:18 PM
p.1 #9Sony FE 24-70 lens
Really? The 35 and 55 are much more compelling to me. I think I might skip this one.
Jan 15, 2014 at 07:21 PM
p.1 #10Sony FE 24-70 lens
I can't justify spending $1000 I'm a 55/1.8 or $800 on a 35/2.8. I know they're excellent, but they're very expensive for the speed they offer. Just can't do it. Of course, I'm not likely to go this route any time soon, as my Fuji kit satisfies me completely, and I love the glass. I'll take my X-E2 and 23/1.4 over the A7 and 35/2.8.
Jan 15, 2014 at 07:24 PM
p.1 #11Sony FE 24-70 lens
Hopefully these are from a preproduction sample. At 24mm, the corners look awfully blurry even at f/8. If they are not sharp, I won't bother buying this lens. I guess we need to see the raws from a production sample.
Ryan
Ryan
Jan 15, 2014 at 07:32 PM
p.1 #12Sony FE 24-70 lens
'Unfortunately, Sony's JPEGs are so horrible'
So I have read, ad infinitum, but I always look for corroborating evidence these days rather than opinion alone.
Then I read this material which strangely enough presents a very different picture. Maybe we could just say they are less horrible than Nikon's and Leica's?
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dslrmagazine-sony-a7r-vs-nikon-d800-and-a7-vs-leica-m-test-sony-has-the-best-jpg-results/
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/Sony_A7r_vs_Nikon_D800e_noise.shtml
RAWs?
Gordon Laing reviewed them also, had this to say re a7r and D800e:
'By processing the RAW files from each camera using the same settings though, it's apparent both cameras can deliver very similar results at lower sensitivities: similar detail, similar crispness, similar noise. But it's still a fantastic result for the A7r to match the quality of the highest-performing DSLR, and another respectful nod to Sony's in-camera JPEG processing which using the default settings can out-perform its DSLR rivals.'
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/Sony_A7r_vs_Nikon_D800e_RAW.shtml
So I have read, ad infinitum, but I always look for corroborating evidence these days rather than opinion alone.
Then I read this material which strangely enough presents a very different picture. Maybe we could just say they are less horrible than Nikon's and Leica's?
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dslrmagazine-sony-a7r-vs-nikon-d800-and-a7-vs-leica-m-test-sony-has-the-best-jpg-results/
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/Sony_A7r_vs_Nikon_D800e_noise.shtml
RAWs?
Gordon Laing reviewed them also, had this to say re a7r and D800e:
'By processing the RAW files from each camera using the same settings though, it's apparent both cameras can deliver very similar results at lower sensitivities: similar detail, similar crispness, similar noise. But it's still a fantastic result for the A7r to match the quality of the highest-performing DSLR, and another respectful nod to Sony's in-camera JPEG processing which using the default settings can out-perform its DSLR rivals.'
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/Sony_A7r_vs_Nikon_D800e_RAW.shtml
Jan 15, 2014 at 08:26 PM
p.1 #13Sony FE 24-70 lens
Pre-release images have a low level of reliability, based on past experience. 24mm is the weak point, but the MTF is overall much better than that of the ZA 24-70/2.8, so here is hoping.
Jan 15, 2014 at 08:27 PM
p.1 #14Sony FE 24-70 lens
philip_pj wrote:
Pre-release images have a low level of reliability, based on past experience. 24mm is the weak point, but the MTF is overall much better than that of the ZA 24-70/2.8, so here is hoping.
I know you have said this several times, but in some important ways it isn't. One of those important ways is that in the corners at 24mm even stopped down there is a huge separation between the sag and the tang lines at the edges and corners. There is some separation in these lines on the ZA 24-70 f/2.8, but it is much bigger on this lens. Based on the published theoretical MTFs I think it will show substantial corner and edge weakness at 24mm, but we will see soon enough.
Pre-release images have a low level of reliability, based on past experience. 24mm is the weak point, but the MTF is overall much better than that of the ZA 24-70/2.8, so here is hoping.
I know you have said this several times, but in some important ways it isn't. One of those important ways is that in the corners at 24mm even stopped down there is a huge separation between the sag and the tang lines at the edges and corners. There is some separation in these lines on the ZA 24-70 f/2.8, but it is much bigger on this lens. Based on the published theoretical MTFs I think it will show substantial corner and edge weakness at 24mm, but we will see soon enough.
Jan 15, 2014 at 08:35 PM
p.1 #15Sony FE 24-70 lens
philip_pj wrote:
'Unfortunately, Sony's JPEGs are so horrible'
So I have read, ad infinitum, but I always look for corroborating evidence these days rather than opinion alone.
Then I read this material which strangely enough presents a very different picture. Maybe we could just say they are less horrible than Nikon's and Leica's?
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dslrmagazine-sony-a7r-vs-nikon-d800-and-a7-vs-leica-m-test-sony-has-the-best-jpg-results/
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/Sony_A7r_vs_Nikon_D800e_noise.shtml
RAWs?
Gordon Laing reviewed them also, had this to say re a7r and D800e:
'By processing the RAW files from each camera using the same settings though, it's apparent both cameras can deliver very similar results at lower sensitivities: similar detail, similar crispness, similar noise. But it's still a fantastic...Show more →
From my images:
http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/a7jpeg.jpg
At low ISO, the JPEGs are OK. Not great, but not bad. At high ISO, they either blur all the detail away into mush (with NR on) or are so full of artifacts that they look simply awful (as shown above). I'm spoiled by the outstanding JPEGs from Fuji and Olympus...and I feel the same way about Panasonic's sub-par JPEG engine (and Nikon's looks pretty bad in the test you linked to...they tested with NR on on the Sony shots...not as many artifacts but way over smoothed).
'Unfortunately, Sony's JPEGs are so horrible'
So I have read, ad infinitum, but I always look for corroborating evidence these days rather than opinion alone.
Then I read this material which strangely enough presents a very different picture. Maybe we could just say they are less horrible than Nikon's and Leica's?
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dslrmagazine-sony-a7r-vs-nikon-d800-and-a7-vs-leica-m-test-sony-has-the-best-jpg-results/
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/Sony_A7r_vs_Nikon_D800e_noise.shtml
RAWs?
Gordon Laing reviewed them also, had this to say re a7r and D800e:
'By processing the RAW files from each camera using the same settings though, it's apparent both cameras can deliver very similar results at lower sensitivities: similar detail, similar crispness, similar noise. But it's still a fantastic...Show more →
From my images:
http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/a7jpeg.jpg
At low ISO, the JPEGs are OK. Not great, but not bad. At high ISO, they either blur all the detail away into mush (with NR on) or are so full of artifacts that they look simply awful (as shown above). I'm spoiled by the outstanding JPEGs from Fuji and Olympus...and I feel the same way about Panasonic's sub-par JPEG engine (and Nikon's looks pretty bad in the test you linked to...they tested with NR on on the Sony shots...not as many artifacts but way over smoothed).
Jan 15, 2014 at 08:53 PM
p.1 #17Sony FE 24-70 lens
Of the cameras I've used, yes. Olympus is pretty close. My Fuji cams, though, are the first ones where I actually use the JPEGs sometimes.
I will say that the RAW files out of the A7 are spectacular, though. The bad JPEGs are a little annoying for quick sharing via WiFi (which I do often on my X-E2), but the A7 RAWs are exceptional.
I will say that the RAW files out of the A7 are spectacular, though. The bad JPEGs are a little annoying for quick sharing via WiFi (which I do often on my X-E2), but the A7 RAWs are exceptional.
Jan 15, 2014 at 09:41 PM
p.1 #18Sony FE 24-70 lens
I find the high ISO jpegs from my A7R ok, but it would be a waste of resources not to work with RAW here, IMO.
Even the RAW results are different, from different converters.
PhotoNinja has the best noise suppression, sometimes I prefer this to LR5. Capture One has been my favourite until now, but I have so much crashes with the newest version that I use LR5 most often.
With optimal postprocessing, the FE 24-70 could be really good enough for 80% of my needs, surely for travel, but perhaps also for landscape when biking etc
Carsten
Even the RAW results are different, from different converters.
PhotoNinja has the best noise suppression, sometimes I prefer this to LR5. Capture One has been my favourite until now, but I have so much crashes with the newest version that I use LR5 most often.
With optimal postprocessing, the FE 24-70 could be really good enough for 80% of my needs, surely for travel, but perhaps also for landscape when biking etc
Carsten
Jan 16, 2014 at 04:18 AM
p.1 #19Sony FE 24-70 lens
I really hope this lens sucks... I really shouldn't buy another one 
Jan 16, 2014 at 05:48 AM
p.1 #20Sony FE 24-70 lens
Jman13 wrote:
I can't justify spending $1000 I'm a 55/1.8 or $800 on a 35/2.8. I know they're excellent, but they're very expensive for the speed they offer. Just can't do it.
Seem kind of silly. I haven't bought the 35/2.8 because I also think it's too slow, but don't think the price is high considering the IQ. The 55/1.8 is the best normal prime I've ever tried including Noct-Nikkor and other really overpriced stuff. The FE is a bargain that wipes the floor with the competition and if it was f/1.4, people would probably complain about the weight instead.
I can't justify spending $1000 I'm a 55/1.8 or $800 on a 35/2.8. I know they're excellent, but they're very expensive for the speed they offer. Just can't do it.
Seem kind of silly. I haven't bought the 35/2.8 because I also think it's too slow, but don't think the price is high considering the IQ. The 55/1.8 is the best normal prime I've ever tried including Noct-Nikkor and other really overpriced stuff. The FE is a bargain that wipes the floor with the competition and if it was f/1.4, people would probably complain about the weight instead.
Jan 16, 2014 at 09:52 AM