p.3 #1 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
No pressure or demands from me all you've done is fantastic and personally I get more out of the images are doing at different focal lengths. Could be an interesting test though at some point.
p.3 #3 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
For those asking how the Sony might compare to a standard 24-70, I performed a test series with the Tamron 24-70VC on my D600 today. The weakest focal length on the Tamron is 35mm. Note that for the corner shots I had to tilt the lens because I chose to use the same subject as the center/edge, so there's some distortion on 24mm - 35mm.
p.3 #6 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
dennishh wrote:
I just read that people on Google+ were sending their 24-70s back and getting a second copy which appears to be better than the first.
link?
What I have seen so far doesn't look like an optical defect to me, but I could be wrong.
I used the lens in an dark environment today and the OSS was really handy.
Next update this evening in about 20 hours.
This zoom lens is sharp from center to extreme corners from 27-65 mm focal lengths.
At 24 mm, it is sharp to 19 mm image height, that is well out to the left and right edges and out to the corners if I crop to 5:4 aspect ratio.
At 70 mm is a bit softer in the center.
If people want this as a replacement for a 24 mm prime, I understand that this will not be it.
The lens has two weak spots, >65 mm and extreme corners < 27 mm, otherwisae it is a fine performer. The negative reactions seem a bit overblown.
p.3 #8 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
I think it's fairly disappointed given that Sony has released the 35 and 55, meaning the the strength of the 24-70 is redundant. To harness the IQ of the a7r there are no native options below 28 or beyond 65. That's a lot of holes. Lots of users use lenses at the extreme ends. I had an A7r, thinking the Zeiss 24-70 would be like my a-mount zeiss, but luckily (now) the sensor was blemished, and I returned the A7r. I think I'll wait to see what Sony's new lenses look like. To me:
24-70 - disappointing
55 1.8 - extremely good lens, but costly and boring focal length (that's me though)
35 2.8 - slow and expensive, but with good IQ
28-70 - pretty good...for a kit lens
p.3 #9 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
I don't think the A-mount Zeiss 24-70 2.8 is noteworthy better in the extreme corners at 24 mm.
The highly regarded Distagon 25 mm f/2 ZE/ZF also has extreme corner smearing like this.
p.3 #10 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Well, yes, but according a lens roadmap somewhere out there, Sony, will be introducing a wide angle about mid year. And it will be interesting to see what manual focus lenses Zeiss produces. Seeing what the form factor of the A7/r + FE35/2.8 is, a MF 25/2 and 35/2 is all I would need.
p.3 #11 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Jman13 wrote:
That's embarrassing frankly. A moderate aperture 24-70 should be able to produce extremely sharp images across the frame at f/11.
The tiny Panasonic 12-32 pancake zoom is sharper than this when wide open.
Can you back that up with an apple to apple comparison? I don't think so.
Out of curiosity, I checked your review of the Pana 12-32 pancake.
The sample image for demonstration of sharpness at f/5.6 (Ohio National Bank) is available at 2 016 px × 1 534 px when I click the green arrow for "Full resolution". There is not much subject detail in the extreme corners. But for what there is, I wanted to compare to Phillips's full size image at 24 mm f/8 and f/11 (equivalent to 12 mm f/4 and f/5.6). After download I applied CA correction (that I assume is applied in your image) and resized to 2301 x 1534 px. Comparing lower left corners, I find the 24-70 to be sharper than the 12-32 in the extreme corner.
p.3 #12 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Just so people understand, the a-mount does sharpen up very in the corners at all settings, most notably 24mm. It does this, despite that it's several years older and a whole stop faster.
p.3 #13 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Just so people understand, the a-mount does sharpen up very in the corners at all settings, most notably 24mm. It does this, despite that it's several years older and a whole stop faster.
Photozone extreme corners is measured as the average from about 17-20 mm image height. The extreme corner softness of the FE 24-70 starts at about 19 mm image height. That is mainly outside the outmost black rectangles here: http://www.photozone.de/lens-test-faq
p.3 #14 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Yes, because THAT'S an apples to apples comparison. Give me a break. A little defensive are we? I'm going off my experience with the 12-32 and the images Phillip provided. While the corners of the 12-32 aren't flawless, they are reasonably sharp. The samples Philip provided show extreme softness in the corners. Can I do a direct comparison? No. But I can say that the 12-32 produces acceptably sharp images into the corners, while the 24-70 does not. Considering the 24-70 is a $1200 lens, that's kind of sad.
Here's a 100% crop of that shot from the upper left corner at 12mm f/5.6.
alundeb wrote:
Can you back that up with an apple to apple comparison? I don't think so.
Out of curiosity, I checked your review of the Pana 12-32 pancake.
The sample image for demonstration of sharpness at f/5.6 (Ohio National Bank) is available at 2 016 px × 1 534 px when I click the green arrow for "Full resolution". There is not much subject detail in the extreme corners. But for what there is, I wanted to compare to Phillips's full size image at 24 mm f/8 and f/11 (equivalent to 12 mm f/4 and f/5.6). After download I applied CA correction (that I assume is applied in your image) and resized to 2301 x 1534 px. Comparing lower left corners, I find the 24-70 to be sharper than the 12-32 in the extreme corner. ...Show more →
p.3 #16 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Take it for what it's worth. There is detail in the same percentage crop as the samples from Philip. Value it or don't.
I don't have a perfect flat field subject like Philip to compare. In my opinion, the corners Philip has shown at 24mm look significantly softer than what I saw when I tested the 12-32. Value my opinion or don't...I really don't care. I don't own either lens...it's not like I have anything to grind here. I'm disappointed with the 24-70 examples as I was thinking of getting this lens if I ever bought an A7....but when it appears to me to be worse across the frame at the wide end than a $300 pancake zoom, it's disappointing.
p.3 #17 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
The Sony rep that calls on our area said they will have a 16-35 f4 later this year. I will hope that will be a better choice. Meanwhile, I have my Nikon 14-24 f2.8, huge though it is, that will have to do.
p.3 #18 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Here is Phillips lower left corner at f/11 after some CA reduction and resizing to 16 MP. It does not look embarrasing at all compared to the 12-32 to me.
p.3 #19 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
alundeb wrote:
Here is Phillips lower left corner at f/11 after some CA reduction and resizing to 16 MP. It does not look embarrasing at all compared to the 12-32 to me.
This zoom lens is sharp from center to extreme corners from 27-65 mm focal lengths.
At 24 mm, it is sharp to 19 mm image height, that is well out to the left and right edges and out to the corners if I crop to 5:4 aspect ratio.
At 70 mm is a bit softer in the center.
If people want this as a replacement for a 24 mm prime, I understand that this will not be it.
The lens has two weak spots, >65 mm and extreme corners < 27 mm, otherwisae it is a fine performer. The negative reactions seem a bit overblown. ...Show more →
I agree with your point here alundeb. It makes a very nice 28-65mm lens. I think many people will find it useful, as in this range it has quite decent IQ for an f/4 zoom with good contrast, decent bokeh, and quite good sharpness. People should know about its weaknesses at both ends, however.
