p.6 #1 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
edwardkaraa wrote:
On the other hand, Leica M bodies suffer from several issues caused by the thin cover glass, mainly that they are fragile and tend to break, and the insufficient IR filtration [...]
TheSuede said that Leica used a low quality IR filter in the M9 and that materials are available that provide enough filtration at that low thickness. Maybe they were too expensive for Leica's taste... (hard to believe, but they also don't exactly go all out on electronics either).
p.6 #2 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
AhamB wrote:
TheSuede said that Leica used a low quality IR filter in the M9 and that materials are available that provide enough filtration at that low thickness. Maybe they were too expensive for Leica's taste... (hard to believe, but they also don't exactly go all out on electronics either).
I remember that too, hard to believe but unfortunately Joachim knows what he's talking about.
p.6 #3 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have used the ZA 24-70/2.8 on Minolta film bodies for a while and the film scans did not show any weaknesses in the corners that were too obvious on the A900, so I am personally very convinced it is the sensor cover not the lens itself.
p.6 #7 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Is this sensor cover glass thickness corner issue a fact or forum speculation, are there external sources for it? And if it is a fact, is it a more significant factor than the natural sharpness fall off in corners that exists in any lens? If so it should be easy to test. Just grab a SLR-type of lens and use it on a say 5D2 vs A7, or D800 vs A7r or similar.
I have not those skills (and sold my 5D2) but FWIW I pragmatically find the quite corner-troublesome Samyang 14/2.8 to be sharper in the far corners on the A7 than on the Canon 5D2.
p.6 #8 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
3 questions to Phillip or anyone else using this lens. . .
I'm beginning to notice a variety in the 24mm corner performance and wonder if infinity corner performance is inferior to closer focus/foreground performance - which in some shots seem pretty good.
Also wondering about battery life using AF + OOS?
Last but not least I assume MF is always an option? Sorry for the basic question but I've only been shooting (and thoroughly enjoying) MF lens.
p.6 #11 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
wfrank wrote:
Is this sensor cover glass thickness corner issue a fact or forum speculation, are there external sources for it? And if it is a fact, is it a more significant factor than the natural sharpness fall off in corners that exists in any lens? If so it should be easy to test. Just grab a SLR-type of lens and use it on a say 5D2 vs A7, or D800 vs A7r or similar.
I have not those skills (and sold my 5D2) but FWIW I pragmatically find the quite corner-troublesome Samyang 14/2.8 to be sharper in the far corners on the A7 than on the Canon 5D2. ...Show more →
Are you referring specifically to the 24-70/4 results, or in general? I think it has been shown quite conclusively that sensor cover glass thickness of the two Sonys is definitely a factor resulting in image quality degradation with many rangefinder lenses compared to using those same lenses on a Leica digital body. The facts to support this are explained in Zeiss's CLB 41 PDF document. (pg. 12)
For the 24-70, my feeling is the only way to be sure is for someone here to finally just send a camera to MaxMax (or similar) for replacement of the cover glass with a thinner material. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet - what are you guys waiting for?!
Could someone rent a camera from Lensrentals and scratch up the sensor in order to encourage Roger to give this a try?!
p.6 #12 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
rscheffler wrote:
Are you referring specifically to the 24-70/4 results, or in general? I think it has been shown quite conclusively that sensor cover glass thickness of the two Sonys is definitely a factor resulting in image quality degradation with many rangefinder lenses compared to using those same lenses on a Leica digital body. The facts to support this are explained in Zeiss's CLB 41 PDF document. (pg. 12)
For the 24-70, my feeling is the only way to be sure is for someone here to finally just send a camera to MaxMax (or similar) for replacement of the cover glass with a thinner material. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet - what are you guys waiting for?!
Could someone rent a camera from Lensrentals and scratch up the sensor in order to encourage Roger to give this a try?! ...Show more →
Thanks for the link, but I dont think anyone doubts that angle of light/exit pupil placement places a role. But I assume the 24-70 does not fall into that category.
So I was thinking beyond the 24-70 - perhaps a bit OT but the "A7's sensor cover thickness issue" get a lot of airtime here. The suggestion (/question) was that wouldnt it be easy to test with an SLR lens that can be put on either the 5D2/3 and/or D800 (and then mount it on corresponding A7 and compare). The discussion about sensor glass thickness and any potentially bad impact on the corners has never been an issue around 5D2/D800s etc (to my knowledge).
With rgds to the A7's, this forum has posts allover about sensor specifics and now suggested to be a possible source of bad corners for the 24-70. I am just trying to understand if these are viewpoints/speculations or established facts.
p.6 #14 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
wfrank wrote:
Is this sensor cover glass thickness corner issue a fact or forum speculation, are there external sources for it? And if it is a fact, is it a more significant factor than the natural sharpness fall off in corners that exists in any lens? If so it should be easy to test. Just grab a SLR-type of lens and use it on a say 5D2 vs A7, or D800 vs A7r or similar.
I have not those skills (and sold my 5D2) but FWIW I pragmatically find the quite corner-troublesome Samyang 14/2.8 to be sharper in the far corners on the A7 than on the Canon 5D2. ...Show more → rscheffler wrote:
Are you referring specifically to the 24-70/4 results, or in general? I think it has been shown quite conclusively that sensor cover glass thickness of the two Sonys is definitely a factor resulting in image quality degradation with many rangefinder lenses compared to using those same lenses on a Leica digital body. The facts to support this are explained in Zeiss's CLB 41 PDF document. (pg. 12)
For the 24-70, my feeling is the only way to be sure is for someone here to finally just send a camera to MaxMax (or similar) for replacement of the cover glass with a thinner material. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet - what are you guys waiting for?!
Could someone rent a camera from Lensrentals and scratch up the sensor in order to encourage Roger to give this a try?! ...Show more → wfrank wrote:
Thanks for the link, but I dont think anyone doubts that angle of light/exit pupil placement places a role. But I assume the 24-70 does not fall into that category.
So I was thinking beyond the 24-70 - perhaps a bit OT but the "A7's sensor cover thickness issue" get a lot of airtime here. The suggestion (/question) was that wouldnt it be easy to test with an SLR lens that can be put on either the 5D2/3 and/or D800 (and then mount it on corresponding A7 and compare). The discussion about sensor glass thickness and any potentially bad impact on the corners has never been an issue around 5D2/D800s etc (to my knowledge).
With rgds to the A7's, this forum has posts allover about sensor specifics and now suggested to be a possible source of bad corners for the 24-70. I am just trying to understand if these are viewpoints/speculations or established facts. ...Show more →
My impression is it's speculation (sorry Edward!). I don't believe Sony publishes exit pupil distance information, which would probably give a good idea whether image degradation by the sensor toppings would be a factor relative to other lenses.
In theory, the problem shouldn't occur with SLR glass due to the much farther average exit pupil distance, but could be worth trying a comparison anyway. While anecdotal, I can't recall reading any complaints about SLR lenses performing worse on the a7 series vs. native systems.
My gut feeling is that FE lenses, perhaps some more than others, sit somewhere between rangefinder and SLR lenses for susceptibility to edge smearing caused by thick sensor toppings, due to the short lens flange distance combined with optical designs intended to mitigate the problem (but to what degree?). I think the only way to know, specific to the 24-70, would be to compare a 'normal' a7 body against one where the sensor topping has been modified. You'd think Sony/Zeiss designed it to compensate for the sensor cover thickness, but who knows? I've been trying to find a block diagram of it without luck, but having handled the FE 28-70, what struck me about that lens was how far it's optics were from the sensor - the rear element is deeply recessed inside the lens. But that alone can't be a good indicator of performance because the FE55's rear element is very near the lens mount, yet it performs spectacularly...
p.6 #15 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Very nice! These images instantly took me back to my time with the ZA24-70 (on an A850). I adored that lens, but then again I was never much of a pixel peeper or corner creeper.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
edit: the forum is eating my links , just visit myflickr set
some more full resolution samples with good conditions:
p.6 #16 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Fred Miranda wrote:
I really like the color and contrast from the 24-70 f/4 samples I have seen. I have one on order and when it arrives, I will be able to compare it to my Canon 24-70L II.
Did you get your 24-70 tessar yet? I would love to see a comparison with the 24-70 II!
I've kept my 24-70 II and am using it on my A7R, but since I am thinking about dropping Canon completely, I might switch it against for the FE lens. (But only if it is at least as sharp).
p.6 #17 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Hi everyone,
So I just got my copy of this lens. Some initial thoughts-
Good
-The build and appearance is awesome.
-weight and size work well with a7r without extra grip. Very similar to E-M1 with 12-40.
-image quality is decent for a zoom
-OSS appears to work well. I'd say 2-3 stops, which on the a7r is very respectable.
-color is decent
-bokeh is pleasing wide open at 70mm
Bad
-24mm is awful from about the last 10% of the frame in the corners on each side. I mean really bad. I was hoping Philip had a bad copy but it looks to be indicative of the lens design. I can say to my eyes it looks worse than my 17-40 L on my 5dII. Even at f/8 and f/11, the corners are just a mushy pile of garbage. Focusing on the corners only helps a little.
-focusing is slower
-wide open aperture leads to low micro contrast result.
Please keep in mind this is after only a day of shooting so I will post back after further review.
p.6 #18 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Rickuz wrote:
Did you get your 24-70 tessar yet? I would love to see a comparison with the 24-70 II!
I've kept my 24-70 II and am using it on my A7R, but since I am thinking about dropping Canon completely, I might switch it against for the FE lens. (But only if it is at least as sharp).
I got the lens yesterday but it was raining here in San Clemente. My copy is well centered. I tested the corners using a resolution chart. (It's good it was raining)
This morning I took the lens for a spin and compared it with my Canon 24-70 II.
The FE 24-70 f/4 is very compact comparing to the Canon 24-70 II + adapter so it's a consideration for Canon shooters.
It's also well built and light. However, just like with the FE 35mm and FE 55mm, fly-by-wire focus is smooth but it's a negative for me.
Here are my initial impressions shooting at about 25 feet distance with the A7R:
The FE 24-70 f/4 is plenty sharp wide-open at all focal lengths. Micro contrast improves dramatically by stopping down to f/5.6. However, at the wide range, stepping down further reduces micro-contrast from the center and does not do much for the extreme corners.
From 24mm until around 30mm, the aperture sweet spot is between f/5.6 and f/8 and at 50-70mm performs fine at f/8.
At 24mm, corners are somewhat sharp at f/5.6 but extreme corners do not follow and look very soft. The same happens at 30mm to a lesser degree. There is an improvement at 35mm and at 50mm the lens performs its best. Very sharp center and extreme edges. Sweet spot is f/5.6. At f/8 extreme corners sharpen up even further.
At 70mm, I find the extreme corners sharp when stoping down to f/8. No changes going to f/11.
So, like many reviewers, I find the FE zoom's achilles heel to be from 24mm until 30mm at the extreme corners. It's not due to field curvature. Focusing on the extreme corners does not improve them probably due to astigmatism.
At 70mm, I found the lens sharp from center to edge when stopping down to f/5.6-f/8.
Comparing to the bigger and more expensive Canon: The Canon 24-70 II has better micro and macro contrast. Color rendition is better on the Canon. Colors are richer and a tad warmer.
Even shooting on a cloudy day, the differences in contrast and color were noticeable. The Canon 24-70 II sweet spot is also f/5.6 but by then the corners and extreme corners are already sharp. Stepping down to f/8 and f/11 improves extreme comers even further.
With respect to distortion, at 24mm barrel distortion is quite high (reminds me on my 24-105L @24mm) but easily fixed in LR. At 70mm, pincushion distortion is moderate.
The 24-70 II distortion is better controlled in comparison.
It's interesting to note that the FE 24-70 f/4 OSS has a slight wider view than the Canon 24-70 II. When corrected for distortion, the field of view become almost identical.
I need to do more shooting to get to know the lens but from my initial test the lens is a keeper but my critical work will be done with the 24-70II.
Fred
p.6 #20 · Rolling review: Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/24-70 ZA
Enjoyed your assessment of the 24-70 f4 Fred, which pretty much matches my new lens. I did multiple tests and found that I was surprised the lens perform so well after the scathing reviews that I've seen in many places on the web. I'm no longer a Canon shooter, but I'm not surprised that it doesn't surpass the excellent Canon 24-70 which is double the price. What it does do is provides some incredibly sharp images that are close to my 35 2.8 FE and the 55 1.8. I can't wait to see what your opinions of the lens are after shooting with it over the next few days. When I took it outside for the first time and did some real world shots I was not even tempted to return it to the dealer. There are four aspects to this lens that separated it from any zoom that I've used before, one is the OSS which is superb down to about a 1/6 of the second, the Zeiss look, the weight and ability to focus closely and accurately. This lens is definitely not perfect but will probably live on my A7R.
, just visit my
