swldstn wrote:
Liked the hood on the old Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L V1. It didn't move with zooming. Attached to the lens body rather than the extending tube.
Ditto, the old Canon 24-70 hood gave excellent physical protection to the lens and worked much more effectively at the 70mm end. Conversely the hood on the GM and Canon 24-70II is attached to the moving front lens mechanism so any knock to the hood is a knock to the lens mechanism itself. Also, the hood is virtually non existent at the long end of the zoom range because the hood had to be designed to work for the 24mm end. Its pointless and rubbish, IMHO.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Thanks for the size shots! It got me curious, so I fired up the Camera Size site to compare them to the Nikon as well. I found it most enlightening.
Well where is the advantage of having a small compact camera body then?
Seems to me all the reason has gone if the large aperture zoom lens has to be so big and heavy.
gyoung143 wrote:
Well where is the advantage of having a small compact camera body then?
Seems to me all the reason has gone if the large aperture zoom lens has to be so big and heavy.
Gerry
Image quality is why you may want to go with Sony, not necessarily size.
gyoung143 wrote:
Well where is the advantage of having a small compact camera body then?
Seems to me all the reason has gone if the large aperture zoom lens has to be so big and heavy.
Not at all. The Sony with the GM zoom is still smaller than the others, and the combo is substantially lighter.
Well where is the advantage of having a small compact camera body then?
Seems to me all the reason has gone if the large aperture zoom lens has to be so big and heavy.
Gerry
My Sony vertical grip never leaves my A7RII. This combination is still smaller than my old 1DMKIII. If I wanted a small compact camera, I would not be shooting a full frame camera and I certainly would not be attaching a fast 85mm lens from any manufacturer. There is more to the Sony system than dwarfonics. Regarding the reason for using such a lens wide open, it has nothing to do with the size of the camera/lens, but rather has everything to do with the final image. Please don't even think of looking at the long FE mount telephoto prime and zoom lenses once they come to market. If you will excuse me, I think I'll check to see if a ship date on my 15mm Heliar has been announced. I just don't know how I'll be able to handle such a small package.. Maybe I'll have to add an L Bracket, or some such thing to make that combination bigger and heavier.
JohnJ wrote:
Ditto, the old Canon 24-70 hood gave excellent physical protection to the lens and worked much more effectively at the 70mm end. Conversely the hood on the GM and Canon 24-70II is attached to the moving front lens mechanism so any knock to the hood is a knock to the lens mechanism itself. Also, the hood is virtually non existent at the long end of the zoom range because the hood had to be designed to work for the 24mm end. Its pointless and rubbish, IMHO.
Its a photojournalists lens, most PJ's hate lens hoods and those silly tripod mounts on the 70-200 as well, both get tossed because they either get in the way or fall-off.
Remove the hood and you're left with a standard zoom that's packed in the bag at 70mm (its shortest physical size) and its most useless focal length for a working photographer, its never ready to roll, and the lens is fragile (most extended) at its resting/working focal lengths.
I'd suspect most working journos actually prefer the current short physical length at their preferred focal lengths of <50mm.
Peter have not got a chance to respond to your PM but this is bad news . Return for new one for sure
petermendelson wrote:
Unfortunately I am returning my 24-70GM due to possible decentering. The right edge looks noticeably soft compared to the rest of the frame (too bad, because the rest of the frame looks quite nice). Good thing I didn't sell my 16-35mm and Batis 25mm yet! Very disappointing.
gyoung143 wrote:
Well where is the advantage of having a small compact camera body then?
Seems to me all the reason has gone if the large aperture zoom lens has to be so big and heavy.
Gerry
You're only looking at half the picture, many of us took a hit on ***stills functionality*** to come over to a ***multi-media*** platform. My current Sony multi-media platform is FAR MORE COMPACT than what I could achieve with the old Canon 5D3 outfit. Add in the IBIS and EVF and the GM 24-70 and you've got a package that's infinitely more useable for handheld multi-media.
Anyone complaining of the size for purely stills usage bought into the wrong system, they should have opted for micro-fourthirds.
p.13 #10 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
chrisgibbs wrote:
...Its a photojournalists lens, most PJ's hate lens hoods and those silly tripod mounts on the 70-200 as well, both get tossed because they either get in the way or fall-off...
That sounds like speculation to me. I can only speak for myself having used the Canon 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 professionally (full time) for about 10 years. I always used the lens hoods because they protected the lens, especially in crowds, and even kept light rain off too. The flare control was very handy too but Canon lenses are generally excellent in this regard anyway. The hoods do make the lenses much larger to store, so I can see how people could hate that. Each to his own.
p.13 #11 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
JohnJ wrote:
That sounds like speculation to me. I can only speak for myself having used the Canon 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 professionally (full time) for about 10 years. I always used the lens hoods because they protected the lens, especially in crowds, and even kept light rain off too. The flare control was very handy too but Canon lenses are generally excellent in this regard anyway. The hoods do make the lenses much larger to store, so I can see how people could hate that. Each to his own.
Everything's speculation until you either do it or see it........ But back to reality, yes, I've worked as a PJ over the years, all you've got to do is observe how the kit is used in a busy news environment. Lens hoods, tripods & lens caps are all given up for a decent filter and old hanky or shirt-tail to keep it clean.....ish.
Who you shooting for? Things may have changed with the up and coming PJ crowd.
Just incase anyones interested, here's a great documentary on one of the best photographers around:
p.13 #12 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Here's an example of the issue I found with my 24-70mm GM with softness on the right edge of the photo. I tested it against my Sony 16-35 f4, 11-24mm Canon, Batis 25mm, and Sony 70-200 f/4 on a heavy duty tripod with timed release.
The top is a photo of the whole frame taken at 24mm (I wouldn't use this photo to judge sharpness - I shrunk it a lot to make it fit the photo upload too).
The second photo is the 24-70mm at the far right edge at f/2.8 (the rest of the frame is nice and sharp already wide open).
The third photo is the 24-70mm at F/8, where I would have expected it to sharpen up nicely.
The last photo is the far right edge from the Batis 25mm at f/2.8, which is noticeably sharper than the 24-70mm at f/8.
One might say, "of course the Batis is sharper, it's a prime and you stopped it down from f/2." Yes, however, the 24-70 GM never caught up to the Batis at any aperture, so even at f/8 it is softer than the Batis is at f/2.8.
Again, this is JUST THE RIGHT EDGE in this and other photos. The inconsistency across the frame indicates to me this could be decentering. Hopefully this will not be a widespread problem.
p.13 #13 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
petermendelson wrote:
Here's an example of the issue I found with my 24-70mm GM with softness on the right edge of the photo. I tested it against my Sony 16-35 f4, 11-24mm Canon, Batis 25mm, and Sony 70-200 f/4 on a heavy duty tripod with timed release. First a photo of the whole frame:
One might say, "of course the Batis is sharper, it's a prime and you stopped it down from f/2." Yes, however, the 24-70 GM never caught up to the Batis at any aperture, so even at f/8 it is softer than the Batis is at f/2.8:
Again, this is just the right edge in this and other photos. The inconsistency across the frame indicates to me this could be decentering. Hopefully this will not be a widespread problem.
The right edge looks only modestly softer than the left but both edges appear soft, which I think is expected @ f/2.8 based on Fred's samples. Have you tried comparing the edges @ f/5.6 and f/8?
p.13 #14 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Thanks, yes, I compared all aspects of the photo at all different apertures as well as different focal lengths. The left edge looks fine to me compared to the right. I definitely didn't expect the lens to rival a prime wide open, but the unevenness in sharpness indicates there's an issue with this specific unit.
By the way, here is the center of the frame from the 24-70mm GM wide open at f/2.8. I am not that into the science, but is that some kind of color aliasing or aberration in the bushes - there are weird dots of color in the bushes. It's quite sharp though (looks shaper in the original large RAW too).
p.13 #15 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I sure hope I don't run into the doubts I'm seeing expressed here when I get my copy of the 24-70 Wednesday. I really need it to be a "does all" lens for it's range. I'm not sure where I would go if it doesn't work out. I already have a good 35mm and 55mm but wanted a zoom to do most all of that at the very least stopped down a bit. Guess I'll be finding out soon enough.
p.13 #16 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I was really hoping the lens would replace my 16-35 f/4 and my Batis 25mm, but if I have to stop down this lens to match the performance of my 16-35mm, and I don't feel I am getting really good results at f/2.8, then paying this much for this big and heavy a lens doesn't really make sense to me (I also tend to shoot on the wider end so the 50-70mm range isn't as critical to me as others).
I hope what I found is just an aberration (pun intended), and most units are as good as the sample Fred seems to have.
p.13 #17 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
How far were you from the focus point? What was the focus point? What is the distance to the trees from the front of the house? 10 yards more? 10 feet? I am not entirely convinced it is de-centered. I am not saying it isn't, but that isn't an overly flat field. Maybe if you focused on just one wall of the house, or a larger building, that would be more definitive. Right now, I am not entirely convinced that what you are seeing isn't just an out of focus region. Doesn't mean I am right, and I am not willing to argue it, really. But there is enough of a margin of error here to bear further examination.
petermendelson wrote:
Here's an example of the issue I found with my 24-70mm GM with softness on the right edge of the photo. I tested it against my Sony 16-35 f4, 11-24mm Canon, Batis 25mm, and Sony 70-200 f/4 on a heavy duty tripod with timed release.
The top is a photo of the whole frame taken at 24mm (I wouldn't use this photo to judge sharpness - I shrunk it a lot to make it fit the photo upload too).
The second photo is the 24-70mm at the far right edge at f/2.8 (the rest of the frame is nice and sharp already wide open).
The third photo is the 24-70mm at F/8, where I would have expected it to sharpen up nicely.
The last photo is the far right edge from the Batis 25mm at f/2.8, which is noticeably sharper than the 24-70mm at f/8.
One might say, "of course the Batis is sharper, it's a prime and you stopped it down from f/2." Yes, however, the 24-70 GM never caught up to the Batis at any aperture, so even at f/8 it is softer than the Batis is at f/2.8.
Again, this is JUST THE RIGHT EDGE in this and other photos. The inconsistency across the frame indicates to me this could be decentering. Hopefully this will not be a widespread problem.
p.13 #18 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Interesting. First I would mention you are seeing CA against a white background in the bushes as they are off focus and CA will be highlighted here.
Also the main focus does not seem sharp and not quite in focus. As Tyler mentioned above you have differing planes of focus which may confuse between the right and left side of your shot.
p.13 #19 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I agree - you need a much better test subject to look for decentering. Since the left and right edges of this photo are of the fence that is sitting farther back in the focus field than the main plane of focus, you can't tell much of anything by what is happening at the edges (esp. at f/2.8). Don't get spooked about your lens until you can try it against a much flatter subject. It may well be that a second good copy would look exactly the same.
Also don't let the CA at f/2.8 scare you. The bushes are not in the field of focus AND against a white background - a perfect recipe to make the CA look as bad as possible.
p.13 #20 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I thought about planes of focus, etc. but I really don't think that is it since I got similar results from flat surfaces.
I was quite far from the house - maybe 30 yards? Also, the center focus is quite sharp in the full RAW photo - the bushes as well as the wall behind it (the downsizing I did must have degraded the image). Finally, I shot the Batis from the same place and the same focus point, and yet at 2.8 the right side was much sharper than the 24-70mm at f/8, so I don't think it was a plane of focus / depth of field issue.
Since I really wanted my first impressions to be wrong, I repeated the experiment and refocused at different focal lengths and in different locations outdoors and indoors, including using a tripod and shooting a flat wall in my house with a printed letter posted on the wall on the right side - with the 24-70mm it was quite blurry and with the Batis I could read the writing on the letter.
Unfortunately I don't have time to post more crops but I will say this - I have owned and used many, many lenses over the last several years, and get a pretty good feeling pretty quickly for the general optical performance of a lens, and this one didn't feel quite right from the start even without pixel peeping, even though I really wanted it to work out. I don't mean to bash the lens - in fact I am interested in trying out another copy when one is available because I like what I saw otherwise.
