Chris_88 wrote:
Thanks for the tip, Guy. I tried but the result was not was I expected: The f8 image that I took first turned out to be sharper than the second I took after slowly zooming back in to 70mm from 50mm or so.
Based on the crops posted in this thread, it seems that good copies are great even at 70mm. My third copy isn't de-centered, but even at f11 the extreme corners at 70mm stay soft. 24-50mm at infinity from f5 is excellent.
I'll probably spend the rest of my weekend pondering whether I can live with those crappy corners at 70mm or give up on the zoom and replace it with a fast 35mm and may be a Summarit 75. ...Show more →
If your second copy is pretty good all around except for a weak 70mm corner, you may get it back and try some more, using 60-65mm FL, F2.8 to focus, then stop down and shot. Manual focusing is not a good idea for infinity shot IMO, because the camera firmware weight the distance of the object and calculate a hyperfocus distance for you. I learn this by reading the exif of the raw files, which has a hyperfocus distance item in it. The reason to use F2.8 to focus, is that the distance will be more consistent than small aperture. I tested many times and found this is the best way to get sharp boarders. And you may try to use hyperfocusing at 1/3 or 1/2 of DOF in your viewfinder instead of direct focusing at the infinity object. Otherwise, the outward filed curvature of the tele end will push all the corner beyond infinity, and nothing will be sharp in these areas.
Agree try 65mm I had better results below 70mm a touch. See when I get this long I'm already pulling out one of my 85 lenses anyway so it's kind of rare for me to push the zoom much past 50 or so
Fred Miranda wrote:
Try 65mm on your latest copy and let us know.
Fred
taoger wrote:
If your second copy is pretty good all around except for a weak 70mm corner, you may get it back and try some more, using 60-65mm FL, F2.8 to focus, then stop down and shot. Manual focusing is not a good idea for infinity shot IMO, because the camera firmware weight the distance of the object and calculate a hyperfocus distance for you. I learn this by reading the exif of the raw files, which has a hyperfocus distance item in it. The reason to use F2.8 to focus, is that the distance will be more consistent than small aperture. I tested many times and found this is the best way to get sharp boarders. And you may try to use hyperfocusing at 1/3 or 1/2 of DOF in your viewfinder instead of direct focusing at the infinity object. Otherwise, the outward filed curvature of the tele end will push all the corner beyond infinity, and nothing will be sharp in these areas. ...Show more →
I'm on my third copy, and yes other than the soft corners at 70mm, this one looks pretty decent. You're on to something with the field curvature, it seems.
GMPhotography wrote:
Agree try 65mm I had better results below 70mm a touch. See when I get this long I'm already pulling out one of my 85 lenses anyway so it's kind of rare for me to push the zoom much past 50 or so
Fred Miranda wrote:
Try 65mm on your latest copy and let us know.
Fred
Thank you, Fred and Guy. As always, you guys were spot on. Here is what I've found out after some more testing:
At 64mm, focusing on the lower left corner manually yielded good results at f8, using small AF point came in second and using the wide AF array (with all green squares lighting up) came in third.
In order to get results that come close to the 64mm f8, I need f11 at 70mm.
I guess the key take away is to focus close to the corners. Having to carefully pick one's focus points reminds me of the a-mount 24 2.
Btw, just thinking aloud, how is the QC with the 35 1.4 ZM?
I have not heard any issues with the ZM 35 1.4 as far as QC. It's very very good on center at 1.7 and corners start coming alive at f 6.3 with F8 as optimum. So you can see it does have some field curvature. Did not think of it as a landscape type lens but will do it fine. Now the zoom at 35 will beat it faster in the corners so maybe more suited for landscape stuff but I have no issues putting the ZM in landscape shooting. Has a great look to it and really what it's all about. Seriously I could get away with the 24-70 and 85 GM for almost all my work but I love having some really good smaller primes. I'm pretty happy with what extra glass I have like the CV12, Loxia 21, ZM 35 1.4 and I'm going to try the new Loxia 85. Seriously I could travel around the globe with those 4 primes and not miss anything.
GMPhotography wrote:
I have not heard any issues with the ZM 35 1.4 as far as QC. It's very very good on center at 1.7 and corners start coming alive at f 6.3 with F8 as optimum. So you can see it does have some field curvature. Did not think of it as a landscape type lens but will do it fine. Now the zoom at 35 will beat it faster in the corners so maybe more suited for landscape stuff but I have no issues putting the ZM in landscape shooting. Has a great look to it and really what it's all about. Seriously I could get away with the 24-70 and 85 GM for almost all my work but I love having some really good smaller primes. I'm pretty happy with what extra glass I have like the CV12, Loxia 21, ZM 35 1.4 and I'm going to try the new Loxia 85. Seriously I could travel around the globe with those 4 primes and not miss anything. ...Show more →
Thanks, Guy. I initially got the 24-70 GM for the flexibility and its close focusing ability, which is nice to have for foliage shots. Alas, fall has come and gone without me being able to use the lens even once for that purpose, as I was cycling through three copies. In winter, I always use a 35mm or 24-70 primarily as a landscape lens. I probably have to use the 24-70 in actual landscape shooting to make up my mind.
The price of used 35 1.4 ZM's has come down a bit recently, which has me thinking about that lens again. In retrospect, I should have just kept my Sony 35 1.4, despite the somewhat weaker lower right corner. Never thought I'd have such issues with the 24-70 GM.
Has anyone compared the performance at 70 against the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300? I don't think the new 2.8 is out yet to compare as well, but since they all touch the same focal length, I suspect they will all perform better at 70 than the 24-70 from the feedback on here.
My thought is to just plan on avoiding 70mm at all costs unless it is the only lens available, and then stop way down if at all possible.
That's not a terrible penalty for a lens that seems to perform exceedingly well in many other ways at shorter focal lengths.
It's too bad the 24-70 f4 zeiss wasn't up to this level... I have no need for the speed, but I have every desire for the other aspects of the performance of this lens.
Has anyone compared the performance at 70 against the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300? I don't think the new 2.8 is out yet to compare as well, but since they all touch the same focal length, I suspect they will all perform better at 70 than the 24-70 from the feedback on here.
My thought is to just plan on avoiding 70mm at all costs unless it is the only lens available, and then stop way down if at all possible.
That's not a terrible penalty for a lens that seems to perform exceedingly well in many other ways at shorter focal lengths.
It's too bad the 24-70 f4 zeiss wasn't up to this level... I have no need for the speed, but I have every desire for the other aspects of the performance of this lens.
mjm6 wrote:
Has anyone compared the performance at 70 against the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300? I don't think the new 2.8 is out yet to compare as well, but since they all touch the same focal length, I suspect they will all perform better at 70 than the 24-70 from the feedback on here.
My thought is to just plan on avoiding 70mm at all costs unless it is the only lens available, and then stop way down if at all possible.
That's not a terrible penalty for a lens that seems to perform exceedingly well in many other ways at shorter focal lengths.
It's too bad the 24-70 f4 zeiss wasn't up to this level... I have no need for the speed, but I have every desire for the other aspects of the performance of this lens.
mjm6 wrote:
My thought is to just plan on avoiding 70mm at all costs unless it is the only lens available, and then stop way down if at all possible.
That's not a terrible penalty for a lens that seems to perform exceedingly well in many other ways at shorter focal lengths.
It's too bad the 24-70 f4 zeiss wasn't up to this level... I have no need for the speed, but I have every desire for the other aspects of the performance of this lens.
---michael
The way I see it is that this lens is pretty unbeatable in the 24-65mm range not only for IQ but the colours and the way it renders. At 70mm the edges may not be the best but at this focal length I find that at f2.8 the overall rendering is lovely especially the OOF areas when shooting people. It is so easy on the A7rII just to allow for this an either shoot at 70mm and crop a little or shoot and 65 and crop a little to arrive at a 70mm eqivelant as most of probably us don't ever need a full 42mp file even when printing large. Of course if the lens is decentered it is another matter
p.50 #10 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
That's the thing . It has great OOF areas and it just renders better than any mid zoom I have seen. It's my go too commercial / PR lens. When I want funky I'll go to my ZM glass.
p.50 #11 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I haven't purchased it yet, but I see it fitting perfectly with my 16-35 and 70-200 not in just for focal lengths, but also addressing the weaknesses of the 16-35 as well...
As I said, I have no need for its speed (I have some super speed fixed lenses for that purpose), but the rendering looks great, and the one-lens-fits-all is great as well. If it isn't perfect at the long end, I will be able to live with it.
However, I was hoping to not have to go through a few copies to find a good one! Maybe I'll get lucky.
p.50 #12 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
mine arrived yesterday, spent whole day shooting with it on a7rii. output-wise, it really feels like zoom covering 2-3 excellent primes! never thought this would be possible.
however, at the long end i couldnt believe my eyes either. did i swap the lens for some kit shit? this thread made me to buy it, therefore i was aware about the cons as well (weak long end, heavy-weight), but the difference 24 vs 70 mm at f2.8-4 looks unbelievable. 70 is super soft in center (up to f8), mushy across frame, and the beloved contrast is just gone.
despite the warnings, secretly i hoped to use the zoom for portraits as well and cancelled batis order. nevermind though, the dream about one perfect lens goes on
thank you guys for all the inspiration in this thread, really enjoyed it.
p.50 #13 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
rower535 wrote:
mine arrived yesterday, spent whole day shooting with it on a7rii. output-wise, it really feels like zoom covering 2-3 excellent primes! never thought this would be possible.
however, at the long end i couldnt believe my eyes either. did i swap the lens for some kit shit? this thread made me to buy it, therefore i was aware about the cons as well (weak long end, heavy-weight), but the difference 24 vs 70 mm at f2.8-4 looks unbelievable. 70 is super soft in center (up to f8), mushy across frame, and the beloved contrast is just gone.
despite the warnings, secretly i hoped to use the zoom for portraits as well and cancelled batis order. nevermind though, the dream about one perfect lens goes on
thank you guys for all the inspiration in this thread, really enjoyed it....Show more →
Did you get a chance to update the firmware. The box of my lens has a yellow tag reminding about the firmware update (on body). On the firmware instruction, it didn't say anything about tele end focus, but I think there maybe some hidden improvement as Sony usually does in secrete ( this happen to the ZA 35/1.4 Ver. 02 as well. Af improved other than the mentioned MF fix). I have updated it before the GM lens arrived, so I have not gotten a chance to compare them.
I heard from some forums that the 2470 gm lensed produced after June/July have no soft 70mm problem. It only affects some copies from earlier production. Mine and my friend's are produced in July, and both are super sharp at portrait distance, and really sharp stop down in the boarder at 70mm. But I don't know if that is because the firmware released around the time solved it or they improved the manufacturing procedures.
These are all assumptions based on small number of samples though.
p.50 #14 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
rower535 wrote:
however, at the long end i couldnt believe my eyes either. did i swap the lens for some kit shit? this thread made me to buy it, therefore i was aware about the cons as well (weak long end, heavy-weight), but the difference 24 vs 70 mm at f2.8-4 looks unbelievable. 70 is super soft in center (up to f8), mushy across frame, and the beloved contrast is just gone.
I think a lot may have to do with how unforgiving the Sony sensor is to optics that are anything other than perfect! Maybe we are just expecting too much in a zoom. I'm also wondering how often I shoot my mid range zooms at 70mm. When I go for my 24-70 it's usually for the 24-50mm range. Once I hit 70, I'll usually go for the 85 or the 70-200. So maybe I've never noticed the issue with the Canon because I rarely use it at 70mm. Just a thought.
p.50 #20 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Second this based on my observation of my copy as well. Nice job. Basically, at any focal length, there is a setting one can get very good corners (as you indicated with purple)
I feel that in the 60-65 range, F9-F11 are at similar peak performance, and 24-35 5.6-8 are at similar peak performance for corners.
for flattest field, it is around 40-55. I found the shots in this range are very pleasing. low CA, low distortion, low astigmatism, and very even and crispy sharpness in the whole frame.
