Fred Miranda wrote:
Something I noticed with the 24-70GM.
The aperture opening closes as I zoom from 70mm towards 24mm.
So, If the aperture blades are fully opened at f/2.8, it looks stopped down at 24mm even though it's still f/2.8.
I never noticed that with any other zoom lens or didn't play close attention. It does not happen with my FE 70-200/4. Thoughts?
I noticed the same with the FE 4/24-70 and I know of several constant aperture zooms (Minolta MD 3.5/35-70 for example) where it is the same. You can actually mod that Minolta so that it becomes a 2.8-3.5. So I wouldn't worry about transmission.
A lot was spending 2200 dollars on it and getting my 5 time piece of crap 24-70 f4. If that happened Sony would have a very serious issue. This and the 85 have got to sing like a bird or the flock will fly away. My stint with the FE 35 1.4 was as well not perfect after 4 units. I decided to jump over to Sigma 24-35 and 35 1.4 until I was ready to buy this later. I pushed the game plan up when I saw it in stock than I figured to ask my dealer which got one in and I jumped all in. It better be the next best thing since sliced bread for me. I'm tired of buying and selling to get to a bliss moment. Good news is I only lost minimal money jumping all in now since I could return some stuff or cancel orders. I did have to sell my Loxia 50 which now I need to find a way to buy back again. See this stuff does alter things when products fail the expectations. This is looking very good and my smile is back
Thank you Fred. This seems to be a fantastic zoom. I really like that they managed to keep the field curvature low. This makes such a lens much easier to use.
The Canon 24-70 II has quite strong field curvature at some focal lengths.
Got my 24-70 GM yesterday afternoon. The weather and lighting here in Connecticut has been bad so I won"t post anything yet but this zoom really does look fantastic. I had the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II when I had the Canon 5D3 and 1Dx and I think this Sony zoom is as good or maybe better with test shots that I've pixel peeped so far. It is a large lens on the A7r2 and really doesn't balance well on the A6300. I may start using the battery grip on my A7r2 to give my large hands a better grip with this setup. But I'm so far very impressed with the lens and Fred's results seem to be consistent with what I'm seeing. The AF does seem very quick and even in some fairly low light situations I've tried so far. I do hope the next GM will be a 16-35 f/2.8 with similar IQ! I will be very interested in how this zoom looks at 24mm versus my Batis 2/25.
MJKoski wrote:
Very nice performance here. I would get this if I needed the focal length. Now I mostly use 90mm TS-E and Zony 16-35.
My 2 cent question is: Where is GM 16-35/2.8?
I think it has to be next up. That will give us the Holly Trinity of f/2.8 zooms; 16-24, 24-70, 70-200. I'd be all set for my main landscape kit with some awesome primes to round it out VC 15 FE, Loxia 21 & 50 Batis 25 & 85!
Chuck Coyne wrote:
I think it has to be next up. That will give us the Holly Trinity of f/2.8 zooms; 16-24, 24-70, 70-200. I'd be all set for my main landscape kit with some awesome primes to round it out VC 15 FE, Loxia 21 & 50 Batis 25 & 85!
Personally for landscape work I'd stick to primes or the f4 zooms. I don't see any real advantage to lugging the heavy 2.8 zooms out into the field.
Well, this one sure has some advantages over the 24-70/4. This may very well be a "bag of primes" in terms of performance.
chez wrote:
Personally for landscape work I'd stick to primes or the f4 zooms. I don't see any real advantage to lugging the heavy 2.8 zooms out into the field.
chez wrote:
Personally for landscape work I'd stick to primes or the f4 zooms. I don't see any real advantage to lugging the heavy 2.8 zooms out into the field.
I hear you. But the weight of the 24-70 GM vs. the Batis 2/25, Loxia 35, & Loxia 50 is actually lower by a bit. The 70-200 GM is another story. So if weight is an issue a nice 135mm or 200mm f/2.8 or f/3.5 Loxia or Batis may be a nice solution.
I think the trick here is balancing the bag with 1 or 2 of these GMs and than add in your small primes like a 15,21,35,50 Loxia set of sorts. At first I was buying this 24-70 more for PR but also to fill the gap between 21 and 50. Now given its quality horsepower one has to ask the question do you fill in all the holes with some primes or maybe just add a few since this seems to maybe beat up a few primes. For me the 15, 21 will cover that 16-35 zone and I actually prefer all manual focus here. Even though I have my 15 listed I will get the E version for sure and I should replace my Loxia 50 so I would have 3 small primes just to kick around without bringing the zoom but on serious landscape adventure throw the zoom in for sure. I'm seeing a lot more dual use here than what I original thought. Folks let me tell y'all I'm not the biggest zoom guy anyway. Because none of them where ever better than any prime in the old days. Their maybe a change in the wind with this lens for me. Obviously we need to see more and I will start some testing next week but what Fred has posted here is pretty damn good. Maybe better than good
Chuck Coyne wrote:
I hear you. But the weight of the 24-70 GM vs. the Loxia 21, Loxia 35, & Loxia 50 is actually lower by a bit. The 70-200 GM is another story. So if weight is an issue a nice 135mm or 200mm f/2.8 or f/3.5 Loxia or Batis may be a nice solution.
Given the lack of primes longer than 85mm, I'd say, there is a market. However, just because I'm curious, when was the last time Zeiss released anything longer than the MP 100/APO Sonnar?
If only Sony could be bothered to remake the Minolta 200 APO HS G. Update the coatings to reduce flare and LoCA wide open and we would have a small, excellent prime weighing 50-60% of the 70-200 GM. Of course, with a-mount Sony has chosen to fill the gap between the 135 1.8/135 STF and the two big G primes (300, 500) exclusively with the three G zooms, while ignoring the "other" Minolta primes (200 2.8, 300 4, 400 4.5, not to mention the 600 4), probably out of fear that they would cannibalize sales of either the zooms or the 300/500G. Not sure whether they will change their strategy for e-mount.
I'd kill for a remake of the Minolta 200 2.8 APO. I would not even consider buying the GM 70-200 at all if that came to market. I loved that lens but it needs the new SSM focusing tech in it. It can't track very well
Here is the FE 24-70 GM @24mm with better lighting. Compare with the first post of this thread. The conclusions are the same but the aperture differences are more subtle.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/24mm-new.jpg
CENTER | MID-FIELD | EXTREME EDGES
Yea this is a lot better now with this light. Very strong center and midfield. Extreme corner yes F8 it really hits the mark but you are right it's more subtle change in good light. Heck given the subject you could get away even at F4. Many landscape extreme corners are sky anyway. Depending what your shooting of course but this is very strong indeed for the widest setting on a zoom.
Fred, thanks. Will be working with mine this weekend. I can already tell its very well made and AF seems very quick.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If I could find some faults:
* It is big (not as heavy as it looks though)
* It flares easier than I like (More testing needed)
* High vignetting wide open at the wider range (24, 28...)
* Some CA towards the edges of the frame at the wider range (completely removable in LR)
* I don't love the sunburst
The goods so far:
* High center and good edge resolution wide open
* Excellent performance across the frame at f/5.6
* At f/8, it's pretty much just as good as the best native primes
* Rich colors and high contrast
* Very low field curvature.
* Low astigmatism towards the edges (Huge for a zoom)
* Very well built and easy to MF, although still focus by wire
* AF fast and almost silent
* No focus shift
* Smooth bokeh and attractive rendering...Show more →
