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
Thanks fred. This 24mm series does look noticeably better than the first.
Here are some I took yesterday afternoon when I first got my lens. Nothing special. All taken at f/2.8 hand held with AF set to flexible spot and AF-S.
I took some side by sides images of the of my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM. With the metabones adapter they are within mm of each other in length, weight is almost identical and hood designs are really the same. One thing I noticed is it zooms from 24-70 the same way the FE 16-35 and 70-200 f/4's do. Nice.
Did do lens correction in LR CC and some small auto exposure adjust.
Don't know how the reduction form 23 - 40 MB jpeg to 1.4 MB jpeg will impact the quality but the site has limitations.
The two with trees lose a lot of quality.
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?
Okay, I'll say what many may be thinking. This lens may have turned out to be f2 wide open at 24mm, and Sony marketing decided to dumb it down to f2.8 to avoid criticism on internet forums.
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?
The A7rII focusing system varies the aperture used when focusing based on several factors, none of which I can remember at the moment. Try looking into the lens when taking a long-exposure photo @ 24mm f/2.8 and see if the aperture blades open up larger during the exposure.
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm looking at the bokeh in the first images and it very pleasant. No nervousness , you shot them around 35 mm. Looks good with some nice pop too.
The first one that background would get very nervous looking on a lot of lenses. Very nice
This is where these GM's need a good testing, close focused, wide-end and at maximum aperture.
swldstn wrote:
Here are some I took yesterday afternoon when I first got my lens. Nothing special. All taken at f/2.8 hand held with AF set to flexible spot and AF-S.
I took some side by sides images of the of my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM. With the metabones adapter they are within mm of each other in length, weight is almost identical and hood designs are really the same. One thing I noticed is it zooms from 24-70 the same way the FE 16-35 and 70-200 f/4's do. Nice.
Did do lens correction in LR CC and some small auto exposure adjust.
Don't know how the reduction form 23 - 40 MB jpeg to 1.4 MB jpeg will impact the quality but the site has limitations.
The two with trees lose a lot of quality....Show more →
You could leave her at 24mm @f/2.8 and walk around shooting anything that appears in your viewfinder, the brighter, the more contrasty the better and get a better idea of what this lens is really all about than 99% of the stuff we saw from the Beta testers. The magic of these GM's is how they render the OOF areas.
This is why I'm pretty excited about this zoom is the OOF areas look really good and most mid level zooms look like garbage. This helps as we may not need some of these faster primes. If the bokeh is really good the only advantage of the 1.4 is speed and we have a lot of ISO elbow room. This lens already looks better than the Sigma 24-35 F2 as far as bokeh is concerned. Now if it's damn close to say a 35 1.4 well that may just eliminate that need. I guess I could test the zoom at 70 to the 85 1.4 when I get it just to get a idea. Better if I had a 35 1.4 on hand to test that out. Maybe someone could do that test for us. Love to see the rendition difference . I'm sure the 1.4 would win out but how much is the question and would it really matter. I sold my Sigma 35 1.4 so I can't try it. I had thoughts of keeping it but than decided to go for the 85 at the same time as the zoom and the adapter is still 3 weeks out so it still is a option when the adapter does come out. Something I still have in the back of my mind is at least a 1.4 lens wider than the 85.
Wow what I'm seeing at F4 center and midfield really look good 5.6 optimum and extreme corners 5.6 it's starting to look great a F 8 hits it in the extreme corners.
Let me state right now the Sigma 35 1.4 , VC 35 1.7 would not get this good into the midfield and corners till about F8. So advantage zoom. Both these lenses have field curvature.
The 50 looks a heck of a lot better in this series for sure. Field must flatten as F4 across the board looks great and optimum 5.6 across. If I remember correctly in early series it was not this good
Hmmm seems like even 2.8 on center and midfield look really good but corner it starts at 5.6. Just thinking out loud maybe pin cushion distortion. Thoughts
