Guy, I live not too far from you and I have an LA-EA3 and a Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 in my possession, if a comparison against that lens would be of any interest for testing I'd be happy to meet up to loan it to you for that!
Stoffer wrote:
Thanks for your effort, Fred. This is on the A7rII, right?
Just so people remember we're looking at crops from 42 MP sensor. Demanding for any lens.
Yes,
A7RII, sturdy tripod (no wind), RAW uncompressed converted to jpeg (11). For the new series with better lighting, I didn't use the LR profile for this lens so there is less noise in the shadows. I do see some CA towards the edges, especially at 24 and 28mm. LR's CA correction removes it completely though. (same for vignetting)
The absence of focus shift and the low field curvature makes focusing on the field a very easy task. The manual focus ring gives great feedback together with focus peaking. I knew for sure when I was nailing focus. (All at infinity btw).
From the lenses I have, the Loxia 21/2.8 and 50/2 are better overall but I consider these two jewels for the A7 series. In my view, they complement the lens.
The RX1RII is better at apertures below f/5.6 but the zoom catches up to it after that. For the FE 28/2, the opposite happens - the zoom is better at large apertures and the prime catches up at around f/8. Overall, incredible performance.
Three thoughts came to my mind as I read through the thread
1) This zoom is really good.
2) Loxias are stupidly good
3) Fred does have some patience to continuously update his reviews. Awesome work
Thanks much
My fingers are crossed I get a copy like this and I'm so glad I decided to jump on it now while I still had a chance to return and cancel some items. I tend to agree the 21 and 50 compliment this very well. I'm truly impressed and for a non zoom guy that's a real credit to this lens.
Thank you, Fred, for doing such comprehensive testing!
I am happy with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II on my A7RII's. I pre-ordered the GM lens (due Tuesday) but was starting to feel like I might be an idiot to spend $2,200 just to get Eye Focus and slightly better focusing in low-light. I am now convinced that the GM is a better lens, for how I will use it (with the possible exception of flare).
I think I might now be able forgive Sony for allowing me to waste my money on the FE 24-70mm f4 (unbelievably soft at many FL/apertures) and the FE 70-200mm f4 (soft at 200mm f4, unlike my aging, and cheaper, Canon 70-200mm f4 IS that is sharp at all settings, in comparison).
Now, if the GM 85mm just holds-up... and, if Sony will just release a stellar FE 135mm f1.8/f2.0 (or LA-EA5 w/focus), so I do not need to use the obsolete and clunky LA-EA4 on my 135mm f1.8, I might even become a raving fanboy.
I think my kit is rounding out to VC15, Loxia 21 and 50, GM 24-70, GM 85 so all native except the VC which I will update and NO adapters .
What to do after 85 is still our crossroad.
70-300 for most folks will be perfect, my worry is speed for me. So this still needs to be addressed by a good margin of people.
I have a feeling as word gets out on this lens in particular is a lot of the oh it's too big too heavy will slowly disappear as folks see just how nice this lens really is. Going to be interesting but I still think a lot of folks would like a small kit at the same time.
GMPhotography wrote:
I think my kit is rounding out to VC15, Loxia 21 and 50, GM 24-70, GM 85 so all native except the VC which I will update and NO adapters .
they make software for stocks at tax season, to keep track of your portfolio - we should have a dedicated thread that goes back and consolidates your posts that include the phrase "my kit is" so we can see how things have moved in and out of it....as a pro, you can take any losses on your sales as a deduction!
Truth be told though it's been a long road not just for me but a lot of folks waiting to get really good native glass since most of us bought in with the A7r. I think we are starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel. We really are getting a lot of great choices with Batis, Loxia and Sony native lines. I think we have been very patient along the way but certainly has not been a party either. I have bounced around a lot on not perfect copies in several flavors so it really has been trying at times. I'm starting to feel really good now. I think a lot of folks may have the same sentiments. Bottom line we put up with a lot of crap from the industry outside Sony folks too, which was not fun to read either as your trying to build a nice system for yourself. So if no one says it I will us Sony users deserve a pat on the back.
Most of you know I am involved with GetDPI as well and between here and there these forums have seen quite a bit of discourse along the way. Maybe some of that will go away and we can enjoy our efforts on being members on these forums.
Maybe I'm just overly picky but I don't think I could be happy with that corner performance at either extreme - 24mm's or 70mm's, particularly given the price tag.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Maybe I'm just overly picky but I don't think I could be happy with that corner performance at either extreme - 24mm's or 70mm's, particularly given the price tag.
Tariq,
Show me a mid-range zoom with better corners from any brand. I think the price is fair for such performance.
Keep in mind, this is a torture test for any lens. I'm showing 42MP 1:1 crops from the very extreme edges at infinity distances.
Stopped down a couple stops and the zoom is comparable to excellent prime lenses.
I wish it was more compact but there is no free lunch.
GMPhotography wrote:
I think my kit is rounding out to VC15, Loxia 21 and 50, GM 24-70, GM 85 so all native except the VC which I will update and NO adapters .
What to do after 85 is still our crossroad.
70-300 for most folks will be perfect, my worry is speed for me. So this still needs to be addressed by a good margin of people.
I have a feeling as word gets out on this lens in particular is a lot of the oh it's too big too heavy will slowly disappear as folks see just how nice this lens really is. Going to be interesting but I still think a lot of folks would like a small kit at the same time....Show more →
Fred, how do the edges at the left edge of the frame in the vertical center compare to the upper-left corner/edges you present, specifically for 24mm and 70mm?
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.
But with the primes you get to 21mm rather than 24mm with the zoom. You need to add the not yet releasedv16-35 2.8.
I know the Sony 24-70 isn't the most stellar lens..but let's look on the Canon side as it's got the full suite in bothb2.8 and f4.
I think you would be extremely hard pressed to see any difference in prints from a Canon outfit made up of the f4 zooms versus the 2.8 zooms. ( 16-5, 24-70 and 70-200 ). However the weight difference is substantial. I'd never lug around a suite of 2.8 zooms if I'm out shooting landscapes...they are targeted at the event photographer that requires the extra stop for dim locations.
I think a certain subset of members given the IQ of this will say the heck with the weight. I am getting it regardless. Yea it's a Pro lens but that means nothing to some folks they will still save weight and bulk overall . I think the more I say what you carry in your bag is what matters most that message will get through. I know I will not be buying that 28 f2 again now and maybe a few more as well. Be interesting to see what happens three months from now and we did a poll on who has it
chez wrote:
But with the primes you get to 21mm rather than 24mm with the zoom. You need to add the not yet releasedv16-35 2.8.
I know the Sony 24-70 isn't the most stellar lens..but let's look on the Canon side as it's got the full suite in bothb2.8 and f4.
I think you would be extremely hard pressed to see any difference in prints from a Canon outfit made up of the f4 zooms versus the 2.8 zooms. ( 16-5, 24-70 and 70-200 ). However the weight difference is substantial. I'd never lug around a suite of 2.8 zooms if I'm out shooting landscapes...they are targeted at the event photographer that requires the extra stop for dim locations. ...Show more →
I think you're overlooking 'image aesthetic' many of us shoot faster glass for 'look' not light gathering capability. The f/4 zooms on 135 format are simply uninspiring below 70mm. Many journalists are shooting wide-open a large percentage of the time, f/2.8 is basically a staple aperture to use on the 24-70 and 70-200. ~Chris
.