I compared it to my Canon 24-105 IS, sigma 12-24 (at 24mm), Canon 24 TSE II, a manual focus Tamron 28mm, and both the 55 1.8 FE and 35 1.8 FE. It was not a scientific test - simply took tripod mounted pictures of a messy living room with each lens at each aperture (OS and IS were off).
As compared with the 24 - 105:
I found it was quite similar in performance to the Canon 24-105 when stopped down to 5.6 and f8 - the 24-70 FE had similar performance at 24mm, a bit stronger at 35mm,a bit weaker at 50mm and a bit weaker at 70mm (I didn\'t try 60mm). Neither was particularly strong at the edges/corners, but they were similar. If I look at the series of pictures I took with each lens at each apeture (over and over), the variation between shots with each lens at a particular apeture is not much different than diffences I see between these two lenses at a given apeture...so my non scientific conclusion is that the differences between these lenses are relatively small (other than a obviously greater amount of chromatic abberation in the 24-105). Both are compromises (compared with primes). I find both of these lenses have similar color and contrast. I\'m happy with both and especially the 24-70 because it is relatively light and small.
As compared with primes and sigma zoom:
At 28mm, the Tamron is sharper stopped down at the center than the two zooms (less contrast though). At 24mm, the 24 TSE II blows all the zooms away by a long shot from edge to edge, so much so that it almost seems like it has way more depth of field at a given f stop - and no, I have not tilted it. Likewise, as expected, at 55mm, nothing compares to the 55 1.8 FE and at 35mm the 35 2.8 is the best of the lot. The Sigma is worse than all of them both in the center and the edges/corners at 24mm (but of course it has 12mm).
In conclusion:
If I plan on taking a long hike, I\'ll take just the 24-70 FE so that I can hike further and get to more interesting places to photograph. If I want the best quality I\'ll take the TSE 24 II, 35 2.8 FE, and the 55 1.8 FE (and maybe a macro 100mm and/or the sigma for ultrawide). I feel I have the best of both worlds.
I compared it to my Canon 24-105 IS, sigma 12-24 (at 24mm), Canon 24 TSE II, a manual focus Tamron 28mm, and both the 55 1.8 FE and 35 1.8 FE. It was not a scientific test - simply took tripod mounted pictures of a messy living room with each lens at each aperture (OS and IS were off).
I found it was quite similar in performance to the Canon 24-105 when stopped down to 5.6 and f8 - the 24-70 FE had similar performance at 24mm, a bit stronger at 35mm,a bit weaker at 50mm and a bit weaker at 70mm (I didn\'t try 60mm). Neither was particularly strong at the edges/corners, but they were similar. There was a lot more chromatic abberation, however, in the 24-105. Both are compromises (compared with primes). I find both of these lenses have similar color and contrast. I\'m happy with both and especially the 24-70 because it is relatively light and small.
At 28mm, the Tamron is sharper stopped down at the center than the two zooms (less contrast though). At 24mm, the 24 TSE II blows everything away by a long shot from edge to edge, so much so that it almost seems like it has way more depth of field at a given f stop - and no, I have not tilted it. Likewise, as expected, at 55mm, nothing compares to the 55 1.8 FE and at 35mm the 35 2.8 is the best of the lot. The Sigma is worse than all of them both in the center and the edges/corners at 24mm (but of course it has 12mm). If I plan on taking a long hike, I\'ll take just the 24-70 FE so that I\'m not hindered by weight. If I want the best quality I\'ll take the TSE 24 II, 35 2.8 FE, and the 55 1.8 FE (and maybe a macro 100mm and/or the sigma for ultrawide).
I compared it to my Canon 24-105 IS, sigma 12-24 (at 24mm), Canon 24 TSE II, a manual focus Tamron 28mm, and both the 55 1.8 FE and 35 1.8 FE. It was not a scientific test - simply took tripod mounted pictures of a messy living room with each lens at each aperture (OS and IS were off).
I found it was quite similar in performance to the Canon 24-105 when stopped down to 5.6 and f8 - the 24-70 FE had similar performance at 24mm, a bit stronger at 35mm,a bit weaker at 50mm and a bit weaker at 70mm (I didn\'t try 60mm). Neither was particularly strong at the edges/corners, but they were similar. Both are compromises (compared with primes). I find both of these lenses have similar color and contrast. I\'m happy with both and especially the 24-70 because it is relatively light and small.
At 28mm, the Tamron is sharper stopped down at the center than the two zooms (less contrast though). At 24mm, the 24 TSE II blows everything away by a long shot from edge to edge, so much so that it almost seems like it has way more depth of field at a given f stop - and no, I have not tilted it. Likewise, as expected, at 55mm, nothing compares to the 55 1.8 FE and at 35mm the 35 2.8 is the best of the lot. The Sigma is worse than all of them both in the center and the edges/corners at 24mm (but of course it has 12mm). If I plan on taking a long hike, I\'ll take just the 24-70 FE so that I\'m not hindered by weight. If I want the best quality I\'ll take the TSE 24 II, 35 2.8 FE, and the 55 1.8 FE (and maybe a macro 100mm and/or the sigma for ultrawide).
I compared it to my Canon 24-105 IS, sigma 12-24 (at 24mm), Canon 24 TSE II, a manual focus Tamron 28mm, and both the 55 1.8 FE and 35 1.8 FE. It was not a scientific test - simply took tripod mounted pictures of a messy living room with each lens at each aperture.
I found it was quite similar in performance to the Canon 24-105 when stopped down to 5.6 and f8 - the 24-70 FE had similar performance at 24mm, a bit stronger at 35mm,a bit weaker at 50mm and a bit weaker at 70mm (I didn\'t try 60mm). Neither was particularly strong at the edges/corners, but they were similar. Both are compromises (compared with primes). I find both of these lenses have similar color and contrast. I\'m happy with both and especially the 24-70 because it is relatively light and small.
At 28mm, the Tamron is sharper stopped down at the center than the two zooms (less contrast though). At 24mm, the 24 TSE II blows everything away by a long shot from edge to edge, so much so that it almost seems like it has way more depth of field at a given f stop - and no, I have not tilted it. Likewise, as expected, at 55mm, nothing compares to the 55 1.8 FE and at 35mm the 35 2.8 is the best of the lot. The Sigma is worse than all of them both in the center and the edges/corners at 24mm (but of course it has 12mm). If I plan on taking a long hike, I\'ll take just the 24-70 FE so that I\'m not hindered by weight. If I want the best quality I\'ll take the TSE 24 II, 35 2.8 FE, and the 55 1.8 FE (and maybe a macro 100mm and/or the sigma for ultrawide).
I compared it to my Canon 24-105 IS, sigma 12-24 (at 24mm), Canon 24 TSE II, a manual focus Tamron 28mm, and both the 55 1.8 FE and 35 1.8 FE. It was not a scientific test - simply took tripod mounted pictures of a messy living room with each lens at each aperture.
I found it was quite similar in performance to the Canon 24-105 when stopped down to 5.6 and f8 - the 24-70 FE had similar performance at 24mm, a bit stronger at 35mm,a bit weaker at 50mm and a bit weaker at 70mm (I didn\'t try 60mm). Wide open the 24-105 seemed a little better across the full range. Neither was particularly strong at the edges/corners, but they were similar. Both are compromises (compared with primes). I find both of these lenses have similar color and contrast. I\'m happy with both and especially the 24-70 because it is relatively light and small.
At 28mm, the Tamron is sharper stopped down at the center than the two zooms (less contrast though). At 24mm, the 24 TSE II blows everything away by a long shot from edge to edge, so much so that it almost seems like it has way more depth of field at a given f stop - and no, I have not tilted it. Likewise, as expected, at 55mm, nothing compares to the 55 1.8 FE and at 35mm the 35 2.8 is the best of the lot. The Sigma is worse than all of them both in the center and the edges/corners at 24mm (but of course it has 12mm). If I plan on taking a long hike, I\'ll take just the 24-70 FE so that I\'m not hindered by weight. If I want the best quality I\'ll take the TSE 24 II, 35 2.8 FE, and the 55 1.8 FE (and maybe a macro 100mm and/or the sigma for ultrawide).
Mar 05, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Previous versions of photoalex's message #12181789 « Sony FE 24-70 lens »
