24-70's - GM vs Zeiss vs Canon

[J.R]

New toy arrived this morning!

 

I'll be doing some real world tests for my own satisfaction mainly over the next few days...but thought I'd start with a size comparison including the Canon 2.8 mkii on it's metabones adapter

 

Let the (unscientific) testing begin!  

 

Jon

www.jonroberts.co.uk

 

[Amfibius]

When I had the Canon lens, I always felt it was a bit of a monster. Too heavy to carry all day when travelling. This Sony is actually bigger than the Canon!

 

Nevertheless, the Canon was a fantastic lens. Near prime quality. The Sony BETTER be good to justify its expense (US$2200 vs. US$1750) and size (33 grams heavier than the Canon)! If it doesn't comprehensively trounce the Canon, i'll be very disappointed!

[pflapf]

In Germany the price difference is even worse. Canon's 24-70 is at 1600€ while Sony wants 2400€.

[mavfan1]

"The Sony BETTER be good to justify its expense (US$2200 vs. US$1750) and size (33 grams heavier than the Canon)! If it doesn't comprehensively trounce the Canon, i'll be very disappointed!"

 

the Canon was $2249 when it was first released. The Sony will come down in price over a few years just as the Canon did. 

 

Oh, and of course it's bigger, It's the same size as the Canon with the metabones attached, just like it should be, it's physics. 

[pflapf]

Oh, and of course it's bigger, It's the same size as the Canon with the metabones attached, just like it should be, it's physics.

Size is not related to optical performance. Bigger is not always better.

[Wesley]

Size is not related to optical performance. Bigger is not always better.

 

FE 24-70 f/4 & Zeiss Otus, says otherwise.

 

Sacrifice optics for size & vice versa.

[lenoindex]

the Canon was $2249 when it was first released. The Sony will come down in price over a few years just as the Canon did. 

 

Oh, and of course it's bigger, It's the same size as the Canon with the metabones attached, just like it should be, it's physics. 

It has nothing to do with releasing price, a $500 crappy laptop today could worth $5000 10 years ago if not more.

 

And if Sony is still designing native Emount lens based on DSLR flange distance then that is seriously wrong, so you comment about physics is just wrong too.

 

I agree with OP - If it doesn't comprehensively trounce the Canon, it is simply a disappointment to many. But I think it will be significantly better.

[pflapf]

FE 24-70 f/4 & Zeiss Otus, says otherwise.

 

Sacrifice optics for size & vice versa.

That's not true. Canon's 50/1.8 is sharper at 1.8 than Canon's 50/1.4 at 1.8. Though it is lighter, smaller, cheaper, etc.

Sony's 70-200/4 is bigger, heavier and performing worse than Canon's equivalent (IS USM).

 

If you apply a traditional lens design to a new mount then in fact you can take an old lens and get a proper adapter instead.

You just don't take advantage of the broader range of choices for lens designs the new mount offers.

 

To me it seems as if Sony is not considering this new path consequently. Instead they accept bulky lenses because they have experience in how the old way works. They address them to "pros" as most pros are used to carry a lot.

[tamas970]

Looking forward to the results. At this price however, not so much interested in buying one.

[CZ-Fotominator]

In my opinion it does not make any sense to invest in the wonderfull tiny A7R2or3or something Sytem and than adapt that monsters from the SSLR-Department. I think i´ll be patient and wait for the next Batis-Lenses. I easily can do without 1,4Fstop, 1,8 or 2.0 is absolutely enough and the IQ is truly better even wide open. And the costs are reasonably for CZ-Glass.

[steve of stonehenge]

The Canon 24-70 f2.8 II lens is why I left Canon for Sony last year.  Yes the Canon lens is (and probably will remain) one of the best lenses ever made.  But it is really heavy.  After carrying it around for two weeks in Italy last April, I decided to go mirrorless and have not looked back.  I sold the Canon and got Batis 25 and 85 primes.  Now I zoom with my feet.  These two primes along with the Sony 55f1.8 are really all I need now.  I can see that a wedding or event photographer would be happy to carry around the 24-70 in order to avoid lens swaps.

[Mr_A7s]

The Canon 24-70 f2.8 II lens is why I left Canon for Sony last year.  Yes the Canon lens is (and probably will remain) one of the best lenses ever made.  But it is really heavy.  After carrying it around for two weeks in Italy last April, I decided to go mirrorless and have not looked back.  I sold the Canon and got Batis 25 and 85 primes.  Now I zoom with my feet.  These two primes along with the Sony 55f1.8 are really all I need now.  I can see that a wedding or event photographer would be happy to carry around the 24-70 in order to avoid lens swaps.

 

After shooting with 24-70 & 85 GM last week, I've decided to sell my Batis lenses.

 

Love the Batis for size, weight and balance on A7r II. To have 24-70 FL with much-much higher quality is unique.  85GM bokeh is just super, no need to step down to f1.6 or f2 etcs...to get sharp images.

 

85GM test shots around the house, shot @ f1.4:   https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/2016-4-09-Sony-FE-85-f14/i-Wzt3hcC

 

24-70GM test shot around the house, shot @ f2.8: https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/2016-04-14-Sony-FE-24-70-GM/i-KNjkwtQ/A

 

Can't wait to pre-order 70-200GM

[Wesley]

That's not true. Canon's 50/1.8 is sharper at 1.8 than Canon's 50/1.4 at 1.8. Though it is lighter, smaller, cheaper, etc.

Sony's 70-200/4 is bigger, heavier and performing worse than Canon's equivalent (IS USM).

 

If you apply a traditional lens design to a new mount then in fact you can take an old lens and get a proper adapter instead.

You just don't take advantage of the broader range of choices for lens designs the new mount offers.

 

To me it seems as if Sony is not considering this new path consequently. Instead they accept bulky lenses because they have experience in how the old way works. They address them to "pros" as most pros are used to carry a lot.

 

You're comparing a 90's lens to a modern one. I would hope the modern 50 1.8 would be better wide open than the old 1.4 even stopped down to 1.8

 

Have you read this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/just-the-lenses-the-70-200mm-f4-comparison/

They're really just 3 flavors of lenses, there's no worse.

 

These FE zooms are going to be narrow & long near the lens mount (flange distance?).

[Wesley]

Funny reading the contradicting responses above. It all goes to show the modular advantage of the system.

[steve of stonehenge]

Jason Lanier did a head to head comparison between the 85 G Master and the Batis 85.  His conclusion was the G Master was better.  WELL DUGH!!! The G Master is f1.4 and costs $500 more.  If it is not better (and a lot better at that) something is wrong.  The Batis is serving me well.  

 

If I hit the lottery (not likely since I don't waste the money on the tickets) maybe I would swap.  The 24-70 f2.8 is tempting but I decided to use primes as much as possible and I have focal lengths at 25, 35, 55 and 85 with primes.  I'm pretty happy with what I have right now.  If I did events, I probably would get the 24-70. 

 

Here is the video:

 

[pflapf]

You're comparing a 90's lens to a modern one. I would hope the modern 50 1.8 would be better wide open than the old 1.4 even stopped down to 1.8

Exactly! Lens design changed. But physics did not.

 

Have you read this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/just-the-lenses-the-70-200mm-f4-comparison/

They're really just 3 flavors of lenses, there's no worse.

 

These FE zooms are going to be narrow & long near the lens mount (flange distance?).

Thanks for the link. I did not read it (yet).

I owned both, even 2 copies of the Sony. Comparing the photos Canon's 70-200 is significantly better in the corners at f4. At f8 they become comparable. There are other handling issues with the Sony, i.e. the OSS takes longer to engage properly.

[pflapf]

Jason Lanier did a head to head comparison between the 85 G Master and the Batis 85. His conclusion was the G Master was better. WELL DUGH!!! The G Master is f1.4 and costs $500 more. If it is not better (and a lot better at that) something is wrong. The Batis is serving me well.

 

If I hit the lottery (not likely since I don't waste the money on the tickets) maybe I would swap. The 24-70 f2.8 is tempting but I decided to use primes as much as possible and I have focal lengths at 25, 35, 55 and 85 with primes. I'm pretty happy with what I have right now. If I did events, I probably would get the 24-70.

 

Here is the video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBgM1lLcSEQ

The G Master 85 is tempting, great reviews and photos.

Unfortunately here in Germany it's 800€ difference to the Batis. So I'll probably keep the Batis. I really love the swirly bokeh.

[J.R]

Hi All,

 

So I had the lens delivered on Saturday just before I put up this post, then I flew straight out to Madrid on Sunday for a shoot...so sorry for the delay in updating this thread! 

 

 

I haven't been able to do much of a comparison yet, but what I can say is that the image quality from this lens and body combination is absolutely phenomenal.

 

I've been using the 24-70 f4 zeiss since the original A7r was released, and I've been using the Canon 24-70 f2.8 mkii for a couple of years (and the mki for many years before that). I can honestly say that from what I have seen so far (and it is early days)  the combination of sony's 42mp sensor and this glass is better than any zoom I've ever used, and most primes I've used too.

 

Unfortunately I can't share anything from the shoot as the product is not yet released, but I'll try and get an outtake or two approved so I can post them up to see

 

 

Jon

www.jonroberts.co.uk