Jump to content

Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM is too expansive for its IQ.


Recommended Posts

16-35mm GM has the greatest sharpness from center to edge and I really like that. BUT 24-70mm F2.8 GM does not have that kind of sharpness at all especially edges. Until F8, edges wont gonna be sharp while 16-35mm GM is already sharp from F2.8 at edges. Dxo already put datas that Canon 24-70mm F2.8 ii has better sharpness than Sony one and I knew it since I used it for 2 years. I have no idea why Lens Rental site kept mis-testing sony lenses especially 70-200 and 24-70. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So simple. If it's too expansive don't buy it. 

    

If other users find it to be a fair value and

they buy it and use it, do NOT look at their 

pictures, as they will fall short of your own

quality standards. Why risk your eyes ?

You dont get the point. All GM lenses except 24-70 performs much better than any other brands. How come 24-70 GM has poor IQ especially at edges? Canon 24-70mm F2.8ii has better IQ which is several years old one. Now can you explain me about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont get the point. All GM lenses except 24-70 performs much

better than any other brands. How come 24-70 GM has poor IQ

especially at edges? Canon 24-70mm F2.8ii has better IQ which is

several years old one. Now can you explain me about it?

    

Not for me to explain, only advise/suggest. Don't buy it. Buy 

something else. Peace of mind is important. It's pointless to 

compare your lens to lenses made for other cameras.Those 

have nothing to do with your practices. Ignore it.

   

FWIW, you have asked, "How come 24-70 GM has poor IQ

especially at edges?"  

  

If it helps you come to terms with your imperfect lens, edges 

are always the more inferior region for ANY lens. It's normal. 

    

I use the other 24-70, also known for questionable edge IQ. 

It bears the Zeiss mark and I know plenty of users are losing 

sleep over how such a problem occurs from Zeiss. They all 

and every one should not buy it [or return it]. Peace of mind 

is far too important to do otherwise. OTOH I'm keeping mine. 

It does the the job it's intended to do, and quite well at that. 

   

I did put a bit of black tape over the Zeiss mark on the barrel 

so I don't have annoying idiots asking me what it's like to use

"such a sharp lens". Peace of mind is too important.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

You dont get the point. All GM lenses except 24-70 performs much better than any other brands. How come 24-70 GM has poor IQ especially at edges? Canon 24-70mm F2.8ii has better IQ which is several years old one. Now can you explain me about it?

 

I can explain.

 

Sony has marketed their FF mirrorless system as "newer and better" than DSLR. They had to, otherwise there would be no reason for consumers to spend huge amounts of money on it.

 

Users who are very experienced and knowledgeable can decide for themselves if FF mirrorless is indeed better and if so, if it's worth the cost of an upgrade.

 

Users who are less experienced and less knowledgeable, tends to buy the marketing and the hype. They can't really tell if FF mirrorless is better and if so, how much it is actually worth. But if they spend the money, they get bragging rights for having a "newer and better" system.

 

That's it, basically,

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3TeXBDfOGeyZXMwU1J4TzB2ZVE

 

Try it now, it got messed up. 

 

JCC

   

   

Much as I reeeally like that image, and I really do 

mean it, it's a fine example of an approach that I 

myself prefer ... it is completely irrelevant to this 

thread. For starters it's handheld, plus the corners 

of the format are missing. Anywho thanx for fixing 

the link. Way cool image, well worth the look-see.

   

That image has bragging rights, but right here, it 

has no bidnez at all. You love your lens. It helps 

you make cool pix and that is one of your cool pix 

made with that lens. Ain't love grand ? It's great,  

but unfortunately irrelevant in this discussion :-( 

   

Did I mention I reeeeally dig that pic ? I did ? OK ! 

Thaz good, cuz I can be so forgetful sometimes ....  

  

Acoarst, I woulda shot it at f/4, not 2.8. Sure, you 

could ask "How can he say that ? He wasn't even  

there ! " ... and the answer is so simple: My 24-70 

won't open to f/2.8 cuz it's an f/4. 

   

See, I'm with you. Great lenses are lenses we use 

and have no particular complaint about. Thaz real 

world. But this thread is NOT real world. Here we 

are trying to comfort a lab-tests, charts-and-data   

GEEK, a geek who feels somehow offended that 

Sony is willing to sell him a lens which he feels is 

overpriced ... or something like that. Geeks are so 

hard to accommodate. But thanx again for the link 

to the look-see. NOT joking ! Keep it real ... and

write if you find work :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was enough light that I probably could have choked it down to F/8 or more. 

 

This was the first day I had the lens at an event, and I wasn't intending to create a shot for comparison to any others.   It was wide open because I had been shooting the show, and had a brief moment between sets to grab a crowd shot.  

 

I think most zoom lenses will be used handheld.  Zoom is a crutch for not being able to compose at the correct distance with a prime lens.

 

Glad you like the shot, sorry you don't like the lens.

 

JCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was enough light that I probably could have choked it down to F/8 or more. 

 

This was the first day I had the lens at an event, and I wasn't intending to create a shot for comparison to any others.   It was wide open because I had been shooting the show, and had a brief moment between sets to grab a crowd shot.  

 

I think most zoom lenses will be used handheld.  Zoom is a crutch for not being able to compose at the correct distance with a prime lens.

 

Glad you like the shot, sorry you don't like the lens.

 

JCC

   

   

No no no .... I do like the shot ... and it's someone else who is 

complaining about the lens. I don't like or dislike a lens I have 

never used nor even touched. That is Sunshine's problem. He 

has a problem based on price vs lab test reports, and seems

inconsolate concerning that Great Injustice. 

   

What I do like is my own lens. But that involves no dislike of 

anyone else's lens. Lens choice is not a competitive sport for 

me [nor you ?] but, apparently, it can be verrrrry competitive !  

   

As for my "critique" of the "appropriate" f/stop for your shot, it 

was just my parody of the "critics" that make such comments.  

   

I did make it plain that my "f/4 rather than f/2.8" was not at all

"advice from wisdom or experience" ... but simply that my lens 

is an f/4, so natcherly I could never shoot that at 2.8. Sorry if

it came off as otherwise :-( 

Link to post
Share on other sites

...................... I think most zoom lenses will be used handheld.

 Zoom is a crutch for not being able to compose at the correct

distance with a prime lens. ..................

     

 

...................... I think most zoom lenses will be used handheld. 

 Zoom is a crutch for not being able to compose at the correct 

distance with a prime lens. .................. 

 

I have a similar view of it myself. The difference is that 

I would change one word in your statement. You speak 

of a "correct" distance, but I woulda refered to "given" 

distance ... IOW whatever range or distance you wind 

up at, due to various real world physical conditions. 

  

So IMNSHO the 'zoom crutch' relieves the user of need 

to exercise the skill of: Making a successful statement 

by composing all the stuff within the frame that can't be 

eliminated by changing distance or FL. 

   

##########################################  

  

I am in no way embarrassed to use a zoom. But but I'm 

equally in no way limited if I need a really fast f/stop so 

a zoom is outa the question. Certainly I will get a rather 

different shot from a 50/1.4 prime than I might have got 

if I had a [hypothetical] 24-105/1.4 zoom. Since my only 

compositional elements are whatever a 50mm will frame 

at some GIVEN [that word !] distance, I'm working with 

far fewer options than a zoom lens user. Equal success 

from less options requires more skill [ignoring luck], and 

that skill is the one that the 'zoom crutch' encourages its 

user to neglect to use, or neglect to develop. And as to  

any luck involved, more skill generally brings more luck. 

So, it appears that it's not really "just luck" that a skilled 

practitioner seems to "always get the breaks".  

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------  

 

IOW being in the right place at the right time is more skill

than luck. And users of prime lenses kinda hafta be right

there. A major problem is that "being there" is not really 

a technical photographic task that can be managed by a 

higher level of robotics applied to one's gear. IOOW it's a 

skill that you can't buy your way out of acquiring. It is why  

the skilled "right there" practitioner using a prime already

has the story or scene in the bag, while the 'zoom crutch'

user is still weighing his many options. It is also why that 

skilled "right there" practitioner can hedge his bets by use 

of a zoom lens, but not be slowed down weighing options,  

nor held back by distortion, vignetting, slow max aperture,  

or various other "inferior" but ignorable aspects of zooms.   

    

If viewers notice in your images the inferiority qualities of

your lens then you are NOT DESERVING of a better lens 

cuz your images are hugely boring. Your shot obeys this 

principle. It's shot with a "flawed" zoom lens at its "worst" 

aperture, and no one will ever notice that, cuz your image 

is visually quite fascinating :-) 

 

Maybe you and I were saying one same thing. Or maybe

we were saying two similar things. Not a big deal, but it 

seemed like worth expanding or exploring a bit. Cheers ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

^^^ Long post but worth the read. Real photography should never be about the performance of one's gear.

 

Back to the corner performance of 2470GM, one of my main gripes with the FE system is iffy corner pefformance. I started noticing it in my own shots with various lenses and also in other people's shots. I just assumed that it was a result of a large sensor, short flange, narrow mount and narrow lenses. I don't get iffy corners with APS-C E-Mount or with A-Mount. That's why I got rid of my FE gear more than a year ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to be, loosely speaking, "bored" with 

one's own images ... even fave shots ... due 

to extreme familiarity, even intimacy, with their 

content, intent, and creation. This leads to our 

noticing optical shortfalls cuz we are no longer 

distracted by the [presumably] visually exciting

or intriguing material in the shot. IOW we are 

our own worst critics and we DO notice flawed 

optics that others SHOULD never notice, since 

others are NOT bored or "overexposed" to the 

image's content.  

    

####################################  

   

Sadly, there are minds whose eyes are actually 

wide shut to content and aesthetics. They WILL 

always notice optical flaws cuz even of a really 

great shot they are not "open to receive". They 

are not merely "flaw hunters". They also notice 

optical excellence. Maybe "notice" is poor word 

choice. One can see beyond what one "notices" 

and one may notice secondary aspects only on 

longer study, or a later viewing, of a really cool 

image that has successfully held the viewer's

attention thru aesthetics and/or thru fascinating

content. So merely *noticing* optical flaws does

not hafta mean an image is boring. But imagery 

should hold your attention so strongly that flaws 

noticeable mainly only to those "knowledgeable" 

about flaws should receive a flickering notice by 

the few viewers whose experience trains them 

to pick them out. In general, flaws SHOULD go 

unnoticed even by "cognoscenti", if an image is 

visually successful. And again the same goes 

for extreme lack of flaws, IOW verrrry excellent 

technical IQ. That SHOULD also go unnoticed,

if  an image is visually stimulating ... and is not

a blatant technical failure. 

   

Cartier-Bresson is the classic example. There 

are plenty of peeps do not care for his pix. But    

in their time and context their content and style 

were rather remarkable. So viewers saw right 

past the numerous technical shortfalls. To "see 

past" isn't quite the same as "being blind to". It 

is viewers' minds being well-enuf engaged by

content that IQ flaws fail to get notice. At least 

the flaws fail to get INITIAL notice ... and a first 

impression will strongly color later impressions.  

  

As Duke said, "If it SOUNDS good, it IS good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

There are plenty of people who think that their photos of churches, cats, dogs and kids are more interesting than Cartier-Bresson. This just highlights the importance of criticism in photography. Above all, it is vital to be self-critical of one's own images.

 

The biggest harm my tutor did me was that he always praised my compositions. I felt that he should have criticised them to encourage me to progress. So, instead, I became my own harshest critic and I am still very critical of my compositions.

 

Tying in with your post, I am unfortunately very sensitive to technical flaws in photos. The funny thing is that you can often find technical faults in iconic photos by great photographers. By the same token, technically perfect photos are often a bit boring.

 

But the way I see it, honing your technical skills is vital to getting a usable shot when the perfect moment presents itself. Even if that shot won't be technically perfect, your skill will be the difference between getting a usable shot and missing the shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Expensive yes but not good IQ no. My sample is just exceptional up to around 60mm where sharpness will drop towards the edges even stopped down (not a problem for me as I use mostly for head shots at this focal length. At 24mm the micro-detail and sharpness across the farmer of prime quality and I would say this is true up to 50mm. Rendering and bokeh are also lovely wide open. Have only had the 16-35 GM for a few days but so far it is looking like a real winner trouncing the f4 version towards the extreme corners at the wider end which is where that lens let me down. So I think they are both superb but expensive lenses.

Some 24-70 images here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/viramati/albums/72157666969013344

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Expensive yes but not good IQ no. My sample is just exceptional up to around 60mm where sharpness will drop towards the edges even stopped down (not a problem for me as I use mostly for head shots at this focal length. At 24mm the micro-detail and sharpness across the farmer of prime quality and I would say this is true up to 50mm. Rendering and bokeh are also lovely wide open. Have only had the 16-35 GM for a few days but so far it is looking like a real winner trouncing the f4 version towards the extreme corners at the wider end which is where that lens let me down. So I think they are both superb but expensive lenses.

Some 24-70 images here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/viramati/albums/72157666969013344

 

I totally agree.   I took this lens and two others on a European River Cruise and it was on my A7Rii 90% of the time.   1500 shots and lots of keepers.    I guess I am not as picky as some when it comes to "corner sharpness."   Most of my shots are of ancient buildings, people and river bank scenes.   It performed great.   I tend to think "sharpness" has more to do with skill, experience and sometimes luck than the lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...