Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thanks man! Yes, those are very sharp indeed right up to the corner. My returned lens was similar, however, your one shot at 70mm seems a bit less sharp, but nowhere near as blurry / unsharp as the copy I just returned. I just went through all my shots at 70mm (love the Lightroom metadata search function) and at f/4 it seems as if I missed focus, but at 5.6 and 8 they are much better, but still not that great. You definitely got a good copy. Buy again, why such sample variation for this lens??!??!
  2. It's funny you mention Chris Burkard. That's exactly why I bought this lens based on his comments on it here: http://shotkit.com/chris-burkard/ and here:
  3. First I use the A7RII cleaning mode. Then I use this one way valve visible dust blower: http://visibledust.com/products3.php?pid=444 And if there are any suborn particles I then use the arctic butterfly: http://visibledust.com/products3.php?pid=3 I also have their light magnifier glass that I bought as part of a kit a long time ago when I used to shoot Canon. I find the it hard to use on the Sony sensor due to strange reflections: http://visibledust.com/products3.php?pid=710
  4. Mine does that at random too! I mainly shoot in single frame and AF-S, and flexible spot-M. Sometimes if I switch to continuous motor drive and AF-C and then change the battery, it goes back to to the single frame / AF-S settings. It will even reset the location of the flexible spot to center if I had it way off-center. It doesn't happen every time and I don't notice any specific settings that cause this behavior. Glad to know it's not just me.
  5. It's funny you say that. I've read on the pixel-peeping interwebs that the Canon 24-70 f/4 L with the Metabones adapter is an alternative to the FE 24-70 that has way better image quality. Yeah...the expense...that's the main reason I returned it. If I had gotten it for less than $800 USD I would have kept it.
  6. Thanks for the great information Cheyne! I totally agree. I would have kept the lens if I had received a good copy for $800. I definitely don't listen to the "chin strokers on the forums" or I wouldn't have bought one to test. I shoot RAW 99.999% of the time, so the distortion was much more pronounced. Sony corrects the JPGs in camera. Sharpness definitely ins't everything. I have amazing looking 13x19 prints that I took in 2001 with the 3mp Canon D30 and a cheap zoom. I will keep my eye out for a good used copy.
  7. My 16-35 seems sharp to me throughout the range. My test scene had spare Sony A7 batteries placed in all the corners. They were very distorted and crooked. None of the automatic Lightroom settings or manual sliders could correct for this. Shooting the same scene with the 16-35 at the same focal length required almost no correction and corrected nicely in LR. And herein lies the pain problem with this lens (these lenses). Sample variation. People's reports are all over the map with regards to sharpness and distortion. This is not the case for the other Sony brand FE primes.
  8. I just bought one and returned it. I agree with most other people that it is very sharp over most of the zoom range and would be acceptable for a walk around lens. I did tripod test scenes comparing the 24-70 to my FE 16-35, FE 35mm 2.8, and FE 55m 1.8. For my copy, from 24-65mm it is very sharp in the center and moderately sharp in the corners. At 70mm, the lens falls apart is is not sharp at all, so unsharp, that I would call the 100% view blurry. Comparing the overlapping 24-35 zoom range to my 16-35, the 16-35 beats this lens 100% of the time mainly due to it's lack of distortion. The wide angle side of the 24-70 is very distorted anywhere but the center. The lens corrections in Lightroom were not able to correct for this (yes, I could use Photoshop). So, I'd be using the 16-35 for this range instead. Sharpness was similar. The main reason for me to get this lens is to gain the 35-70 zoom range, which really becomes 35-65 if you want sharp images. For 24-35 I'd switch to my other zoom due to the distortion issues. I really wanted to like this lens, but for me, it is definitely not worth $1100. I hope Sony comes out with an updated version correcting some of these issues. The 2.8 GM is too big and heavy for my needs.
  9. Foreground is great. Nice DOF. Is this from one shot or a blend?
  10. 3-5 seconds seems really long time to check the magnification. There is a delay on mine, but it's definitely not that long for RAW compressed only. Are you using a slow memory card? Maybe a faster memory card will speed it up.
  11. Really nice shot. However, I checked out your Flickr and prefer the color version...the color really draws you into the image more.
  12. Here is my first edit from our recent trip to Hawaii. It was taken just before sunset on the Punalu'u Black Sand Beach on the Big Island. I used the A7RII with the FE 35mm f/2.8. Support was from the Manfrotto PIXI mini table top tripod. This tripod is stable enough for this setup if you don't touch the camera for a few seconds before shooting and use a wireless remote. I forgot to turn off the image stabilization (which I usually do when using a tripod) but that probably helps this weaker setup...no loss of sharpness or blur. I am continually amazed how much dynamic range you can get from this camera. Sea Turtle | Punalu’u Black Sand Beach, Big Island, HI by Jamil Abbasy, on Flickr
  13. Hey Cheyne. I know it's an old topic, but I'm interested I. Getting the FE 24-70 f/4 lens for my A7RII. Did you buy it and do you recommend it? I too want a take only one lens zoom for this camera rather than using primes. I know we have the G master one now, but it's way too big and heavy for me. Thanks for any info!
  14. Thanks for your comments! Much appreciated!
  • Create New...