Help: Sony Zeiss 24-70 f4 Good for Weddings & Portraits

[rollsman4]

   Just bought the Sony A7ii and switched from Nikon.  I have read pros and cons on this lens. Can you give me your opinion on this 

  Thank   

[lo9rd]

Plus - 50% of people will tell you this lens is great and to ignore the haters.

Minus - 50% of people will tell you that this lens is garbage and they regret it.

 

 

Personally, I'd wait as Sony is soon to announce their updated lens lineup with heavy suggestions of a 24-70/2.8 coming.

[metacove]

From what I have read there isn't a great zoom yet except for the 16-35 F4. The 24-70 f4 isn't bad but certainly has not been well received. 

 

I like this attack of primes on a budget approach:

 

Sony 28mm F2

Sony Zeiss 55 F1.8 

Samyang/Rokinon 135 F2 (Manual Only - beats 135L optically in every way - amazing results)

 

If the Batis lenses were more available they would be on that list. I'm in line for those somewhere ;-)

 

I'm very anxious to see what lenses get announced soon as well. I have the LAEA4 A-Mount adapter and I have invested in a few Minolta AF Lenses as a stopgap.  I am using the A7Rii.

 

I have purchased the Minolta AF 70-210 F4. I also grabbed the  Minolta 28-135 F4-4.5 and the Minolta AF 35-70 F4. I was able to get all three lenses in exceptional condition for around $250 total.

 

They hunt more than a native lens and their AF is noisy. Right now I prefer the images the Rokinon 135 produces far more than the LAEA4 adapted images. I am happy with the Minolta lineup but for critical work I am always going to go for the native E-mount lens.

 

The Rokinon 135 F2 Manual Focus was only $449 (new) shipped off eBay. I am very happy with it.

[seb]

From what I have read there isn't a great zoom yet except for the 16-35 F4. The 24-70 f4 isn't bad but certainly has not been well received. 

 

I like this attack of primes on a budget approach:

 

Sony 28mm F2

Sony Zeiss 55 F1.8 

Samyang/Rokinon 135 F2 (Manual Only - beats 135L optically in every way - amazing results)

 

If the Batis lenses were more available they would be on that list. I'm in line for those somewhere ;-)

 

I'm very anxious to see what lenses get announced soon as well. I have the LAEA4 A-Mount adapter and I have invested in a few Minolta AF Lenses as a stopgap.  I am using the A7Rii.

 

I have purchased the Minolta AF 70-210 F4. I also grabbed the  Minolta 28-135 F4-4.5 and the Minolta AF 35-70 F4. I was able to get all three lenses in exceptional condition for around $250 total.

 

They hunt more than a native lens and their AF is noisy. Right now I prefer the images the Rokinon 135 produces far more than the LAEA4 adapted images. I am happy with the Minolta lineup but for critical work I am always going to go for the native E-mount lens.

 

The Rokinon 135 F2 Manual Focus was only $449 (new) shipped off eBay. I am very happy with it.

 

Haha, you started on topic, but then...

 

To your question: You can shoot with the 24-70/f4 weddings and portraits. It's a good lens. But consider that the focal length may be perfect, but the f-stop not. Most used range for weddings and portraits is between 2 and 4.

[Guest Peter Kelly]

Yes, you can use this lens for that purpose and no, it's not as bad as some suggest.

 

First, it's quick to focus and nice and light. However, you don't have quite the artistic possibilities owing to the maximum aperture.

That said, there are limited numbers of shallow DoF shots needed and if you use imagination there are ways around it.

Plus, you have to be damned good to get shallow DoF right. Slightly out and the results just look like a bad, out-of-focus picture!

 

Personally I think the need for lots of light was always the principal driving force behind fast lenses and people just happened to like the appearance they gave. Now cameras are far more capable in low light so the operational requirement has all but vanished. Brides still like to look 'glowing' though and it is the soft nature of wide open focus that provides much of that. Consequently, with some clever post-processing you can get the look you need quite easily.

 

As to the flaws of the lens, it is very similar to other Sony/Zeiss creations: the centre is very sharp but the corners can be soft. To single it out for criticism because of it, though, is very unfair. Just look at reviews of the SAL2470 f2.8 and they are remarkably similar, but that is held up to be a gem of a lens!

 

The final conundrum seems to be build variation. There is some evidence that one might be excellent while another is barely average. I can't tell you any more other than mine is really good.

[holmes4]

I'm going to disagree regarding aperture, mainly because of the A7ii's exceptional ability to shoot in lower light. I had a circular polarizer on my 24-70 (and 16-35) during a recent trip to Greece, and even inside dimly-lit churches and other places I would have expected trouble, I got great shots at f4 (the cPol reduced light even more.)

 

Some early 24-70s appeared to have problems, but I have had zero issues with mine.

[Aonko]

I think Peter is right.

 

lensrentals.com has mentioned that there is some serious copy-to-copy variation going on with FE mount lenses, that is probably why there are varying opinions on this lens.

[thulinhlun]

I rented the 24-70 f4 for a week when i bought the A7ii just to see how i like it and honestly, i ended up using the Sony 55mm 1.8 on the 3 photoshoot that i did that week. I did used it for 1 landscape shot and one group picture which both turned out great.

Is it as great as the other lenses that i owe in Nikon? No.

Is it well suit for a wedding lens? Yes.

Is there a better combination for wedding? Yes, i think the 16-35 f4 + 55 f1.8 will be 10x better for weddings. Or even the kit lens 28-70 and 55mm.

 

Get the 55mm 1.8, do i have to say it 3 times? I will if that is what it take, for portrait.

 

Personally, if u can live with manual focus (which just take some times to get used to), the Rokinon 85 1.4 for $280 is an excellent portrait lens.

I used to have the Holy Trinity of Nikkor 14-24-70-200 for wedding and portrait but now i switched to Sony and all Prime 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.2, 55mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.4.

[pjpo98]

Note that I don't have a 28-70 nor 24-70 lenses. That said, if you had the A7Rii, I would say to get the LA-EA3 adapter and a Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. You could go to a camera shop and test the AF ability of this combo now that the A7ii has a firmware update for using more AF points with adapters.

 

If that doesn't work, I'm going to agree with using the  28-70 that you can buy used for cheap and be sure to have some off camera flash options. If you are using flash, the f/2.8 or 4 becomes less critical. For the money you save with the 28-70, you could get a Rokinon 135mm f/2 for the ceremony shots.

[JimmyD]

Lots of good advice here.  I had the 24-70 f/4 and sold it, both because I was not happy with IQ in borders and corners, and because I have the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1/.8 and am one of the lucky ones that has been shipped the Batis 25mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8.

 

But seb hit the nail on the head.  The 24-70mm focal length is good for weddings, and you might get a good copy of the lens, but I can't imagine shooting a wedding with anything slower than f/2.8.  The ability to shoot in low light is not the point; for weddings most photographers want the shallow depth of field that something in the f/1.4 - f/2.8 range will get you; with 24 - 35mm at f/4 almost everything is in focus and you have no bokeh to speak of.  

[Diogenes]

I just sold my a99 and got an a7II and I still have my alpha lenses:

Minoltas 17-35F2.8-4,  28-75F2.8, 50F1.7, 50F2.8macro,

Sigmas 24F1.8, 35F1.4 ART,

Samyang 85F1.4, LA EA4

 

I want to go the native FE-mount, but with all the negative press on the 24-70f4, and the lack of alternatives (the 24-70F2.8 is too much money for me), I may just go this route:

17-35 F2.8-4 with it's own dedicated LA EA4 adaptor

28-75F2.8 with it's own dedicated LA EA4 adaptor

Sony FE 70-200F4

This should cover the typical wedding shot.

I've heard it said that F4 is the new F2.8. I'll have my primes to cover extreme low light. Perhaps I'll get a dedicated LAEA4 adaptor for them too.

[molan]

   Just bought the Sony A7ii and switched from Nikon.  I have read pros and cons on this lens. Can you give me your opinion on this 

  Thank   

 

F/4 won't give you the F/2.8 DoF or speed, so I'll say no can do. It's sharp, but a D810 with a F/2.8 wound do better.

[molan]

....

I've heard it said that F4 is the new F2.8. I'll have my primes to cover extreme low light. Perhaps I'll get a dedicated LAEA4 adaptor for them too.

 

This is the stupidest thing I ever heard, F-stop is about speed and DoF, so F/4 will never become like F/2.8 - ever.

 

Dedicated LAEA4 is your choice, but soon fairly weird to me - a dedicated LAEA4 for each camera sure, but not for each lens, makes no sense to me.

[Diogenes]

This is the stupidest thing I ever heard, F-stop is about speed and DoF, so F/4 will never become like F/2.8 - ever.

 

Dedicated LAEA4 is your choice, but soon fairly weird to me - a dedicated LAEA4 for each camera sure, but not for each lens, makes no sense to me.

 

Have you heard of these expressions:

"50 is the new 40", "Orange is the New Black"?

Of course, "physics-cally" F4 will never be F2.8, but with the advent of better sensors, and a different, more innovative way of seeing/doing things, I can personally deliver a better product to my clients with an F4 lens.

Check out this article:

https://www.slrlounge.com/is-ƒ4-the-new-ƒ2-8/

My comment on the adaptor stands. If I were using just 3 lenses for a wedding: 2 alphas and 1 FE (the 70-200F4), it's easier to switch lenses if the alphas had their own adapter.Think about  this sequence of switching if only 1 lens had an adapter: alpha (with adapter on), take off, mount FE, take off, mount alpha (without adapter)… this means I will have to take off the adapter from another lens to use on the alpha without its own adapter. Multiply this sequence literally several scores of times during a 14-hour wedding shoot, multiply by 25+ weddings plus other Events, and one can see that a $250-adapter will pay for itself. Not to mention reducing dust on the lens mounts and sensor due to fewer couplings/uncouplings.

Makes senses to me.