Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM alternative

[duncanfoxphoto]

I can't afford the new G Master lenses. It doesn't fit in my budget anywhere. I could try to justify the cost by saying, "It's the last lens I'll ever buy!", but that wouldn't be the case. So, I ended up spending about a third of the amount on a bit of a gamble I found very little information on.

 

Ebay ended up netting me a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 a-mount and LA-EA3 adapter for my Sony A7ii to try to cover that focal length with a 2.8 constant aperture. The 24-70 f/4 is considerably more expensive (about twice what I paid for the lens, sans adapter), slower, and tests pretty low in the sharpness department especially for a Zeiss. A G Master lens is about three times the cost of the total package, although probably much sharper and incredible autofocus, plus very hard to obtain.

 

My tests thus far for indoor stills in fairly low light are good, but not excellent. The lens itself is softer wide open than the 55mm native Zeiss, which is also faster at f/1.8, and does improve a bit when stopped down, but as a native a-mount, you really don't peak in sharpness until f/8 rather than f/5.6 with most native e-mount. I would estimate the t-stop value to be about 3.2, since it exposes just a tad darker than a 90mm f/2.8 macro, which also could be due to light loss in the LA-EA3 adapter.

 

And last, but probably most importantly, does it autofocus? Yes. Not perfectly, but even in low light (1.8 EV tested by a Sekonic L-308S-U), it nails even a small flexible spot in about half a second. It's absolutely not as good as a native E-mount, and would likely be much better with the LA-EA4 (which I'm currently considering renting/borrowing just for testing), but for my budget, it's the best there is.

 

 

[dclark2171]

I've always wondered how the old Minolta 28-70 2.8 performs. Of course, I do not expect it to perform like anything made in the last 10-15 years. http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Minolta-AF-28-70mm-F2.8-G_review32.html

[Emptymind]

On a budget I would take e-mount primes over any zoom... especially a-mount zoom with adapter. On ebay you can get two good lenses like the Sony 28mm and the Zeiss 55mm e-mounts for about $800... far better option to me. 

[dclark2171]

On a budget I would take e-mount primes over any zoom... especially a-mount zoom with adapter. On ebay you can get two good lenses like the Sony 28mm and the Zeiss 55mm e-mounts for about $800... far better option to me. 

 

I have my eye on getting a 28mm. I have been using the Minolta 24mm for street photography on my A7Rii with excellent results. Just a tad too wide. A 35mm lens is not wide enough. I'm thinking the 28mm will be the ideal lens. 

[duncanfoxphoto]

On a budget I would take e-mount primes over any zoom... especially a-mount zoom with adapter. On ebay you can get two good lenses like the Sony 28mm and the Zeiss 55mm e-mounts for about $800... far better option to me. 

 

I have those primes. I also have a 35mm f/2.8. The trouble is that's three lenses to change about in the field and many shots you'd be missing while changing them. With one camera fitted for a 24-70 and the other a 70-200, that's a whole boatload of ranges I can get without fumbling for a lens, less dust on the sensor, and zero chance to butterfinger a lens into the drink.

[chrisd999]

I can't afford the new G Master lenses. It doesn't fit in my budget anywhere. I could try to justify the cost by saying, "It's the last lens I'll ever buy!", but that wouldn't be the case. So, I ended up spending about a third of the amount on a bit of a gamble I found very little information on.

 

Ebay ended up netting me a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 a-mount and LA-EA3 adapter for my Sony A7ii to try to cover that focal length with a 2.8 constant aperture. The 24-70 f/4 is considerably more expensive (about twice what I paid for the lens, sans adapter), slower, and tests pretty low in the sharpness department especially for a Zeiss. A G Master lens is about three times the cost of the total package, although probably much sharper and incredible autofocus, plus very hard to obtain.

 

My tests thus far for indoor stills in fairly low light are good, but not excellent. The lens itself is softer wide open than the 55mm native Zeiss, which is also faster at f/1.8, and does improve a bit when stopped down, but as a native a-mount, you really don't peak in sharpness until f/8 rather than f/5.6 with most native e-mount. I would estimate the t-stop value to be about 3.2, since it exposes just a tad darker than a 90mm f/2.8 macro, which also could be due to light loss in the LA-EA3 adapter.

 

And last, but probably most importantly, does it autofocus? Yes. Not perfectly, but even in low light (1.8 EV tested by a Sekonic L-308S-U), it nails even a small flexible spot in about half a second. It's absolutely not as good as a native E-mount, and would likely be much better with the LA-EA4 (which I'm currently considering renting/borrowing just for testing), but for my budget, it's the best there is.

Was this the HSM or the older non-HSM version?

[jdiffner]

I have several oddball (cheap lenses) purchased for fun (way too many 50's, Lensbaby, etc), but every time I have made a compromise for purely budgetary reasons, I have ended up regretting it and ended up spending a lot more money in the long run on incremental upgrades.  Beg, borrow, steal....do what you can and get the G Master; it's just that good.  I just picked up the 85 about a week ago.  I hemmed and hawed over the price difference between it and the Zeiss, but all it took to convince me to spend the extra $600 was taking one shot with each lens wide open.  1.4 to 1.8 may not seem like much until you actually take the shot.  Same goes for the 24-70.  I shoot that thing all the time at 2.8 and never worry about lack of sharpness.  Now I didn't own the 24-70 Mk2 when I left the Canon world, but nearly every other zoom I have owned had to be stopped down at least a stop before I was satisfied with it.  Few things bum me out more post shoot than looking through my shots and thinking that things could have been sharper.

[Golem]

I.........................   

which also could be due to light loss

in the LA-EA3 adapter.

..............................

  

How much loss do you estimate ?

[duncanfoxphoto]

Was this the HSM or the older non-HSM version?

 

HSM.

 

How much loss do you estimate ?

 

Compared to the 28-70 kit lens, I would estimate about 1/3rd of a stop.

 

 

There's some unscientific testing on another thread I did here: http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/4865-tamron-28-75-f28/?p=24574

[Golem]

It's unlikely that the LAEA3 causes light

loss.  Optically, it's just an empty tube. 

 

Is '3' just a typo ? The '4' costs about a

third of stop .... 

  

If I'm way off track, and you're actually

comparing two lenses, which two are

they ? I've re-read some posts. Maybe

you're comparing the 24-70/2.8 to the

90/2.8. Sorry if I'm the kid in class who

has questions cuz his attention slipped,  

but I'm just not sure where we are ?

[jstevensphoto]

I can't afford the new G Master lenses. It doesn't fit in my budget anywhere. I could try to justify the cost by saying, "It's the last lens I'll ever buy!", but that wouldn't be the case. So, I ended up spending about a third of the amount on a bit of a gamble I found very little information on.

 

Ebay ended up netting me a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 a-mount and LA-EA3 adapter for my Sony A7ii to try to cover that focal length with a 2.8 constant aperture. The 24-70 f/4 is considerably more expensive (about twice what I paid for the lens, sans adapter), slower, and tests pretty low in the sharpness department especially for a Zeiss. A G Master lens is about three times the cost of the total package, although probably much sharper and incredible autofocus, plus very hard to obtain.

 

My tests thus far for indoor stills in fairly low light are good, but not excellent. The lens itself is softer wide open than the 55mm native Zeiss, which is also faster at f/1.8, and does improve a bit when stopped down, but as a native a-mount, you really don't peak in sharpness until f/8 rather than f/5.6 with most native e-mount. I would estimate the t-stop value to be about 3.2, since it exposes just a tad darker than a 90mm f/2.8 macro, which also could be due to light loss in the LA-EA3 adapter.

 

And last, but probably most importantly, does it autofocus? Yes. Not perfectly, but even in low light (1.8 EV tested by a Sekonic L-308S-U), it nails even a small flexible spot in about half a second. It's absolutely not as good as a native E-mount, and would likely be much better with the LA-EA4 (which I'm currently considering renting/borrowing just for testing), but for my budget, it's the best there is.

 

Take a look at the little Sony 35 f2.8.    I think it can be had for around $600.   I use it a lot, especially when I want to lighten the load and be less conspicuous.   Good lens.   Fast autofocus.

[Barry C]

Just a quick note on the Sony 28mm f 2.8. It has been almost a permanent fixture on my A7R2 this summer for a mostly timelapse day and night/astro 7 month project I'm working on. It is outstanding. However, here's the catch. I had to send back 3 less than perfect ones before finally getting the one I have. So, if you buy this lens, check it carefully for decentering or tilted element issues. Unfortunately, this is an all to common problem with many lenses these days. There just isn't any real quality control before they send these things out. Today, I'm returning a bad 18mm Zeiss Batis.

[Fonk]

I've always wondered how the old Minolta 28-70 2.8 performs. Of course, I do not expect it to perform like anything made in the last 10-15 years. http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Minolta-AF-28-70mm-F2.8-G_review32.html

 

I have this lens and love it.  It has the worst hood ever designed (you'll never bother to put it on, trust me), has some flare issues if the sun is anywhere near entering your frame, and the AF is loud and slow.  However, it produces beautiful results.  The images are sharp, yet warm, and it produces that classic Minolta color rendering.  And the useless lens hood aside, the build quality is outstanding.  Despite its faults, it's actually one of my favorite lenses.  I use it a lot for weddings, events, group portraits, etc.

[ShotGal]

FWIW I think the Sony Zeiss Vario Sonnar *T 24-70 2.8 ZA SSM - A Mount with LAEA3 adapter (no mirror) is a good choice at 1/2 the price of a GM version of what looks to be the same lens.

[jstevensphoto]

You might also want to look at the 16-35 f4.   My wife keeps one on her A7r just about all the time.   Even the little 28-70 "kit" lens is really a pretty good performer for about $500.   Our A7r came bundled with the 28-70 and we use it a lot.   Light weight, pretty good auto focus. 

[Lucas]

Sorry, double post!

[Lucas]

I had the Sigma 24-70 mm f2.8 EX DG HSM for five years with a Sony A700, A900, A99 and A7 ( with LA-EA3 ). I liked its general performance, very accurate AF, quite sharp at the center and loosing a bit at the corners. I finally sold it with my A99 after I bought a Sony A7II and a Sony FE Tessar 24-70 f4 ZA OSS. Like you, I don't think it's as sharp as I expected for a Zeiss ( I have the Sony FE 70-200 f4 G OSS and it's waay sharper and with a faster AF). Now I'm planning to buy a Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG HSM Art for Sony A ( a good use for the LA-EA3), which is a bit heavy for my liking but I've read good reviews about it. The 

Sony Tessar 24-70 OSS will go for sale...! If you have any info on that Sigma lens, I'd be mostly grateful if you could drop me a line!

Good luck on your choices!!

[Mathias]

I was one of the early adopters of the FE24-70/4.

Disappointed by its corner performance I sold it later. I've got a couple of primes and the 16-35/4 now. As great as the 16-35 is, sometimes it just isn't long enough and changing lenses in the field or while traveling just annoys me.

That G Master is waaaay to large and heavy for me too (and I own the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4), so I kinda miss that super useful and compact 24-70/4 now.

There are good copies out there and maybe Sony has pushed up QC on that lens meanwhile - some people love their copy.

You just have to be aware of its field curvature at 24mm. Around 28-60mm it seems to be very sharp though.

Why not test it out and make up your own mind about it?

[DirkB]

Just a quick note on the Sony 28mm f 2.8. It has been almost a permanent fixture on my A7R2 this summer for a mostly timelapse day and night/astro 7 month project I'm working on. It is outstanding. However, here's the catch. I had to send back 3 less than perfect ones before finally getting the one I have. So, if you buy this lens, check it carefully for decentering or tilted element issues. Unfortunately, this is an all to common problem with many lenses these days. There just isn't any real quality control before they send these things out. Today, I'm returning a bad 18mm Zeiss Batis.

 

Ever since I am using E mount I am checking lenses for decentering or containment issues. Never had problems on any G or ZA during my A mount journey, and I owned all.

Talking only of Sony and Sony-Zeiss - when using E mount in parallel (starting on NEX7 as vacation package) I found serious problems even on the "premium" lenses - badest was the ZA1670/4. On APS-C lenses I detected defect ZA1670, ZA24, 1018, 35/1.8

Since I am on FE I found one lens being decentered, a Sony-Zeiss Distagon 35mm. It is a shame really...

 

With native Zeiss I never had any issue, neither with the Touits (all three) on my NEX7, nor with the Batis (all three) and the Loxia 21.

I would be interested in the Problem you have with the Batis 18mm, and how Zeiss is dealing the issue.

[Arutemu]

I am using the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 on Sony A7r via the LA-EA4 adapter. That thing is sharp! The f/2.8 sweetens the deal, since I shoot a lot in low light. I think this is it; I will not touch anything with an f/4, and at $200 for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, this was a no-brainer.

[Swiss Forester]

I have my eye on getting a 28mm. I have been using the Minolta 24mm for street photography on my A7Rii with excellent results. Just a tad too wide. A 35mm lens is not wide enough. I'm thinking the 28mm will be the ideal lens. 

 

For decades many of world's famous street-photographers used a 35mm-lens - Henri Cartier Bresson even mostly restricted himself to the 50mm- Summicron, and one cannot say his pictures are dull   

[Swiss Forester]

I was one of the early adopters of the FE24-70/4.

Disappointed by its corner performance I sold it later. I've got a couple of primes and the 16-35/4 now. As great as the 16-35 is, sometimes it just isn't long enough and changing lenses in the field or while traveling just annoys me.

That G Master is waaaay to large and heavy for me too (and I own the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4), so I kinda miss that super useful and compact 24-70/4 now.

There are good copies out there and maybe Sony has pushed up QC on that lens meanwhile - some people love their copy.

You just have to be aware of its field curvature at 24mm. Around 28-60mm it seems to be very sharp though.

Why not test it out and make up your own mind about it?

 

I made my mind and I must say: I am disappointed about the FE 24-70mm f/4.0.

 

No comparison to the FE 16-35mm f/4.0 which became my workhose for forest and landscape. If I need any longer I take the FE 55mm f/1.8, or the FE 90mm /f2.8 Macro. For going very light and inconspicuous in street photography it's the FE 35mm f/2.8 - outstanding in the center, good enouth on the margins.

 

But it is true: For events a handy sized 24-70mm would be very useful, because you have not the time to change lenses. The new G Master could be the solution - but too heavy and clumsy for the A7**-line in my view - I need a compact and relatively lightweight equipment for mountainscape photography.

[duncanfoxphoto]

I am using the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 on Sony A7r via the LA-EA4 adapter. That thing is sharp! The f/2.8 sweetens the deal, since I shoot a lot in low light. I think this is it; I will not touch anything with an f/4, and at $200 for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, this was a no-brainer.

From my tests, the Tamron loses a significant amount of light compared to other f/2.8 zooms in it's category. You might find even better low-light autofocus and ISO performance using a newer lens, but then again the price point just can't be beat.

[Arutemu]

From my tests, the Tamron loses a significant amount of light compared to other f/2.8 zooms in it's category. You might find even better low-light autofocus and ISO performance using a newer lens, but then again the price point just can't be beat.

 

It probably does, but I cannot afford a GM 24-70. My A7r was not even supposed to be my main camera But for the price, man, Tamron 28-75 is sweet.

[pfogle]

Well, I went through this for months, trying different legacy zooms on my A72. Since my early testing ruled out the 28-70 Sony - the edges are not just unsharp, they were positively horrible on my copy, and since I mainly shoot portraits and can afford a little softness in the corners, I eventually gave in and got the Sony 24-70 f4.

 

Now, here's the thing - testing this previously, I'd thought it wasn't good enough in the corners. Well, the reality is quite different. It's fine in the corners between about 28mm and 60mm, getting softer at the extreme ends of the range. It's very good in a quite large central region, particularly at 70mm, which is where my Canon zoom was weakest, and is where I shoot a lot of portraits.

 

I've now shot about half a dozen pro jobs on this lens, including an ad featuring nine family members, and shot at 24mm, and have had excellent results. Now it virtually never comes off the camera. On the rare occasions when I really do need corner sharpness, I have some legacy primes I can use.

 

Given the good AF, and the face-detection, this lens works great for me. YMMV