Anyone bought a 24-70 ZA lately?

[Jamooche]

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.  

[pflapf]

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.

I used to have a 16-35 but sold it because of horrible weakness in sharpness between 28 and 35mm. Is your copy better? Or is the 24-35 also weak?

Also I had no trouble with the lens correction profile in Lightroom. Does lens correction work properly in your LR for the 16-35?

[Jamooche]

I used to have a 16-35 but sold it because of horrible weakness in sharpness between 28 and 35mm. Is your copy better? Or is the 24-35 also weak?

Also I had no trouble with the lens correction profile in Lightroom. Does lens correction work properly in your LR for the 16-35?

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.  

[Cheyne]

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!

 

Late reply here, sorry.

 

Actually yes I bought one, from someone on these forums actually. I think I paid about $850 for it and I think that's about the right price.  

 

Im very happy with mine, its very sharp.  Actually sharper than I was expecting it to be and rivaling some of my primes when shooting around 35mm.  

I took a punt because I wasn't happy with the contrast from the kit lens. Everything looked kind of flat and just un-exciting.  The 24-70 f/4 solved that problem and the images have plenty of punch to them. 

 

I recently took this lens and my A7RII on a trip to Miami and used it extensively. The out of camera JPEGS were outstanding.  I will post some tonight when I get home. 

 

I also find my copy to have great corner sharpness, which is something I was also not expecting.

 

The guy I bought it from said he did exchange it once or twice until he got the right one.  I dont know how much he considered the other ones to be unacceptable though. 

 

Distortion at 24mm is not as bad as everyone makes out.  It's there, but its not that hard to correct and I often do this anyway with other lenses. Particularly the 28mm f2. 

 

Bokeh is non existent, even at f4 and 70mm. This is not a portrait lens.

 

I would say this most definitely a great walk around / street  / holiday / landscape  lens. Which is what I use it for. 

 

Personally, for me its a must have lens. Why ? Because the 28-70 is just flat / lifeless and  The 24-70 GM is far too big and cumbersome.  That leaves only the 24-70 f/4.    I own a bunch of primes, but I still think everyone needs a 24-70.  Sometimes I just can't be bothered switching lenses all day and just need to flexibility of a zoom. 

 

Its not a perfect lens, but its pretty good for the size and weight. Its a lot better than my old Canon 24-105L in terms of sharpness and contrast. 

 

My advice, don't buy at full retail price. There are plenty on sale and second hand that can be had for around $800, which is a good price for this lens.

 

Also don't listen to all the chin strokers on internet forums. Try one for your self before you decide you dont like it. There are so many people on the DPReview forums who bag out this lens yet are happy to spend $1500 on a Zeiss prime lens only to end up taking horribly composed photographs of their cats with it.  I had completely ignored this lens because of the horrible feedback on forums I had read, then I bought one and realized it was not warranted, i've been happily using it for months.

 

Just noticed there are few shots in my flickr profile shot with this lens.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cheynewallace/18822974565/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cheynewallace/18202344833/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cheynewallace/18636816409/in/dateposted-public/

[Jamooche]

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.  

[Albi86]

Bought one last year and I've been using it extensively.

 

I swear I can't understand the negativity I see online about this lens. True, corners are somewhat soft at 24mm (not really so noticeable on the 24MP A7) - but hey, it's a compact zoom. 

 

The only thing I agree on is that it is expensive. I got mine used for 550 GBP and I think it's worth this price.

 

I was particularly impressed by the sharpness wide open.

 

It was a definite step up in IQ from my previous Canon 24-70 f/4 L.

[Jamooche]

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.  

[Cheyne]

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.  

 

No probs.  I shoot RAW probably 70% of the time, but I still don't really understand why people complain so much about the the distortion if they shoot RAW.

 

If you're shooting RAW, then you MUST post process, in which case applying the lens correction is a single click away for most applications.  Sure if you chose to not apply any profiles then you can see some more pronounced distortion, but why would you?  When are you ever going to print or publish a RAW unprocessed file?

 

I have a "Sony RAW Base" preset that I apply to all my Sony RAW files on import into Lightroom which automatically boosts sharpness and adds lens profiles. I simply never see a completely RAW image.

 

You're right, sharpness is not everything, but its pretty important for a more landscape oriented lens like this one I think.  I also value contrast and a sense of of depth a lot, which i've been happy with.

 

Anyway, it's the best 24-70 for FE mount that you can get for under $1000 right now. Im not interested in adapting Canon lenses, that kind of defeats the purpose of mirrorless for me,  I would just use my 5DMKIII otherwise.

If Sony releases a MKII that fixes the issues and maybe improves in a few areas, i'll probably buy one,  for everything else there are some great primes available. 

[rdgeorge55]

There is a photo of a glacier in the May 2016 issue of Outside Magazine.  Chris Burkard took it with the 24-70 f/4 lens on a a7R ii.  Looks sharp to me!

 

My copy seems OK.  I have not shot test patterns to check for edge sharpness.  If I want to shoot landscapes I will use my 16-35 f/4.

[Cheyne]

There is a photo of a glacier in the May 2016 issue of Outside Magazine.  Chris Burkard took it with the 24-70 f/4 lens on a a7R ii.  Looks sharp to me!

 

My copy seems OK.  I have not shot test patterns to check for edge sharpness.  If I want to shoot landscapes I will use my 16-35 f/4.

 

Yea, my goto kit nowadays is the 24-70 f4 , the 16-35/f4 and the 28 /f2.   I can do everything I need with those three.   I also have the 38 2.8 the 55 1.8 and a bunch of legacy minolta glass , but don't take them out near as much.

[Cheyne]

Here's a few straight out of camera JPEGS shot on my A7RII in Miami last week with the 24-70 f/4. 

 

Some of these were shot from the roof of a moving bus, others on foot.  The only modifier used was a B&W polarizing filter on the front of my lens. 

 

These are not post processed at all, I havn't had time to work on them yet (shot these all on JPG + RAW)  

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7efqgaw58akvq8l/AAANPLYh4VBaJ_ZRAuwAaoOHa?dl=0

 

 

ps .. You should download the files and not view them in the browser because drop box shows you a heavily down sampled version.  They're about 20MB each

[Jamooche]

There is a photo of a glacier in the May 2016 issue of Outside Magazine.  Chris Burkard took it with the 24-70 f/4 lens on a a7R ii.  Looks sharp to me!

 

My copy seems OK.  I have not shot test patterns to check for edge sharpness.  If I want to shoot landscapes I will use my 16-35 f/4.

 

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:

 

[Jamooche]

Here's a few straight out of camera JPEGS shot on my A7RII in Miami last week with the 24-70 f/4. 

 

Some of these were shot from the roof of a moving bus, others on foot.  The only modifier used was a B&W polarizing filter on the front of my lens. 

 

These are not post processed at all, I havn't had time to work on them yet (shot these all on JPG + RAW)  

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7efqgaw58akvq8l/AAANPLYh4VBaJ_ZRAuwAaoOHa?dl=0

 

 

ps .. You should download the files and not view them in the browser because drop box shows you a heavily down sampled version.  They're about 20MB each

 

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??!??!