I drank the Kool-aid

[ron777]

Hi,

After reading every review I could find in re the 24-70mm GM F/2.8 zoom, I shelved my 24-70mm F/4 lens, and ordered and received said GM lens for my a7riii.  I then set about to perform my own, somewhat limited, optical test with the GM by comparing its "sharpness" to the only native prime I own (Sony FE 55mm F/1.8) by photographing an ISO 12233 chart lit with an LED light panel.  Despite the almost universal hype, I was shocked by the difference in resolution between the two lenses. With the GM set at roughly the same focal length as the prime,  the 55mm is visibly much sharper.  Unfortunately, had I read the DXO mark report for the same comparison prior to wasting the setup time for my own test, the large difference in measured sharpness would have become apparent.  It is still a nice lens but, despite the various pundit accolades, it may be able to replace primes in terms of focal length, but it cannot match the resolution of the FE 55mm F/1.8, and I suspect that the same goes for others as well.

[LiveShots]

The 55mm F1.8 is a terrific lens, very compact and so sharp... that and the 35mm F2.8 are my two go-to lenses for walking around.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

With a zoom you gain versatility and lose quality. It's the way it's always been. Besides, the 55/1.8 is a top tier prime so it's always going to be hard to beat.

 

Sony haven't changed the laws of physics, they're just nugding gear performance along. So with reasonable expectations, there's no need to be disappointed.

 

Considering that the 24-70/4 is an optically challenged lens, it's surprising that you would be so critical of the GM version. It's right up there with the best Canon and Nikon equivalents.

[Username]

Re: OP  

     

Hope you've learned your lesson.  

     

   

If not already obvious, the lesson is:   

   

Never photograph technical test targets.  

   

    

 

Hint-hint: If you'd prefer that both lenses 

perform near equally, just jack up the ISO. 

[tinplater]

Why would you be disappointed comparing a zoom to a superb prime?  You should compare your new zoom to the old F4...that is an apple to apples comparison and should make you feel better about your new lens.

[ron777]

Hello,

I've been involved in photography for 60 years—yes,I am an old codger—and am well aware of the prime vs zoom tradeoff.  What I was commenting on were the accolades and hype surrounding this lens and the statements made by some "experts," that this GM is "as good as good or close to a prime," which it is not.  As for the lens test chart, I was specifically looking for the presence or absence of decentering, the sharpness findings/comments were merely a byproduct of that process.  That saId, the 24-70mm GM is clearly a better lens than the F/4 OSS (I have compared and tested both with an equivalent setup) for overall resolution—center sharpness of the F/4 being not visibly much different to my old eyes than the GM—and i plan on keeping it, but I question whether it is really worth the price differential.  

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Then my next remark will be that you should know better than listening to internet hype. Sony has more than its fair share of noobs and trolls so you can't trust what they say. Sensible heads have known for a while that the Sony performs on par with the Canon and Nikon equivalents. Which is reasonable as they are priced about the same.

[ron777]

You are correct, however, without the option to handle and road-test the lens in person there is little else to rely upon other than Internet noise.  But I am  by no means dissatisfied with the lens and, as I mentioned above, I was testing for decentering, a potential issue for lenses in general, particularly multi-element zooms.  

[keepcoding]

Don't expect prime lens level from a zoom, even if it costs way more than the a prime ;-)

 

I personally wouldn't buy the 24-70 GM for the asking price.

[tinplater]

Several reviews I find on the web state that the 24-70mm GM is a good lens, but not the best in terms of sharpness. Don't know where you got that 'hype' from. The 24-105mm is supposed to be sharper.

I personally would never buy the GM for the asking price.

I love my 24-70 2.8 and it out performed my F4 Zeiss at all focal lengths, all apertures in side by side comparisons I ran.  As to the "hype" perhaps "praise" is more accurate, here is Ken Rockwell:

If you're serious about your full-frame Sony, this is the most serious wide to midrange zoom made by anyone for it. It's better than anything from ZEISS; it's as good as the ultra-pro Canon 24-70/2.8 L II and Nikon 24-70/2.8E VR.

 

Phillip Reeve:

Is this the case with the Sony FE 2.8/24-70 GM? If you look at the table above, the answer is clearly yes. This zoom lens can keep up optically with many of the best prime lenses in every regard except of speed and flare resistance. Furthermore, it is built to highest standards, offers pleasing handling, focusing and flexibility.

 

Chris Gampat:

In all rights, this is a fantastic lens. It delivers wonderful image quality, performs well, has a fast autofocus, and will make lots of professional photographers very happy. For the photographers that love zoom lenses, this is another reason to move to the Sony E mount system

[ron777]

Hi Tinplater,

Those were indeed several of the pundits whom I had referred to.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Beware of pundits who make money blogging about cameras. They are dependent on promos and won't bite the hand that feeds them.

[ron777]

The media can no longer be trusted to provide anything other than their corporate version of the news, the camera/lens reviewers are allegedly influenced by the funds they receive, and individual camera/lens users are are not necessarily providing unbiased reports.  What a mess our society is in, when no one can be trusted anymore. As for cameras, cars, and everything else we're on our own, with trial and error our only resource?

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Well, trust comes in degrees. Some sources you can trust 45% and some sources are 0%.

 

I usually look at opticallimits, lensrentals and DxO (measurements, not scores). That will give you 75% of what you need to know about a lens. The remaining 25% is your personal preferences in terms of optical character and handling.

 

Reviews based on how others "feel" about a lens is 0% for me.

[ron777]

I agree, in re DxO, I have not had the pleasure of Optical limits.  As I mentioned in my original post, I should have searched for the DxO measurements before placing the order.  But in actuality, it probably would not have changed my approach, as the alternative options among the available zooms are limited.  That said, Ken Rockwell has been fairly reliable in the past, and his disclaimer suggests the absence of a monetary arrangement with the manufacturers, as he points out the source from which he'd purchased each piece reviewed.  And, of course, positive user reviews are useless, but a landslide of negative user reports is often a red flag.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

There are mixed opinions about Ken. I would say he's better than some people think but not as good as he thinks

 

He does make his living off the blog, though, so there's a general positive tone about most things he writes about. Sourpusses make no money.

[ron777]

Good point.  Oh well, guess we're back to trial and error.

I'm in S Florida, where there are few if any high end camera retailers.  When it comes time for new equipment, I usually order online from B&H or equivalent, but that is generally sight unseen. I have been reasonably satisfied with the end result, as it pertains to cameras, but lenses have been a horse of a different color.  Although I must say that in days gone by, my Rollei, Hassy and Leica lenses have been without issues but, then again, they were all manual lenses.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

We're digressing (or at least I am) but I think lens manufacturers have improved in the last decade. Previously they would test and adjust pro grade lenses but they would ship consumer grade lenses with all sorts of defects.

 

The lens testing and review sites have increased user knowledge about optical defects and testing for them. So manufacturers get away with less these days.

 

Sigma and Tamron have also contributed by pushing consumer lenses closer to pro lenses.

 

So, it's a good time to be doing photography.

[ron777]

With the possible exception of the Sony 24-70mm F/4, I have no real experience with consumer lenses.  But, as you've indicated, the pro lenses of yesteryear were QC'd and generally produced in one location.  In current times, lenses, like all other products, are manufactured wherever—my 24-70 F/2.8 GM was made in Thailand—and by whomever can do it for the least cost.  That alone has a tendency to take a bite out of QC in favor of cost effectiveness and time to market.  So, while technology may have increased the potential quality of lenses and cameras, the desire for ever increasing profit appears to be a rate limiting factor.  But, it is what it is, and we've beat this topic to death.  Time to move on.

[SrMi]

Sony's 24-70 f4 (G) is known to be a horrible lens (probably worst zoom in Sony lineup), though some claim to have received a good copy (typically after many returns). 24-70 GM and 24-105 G are said to be good. I own both 24-70 f4 and f2.8 and the difference is huge, mainly because f4 (G) lens is very bad.

[ron777]

I own both as well, but I have to assume that my copy of the 24-70mm F/4 is an outlier, since the difference between its resolution—center— and the f/2.8 GM is not that great, unless pixel peeping.  That's not say that there isn't a difference, but a $1,000. difference?  For full frame shots, the GM will be my choice, but where center crop is advisable, or possible, it would be a tossup.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Ron, two things.

 

The 24-70/4 is sharp in the center (most lenses are) but sharpess drops hugely from the center to the edges. Same thing with distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration. This shows that it is a poorly constructed lens which really doesn't deserve the Zeiss badge.

 

Second, resolution can only be determined by pixel-peeping so it's not really a valid argument that the difference in resolution is only great if you pixel-peep.

 

So, I'm circling back to my first reply, that it is a question of mindset. If you genuinely think that you are fine with the f4 zoom and the f2.8 zoom isn't worth the difference in price, then act accordingly.

[sundial215]

Sony's 24-70 f4 (G) is known to be a horrible lens (probably worst zoom in Sony lineup), though some claim to have received a good copy (typically after many returns). 24-70 GM and 24-105 G are said to be good. I own both 24-70 f4 and f2.8 and the difference is huge, mainly because f4 (G) lens is very bad.

 

I am surprised that given your concern about the 24-70 F2.8, you did not look at the new Sony 24- 105 f4 lens.  Its about half the cost of the GM but delivers performance that is IMHO. close enough to the GM for Government work.  all lenses are a compromise among competing variables and the question is not about which reaches perfection, but which one best fits your needs.  I am a new Sony (A7r2) used having come from a Nikon (D810) system.  My reason for converting had to do with the weight of the camera and lenses and the kind of imaging I do (Landscapes with a FF camera and wildlife with a m43 and long lens).  Whereas, in my younger days, i thought nothing of carrying a Blad and two or three lenses and associated equipment, camera weight became an increasing issue as I got older.   It came to a head when I found I was leaving my beloved D810 along with the excellent Tokina 24-70 f2.8 at home preferring to carry the lighter weight m43 with a decent lens for scapes (12-35mm f2.8).  But the m43, while excellent could not give me the kind of images I was getting from the D810.  The A7r2 was a compromise for me initially, but since owning it I have come to love it as much as I loved the D810 .  The A7r2 now goes where I go, along with the Sony 24-105 f4.  Its about half the weight of my former Nikon package, and while I thought I was making a comprimise, looking at the images I now get, I see I made the right choice. So, as many have said, the tool you use is always going to be a comprimise among a multitude of factors. What is important is the enjoyment of using it and the end result you get from its use.

[ron777]

Actually, I had considered the 24-105mm, but it has been on backorder by the large retailers—B&H, Adorama, etc.—for some months, and I got tired of waiting. In addition, there have been a considerable number of Internet posts regarding the QC for that lens, with decentering representing the most common complaint. On the other hand, the 24-70mm range was what I've been accustomed to, so the extra reach of the 24-105mm had not been a deciding factor.  However, the reduced size and weight was attractive.  But now that I have the 24-70GM, I do not find that size and weight are a concerning issue and I am happy with its resolution and ease of use.

[scrane]

I know that the 24-105 initially had problems with focus shift due to assembly problems that were quickly corrected, but I have heard nothing about decentering issues. I have a 24-105 and it is a very, very sharp lens throughout its range. Can you elaborate?