Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS lens review with samples
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- One of the earliest full-frame zoom lenses for Sony's E-mount mirrorless cameras has a pretty mixed reputation - let's see how well it performs.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):
geni.us/sonyze...
All pictures taken by me on Sony a7R II and Sony a5100 cameras.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons....
I just bought this lens purely for video. Very happy with it. Compared to the 28-70mm kit lens, it does make a good difference. Extra 4mm on wide end, the OSS works slightly better, and maybe I'm lucky but I got a sharp copy. The build is better, and smoother when zooming, and constant f4. I picked it up used for £385 in mint condition with a warranty from a store. At this price it's a no brainer. There is no other lens with 24mm that has OSS, at this price, especially minimum weight and build quality. For photo it's probably a different story. Most people will prefer the tamron. I tried the tamron but didn't like its weight and feel factor and shape. On a gimbal I want minimum weight, plus 24mm makes a huge difference. OSS is great for video. Makes a big difference when you compare it all together. I feel in the end it comes down to price and personal needs.
Thank you for this comment! Now I van almost hit the buy button😂 what camera are you using the lens with? And are you still happy with it? I want to buy it for my a7c.. and Will also mainly use IT for video!
@@hanfpv3093 I got rid of it recently. I had a good copy. I needed something with a better zoom so got the tamron 28-200 recently. It's sharper and more versatile for what I'm doing now. Also no longer on a7iii. Now on a7iv. If you get a good copy of Zeiss at around £350 or less I'd say it's a good bargain. Otherwise I'd probably wait as Sony are bringing new refreshed range. Only if budget is priority and you can't wait then grab a zeiss at lower price. Or possibly look at tamron options or new sony 16-35 f4. All depends on your budget and focal length required.
@@PhotoVideoGuruwow what a fast replay😁awesome🙏 well the thing i want most of all is a good stabelised OSS lens.. i have the a7c with the f4-5.6 28-60 kit lens.. and that lens does not have OSS so handheld video is pretty bad.. i dont even know if OSS Will make a big difference since i am still new to all of this! The a7c does have steadyshot and (not sure if im correct but) i think that this works together with a OSS lens??And yess my budget isnt that big and i have a trip that i would like to film pretty soon! I have a few refurbished options for this lens for about 400-500euros so that's what in looking at now!
@@hanfpv3093 the OSS will help a little. I would only pay around £350 max though for a mint condition one. Unfortunately not many options with OSS.
@@PhotoVideoGuru yess sadly not alot of OSS lenses on the market.. but you said something about Sony bringing out a refurbished Line? Whats that all about?
Subscribed:
- systematic, quick, relevant review style
- that voice and accent, it turns my cup of coffee into tea
Best lens reviewer around!
I had this lens on my A7RIII. Better than the kit lens, for sure. This is now an old design, however. The body is easily scratched, especially the serrated zoom and focus rings. For $350 on eBay, it’s a worthwhile upgrade from the kit lens, but the 24-105 is twice as much on eBay and twice as good.
I use the Zeiss 24-70 f/4 mainly for landscape photography, but also as an allround lens sometimes on my A7 III. I've never experienced any problems with the image quality as shown in the video (Obviously there will be some distortion at wider angles, but it's easier than ever before to correct distortion in post process, so I don't mind that) The photos I've taken with it looks razor sharp at almost any aperture, and it has never ruined any of my photos, luckily. I bought this lens for about 500£ (Used) and saved 300£ instead of buying the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Overall I would say the Tamron is slightly better though, but if money matters, another option could be to look for an used Zeiss 24-70 f/4. Personally I wanted the Tamron, but I ended up getting the Zeiss. And I don't regret it for a second :)
ive had this with my sony a7s and yeah sometimes it is good sometimes it is bad. this is an honest review right here.
No regrets with this lens, I have even photographed a wedding with it. It's a little soft in the corners but there's a lot of lenses that are.
Serial numbers play a part with this lens the early copies started in 457 or 458, most issues are with those, plenty of people are happy with newer copies starting from 459 upwards. Sony have had quality control issues with the 24-105 as well being de centered. There's many pro landscape shooters who rate this lens, unfortunately when the A7 system came out these where probably whizzed out of the factory without the QC required.
True. Mine are 476 series with only ZEISS stamp in front and it take photos super sharp. Previous batches with Carl Zeiss marking do have flaws but the latter version they manage to improve by alot.
Is the serial number the Zeiss Serial no (8 digits, on front ring) or the Sony Serial no (7 digit, start with 0, a sticker near the mount)? thanks
@@frankxu3195 8 digits, on front ring
This was the first lens I got with My A7R, and the one I have the hardest time parting with LOL! I'm using the same setup as in this video usually (a7rii, or rather the a7sii since this is my walk around video lens) and I enjoy it for videography. The constant aperture is great, and I enjoy the separation it brings to my subject and background. It may be just an f4, but I like the quality of the bokeh, rather than the blurriness for this glass. Great video nonetheless!
The most accurate review I’ve ever seen on RUclips! 👏🏼👏🏼 Thank you!
Got it for £400 used (nearly new) last month, mainly to upgrade from the kit lens. and I think there is definitely a case for it.
Firstly, it is not as expensive as Tamron (£799) and yet is a native lens (well the AF performance of Tamron...), if got for around £400 it is a good middle ground between the Tamron and the kit zoom. Secondly, I did a side by side comparison with the kit zoom, and found it better in the majority of aspects that the latter offers, such as the centre and the corner at 28mm and 70mm (since the kit lens can't go any further than that..). If you don't go for the extreme end of 24mm and 70mm, it is actually not that bad (ie.67mm far better than 70mm). Thirdly, it is more versatile. You got a bigger aperture since 35mm (I think?), yet also wider at the wide-angle side. It can do things that the kit zoom can't.
I think the negative reputation comes from three areas, firstly its initial price point, secondly its blue badge (well for those saying it is a 'real Zeiss' I recommend you go and look at the patent registration, that's where you should be learning about optics, not snake oils on forums and in reviews), and thirdly the performance of the kit zoom, they three together higher the expectation. And frankly speaking, I think it is definitely not worth the money above £400, but not all that bad if you can get it for £400. Could it had been better? Yep definitely.
PS: For complaints about the price, yep on a pure market sense it is 'overpriced', but not from an engineering/costs perspective, given the intensive use of aspherical elements (3 of them!). The problem is tho, such intensive use of materials etc did not transform into a good result since the optic design just wasn't good enough. It is similar to other earlier FE zoom lenses (ie. 70-200mm f4). Hopefully, they will release a redesigned affordable standard zoom.
Mine is a year old (2018) model and it's simply razor sharp !
people forget about these older lenses - but they are always great. I use my kit lenses most despite having a ton of other more expensive lenses
i am surprised you find it big and heavy! Do you have any other FF 24-70 f4 to compare ? I had canon 24-70 f4 and it was much bigger and heavier! I got my copy of this lens half the price, so i cant complaint about quality.
the best reviewer on this aspect.....concise
Mine is perfect in every way .......I love it even in 2019 shooting with A7R iii
what a shame for Zeiss!
Thanks Christopher for your review!
Do you intend to publish the review you did in a 35mm 7artisans 1.2?
Thanks for your nice job!
That review will come in a month or two :-)
@@christopherfrost Great! Thanks for your reply!
I will wait for it.
That is so good you are doing so many reviews, hope you keep on going.
Best regards from Brazil.
Everything I've seen on this lens always convinces me it's not worth upping from the kit 28-70. Think a real upgrade would be the tamron 28-75 2.8 or the Sony 24-105. I think I'd like the Sony for the range on a zoom, 24 is nicer to have than 28.
Glad i watched this before bidding on a used one!
might as well as get the tamron 28-75 f2.8
Najeeb Badalandabad anyday
I agree
that's miles better
You'll get a much better lens that way.
Tamron has a terrible bokeh. rather shoot with 24-105 f4. best zoom out there
On my Sony A7IV with ACTIVE stabilization ON and this lens... seems to have a real Gimbal 😎(have some doubt that the OSS of the TEST lens is a bit damaged...)
I have this for my A7 and it's my jack of all trades lens for when I'm not sure what lens to use and I don't want to carry that much. I bought it second hand for £490 and I'm happy with it for what I need it for, I would agree that the new price is way to much, but then you are paying for the blue label! It's not a lens for pixel peepers, but I'm happy with it and prefer it to the kit lens. Also I didn't realise til last week that the firmware of the lens had an update that was newer than what I had on the lens. This is something I forget that was even a thing as a former Nikon user! Is yours on Version 03?
Hello. Did you notice any improvement (esp. sharpness around edges) after you did the firmware update?
@@eaterofjams no noticeable difference, I think the update improved AFC performance and compatibility. I have since upgraded to the 24-105 f4 which is much sharper.
Thank you, that settles it for me :)
Soon after the introduction of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 the price of this lens dropped considerably.
However the angle of view difference between 24mm and 28mm is much larger than the difference between 70mm and 75mm.
My opinion despite the better construction quality and the internal stabilization of the Sony Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4 T* OSS ZA, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a better lens by far.
Thanks for another honest and well done review!
Had this lens on my A7rii. Comparing to my a6000 with the 16-70, I was never really impressed with the image so I stopped using it. It was only until I got the 24-105 that image quality was noticeably better. I would skip buying this lens altogether and go for the 24-105 if using full frame.
Thanks for a great review with samples. I can't see why someone would choose this over the 24-105 which I own and love. Wonder if your lens was banged out of alignment, it really does looks pretty terrible, reminds me of my Canon 24-70 L series 1, that lens wasn't very good either but my cousin had a copy that was far better of the same lens, both bought new.
I just got this lens used for $240 - tiny scratch on front. Using for video almost exclusively given its price point and weight.
For photography, I much prefer -$100 vintage primes.
Maybe it's that I don't have much money or maybe it's that I've gotten lucky, but these vintage lenses can do wonders.
Very informative, thanks! Can't wait for the sony telephoto lenses reviews :-)
People who uses A7R series probably does not use this lens but SEL24105G or SEL2470GM, Tamron28-75. So I think it makes no sense to test SEL2470Z on high resolution cameras. It can be more realistic to test on normal A7 series cameras. But nice video☺
Great review as usual also like the new logo!
Chris. Can u review 70-200mm f4 sony lens.. :)
I love your reviews. Well done.
Almost all the harsh words towards this Zeiss branded lens that are, for still photo, it was something very similar the 28-70mm kit lens, while charging a premium for the blue Zeiss logo. the question is of course, does 24mm + constant f/4 for video overcome its price tag? and btw it is a little bit strange that a lens reaching 24mm, which is wider than the 28- kit one, can't focus nearer.
nice work for covering this unusually popular (since when it comes to FE lenses, there are not many options), but weird lens
I really hope they release some "proper" zeiss zooms eventually. I'd love to have a compact 24-70 for my A7C.
Yes! This is the only reason I'm on the hunt. I will NOT buy any huge lenses for my A7c. This Zeiss seems good, since I do mainly video.
My problem is its either this one or the kit (didnt buy kit).
Completely agree with your assessment. I have used the Kit lens, the lens you've reviewed and now the g-master. Kit and G master take the cake by far...this lens should have never gotten the Zeiss designation.
I owned this when it first came out due to a lack of options. I sold it not long after getting the 16-35 F4, preferring to use that and the excellent primes.
The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 makes this lens totally irrelevant these days.
Try to find a used tamron, it's like a looking for needle in a haystack. Got my F4 for 450€ and i can manage with it. Sold the kit lens right after it and never looked back.
Good review as usual Christopher. This is the one lens in my bag that probably gets used the least and unfortunately, you confirmed my fears. One bright spot though, I mean to track down a copy of that book about Anthony Flew. And is it just me, or is there a lot of buzz about Tamron 28-75?
yeepee !! thanks Christopher, because of you i know now how to use my Z :D
How old is the lens example you reviewed? You had the serial number covered in the video? I don’t think your test results are very representative of the actual optical performance of the lens in question. I’ve own two examples myself and both give good center sharpness at F/4.0 zoomed all the way to 70mm, for extreme corner sharpness you’ll have to stop down the lens to around F/8.0. Prior to buying mine, I had an separate example in for testing and found no problems with that one either.
Thank you so much for this review. Will you prefer the 24-105 f4 over this one?
Yup. Take a look at my review of that lens
This lens is probably what will make me re-invest in Nikon, I'm considering going mirrorless and find the 24-70 f4 really compelling due to size and weight compared to old school 24-70 2.8's. Thanks for the warning, seing how bad this one is probably just saved me a bunch of regret down the line. Too bad, I'm curious to try a a7r2 but will likely go with the z6 instead to get a proper 24-70 f4. Thank you for another great and informative review!
Should I buy 24-105 f4 OSS or this zeiss lens?
@@Akbhar_kaBaapfrom what I understand the 24-105 is better but I don’t know, I invested in Nikon instead
Got it brand new for 650$. Totally worth it!!!
No
@@mrbaiser4133 Your opinion is worthless for me
Hey Christopher, you might be pleased to hear that Meike is starting to ship their Veydra cine Clones, and also adapted the 25mm T2.2 for photography as a 25mm f/2! for less than 300$!!!
dallatorretdu Is no one anywhere concerned at all about the theft of intellectual property that’s enabling these impossibly cheap Chinese clones? Christopher seems like he’d be the last person to embrace what amounts to nothing other than theft, and in a massive scale. Sure, a low, low price is exciting, but what if you were an engineer who worked at Veydra (a small company itself) and busted your butt creating an incredible lens-just to see a Chinese firm with no ethics swoop in, copy it and sell your work all over the Internet? And what if you ended up losing your job over it due to the tighter margins small businesses must work within?
A knockoff of a Canon “nifty-fifty” is one thing, but cloning Veydra’s lenses has a really sleazy feel to it. That’s a shame.
This lens was my 2nd lens for Sony FF in 2014. Back then, there was no alternative (other than the "kit" lens). I've made some very nice photos with this lens. I was already considering replacing it with the Tamron, but wondered whether the difference would be significant enough to warrant it. This video (and the Tamron review video) answers that question with a yes.
sigma 24-70 f2.8 is coming!
Thanks for your work mate!
Wow what an abysmal performance for the price. I would love to hear your thoughts on the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8? Specifically how it stands up compared to its much cheaper Samyang alternative. All the best!
I had both, and my experience is the same as shown in many reviews. The image quality isn't identical, but on the same level. Maybe the Sony is more robust, but both aren't weather sealed. The AF of the Samyang isn't bad, old videos show some hunting, but the latest updates solved that. One thing is annoying, and most reviewers forget that: The manual states that you have to set the Steady Shot setting to "manual" and then chose "35mm". Most times it works, if you leave it at "auto", but sometimes it seems to get the focal length wrong. So, quick lens changes might be a problem. But I kept the Samyang, it's a fun little lens
Immo Kuß Thanks for the informative response! The manual steadyshot angle of view selection is weird but not a crisis. I’ll see if I can get the Sony on sale or secondhand reasonably. If not I might grab the Samyang instead given it’s that close. Thanks Again!
There is probably one good reason to purchase a used copy of this lens: Infrared photography. It might make sense to use this lens for IR photography, since it does not have a so called hot spot in the middle of the frame. Unfortunately the 24-70GM and the 24-105mm are not really usable for IR photography because of an immediately visible hot spot.
Not really sure what you're talking about here...!
@@christopherfrost It is possible to take infrared pictures using slightly modified digital cameras. Those infrared pictures are usually black and white. The sky is black, plants are white, buildings look more or less the same. Here is a sample picture: (www.flickr.com/photos/123745682@N04/19014771465/). The modification of the camera is the removal of the IR/UV blocker filter in front of the sensor. Without that blocking filter the chip of the camera is also sensitive for ultraviolet and infrared light. Shooting infrared with such a modified camera requires an ir passthrough filter in front of the lens. Using a mirrorless camera you can shoot more or less normally. Some lenses are more suitable than others for IR photography. The not so suitable lenses have an ugly white infrared hot spot in the middle fof the picture (since the lens coating was not designed for infrared, but for visible light). This Zeiss lens does not have this issue when used for infrared photography.
Thank you for the review! :)
New 24-105 is what this lens was supposed to be like, but at least itl has a very nice color rendering and AF works very well and quiet and a premium feel while using 😁 My copy has only a biy of softness almost in all apertures, but only in the extreme corners. Its noticed only in 100% zoom crop.
Thank u very much for this video 👍👍👍
So much hate for this lens. I bought it used for 500€ (actually, new) from a guy who got it in A7 kit and never used it. The Tamron was not an option for me as it's not stabilized and I have an A7 Mark I. Plus I prefer to buy native lenses (what about in camera corrections with a Tamron ?), I bought a Samyang 35mm F2.8 recently and got a little disappointed. The 24-105, good but too heavy and expensive. What's the point in having a compact FF camera if I buy a lens that is twice as heavy as the camera itself ? So I chose the Zeiss 24-70 F4, sold the 28-70 kit lens that I got with my A7 and never looked back.
This is such a step up, a night and day difference. With the kit lens, the borders were so soft (not even the borders, but I'd say 1/3 of the pictures) especially at 28mm. The Zeiss is not perfect either but hey, it's a zoom, don't expect a prime performance. At least it's MUCH better than the kit lens. From 28mm to 65mm, the Zeiss is very good even at F4, great at F8, and beats the 28-70 in every aspect. Color and contrast are great too. At 50mm F4, there's barely any difference with my Sony FE 50mm, at least you need to zoom like crazy if you want to see some. And at 35mm F4, it beats my Samyang, especially in color rendition.
Maybe I had a very bad copy of the 28-70, and a good one of the 24-70. But I think this Zeiss zoom is the best weight/performance ratio you'll get for the A7. Of course there are better alternatives, but much heavier and more expensive. New it's a bit overpriced, but if you got a good copy used, it's worth every penny, especially if you're looking for a step-up over the kit lens and for an all-around lens, to travel for example.
Legend, thanks. 👍🏻
A small 35-105 f3.5 or f4, with fast and silent AF, NO Ibis, and good image quality at the edges.
That would be a street photographers dream, and also great lens for traveling, family shots, everyday use. In the 80's and 90's, every company had such a lens.
Many people don't need more wide angle (or they add a 16-35/4), but they need more reach at the long end than those zooms that go to 70 or 75mm offer, and they want a smaller lens than the 24-105. Tamron, Sigma, are you listening???
There has to be factory variance on this lens, right? The reviews are all over the place. In the comments it flips back and forth constantly between "sold it after two days" and "must have gotten lucky, cause it's super sharp." Maybe it's a resolution situation?
I decided to give it a shot because there simply is no other 24-70 type lens with this form factor- which I require to pair with my Sony A7c. Got lucky, and it's great. If you can test one locally for around $400/$500.. and it performs properly.. pick it up! Major bang for the buck at that price.
I'm buying a a7rii and I'm wondering which cheap standard zoom would be best to get me started this one or the 28-70? Which would you recommend for landscape shooting?
I have 24-70 f4, 24-105 f4 and even the 24-70 f2.8 gm
The 24-70 f4 is sharper than the other 2 lenses, and i use it on the A1.
You had a bad copy for sure.
I agree. My copy is very sharp too. I haven't compared it to 2.8 though but can't imagine the difference to be that major. I have this lens for over 2 years and I'm very happy with it.
What is seri number on your lens? I have a chance to buy that with 256$ and the seri start by 473.
It is a little discouraging not to find enough information on sites like Dpreview or DxOmark to make a decision.
The Sony FE Carl Zeiss 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS has in DxOmark a score of 31 (very good) with the Sony A7RII, and performs very well except in 70mm (but we have no idea on a Sony other than R, there is no 7II or 7III ), and there is no information about 24-105 ...
In Dpreview is worse, there are only tests with the Sony A7R, it is still looking good, except like on DxOmark in 70mm, but also no information from 24-105.
For the information that can be obtained, the 24-70 is a very good objective, with an impressive level of sharpness between 35 and 50, and I have the doubts whether it will be better than 24-105 FE 4, because the price of this is higher , but that does not guarantee a better quality and I always have doubts when the zooms are long.
Any clue...?
It's really a shame that Zeiss is okay with putting their name on these weak performing zoom lenses. (FYI: For those who didn't already know, Sony designed and made this lens, along with the f/4 16-70mm APS-C zoom. Zeiss just "certifies" the lens as part of their two decade long branding partnership with Sony. It's neither manufactured by Zeiss in Germany nor their Japanese manufacturing partner, Cosina.)
I always thought Zeiss had some contribution in optics of the Sony Zeiss lenses. How about the the 55mm f1.8? It’s a stellar performer.
@@avg4570its only contribution (zeiss) is the coatings on the front elements (T*)
Otherwise the whole construction is sony, barrell, mechanism & lens elements
@@craigdoran6811 What is your source for that statement?
It works well for video.
Wouldn't be my first choice for stills.
I couldn't get the kit lens to auto focus.
Secondly I was hoping to see ur review on 16-35 f4 ziess lens review and so will make the decision which one I can compromise and which one I can go for GM
I've already reviewed the 16-35 f/4
I managed to get this lens in true mint condition, box, lens hood, pouch and no wear on the lens for $500 around a a year and a half ago. For $500 I think its actually fair what its worth, it saved a a decent amount of weight vs my canon 24-70 f4 but I lose macro mode and obviously, the canon is far superior in IQ.
But the lens weighs little enough that I'm ok with what I spent if it means I'm taking my camera out with me more, even if im not saturating all 42mp worth of the sensor. If I could go back in time though, its worth almost worth getting the 28-70 kit lens and just leaving it at 5.6 all the time.
I'm not sure if I want to part with my 24-70 F4, 28 F2 and 85 F1.8 to get the Gmaster version of this lens.
I think the G Master version is overpriced and f2.8 is not enough in low light. I'd go with the 85 f1.8 and a fast wide angle prime.
@@saadazzahrani I concur, it is expensive for what it is. And I'm ok with bridging the gap at the "wide" end and short end using primes. I really wish sony would release their own branded 24-70 with better optics. A macro mode would be nice, I really do miss the canon 24-70.
@@TehTechnoGuy seems like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 will cover your needs, if you're OK with the 28mm. Some people think it's not wide enough. It also has good macro capability. It's a great lens really.
Thanks for the TRUTH 👍.
This is the “Carl Zeiss” branded first version. The “Zeiss” branded second version is better.
Hi, where can You see whether it is the first or the second version?
@@gusigabi5732 On the front lens ID ring
Thanks for the reply Bradl2636. Why do you think it is better? Which year did the "Zeiss" come to the market? I m looking for an "allrounder", better than the kit objectiv of the alpha 7 ii.
@@gusigabi5732 Then I'd suggest the 24-105mm f4 G OSS... it's better than both of the 24-70mm Zeiss variants.
I had this lens and wouldn’t recommend this lens at all. I would definitely recommend the Tamron 28-75m f2.8 instead.
tamron hasn t OSS
Ailenei Pavel yes Tamron doesn’t have OSS and would change my recommendation to the 16-55 f/2.8 for APS-C
pls advise on a7Riv: this lens VS sony 24-105 G f4? which one better performance?
It's a great lens. It's produced many incredible images for me and made me money. The hate is unwarranted and completely blown out of proportion for camera trolls. Get better at photography.
I still think that you got a bad copy of 24-70 lens, sure, in terms of variability this lens are awful. Comparing my copy with lens I have, I see respectable sharpness, more so on long end. Only this zoom has stabilization - so I use it with sony a7s. Works great for me! I'd also love version II - smaller and with even better performance.
I’ve just bought an A7 II so I was excited by the Zeiss badge and low second hand cost of this lens. It would appear this would not be an ideal first lens for this camera
Chris would you review sony gm 24mm f1.4 please.
Would love to see a review of the Sony 12-24 f4 G :)
One day, yes
which lens is better? 24-70f4 or 24-105f4?
Tamron 28-200 or 28-75G2
Review brah please do sony 24-240 :^)
I’ll do it for you. “Howdy everyone. The Sony 24-240mm variable aperture zoom lens is a highly versatile lens for budget conscious travelers and others who prefer the all-in-one convenience of a full 10X zoom range over achieving superb image quality at any one focal length. It appears Sony only made this lens because they knew there’s a certain audience that would buy it, and it shows. But for them, this is your lens! Cheers!”
When you listen to Christopher frost about lenses you don’t give a shit about because it’s Christopher frost.
1:27. Oof, that makes me feel better about the scratch I put on my rokionon on day one... Must be a rental.
Does it suits for sony a6100?
You panned the 16-70 in an earlier review. How can you recommend it now?
I didn't exactly recommend it - I said it would be more suitable than this lens if you're working with an APS-C camera
Strange, the one I tested in the shop because im getting a Sony A7 III looks really good :/ from my test shots
I recommend the Tamron 28-75 instead!
Not sure why Zeiss' quality has not been convincing the last few years or is it that other manufacturers have caught up like Sigma and Rokinon/Samyang.
Glad to see this review before pursuing used one. Not worth it. Thank you
I was thinking of getting this just as a video/backup lens. Can't be much worse than my Canon 24-85
No, but MUCH more expensive - did you check the price?
@@kimhansen6384 I buy used, so for $500 to get video it's not terrible
I have a good number of lenses, this one included. I've heard people pan it, I enjoy it, it lives on my camera. I'm sure there's better, but when is something good enough? I'm one of those arts sake types I suppose, & I suppose fine engineering is an art, but I'm not here for corner sharpness... which is unprofessional I know, scoozi. Why am I here... ffs...
I would really appreciate test on aps-c body
I hope you will do the fuji 56mm 1.2 r (not the apd) soon ! Bzw. your work is superb, keep it going !
Can you Please suggest a good Wide Angle lens that does not break my pocket. Please 🙏 , For Full Frame.
How wide? Samyang 2.8/35. Their 2.8/24 is a bit worse, but stopped down a good choice for a 24mp camera. Or the manual focus version of the Tokina 20mm
Would you get this lens if it cost $350?
I have used this lens for a portrait shoot once and was coupled with my A7II. The distortion and vignetting was unbearable. I had high hopes for a lens with Zeiss logo on it but it was a total disappointment. Back in the days, Sony did not produce any standard zoom lens (no g master then) so I had no choice but to use a Canon 24-70 with an adapter or use this.
The new Tamron should be much better - but it misses the 24mm Wide-Angle range, and that's disappointing...
hm this is tempting because I am broke lol XD Costs 659 in my country.
Oh boi no gaskets again :( what is wrong with manufacturers not adding gasket. Tamron is abit more expensive but have tons of gaskets
meh. I agree with the review. the lens is stupid expensive for what you get. I did find a good example for 300 so for that kind of money I'm fine with the purchase.
The lense is not fantastic, but it is not big. Both Sony 24-105 and Tamron 28-75 are much heavyer and longer.
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 has the exact same diameter as the Zony f/4 here, it’s 2cm longer and 125g heavier. That’s not “much heavier and longer” to me. But, the 24-105mm is a bigger and heavier lens, as you say. If you’re making a lens choice now, I can’t image a scenario where this Zony would be preferable over the Tamron, unless that extra 4mm at the wide end (which is meaningful) is absolutely necessary...and you can’t carry another lens with you.
This was Sony’s first FF mirrorless zoom (and really the first FF mirrorless mass market zoom ever, and it shows. Its price keeps getting cut because Sony has a weird thing about never taking anything off the market-but this lens and its 16mm and 20mm for APS-C should just be pulled or a v.2 released (which is something else Sony doesn’t do, a version 2 of their lenses). 🤷♂️
@@dasaauto2024 I agree, but 24-70 is the smallest. I will not buy it. 24-105 is a nice focal lenght, but it's too big. If a upgrade from a6500 to a7iii I will chose Tamron, but need something under 28 in addition.
one nice thing is for video it has almost zero focus breathing
The lenses are the main thing that kept me from moving to Sony, they are all really overpriced for what you get, where it seems as if every lens segment is priced at least 1-2 tiers above what it should be given its performance. The issues described in the video, are issues I expect to experience with kit lenses on entry level DSLRs.
Not all lenses, but a lot of them. They 1.8/85, 2/28 2.8/50 macro are good for the price, even the 2.8/90 macro. And the 2.8/400 is cheaper than CaNikon, but much better. But they really need better and cheaper standard zooms, and many primes need updates, too.
Haha hahaha... I bayed today.... Perfect review, thanks 😍
No APS-C test?
this is clearly a bad sample. Regarding your conclusion , my 24/70 is really better than my 28/70 .
Considering that most reviews I've read on the internet agree with all my findings, I don't think so
Incorrect. This lens is a POS and for what Sony charges it's borderline theft. I owned two of these before I wised up and got the f2.8 version which is light years better than the f4
Well Christopher , I have both 28/70 and 24/70 and the 24/70 is clearly superior. It is sharper across the frame ( corners are weak between 24 and 28mm but only corners edges are better) and contrasts and colours are better ( the 28/70 looks muted in comparison). I read all the reviews too…..There are reviewers and there are users.
Last point, I totally disagree about your critics on weight and compactness. It is even for me the reason to keep my 24/70 and not to buy the 24/105 which is more homogenous in the low range.
@@metphmet Either you are not using your lenses correctly, or there is something wrong with your 28-70. Either way, if you are using the 24-70 f/4 and you are happy with it, then great - keep using it and be happy - that's all that really counts :-)
This lens is a bargain at $400 on eBay. Plenty of examples.
Not one of Zeiss' greatest moments. Seems that Zeiss badge is meaningless.
@SwitchRich I don't I've ever seen anybody report that they have a good copy of this lens. I don't think this is sample variation, it simply isn't a very good lens for the money.
I bought this from the very first run of them that came out... it was a terrible and weak lens in terms of image quality... it's the only E-mount lens that I sold because of poor image quality. Apparently the first run on these lens did have an IQ issue which was only acknowledged a year or so after the lens came out.
Sony Full Frame cameras "In need of decent, standard," budget zoom lenses. I had this lens and as you said the the kit 28-70mm is better in every way.
Well, the Sony 24-105 f4 and the Tamron (long live the 28-75 f2.8) has renderer this Zeiss worthless. It's better than the 24 70 in every possible way. The 24-240 has comparable or better image quality at equivalent focal lengths and apertures. And that 10x zoom is sometimes touted as Sony's worst lens (thanks to some huge sample variations)
Why buy a full frame camera just to shove a sloppy, plastic 10X lens on it? An RX10 would be way cheaper and likely a much better, more capable experience. It’s unfortunate Sony feels they need to make the 24-240mm...or it’s unfortunate that people feel they need to buy it. I don’t know which. 😆
@@dasaauto2024 its not the only lens I want. I want the 28 75, 17 28 and a macro. But even then None of these can provide the versatility of 24 240. It has its own fan base for travel tourist and casual photography. Photography was never supposed to be about changing lenses. It just happens to be that for large sensors a single lens cannot do every artistic job one may intend.
Zeiss still struggle with zoom lenses. Their aps c equivalent is about as bad as this lens.
Both are Sony lenses.
If Zeiss had actually made this lens, they wouldn't put silly Sony branding on it, nor would they deliver a lens with such abhorrent image quality for its asking price.
@@mrbaiser4133 were they designed by Sony?
I recon this was extremely rushed when the a7 and a7r came out.. overpriced, not sharp, small range and too big... Though, the 16-35 with same body is very good!
Magnus Walander don’t forget also that the QC on this model was all over the place. There was like a 50% chance that you would get a decentered copy.