Sony Zeiss FE24-70/F

[rko]

And barrel distortion is not the only issue with this lens.

This is my first Sony zoom. You meant to say all previous A-mount zooms are equally bad?

Wont say all cause I never tried premium lenses before.. The few kit zoom lens I had were bad. The sal1650f2.8, despite being a "800dollars" lens were real bad with the distortion.

You know when you first take a shot, it first show the pre processed image for a second before updating to a post processed image? Even a non-hobbyist can eye open big big and ask how come difference so big.

 

[m3vapour]

Bro, I hesitate posting the above comments cause I know I will be shooting myself in the foot. In fact you can see my earlier posts are more subtle and expecting lens profile correction. I seriously think we should all petition to Sony for a refund or massive discount vouchers. This is a very poor zoom. Even if you don't shoot straight lens. Your picture may be affected. No point trying to protect its value and resell it asap. We should RTM such lousy lenses. I got very worked up seeing these "straight" lines.

Do take a read about distortion with this lens in this short review. It's actually not that big a deal for certain group of users.
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/rolling-review-carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-424-70-za/

Perhaps u should have waited for reviews before getting it. Distortion on this lens has been well documented for a while now and people are still getting it for its overall package. Imo, just because a lens is designed with electronic lens correction in mind doesnt mean its a broken product. Lens corrections do not apply to raw files in camera but there are already profiles posted on forums for correction before light room releases them eventually .

It's easy to understand your frustrations but on the contrary, there are actually many happy owners of the fe 2470 ZA and there's nothing wrong with them defending the lens. What does not work for u doesn't necessarily translate to a widespread outrage among all users. All about expectations which is highly subjective. This lens does has its merits. It's oss is actually far more superior than the usual IS/VC along with its virtually silent AF which is great for video. The Canon 2470 sure is outstanding handling lotsa the usual problems associated with typical zooms but at a good $1000+ dollars more than the FE if im not wrong.

I actually dont see a problem correcting them in PP if shooting raw anyway. Not a perfect solution but you could always stick with the 2470 from canon if that works better for u. Just my 2 cents.

 

[albertri]

At the current price of this zoom lens, the quality is not acceptable. Without seeing your sample, didn't know it is that bad. Was not thinking of buying with the current price. But after seeing your sample shots, can confirm my wallet is safe.

I agree bro tested this lens in. Shop environment and for its price tag it's not worth it the distortion is bad and wide open it's soft when I have time I'll post the pix I shoot raw also so I could see the distortion looks bad I am not shooting straight lines but randomly all over the shop. I think the SEL 1670 performs way better I know it's for cropped sensor.

I not saying the lens is horrible to me it's not worth to bear the CZ badge and the crazy price tag.

The FE55 and FE35 are really great lenses sadly I am not looking for these focal lengths :-(

 

[pinholecam]

Bro, I hesitate posting the above comments cause I know I will be shooting myself in the foot. In fact you can see my earlier posts are more subtle and expecting lens profile correction. I seriously think we should all petition to Sony for a refund or massive discount vouchers. This is a very poor zoom. Even if you don't shoot straight lens. Your picture may be affected. No point trying to protect its value and resell it asap. We should RTM such lousy lenses. I got very worked up seeing these "straight" lines.

:thumbsup: to you for taking the effort and courage to post this.
Many would have thought twice about affecting their lens resale price in doing this and also having to fend off doubters.

I tend to dislike where some lens makes are going with the way they make lenses (incidentally most are MILC makers).
The lenses are not well corrected for optical flaws, leaving that work to much easier firmware fixes.
The worst thing is that they still charge a premium for it.
I have no issues with the FE35 and this 24-70/4 if its $200-300 less, but at their calling prices, I won't buy.

 

[albertri]

:thumbsup: to you for taking the effort and courage to post this. Many would have thought twice about affecting their lens resale price in doing this and also having to fend off doubters. I tend to dislike where some lens makes are going with the way they make lenses (incidentally most are MILC makers). The lenses are not well corrected for optical flaws, leaving that work to much easier firmware fixes. The worst thing is that they still charge a premium for it. I have no issues with the FE35 and this 24-70/4 if its $200-300 less, but at their calling prices, I won't buy.

True bro for 2470/4 to me bro it should not even have the CZ badge and price should be lower not even 300 for bro at least 40% cheaper If you shoot raw you'll see all the lens flaws I am not even a lens geek nor a paranoid person who wants my photo to be straight and always following the rule of thirds and other. I am just an ordinary hobbyist

My 1670CZ A mount performs better than the 2470. Although the 1670 has it's own share of issues but the IQ it renders is much better than the FE2470.

 

[spinworkxroy]

In fact the picts I have posted were from raw files. I have set my A7 to shoot in raw + jpg

I have looked at the jpg files and noticed the distortion is not there. Will post and discuss tomorrow, So hold your horses on comments. Too late now. Need to sleep.

Yea, what i meant was shoot in raw so you can apply your own correction. I don't like the in camera processing because Sony didn't do a good job with this lens correction..It smudges the corners too much. So i prefer to do my own corrections.

To be fair, to make a FF lens of this size and with all the technical challenges they must have had, the only way to make it work was to use lens correction via software...they just didn't do a good job..
Even Leica uses lens correctino for their lenses on the M and this was more evident when people tried using their UWA lenses on the Sony without correction.
in the age of photography these days, all manufacturers rely on lens correction...unlike the old days where they just make good lenses.

So yes, this lens to be any good, you will need more post production..to some it's not an issue, to many it is..so see what you want...it is well documented the flaws of this lens but it is also all fixable in post...if you want to do it.

And yes, the Canon version doesn't suffer the same, but it's $1k more and has no OSS and weighs so much more. There's always a compromise and in this case, Sony just did a horrible job with the lens correction in camera..i hope they will fix it..but it's Sony we're talking about..i don't think they know what the word FIRMWARE means...

 

[ZoomZ]

I had both Canon 24-70II and latest F4 version with image stabiliser, and I think this is compared more closely with the F4 version which is similar in actual price, and similar aperture and focal length.

The Canon lens is much better in every aspect, though it has mild distortion as well.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-f4.htm

I guess there's a lot of expectation being a "Zeiss" lens and priced at the premium price, especially when the IQ from FE primes are really good.

Appreciate the discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of this lens by all the users though. Really good insights for potential buyers to decide whether to hoot this, or wait for better lenses.

Yea, what i meant was shoot in raw so you can apply your own correction. I don't like the in camera processing because Sony didn't do a good job with this lens correction..It smudges the corners too much. So i prefer to do my own corrections.

To be fair, to make a FF lens of this size and with all the technical challenges they must have had, the only way to make it work was to use lens correction via software...they just didn't do a good job..
Even Leica uses lens correctino for their lenses on the M and this was more evident when people tried using their UWA lenses on the Sony without correction.
in the age of photography these days, all manufacturers rely on lens correction...unlike the old days where they just make good lenses.

So yes, this lens to be any good, you will need more post production..to some it's not an issue, to many it is..so see what you want...it is well documented the flaws of this lens but it is also all fixable in post...if you want to do it.

And yes, the Canon version doesn't suffer the same, but it's $1k more and has no OSS and weighs so much more. There's always a compromise and in this case, Sony just did a horrible job with the lens correction in camera..i hope they will fix it..but it's Sony we're talking about..i don't think they know what the word FIRMWARE means...

 

[spinworkxroy]

I had both Canon 24-70II and latest F4 version with image stabiliser, and I think this is compared more closely with the F4 version which is similar in actual price, and similar aperture and focal length.

The Canon lens is much better in every aspect, though it has mild distortion as well.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-f4.htm

I guess there's a lot of expectation being a "Zeiss" lens and priced at the premium price, especially when the IQ from FE primes are really good.

Appreciate the discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of this lens by all the users though. Really good insights for potential buyers to decide whether to hoot this, or wait for better lenses.

I agree they could have done better or maybe being fe this was the best they coukd do technically . after all no one else has. It also cones down to...no choice so have to make it work...not everyone wants to shoot primes all the time and for those who are so used to 2470 thi is the only choice. It's not perfect but it's also not disastrous. it can be fixed in post

 

[Thoth]

I had both Canon 24-70II and latest F4 version with image stabiliser, and I think this is compared more closely with the F4 version which is similar in actual price, and similar aperture and focal length. The Canon lens is much better in every aspect, though it has mild distortion as well. I guess there's a lot of expectation being a "Zeiss" lens and priced at the premium price, especially when the IQ from FE primes are really good. Appreciate the discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of this lens by all the users though. Really good insights for potential buyers to decide whether to hoot this, or wait for better lenses.

Quite agree. Most of us dun see tat value of paying for d zeiss badge on d FE 24-70. Unless u really depend on tat zoom range on yr cam on native mount.

 

[sagiluck]

In fact the picts I have posted were from raw files. I have set my A7 to shoot in raw + jpg

I have looked at the jpg files and noticed the distortion is not there. Will post and discuss tomorrow, So hold your horses on comments. Too late now. Need to sleep.

Jpg will correct the distortion but the image will be cropped and the corners will have noticable stretch effect.

 

[ManWearPants]

Perhaps u should have waited for reviews before getting it. Distortion on this lens has been well documented for a while now and people are still getting it for its overall package. Imo, just because a lens is designed with electronic lens correction in mind doesnt mean its a broken product. Lens corrections do not apply to raw files in camera but there are already profiles posted on forums for correction before light room releases them eventually .

It's easy to understand your frustrations but on the contrary, there are actually many happy owners of the fe 2470 ZA and there's nothing wrong with them defending the lens. What does not work for u doesn't necessarily translate to a widespread outrage among all users. All about expectations which is highly subjective. This lens does has its merits. It's oss is actually far more superior than the usual IS/VC along with its virtually silent AF which is great for video. The Canon 2470 sure is outstanding handling lotsa the usual problems associated with typical zooms but at a good $1000+ dollars more than the FE if im not wrong.

I actually dont see a problem correcting them in PP if shooting raw anyway. Not a perfect solution but you could always stick with the 2470 from canon if that works better for u. Just my 2 cents.

Yes. You are right that I should have waited for reviews. Having no native lens prior to this zoom means that I cannot access all of the camera's features. I have been too eager and trusting. Never would I expect this lens can be so poorly designed.

The EF I am comparing the FE zoom with is 24-70 f4 IS which costs less than the RRP of the Sony's FE zoom. My point is not trying to sell the Canon zoom. I have wanted to see how one would compare to the other. But after seeing the distortion, it becomes meaningless. I don't even need another lens. The FE zoom cannot hold on its own. We are not talking about 1-2% but massive distortion here. I expected some barrel and even moustache distortion but never to this magnitude. If a lens cannot translate a scene properly, it negates whatever else the lens can do.

This really gives Zeiss/Sony a bad name. Rest assured that I will not be buying any other Sony zoom lenses anytime soon.

 

[ManWearPants]

Jpg will correct the distortion but the image will be cropped and the corners will have noticable stretch effect.

TBH, the jpg's distortion looks well corrected in camera. The below are the jpg output SoC. So for this lens, you have to shoot in jpg to avoid distortions.

So Pinholecam is right. Lens design is less important now. Just outsource the assembly lines to any country where labour is cheap. Make sure there are plenty of Asph and ED elements, does not matter if they don't correct anything. And leave everything else to the software engineer.

 

[m3vapour]

TBH, the jpg's distortion looks well corrected in camera. The below are the jpg output SoC. So for this lens, you have to shoot in jpg to avoid distortions.

So Pinholecam is right. Lens design is less important now. Just outsource it to any country where labour is cheap. Make sure there are plenty of Asph and ED elements, does not matter if they don't correct anything. And leave everything else to the software engineer.

Its also interesting to know , as mentioned on the review site i posted earlier on that the fov at 24mm is actually wider than a similar zeiss equivalent to allow for in camera corrections. So im sure the lens designers already know what they were dealing with n decided to leave it to the camera to sort things out.

 

[silvermoon1407]

Its also interesting to know , as mentioned on the review site i posted earlier on that the fov at 24mm is actually wider than a similar zeiss equivalent to allow for in camera corrections. So im sure the lens designers already know what they were dealing with n decided to leave it to the camera to sort things out.

I think once adobe comes out with the lens profile to correct distortion in raw file, 90% of the issues will be fixed. Granted corner sharpness is not its strength, but it does everything else fine. To be fair to Sony, they came out with such lens design first and it's no small feat. When Canon or fuji or samsung comes out with a FF mirrorless (I'm assuming the other brands will never do it), let's see who can design a better f4 standard zoom than sony.

 

[m3vapour]

The first part of your post is pretty much what i mentioned too in my previous post, before the one u quoted. =)

 

[sagiluck]

I posted this earlier, showing the differences @extreme corner due to correction..

For straight lines, the effects might not be so noticable but not when the corners have more details. Good to hear the FOV is made wider to accommodate the correction though.

 

[spinworkxroy]

i'm curious to see the 24mm on this lens vs 24mm on another lens like the Canon.
i have a strong feeling they could not fix the distortion in lens so they made it wider than 24mm and use software correction to crop and fix the distortion.
This works in jpg (although i must say i dont like Sony's compression in jpg), but in raw it gets quite bad and you have to fix it in post (but still no profile for this lens yet in adobe)

 

[ManWearPants]

i'm curious to see the 24mm on this lens vs 24mm on another lens like the Canon.
i have a strong feeling they could not fix the distortion in lens so they made it wider than 24mm and use software correction to crop and fix the distortion.
This works in jpg (although i must say i dont like Sony's compression in jpg), but in raw it gets quite bad and you have to fix it in post (but still no profile for this lens yet in adobe)

What you ask for, you will get.

FE24-70@24mm f11 raw file. The red rectangle is the area that covers the image of EF24-70@24mm. The yellow area is the in camera jpg area.

EF24-70@ 24mm

FE24-70@ 24mm in-camera jpg

 

[syke]

the distortion is disgusting...

Most ppl shoot raw these days, and Sony isn't helping keeping that propriety raw to themselves.

 

[kei1309]

the distortion is disgusting...

Most ppl shoot raw these days, and Sony isn't helping keeping that propriety raw to themselves.

I think that's the sentiment years ago. Google what they have been doing with adobe recently