Roger Cicala Tests the New Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Zoom

<p>Sony Goes World Class - <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/">HERE</a></p>

<p>A quote from his summary:<br>

"When the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II came out a couple of years ago, I hailed it as dramatically better than what had ever been available in this range. Sony FE shooters now have it’s equal in a native-mount lens."</p>

<p>This is quite an excellent review of sharpness. Unfortunately there's no mention of vignetting or linear distortion, but that will come in time. Thank you for posting it, Louis.</p>

<p>I received my copy of the lens Monday evening, and took it for a spin in a botanic garden yesterday. The lens appears to be very sharp at all lengths and apertures, with no signs of smearing in the corners, common for wide angle lenses and zooms. Nor is there any sign of vignetting, but the camera firmware (recently updated) may be correcting that. There was no noticeable linear distortion at 24 mm, as shown below. I was not well centered for this last shot before leaving the park, but it is mostly straight lines for illustration purposes despite the perspective. Again, it may be largely corrected in firmware.</p>

<p>The lens is large, but about the same size as the Sony 90/2.8 Macro and Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 and smaller than a Sony 70-200/4. It doesn't feel heavy on a neck strap, and is easily balanced by supporting the zoom ring with the left hand. Hand-held, the image quality is comparable to that of my prime lenses in this range, Loxia and Batis. I'll know more when I use a tripod. Size is not as important as convenience, as long as the image quality is good enough for the situation. My first impressions are that this lens is not only suitable for events, but travel and landscapes.</p>

<p>A7Rii + Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM @ 42mm, f/5.6 - Overview<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213789-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>Details (Overlay)<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213788-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>Linearity @ 24mm, f/8<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213792-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>Thanks for your impressions and samples, Edward.</p>

<p>The 24-70/2.8 works surprisingly well as a closeup lens too. It does not have OSS like the Sony 90/2.8 Macro, nor does it approach 1:1 magnification, but it is adequate for flower-sized subjects, and maintains a pleasant bokeh. IBIS (in-body image stabilization) was sufficient for these photos at 1/60 to 1/100 sec. Like the previous photos, these were taken at Chicago Botanic Garden, hand-held at 70 mm, f/8 - f/11, auto ISO.</p>

<p>Bokeh behind the plane of focus is very smooth and almost free from color rings. It's not quite as good in front of the focal plane, showing bright edges on highlights and somewhat "busy" linear structures.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213880-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213881-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213882-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p>Accidental duplication of post...</p>

<p>Thanks for posting, Edward.</p>

<p>They look a bit dull to me and lacking bite and colour...and the sharpness I question. Perhaps my monitor or just me... </p><div></div>

<p>I think you are referring to the overview/detail images, which I posted in Adobe RGB rather than sRGB. Perhaps this version looks better. The flower images were converted to sRGB by default in Lightroom, and should look okay (OOC, no enhancements).</p>

<p>Outside at the park is pretty dull, regardless of the color space. It's been a long winter. I have better photos from that day, but these served to illustrate the excellent resolution of this lens, namely individual pine needles invisible at that distance to the eye.</p>

<p>Notice the tiny area represented by the 1:1 magnification panels in the detail sheet. The squares are 100 pixels on a side, out of 7900 x 5300.</p>

<p>Overview - sRGB Version<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213922-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>This is the largest section, 700 pixels wide, I can upload to PNET at full resolution. It is taken from the exact center of the original image. Perhaps a sample less constrained will better illustrate the resolution of this lens, subject to the the limitations of IBIS with regard to camera shake. At a screen resolution of 96 ppi (pixel = pixel), it is equivalent to looking at the center of a print more than 40" wide.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I don't know how to animate these views in order to make comparisons more flexible.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213925-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>decent detail resolution but the colors do seem a little cold, even on the flowers. a polarizer might have helped with those skies too. how does it manage shooting football? that's key for an "event" lens. </p>

<p>There doesn't seem to be a common nomenclature for images on PNET. There are a few universal rules which seem to mean different things to different people.</p>

<ol>

<li>Most browsers display images on a pixel = pixel basis. One pixel in the image occupies one pixel on the screen. Media display programs are usually able to "shrink" images to fit.</li>

<li>You can downsample an image to a certain pixel width to fit on the screen. At PNET, the maximum width is 700 pixels to display directly (no link).</li>

<li>You can display at the original resolution by taking a sample sized to fit the screen. (I call that a 100% crop, or 1:1 crop).</li>

<li>There is software which will automatically resize an image to fit on a given screen, and enlarge sections on demand.</li>

</ol>

<p>Some people call #2 a 100% view, especially if the entire image is reduced to screen resolution. Technically, this is not a "cropped" image. Nothing about a screen display can be considered "high resolution," except for small parts (crops) of a full-sized image.</p>

<p>A 42 MP sensor has 208 pixel/mm on the sensor. It takes an extraordinary lens and careful technique to resolve at the pixel level. Consequently, most images won't be completely sharp when displayed in a browser at 1:1, especially if hand-held, IBIS notwithstanding.</p>

<p>My "events" involve wine, music and formal evening wear.</p>

<p>How does it handle football (or some action sport)? With some difficulty. There are no issues with the lens or focusing, but the camera itself is not well suited for action.</p>

<p>I had the opportunity to shoot my son and grandchildren on a go cart track this weekend. It's not exactly road racing, but at such close range on a short track, the relative speeds are comparable.</p>

<p>The stop-action effect in the viewfinder in continuous mode is very confusing. However focus tracking seems to be adequate. I found it useful to use an half-press of the shutter release to lock on the subject, begin panning, then follow through while shooting. The latest firmware update brings phase-detection focusing into play more effectively than before.</p>

<p>It's quite easy to follow action in single-shot mode. The viewfinder is continuous with negligible lag, and the brief blackout is no worse than with a DSLR. That was the only option when I got started in the 60's, so I got pretty good at anticipating the peak of action. Now that continuous shooting is the norm, it's expected to capture the "perfect" shot time after time, somewhere in a string of shots. At 84 MB each, the buffer fills up in 8 shots or less. If I did this on a regular basis, I'd switch to JPEG mode and get strings of 20 frames or more.</p>

<p>While at the track, I also experimented with HD video. That tracks easily and the view is gapless, and up to 60 fps (720p @ 120 fps). With the new firmware, focus tracking is greatly improved in video mode, and seems to work flawlessly. I didn't try 4K video (30 fps) this time, but at 10-12 MP per frame, stills from 4K video are as good as my D3. IBIS makes the A7 into a steady-cam. The video button is not very ergonomic, so hand-held clips usually start and end off-target. It would be much simpler if the shutter release did double duty.</p>

<p>There's no reason the next version of the A7 can't shoot 12-14 fps in continuous mode, like tha A6300 (and 8K video is probably in the pipeline too).</p>

<p>"the colors do seem a little cold, even on the flowers. a polarizer might have helped with those skies too."<br /> <br /> <br /> Actually, I did use a polarizer, inside and out. There was a slight haze in the sky, which effectively negates the polarizer. I used it mainly to supress reflections from foliage and rocks.<br /> <br /> The Sony produces fairly neutral colors. There are ways to spike color in-camera (many shooting modes, which I turn off), or in post. They're not cold on my monitor, which is calibrated with an XRite spectrophotometer, but they aren't Ektachrome either. Sometimes we don't want to see things as they were, but as we would like them to be.<br /> <br /> Here's what the park looks like in summertime, using the Sony A7Rii + Loxia 35/2<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213993-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /><br /> <br /> Using a Leica M9 on one of the rare (for Chicago) cerulean days<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17865955-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>My "events" involve wine, music and formal evening wear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok sure, you're the most interesting photographer in the world. my point was, show me a shot with the 24-70 that couldnt have been taken with <em>any</em> lens. or go kart pics. your choice. </p>

<p>My social world (from the working end) is mostly classical music and its devoted patrons, hence the formal atmosphere. I shoot occasional weddings, which tend to be formal too. For fun, it's bottled water and a walk in the park, cheese optional.</p>

<p>I can't think of any photo that couldn't be taken with practically any lens, but there are other criteria. I have prime lenses which span the range of the 24-70. However I can think of situations where you need a wide angle shots alternating with medium telephoto shots. That's a little awkward with prime lenses, even with two bodies.</p>

<p>Perhaps a better question is whether would I recommend this lens over those prime lenses (Batis and Loxia) in situations where image quality is paramount? I'm not quite at that point yet, but I can't rule it out either. Prime lenses might be the best choice for situations which favor something small, light and unobtrusive (with good quality). That said, those four prime lenses (25, 35, 50 and 85) together weigh (and cost) twice as much as the 24-70/2.8 zoom lens.</p>

<p>In other words, pick the right tool for the job. Corollary - not all jobs are the same.</p>

<p>What I am trying to say is that the new Sony 24-70/2.8 GM lens seems to live up to its advertising.</p>

<p>PROS</p>

<ul>

<li>The lens is exceptionally sharp at all focal lengths, including the extreme corners. In a practical sense, it is as good as the Batis and Loxia lenses in this regard.</li>

<li>Auto focusing is fast and virtually silent, with little tendency to hunt even in dim light</li>

<li>Manual focusing is almost as positive as with a manual (e.g., Loxia) lens, with none of the lag associated with earlier Sony lenses, and no noticeable "acceleration" effect. It is as good in this respect as Zeiss Batis lenses.</li>

<li>There is little or no noticeable vignetting, although this may be due to firmware corrections (vignetting is largely due to geometry, not some mysterious lens defect. Circles appear elliptical when viewed at an angle.)</li>

<li>The build quality is solid and the controls are smooth and well-damped.</li>

<li>The lens is nearly parfocal - little change in focus when zoomed in or out.</li>

<li>There is no noticeable "breathing" when focusing.</li>

<li>Linear distortion is very low across the focal length range. This too may be mitigated in firmware (I haven't tested it with corrections turned off. Then too, why would I turn them off in typical use.)</li>

</ul>

<p>CONS</p>

<ul>

<li>The lens is large and relatively heavy for a small camera like an A7. It is about the same size and weight as comparable lenses for a DSLR.</li>

<li>It is expensive compared to most previous lenses for the A7, but about the same as its Canon and Nikon counterparts.</li>

<li>The lens extends up to 1-1/4" for longer focal lengths, compared to about 1/2" for my Nikon 28-70/2.8. This might cause the lens to sag when carried on a strap (there is a lock at 24 mm as a precaution). The new lens is (still) stiff enough that this does not occur.</li>

</ul>

<p>CONCLUSIONS</p>

<ul>

<li>This lens may not be for everybody, but it meets my needs and expectations for an high quality, mid-range zoom lens.</li>

<li>The parfocal and non-breathing characteristics are well suited to video.</li>

<li>Quiet operation is important for some situations, to avoid disturbing others (e.g., classical concerts, recording and broadcasting studios). With the silent shutter of the A7Rii, it should not be necessary to use a blimp.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>PROS (Addenda)</p>

<ul>

<li>If enabled (Gearbox/1/MF Assist = ON), focus magnification automatically engages when the focusing ring is moved in MF or DMF mode. (All Sony AF/MF lenses behave in this manner. The A7Rii is very MF friendly.)</li>

</ul>

<p>CONS (Addenda)</p>

<ul>

<li>No aperture ring or markings. The aperture is set by the camera.</li>

<li>The aperture closes to the preset value immediately. This affects focusing in dim light.</li>

<li>No distance or DOF markings on the lens. Manual focusing is by wire, not a direct mechanical connection. However there is a sliding display in the viewfinder with a digital indication of the distance. You also have a live DOF preview at all times.</li>

</ul>