Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS real-world samples posted

Looks alright to me for what it is. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast at the wide end, and full telephoto lacks acuity, but you can't have everything! Looks a decent enough lens if you really don't know what perspectives you'll need. It's not really my bag of fish, but critical image quality in the portraits is excellent. I'm just not sure superzooms are really in the spirit of the A7 cameras though.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

"I'm just not sure superzooms are really in the spirit of the A7 cameras though."

Couldn't have been said better that that! A better lens on an APSC or m34 sensor provides similar IQ in a smaller package. Also for the same money you can buy an RX10, or even a FZ1000 for 200$ less...
Yes, i know they are not FF cameras, don't start that... but they can produce comparable results in most of the situations (as the A7 with this... not so high quality lens) and don't force you to change the 50mm on your A7 when you want to snap something you can't get with it :)

Apr 8, 2015permalink

@badi - I agree, although I suppose some A7x owners will appreciate the option of being able to use a superzoom on their cameras for non-critical shooting, e.g. on holiday. It's not for me, I wouldn't go snapping away with my A7R and a 24-240! My snappy camera is a Ricoh GR, and to me, the A7 series cameras are just made for supersharp, small primes. If an A7 is the only camera you've got then I suppose I can see why you might want this lens, although if you want a travel zoom you can by a Sony RX10 for less than the price of this lens...

Apr 8, 2015permalink

dbo

@theprehistorian

"for non-critical shooting, e.g. on holiday" - that's exactly reason why I will go for that lens. And most of these photos will not be sized bigger than 5x7,5", so extreme borders and corners do not really matter.

For the critical shootings I have my primes with me (35,55, Canon 24TSE, and as soon as available the 90 macro).

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

straylightrun

"A better lens on an APSC or m34 sensor provides similar IQ in a smaller package."

Ironically this FF lens has a better range as all m43 superzooms only start from 28mm

Apr 8, 2015permalink

@bdo - fair enough, but you might find you're better served by a Sony RX10 or the Panasonic FZ1000. They'd cost less and make a nice backup camera too.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Lab D

So 24-240 is a 'better' range than '28-300'?
I really hope you are not foolish to say it is 'better' for everyone.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

lacikuss

Finally, I've been able to look at the pictures with a decent sized monitor and without any pixel peeping I would say the images look soft with a lack of contrast. I can understand this lens only as an all around travel lens, but otherwise a super zoom cam will do just the same from the IQ point of view for much less money.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

hektor81

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55604326
Other real world samples

Apr 8, 2015permalink

forpetessake

The funny thing, it compares poorly even with 18-200mm Sony lens, which isn't sharp lens to begin with. Sony will have hard time selling this puppy.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

@forpetessake - how can you tell? Unless you shoot them side by side, on the same body, under controlled conditions...

In and of itself, the samples show that it produces nice looking images over much of its zoom range, with only 24mm looking rough. 240mm lacks acuity, but I've seen worse! The normal and moderate tele range looks fine, pixel peep the portraits.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

@theprehistorian ... i'm fairly convinced that when comparing two super zooms (especially for different sensor sizes) the "better" lens is just the one you like better... there are just too many factors to "properly compare them" and even if you do, you will end up with a mix bag... they are super zooms, there are a lot of compromises at play.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

forpetessake

@theprehistorian -- yes, they were shot side by side, search the forum. Despite the fact the experiments were sloppy, it can be clearly seen that 18-200 generally fared better. Though neither of those lenses is good for a demanding user.

Apr 10, 2015permalink

naththo

Hrm no....review post soft image with very little sharpening being done. Dpreview isn't fan of sharpening. Most of other are. In fact any lens you still have to apply sharpening cos lots of glasses in lens will always make image quite soft or so. Good photography technique always apply sharpening at the end of resize and edit. They only applied very small amount of sharpening so far in review sample. I have seen other sample looks much better than this here.

Apr 12, 2015permalink

BubbaHotepUK

Any chance of some test shots using this lens on the A6000?

Apr 7, 2015permalink

deluk

Nice colours. Somewhat lacking in sharpness and detail definition but I can't get the originals to open to do a better check. Anyone else with this problem?

Apr 7, 2015permalink

ozturert

The results are as bad and as good as I expected. The price and optical quality are not in line, I think. I'd say the lens deserves max 600$.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

dbo

Have you taken a look at it? The built quality is very high and the AF (on an A7II) is quite fast.
Compared to the competitors FF super zooms entry price (Canon 2.499 €, Nikon 999 €) not much overpriced for my understanding.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

W5JCK

I've taken a look at its images and they are anything but sharp. The build quality means nothing, nor does the fast focus, when it cannot take sharp photos and has that much distortion. I agree it is a sub $600 lens being sold for way more. :(

Apr 7, 2015permalink

ozturert

dbo, I looked at the images in 4 different screens, none is sharp. In fact, my Nikon 28-300mm VR was really sharp on D700 but was as bad as this Sony on D800, so I sold it.
How do you understand the build quality just by looking at pictures? I had a Sony 18-200mm LE. It had a very stiff zoom ring and was optically similar to this one. BUT, I had paid only 250$ to 18-200 so its performance was acceptable. This Sony... is different considering the price.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

dbo

@ozturert
I had a tryout at my retailers shop. Paired with an A7II it is not so bad. Limitations of a 10x zoom should be known, so either one is willing to circle around or not.

On you D700 it was "sharpness perception" - I doubt that the D700's Sensor was able to overcome the optical wakeness of the lens. The D800 ha 36MP, so sharpness drop to the borders/edges are much more visible.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

ozturert

dbo, that's what I meant. 24-36MP's deserve better lenses. This 24-240mm is not that good, thus looks expensive. 1000$ is a lot of money for a mediocre lens. Similar to Nikon 28-300mm VR.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

photofan1986

A full frame camera with a lens like this is like a porsche with 14" wheels.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

vermaden

Formula 1 cars have 13" wheels ;)

Apr 7, 2015permalink

photofan1986

I said 14" :P

Apr 7, 2015permalink

jackspra

Agree with photofan1986, he said 14".

Apr 7, 2015permalink

vermaden

> I said 14" :P

I know, my comment was about that size of rim/wheel does not indicate performance/speed of a car ;)

... and Formula 1 cars wheels are even smaller then 14" (13") and these are one of the fastest cars in the world.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

RichRMA

Big wheels and tires allow car makers to extend gas mileage without actually doing anything.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

straylightrun

What's the point of having an interchangeable lens camera if you limit the flexibility of lenses?

Apr 8, 2015permalink

I hate to say it, but this doesn't look as good as my A-mount Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Macro D Aspherical IF, which cost me less than $20 and works great using an LA-EA2/4 on my NEX-7, A7, and A7II. The colors are better here, but everything else favors that old Sigma, and the Sigma even pulls off quite good sharpness on the NEX-7's 24MP APS-C sensor... which doesn't look so likely for this lens. It would be nice to have some 24MP APS-C (e.g., A6000) shots with this lens to compare... I assume the complete test will check both FF and APS-C?

Apr 7, 2015permalink

RichRMA

Some of those older (80's, 90's) AF Sigmas, Tamrons are actually pretty good and can be had for peanuts.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

Sir Punk

how do you deal with the lack of image stabilization?

Apr 7, 2015permalink

Sir Punk: 3 answers:
1. Most camera+lens combos don't have IS.
2. Sony's multi-shot anti-blur works quite well when needed.
3. I own an A7II.
The best answer is #3. :-)

Apr 7, 2015permalink

Petroglyph

4. Isn't this an OSS lens?

Apr 7, 2015permalink

Petroglyph: This Sony is, the Sigma 28-200mm isn't. Sir Punk was asking how you deal with using the Sigma instead. Incidentally, because Sony A-mount bodies all have IBIS, most A-mount lenses don't have OSS, so this issue generally applies to using most A-mount lenses on Sony E/FE bodies.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

RichRMA

You just have to ballpack image stabilization using I.S. in-body cameras. When the camera asks what f.l., you can just put it near where you figure most of your shots on the zoom will be taken.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

A-mount lenses on the LA-EA4 do tell the A7II what focal length they are at... just as they do on native A-mount bodies. You only need to manually enter the focal length for unchipped lenses.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

Timbukto

Tilty superzoom performance for DSC01412_SAM_f5.6. Focus plane goes from left towards infinity to rightmost towards fence.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

Mister Roboto

This might be my next travelzoom lens. Decent sharpness across the range.

Apr 6, 2015permalink

WarrenPeas

Thank you guys at DPreview for the image samples. This will definitely replace my stock 28-70. THe softness at the extremes don't bother me. Still intent on the 28 F2.

Apr 6, 2015permalink

Pat Cullinan Jr

Bokeh didn't bother me in 1960, and it doesn't bother me now (except for the doughnuts you get with catadioptric lenses).

Apr 6, 2015permalink

AbrasiveReducer

It didn't bother anybody in 1960 either; it was just something that happened when you took a photo and parts of it were out of focus. Although it is true that lenses back then usually had more than 5 or 6 diaphragm blades.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

Exceptional colour rendition, nicely detailed even if a bit soft.

I wonder what mostly gives these beautiful colours, the body or the lens?

Anyway, a wonderful combo.

Apr 6, 2015permalink

qwertyasdf

I also find the colours quite pleasant, how did DPR achieve that?

Colours from my A7 are not even crap, they are utter shi*t.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

Don't forget, this is not the A7 but rather the A7r. Also, it could be the new lens featured and finally the PP. And maybe a mixture of those three factors. Who knows!?

Apr 7, 2015permalink

brendon1000

^^ Actually they used both the A7 II and the A7r for these tests

Apr 7, 2015permalink

@qwertyasdf
Some cameras produce nice colors out of the box, with their good or excellent jpeg engine... however it seems that most (if not all) are shot raw and converted in adobe camera raw.

I can believe you that you don't like the jpeg processing of the camera or something, but if you don't manage to get the colors to your liking in raw conversion... i can say for sure that is not the camera to blame :)

Apr 7, 2015permalink

brendon1000

^^ No its the camera. I use a Sony A37 and A55 both have a 16 MP sensor but I can't get the same type of colors from the A37 than I can get from the A55 even if I match the white balance and exposure.

I also have a A7 and A7 II. There however there are more similarities than differences and color differences are minor.

Apr 7, 2015permalink

npires

It's user error. Not all cameras operate the same even if they are both Sony. You'll have to adapt your white balance and processing technique for this camera.

Apr 7, 2015*permalink