Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the ZEISS FE 24-70 really worth it?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
Miguel Teotonio

Miguel Teotonio

Leading Member
Messages
607
Solutions
1
Reaction score
123
Location
Beja, PT
I know this has already been debated here but explain it to me (please) as if I was really dumb.

I have the FE35 and FE55 lenses on my A7 and it's a great experience each time I pick them up for a photowalk, but I want a 24-70 (not the newly rumoured G24-70 2.8 that will cost both my kidneys or the sony 28-70 or even the 16-35 zeiss zoom). The problem is the mixed reviews everyone has heard about. I know the complaints about the 24 and 70 focal lenghts but I tried one and think it's great ... for a zoom.

I know that when this lens came out, the cost was high but now you can get one on ebay for less than 800 euros. Is it to much for this lens (that's my question)?

The offers from other brands, are in the same level, so I don't understand what are the bad reviewers comparing this to! What's the reason for all this fuss?!

HERE please!

Thanks!
 
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
le_alain said:
10 to 20% more than the TAMRON 24-70MM F/2.8 SP DI VC USD, which is 2.8 (so bigger, heavier ..)

Yes corners are not the greatest at 24mm, but better than the 24mm of the 24-240.

Yes 70mm is not the best , even the 24-240 full open is better than the 2470 stopped down to 5.6.

So yes the price is a bit high for performance, but:

If you need the versality of a zoom , get it !

It is always usable from 24 to 70 at any aperture even f4 for A3 print, and A2 Print if stopped down a little, and excellent in the 35-50mm range.

It's realtively small, light, fast focus, silent, good IS ... convenient !
Click to expand...
DAMN, it must be a terrible lens if you are comparing it to a superzoom. The worst part is where you say its worse at 70mm than the 24-240. YIKES.
Click to expand...
That's because the 24-240mm is not terrible at 70mm at all, in fact it's excellent, and it's also at F5 at 70mm, so less than a stop slower than the 24-70mm F4. Modern superzooms can be very good indeed, there are others that are also surprisingly good, the Panasonic 14-140mm for instance, mocking them just demonstrates in-experience, that's all.

--
"Wow! look at the sharpness...." said no non photographer ever....
http://bit.ly/1K1oqkv
Click to expand...
Whats the point of the 24-70mm lens if it cant outperform a 10x zoom lens?
 
Last edited:
Miguel Teotonio said:
I know this has already been debated here but explain it to me (please) as if I was really dumb.

I have the FE35 and FE55 lenses on my A7 and it's a great experience each time I pick them up for a photowalk, but I want a 24-70 (not the newly rumoured G24-70 2.8 that will cost both my kidneys or the sony 28-70 or even the 16-35 zeiss zoom). The problem is the mixed reviews everyone has heard about. I know the complaints about the 24 and 70 focal lenghts but I tried one and think it's great ... for a zoom.

I know that when this lens came out, the cost was high but now you can get one on ebay for less than 800 euros. Is it to much for this lens (that's my question)?

The offers from other brands, are in the same level, so I don't understand what are the bad reviewers comparing this to! What's the reason for all this fuss?!
Click to expand...
People exaggerate when they bash the FE 24-70/4. The lens is not nearly as bad as some internet reviewers claim. The lens does however prioritize some other constraints than just sharpness.

For me the beauty of the 24-70/4 is its rendering. It is very, very good for a standard zoom. The center frame is sharp like a prime, and the bokeh and 3D pop is quite stellar (for a zoom). It is a great lens to shoot people.

The other strength is its size and weight. It is very small.

It is not so great for stopped down landscape shots. The performance is acceptable, but other lenses will be better at this.

For me, personally, I hate zoom lenses. I hate their heft, and I hate the mediocre rendering. The FE 24-70/4 is the only zoom I've owned that is both small and has beautiful rendering. This comes at the sacrifice of corner sharpness, but I'll take that compromise.
 
chrisrabe said:
chrisrabe said:
Wha does it matter if somebody asks a Question that's been asked before? It doesn't hurt anybody, it's optional whether you read it, optional whether you respond, doesn't bring the forum to its knees so really there's more to worry about in the world

forums are here to advise and if somebody needs to ask then let them use the platform that's sat here exactly for that purpose even if they feel they need to reword it

Chill
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
le_alain said:
10 to 20% more than the TAMRON 24-70MM F/2.8 SP DI VC USD, which is 2.8 (so bigger, heavier ..)

Yes corners are not the greatest at 24mm, but better than the 24mm of the 24-240.

Yes 70mm is not the best , even the 24-240 full open is better than the 2470 stopped down to 5.6.

So yes the price is a bit high for performance, but:

If you need the versality of a zoom , get it !

It is always usable from 24 to 70 at any aperture even f4 for A3 print, and A2 Print if stopped down a little, and excellent in the 35-50mm range.

It's realtively small, light, fast focus, silent, good IS ... convenient !
Click to expand...
DAMN, it must be a terrible lens if you are comparing it to a superzoom. The worst part is where you say its worse at 70mm than the 24-240. YIKES.
Click to expand...
That's because the 24-240mm is not terrible at 70mm at all, in fact it's excellent, and it's also at F5 at 70mm, so less than a stop slower than the 24-70mm F4. Modern superzooms can be very good indeed, there are others that are also surprisingly good, the Panasonic 14-140mm for instance, mocking them just demonstrates in-experience, that's all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
If Sony is listening, then repeated negative threads about this lens are good - squeaky wheels get oiled. Keep these threads coming my friends 😃

Andy
 
Dear Papillon, your point is VERY VALUABLE! "Creativity" is the core of photography!!
 
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
le_alain said:
10 to 20% more than the TAMRON 24-70MM F/2.8 SP DI VC USD, which is 2.8 (so bigger, heavier ..)

Yes corners are not the greatest at 24mm, but better than the 24mm of the 24-240.

Yes 70mm is not the best , even the 24-240 full open is better than the 2470 stopped down to 5.6.

So yes the price is a bit high for performance, but:

If you need the versality of a zoom , get it !

It is always usable from 24 to 70 at any aperture even f4 for A3 print, and A2 Print if stopped down a little, and excellent in the 35-50mm range.

It's realtively small, light, fast focus, silent, good IS ... convenient !
Click to expand...
DAMN, it must be a terrible lens if you are comparing it to a superzoom. The worst part is where you say its worse at 70mm than the 24-240. YIKES.
Click to expand...
That's because the 24-240mm is not terrible at 70mm at all, in fact it's excellent, and it's also at F5 at 70mm, so less than a stop slower than the 24-70mm F4. Modern superzooms can be very good indeed, there are others that are also surprisingly good, the Panasonic 14-140mm for instance, mocking them just demonstrates in-experience, that's all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SparkleHedgehog said:
Wha does it matter if somebody asks a Question that's been asked before? It doesn't hurt anybody, it's optional whether you read it, optional whether you respond, doesn't bring the forum to its knees so really there's more to worry about in the world

forums are here to advise and if somebody needs to ask then let them use the platform that's sat here exactly for that purpose even if they feel they need to reword it

Chill
Click to expand...
 
The lower priced 28-70 might be worth it as a small carry around zoom lens, but from my experience, the 24-70 is a disappointment from the first day of use. I understand in the range the image quality of the 28-70 is just as good as the 24-70

Poor internal construction (glued pieces that can come apart and are "unrepairable"), strange specular highlights, and poor corners left me very disappointed compared to the excellent 35 2.8 and 55.18.

My 16-35 is in an entirely different class and definitely worth it. I hardly use the 24-70 and will probably sell it.

Whats the sense of having spectacular image quality only to loose it because of the lens.

What I don't want is an expensive and heavy 2.8 zoom.... I have nearly the entire FE lens line up but doubt that I will make any further investments in Sony lenses until they get their repairability and adjustability more in line with Canon's lineup.
 
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
That's because the 24-240mm is not terrible at 70mm at all, in fact it's excellent, and it's also at F5 at 70mm, so less than a stop slower than the 24-70mm F4. Modern superzooms can be very good indeed, there are others that are also surprisingly good, the Panasonic 14-140mm for instance, mocking them just demonstrates in-experience, that's all.

--
"Wow! look at the sharpness...." said no non photographer ever....
http://bit.ly/1K1oqkv
Click to expand...
Whats the point of the 24-70mm lens if it cant outperform a 10x zoom lens?
Click to expand...
Which lens is "better" is entirely subjective. If you want a smaller, lighter, slightly faster zoom and are happy with a more limited range, then the 24-70mm F4 will be a better choice. I would also say it does have very nice rendering in terms of colour. However, if you want a zoom with a more versatile range and don't mind the additional size and weight, then the 24-240mm is better. There is a tendency on here to judge lenses purely on tests for sharpness and edge performance, which is a mistake IMHO. The 24-240mm is also capable of very nice bokeh, and whilst it might not quite have the rendering of the 24-70mm, it's a better lens for me personally, and plenty of others. In terms of sharpness both are perfectly decent and up to the job. The people who obsess most about sharpness are quite often the people who produce the least inspiring work, if they produce anything of note at all.

In my camera club we have a 15 year old girl, she shoots with a Panasonic G1 and the 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 lens. She is pretty in-experienced and doesn't really know much about the exposure triangle or even how her camera works, yet despite all that she produces some very nice work that would put plenty of so called experts on here to shame. She has a couple of things that owe nothing to her camera or lens, she has a keen eye and a talent for taking creative shots. I could give her any Sony camera and lens and she'd produce something interesting from it, I don't think she even knows what sharpness, dynamic range or any of the massively important facets of image quality agonised over on here are. There's a lesson in that for an awful lot of people in these parts. So no, I don't get too excited about a lot things debated ad-infintum on here, because in reality they aren't that important. Both the lenses in question are fine lenses capable of excellent results in good hands, which is "better" depends on how and what you want to shoot.

--
"Wow! look at the sharpness...." said no non photographer ever....
http://bit.ly/1K1oqkv
Click to expand...
In most lens mounts, the only reason to choose the superzoom is because you are willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience. IQ isnt close in any other lens mount between a 24-70 and a 10x zoom.

To me, thats not praise for the 10x zoom, but an indictment on the 24-70 lens.
Click to expand...
You'd be wrong about that, the Panasonic 14-140mm mk1 is incredibly sharp at wider angles and excellent to 100mm (200mm equivalent), the mark 2 is apparently even better. If you can't take excellent images with any of these lenses it's not the lenses that are the issue.

--
"Wow! look at the sharpness...." said no non photographer ever....
http://bit.ly/1K1oqkv
Click to expand...
Sure you can take a good picture with an lens or any camera, so what. Why buy an A7Rii, when a Canon D30 can take great pictures too? Those are lame arguments and are nothing more than an attempt to dodge the issue.

On most Camera mounts, the 24-70 lens is the best zoom lens . If you are seriously comparing the 24-70 lens to a 10x zoom lens, then you are saying that the 24-70 lens is not good.
 
Last edited:
Buy it, since you can get one at a good price. Try it. Make your mind up based on your own use of the lens.

I'm very happy with mine. Is it God's gift to lenses? Of course not. Does it have beautiful color, contrast, and microcontrast? Yup. Does it work well for me? Yes.

The only way you are going to find out if it works for you is to try one. All the back and forth about this without your actually using it yourself is really pointless.

-J
 
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
That's because the 24-240mm is not terrible at 70mm at all, in fact it's excellent, and it's also at F5 at 70mm, so less than a stop slower than the 24-70mm F4. Modern superzooms can be very good indeed, there are others that are also surprisingly good, the Panasonic 14-140mm for instance, mocking them just demonstrates in-experience, that's all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
That's because the 24-240mm is not terrible at 70mm at all, in fact it's excellent, and it's also at F5 at 70mm, so less than a stop slower than the 24-70mm F4. Modern superzooms can be very good indeed, there are others that are also surprisingly good, the Panasonic 14-140mm for instance, mocking them just demonstrates in-experience, that's all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SparkleHedgehog said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
tqlla said:
papillon_65 said:
That's because the 24-240mm is not terrible at 70mm at all, in fact it's excellent, and it's also at F5 at 70mm, so less than a stop slower than the 24-70mm F4. Modern superzooms can be very good indeed, there are others that are also surprisingly good, the Panasonic 14-140mm for instance, mocking them just demonstrates in-experience, that's all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Sony Zeiss 24-70 f4
Replies
5
Views
1K
Lumipan
L
G
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR, I am leaning toward returning it.
2
Replies
30
Views
19K
rokoko
rokoko
M
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E VR Lens
Replies
5
Views
6
Ido Scharf
Ido Scharf
Michael Jardine
  • User review User review
Sony Zoom Zoom: Which 24-70 For Your A7 series?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
525
dcstep
D
P
  • For sale For sale
Sony A7S, Zeiss Vario-Tessar FE 24-70 F/4, Zeiss Sonnar 55mm 1.8 - US Only
Replies
5
Views
6
paradisephoto
P

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top