You might want to check this post also.
The corners at 24mm are maybe the most prominent weak point of the lens but the edge performance (left and right of the center) is very good (so great for landscapes for instance cropped at 16:10 or 16:9).
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The corners at 24mm are maybe the most prominent weak point of the lens but the edge performance (left and right of the center) is very good (so great for landscapes for instance cropped at 16:10 or 16:9).
You think the lens is decentered or tilted?
Take a look at this:
Loading…
blog.kasson.com
Siemens star in center, all four corners, all four edges.
Jim
Pieter Kaufman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 99
I think so too, but--and it's a big but--with OIS and IBIS, things are different now.
I was just reviewing a whole bunch of pictures I took last night trick or treating with the kids, no flash, and I have hand held pictures at 1/4 second that are sharp enough to use for casual purposes.
The lens and lens/camera combination is pretty phenomenal.
It's not perfect, although rather than anything optical, my primary complaint is the twist-to-operate function, and the front element extending and withdrawing as much as it does. It reminds me of a budget Nikon F-mount DX zoom I momentarily tried earlier this year to use as a stopgap on the D500, for the same reasons, and I returned it. I just didn't like that functionality at all.
But for the optical performance, with this body, and the price as bundled, it's a no-brainer. Wonderful pictures come from it.
wco81
Leading Member
BTW, what is the filter size on the 24-70 f/4 S?
Pieter Kaufman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 99
Funny! I would have never thought of that.
I love--LOVE--my Summar and Summitars. But obviously, they are, what, a sixth the size of the Nikon? And once they're extended to shoot, they don't extend any more.
Speaking of, I'm very keen to put my ancient Leica lenses on the Z7. I can't wait to see that antique light on this sensor.
The WATE works great on the a7RIII, with an adapter that's the right length. If anything, it should be better on the Z7.
I've sold all my M lenses except the 90 Apo 'chron, so I'm not going to be much use on this subject going forward.
Jim
That's what I was wondering but the siemens star test is kind've supporting what I am seeing. Is this a better result than what you saw with the G version of the lens? I wish I had both to compare but I got rid of my G a long time ago. While I am impressed with the rest of the frame using the S lens, the extreme corners are not very good at all. I have also been shooting with the 35 S, 85 1.8G, and 70-300 AF-P with this camera and none of them look nearly this bad in these corners. While I would normally think that since it's a zoom, ok it can be expected, but the 70-300 looks so much better.
I never performed that test on the G lens, and can't, now that it's gone.
Pretty darned good for an inexpensive zoom, if you ask me. In fact, better than I thought they'd be.
Don't have that zoom. Getting a 180-400 soon, though. I'll be testing it in the corners, and I expect good things.
Jim
Yes I am very happy with the 24-70 in spite of the corners. Just have to live with them I guess.
Last edited:
olyflyer
Veteran Member
Yes, definitely worth. Even if a person already has an every day lens, the 24-70 is the native lens for the system as opposed to an adapted one, so in my opinion it is definitely worth buying. Also, if you buy it as kit it is not that expensive.
Alex Permit
Veteran Member
Have you considered not collapsing it?
;-) True!
Pieter Kaufman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 99
Sure. But in the bag I currently keep it in for quick daily use, it helps to collapse it.
This isn't really a big deal obviously. Just not a type of functionality I prefer. The changing length is slightly more annoying, again, due to how I use and carry a camera, and, it's also that length combined with the kind of lip that the end of the barrel forms. It sometimes catches on shirt hems, belt, etc., when I carry it on my shoulder.
Again, not a big deal, but I imagine I'll prefer the Z primes. I'm not a zoom fan in the first place, but it's otherwise such a good lens for the price, in the kit, and offers a great introduction to the new line, so I'm glad I have it.
And bottom line, as it pertains to the OP, I would strongly recommend any prospective buyer get the kit with the lens.
Ira Blumberg
Veteran Member
There is another issue for those who already own a 24-70 in F mount. Those lenses will be larger and heavier than the kit lens. Then add on the length and weight of the FTZ and carrying and using the camera is a completely different experience.
Thus, even if the kit lens is redundant from a focal length perspective, it is compelling from a real-world use perspective, particularly given its excellent optical performance.
Thus, even if the kit lens is redundant from a focal length perspective, it is compelling from a real-world use perspective, particularly given its excellent optical performance.
Alex Permit
Veteran Member
I prefer to collapse it because it makes for a small package as well. If my choice were non collapsable at the non collapsed length, I would strongly prefer collapsable. Sounds like you would too?
I think of the large change in length in the same way. Sure, if I could have a 24-70mm with a shorter length that would be nice. But fully extended, its about the same size as my 24-70 G. At wide angle, its shorter. I prefer the shorter length at wide angle.
Last edited:
olyflyer
Veteran Member
Thanks for the pictures. Personally I had no idea about that the 24-70S was collapsible until I started to read this thread. I think it's a good idea because it makes transportation easier and more compact. I have used two collapsible lenses the last years on my V1 and while I worried initially, I don't have any negative experience about them, they always worked reliably.I prefer to collapse it because it makes for a small package as well. If my choice were non collapsable at the non collapsed length, I would strongly prefer collapsable. Sounds like you would too?
I think of the large change in length in the same way. Sure, if I could have a 24-70mm with a shorter length that would be nice. But fully extended, its about the same size as my 24-70 G. At wide angle, its shorter. I prefer the shorter length at wide angle.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum