Sony 28-70 Kit Lens: Is it really a dog?

[Snikt228]

I've read multiple reviews knocking this lens. I recently had occasion to borrow a friend's copy. It seemed very sharp with good color. There was some fall off in sharpness at the edges when shooting at 5.6. I'm wondering what the consensus is on this lens.

I have the 7R with the Zeiss 35 and 55 FE lenses and love them but a zoom in the 28 or 24-70 range would be handy. What do you recommend? The kit lens or the also-criticized Zeiss zoom? Is either significantly better?

thanks for any insights you can give.

I just rented the FE2470Z for an event and I've owned the FE2870 for awhile. I did a quick image comparison, didn't really have time for a scientific test but apart from the IQ I have to say I did enjoy the build quality, constant F4 and 24mm vs 28mm compared to the kit lens.

Owning the FE2870 I might upgrade to the 2470 in the future if I can find a used one at a good price, and just sell my 2870.

Here's a couple comparison images: I did 24 and 28mm simply because it's the widest FL, and I also compared 35mm:

I applied the lens profiles in LR, but that was the only processing from RAW


FE2470Z 24mm f8


FE2870 28mm f8


FE2470z 35mm f8


FE2870 35mm f8

 

[blue_skies]

To both of you - this sounds like a very definitive statement, but seems to disagree with DxO and other user's findings.

I can't help but think that you may have a one-off post-edit work-flow or shooting style that yields the results that you are seeing.

Well, unless you consider opening the files in jpg to great disappointment, and then going to the RAWs and finding no appreciable difference with minimal PP, to be a work flow issue, then, no, that's not it.

As to style? Why would that affect this kit lens differently than any other kit lens? I've had both good and bad kit lenses over the years...the Nikon 18-70mm, which was supposed to be a great lens had very sharp output, but lousy color. I sold that and got the much maligned 18-55, which had just beautiful color, and was, even though plastic, a much nice lens in terms of output. The kit 12-32mm Panasonic kit lens on the GM1 was an excellent lens, and I enjoyed working with it a lot. The Panasonic 14-42mm was a terrible lens (and I have had three copies of it over the years). The Oly 14-42 first version was very nice optically, but with that wobble due to construction, and the 14-42II was an ok lens, but the first one had nicer optics. Neither of those were my favorites, but neither one had the awful halation on OOF aread that the Sony had.

Perhaps a larger sensor format requires more precision on AF and understanding of DOF?

I would rate this lens as equivalent to the Panasonic 14-42mm lens...definitely something that I would not be happy with the output from except in the most undemanding of circumstances when there were no other options.

To me, zoom lenses are compromises themselves. If you use them in the area where they excel, the difference between the FE2870 and FE2470Z is minute. If for other usages, the FE2470Z is much better, per your comments, but I would then simply not use a zoom lens and rather switch to a prime lens.

That's like saying you are buying a raincoat that you only expect to be useful in a light mist, and then trying to defend it as being adequate. If it's a raincoat, you should be able to go out in the rain and stay dry. If it's a lens, you should be able to use it in most reasonable circumstances and expect decent results. Being unable to use it for half what you do means it is a lousy lens, and you can't rationalize that away.

Very simply, for landscape work, which is not an unreasonable thing to expect any normal kit zoom to do at least passably, the microcontrast, sharpness at any area except dead center, and overall image signature of this lens is just not ok.....at least my copy wasn't. I am sure there are better copies out there, but I am only telling you my own personal experience with the one I got with my camera.

-J

I have shown a long time ago that high IQ prime lenses can easily beat the FE2870 (link) but that does not take away that the FE2870 lens is extremely usable by itself.

I can't help but think that you follow a different standard than the rest of us, see your recent bashing of the A6000 kit lens just as well (link2).

I am not disagreeing with you - kit lenses are just that: kit lenses.

But, as kit lenses go, these two Sony kit lenses (E1650 and FE2870) do compare favorably with the better-than-average 'kit lens' crowd out there.

Telling the OP that this (FE2870) is a hopeless setup is not doing him, or the internet community at large, any real service.

In fact, many users here, based on user experiences, state exactly the opposite of what you are saying, for both the E1650 and FE2870.

And your raincoat analogy? I simply don't get that one, sorry. The kit lens being compared to a non-working raincoat???

 

[mcslsk]

Thank you for posting. Really hard to tell a difference, especially the 35mm shot.

 

[Graham Gibson]

No, it's not a dog. Mine is great--very sharp and fast-focusing. I bought it with the camera, so it was my first native lens. I've compared it to some legacy lenses, as well as the Sigma 30mm (in full-frame mode) and even to the Sigma DP2 Quattro. All of these comparisons left me very satisfied with the 28-70's performance.

Recently I bought the Sony 55mm, which is on another level in terms of sharpness. Especially since the 28-70 is slightly softer at the long end. But I don't expect a kit lens to be quite as good as a prime. I still will keep the kit lens for now, until I find the focal range unnecessary (after picking up the 16-35mm, I will probably use that plus the 55mm).

 

[dave46978]

Bought the A7 with kit lens, never liked the colors from the lens. People's skin always came out yellowish it was weird, first setup ever having this problem. Actually almost went back and returned the camera. Sharpness was great though. Finally got 55mm and the rest is history. Got a bit click happy and made a bid for a Zeiss 24-70 for $800 thought I'll probably won't win it, but I guess people aren't all too interested in that lens. Have had it for 3 months now , color is great very Zeiss like with great sharpness. Really wish it was faster but it is what it is. Really like the OSS in it though, works really well for slow shutter low ISO moments. My 24-70 stays on the 80% of the time.
Pros of 24-70mm over 28-70mm:
-- build quality is awesome, feels great and looks slick
-- Zeiss colors
-- having 24mm is handy

Pros of 28-70mm over 24-70mm
-- price
-- sharpness is comparable to Zeiss but I believe it's not the same on the A7R's 36mp sensor. That sensor is too demanding.

I have owned both the A7 and the A7R this year and currently use the A7R. My 28-70 performed well on both cameras. The rumors about the A7R being sensitive are just that, rumors. The pixel pitch of the A7R is the same as a 16mp NEX camera and no one ever said that a 16mp NEX was sensitive. There is a boat load of misinformation out there, promoted by people either haven't used a A7R or used it very little. Some even have an agenda.

 

[mcslsk]

Did my first testing and must say it is a good lens. Corners are perfectly okay as is overall image quality.

 

[mcslsk]

28 at f3.5 and f8. What do you think?

 

[zuikokiuz]

I have shown a long time ago that high IQ prime lenses can easily beat the FE2870 (link) but that does not take away that the FE2870 lens is extremely usable by itself.

I can't help but think that you follow a different standard than the rest of us, see your recent bashing of the A6000 kit lens just as well (link2).

I am not disagreeing with you - kit lenses are just that: kit lenses.

But, as kit lenses go, these two Sony kit lenses (E1650 and FE2870) do compare favorably with the better-than-average 'kit lens' crowd out there.

Telling the OP that this (FE2870) is a hopeless setup is not doing him, or the internet community at large, any real service.

In fact, many users here, based on user experiences, state exactly the opposite of what you are saying, for both the E1650 and FE2870.

And your raincoat analogy? I simply don't get that one, sorry. The kit lens being compared to a non-working raincoat???

 

[Tom2572]

I have shown a long time ago that high IQ prime lenses can easily beat the FE2870 (link) but that does not take away that the FE2870 lens is extremely usable by itself.

I can't help but think that you follow a different standard than the rest of us, see your recent bashing of the A6000 kit lens just as well (link2).

I am not disagreeing with you - kit lenses are just that: kit lenses.

But, as kit lenses go, these two Sony kit lenses (E1650 and FE2870) do compare favorably with the better-than-average 'kit lens' crowd out there.

Telling the OP that this (FE2870) is a hopeless setup is not doing him, or the internet community at large, any real service.

In fact, many users here, based on user experiences, state exactly the opposite of what you are saying, for both the E1650 and FE2870.

And your raincoat analogy? I simply don't get that one, sorry. The kit lens being compared to a non-working raincoat???

--
Cheers,
Henry

i cant help but to think it is a conspiracy by the marketing department of companies and camera shops trying to give out the wrong idea that kit lens are bad and only worth its place in rubbish bin.

its an insult to the camera maker and those who work hard to create the camera and pair it with a suitable lens as a starter.

for instance one will not pair racing tyres on a prius and so on. but some trolls will come out and say racing tyre is better because of grip and safety but failed to understand its usage, and durability( just a lengthy example).

Are you saying one should never pair a high-end lens with a pedestrian camera? Am I a fool for putting a 16-70 in front of my 5R?

and actually, i dont see much of a choice of other zooms , other than the kit lens. 2470z , can it justifies the 3 times price? or 1670z for a6000, can it justifies the 3 times price?

or is this kit lens bashing is just another attempt trying to 'raise the bar so the ordinary joe cannot afford into this photography game', which is why lesser and lesser people bothers to get a camera, thus, falling sales, and higher cost per lens/camera, and subsequently, they are killing off the camera/photography industry that they like.

heck, the camera on the smart phone are getting better and better, and i dont see any trolls saying 'kit lens' on iphone is bad so you should get a QX-1.

I've seen your name in a couple of threads now, and everything seems to be a conspiracy with you. Just sayin not everything is a conspiracy. Some of us just happen to like nice lenses. I personally think camera bodies these days are throw-away paperweights, and the real magic is and will always be with lenses.

--
Do not fear the photographer who shot with a thousand lens, but fear the one who shot with the one lens a thousand times -Bruce Lee

 

[captura]

No, it's not a dog. Mine is great--very sharp and fast-focusing. I bought it with the camera, so it was my first native lens. I've compared it to some legacy lenses, as well as the Sigma 30mm (in full-frame mode) and even to the Sigma DP2 Quattro. All of these comparisons left me very satisfied with the 28-70's performance.

Recently I bought the Sony 55mm, which is on another level in terms of sharpness. Especially since the 28-70 is slightly softer at the long end. But I don't expect a kit lens to be quite as good as a prime. I still will keep the kit lens for now, until I find the focal range unnecessary (after picking up the 16-35mm, I will probably use that plus the 55mm).

 

[tomtom50]

I've read multiple reviews knocking this lens. I recently had occasion to borrow a friend's copy. It seemed very sharp with good color. There was some fall off in sharpness at the edges when shooting at 5.6. I'm wondering what the consensus is on this lens.

I have the 7R with the Zeiss 35 and 55 FE lenses and love them but a zoom in the 28 or 24-70 range would be handy. What do you recommend? The kit lens or the also-criticized Zeiss zoom? Is either significantly better?

thanks for any insights you can give.

Here is a way to think about it. It is NOT as good as the 35mm and 55mm you have, but it is very comparable with the best APS-C combinations possible for that FOV zoom range:

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

People who need terrific lenses will not like it. People who need to cut costs see it as a good value and good enough for many uses. It is not a lens that will take full advantage of a 36MP FF sensor, but hey - it's $300 white box on ebay.

Align your expectation with what it is and decide if good but not great at a low price is what you want.

 

[captura]

I've read multiple reviews knocking this lens. I recently had occasion to borrow a friend's copy. It seemed very sharp with good color. There was some fall off in sharpness at the edges when shooting at 5.6. I'm wondering what the consensus is on this lens.

I have the 7R with the Zeiss 35 and 55 FE lenses and love them but a zoom in the 28 or 24-70 range would be handy. What do you recommend? The kit lens or the also-criticized Zeiss zoom? Is either significantly better?

thanks for any insights you can give.

Here is a way to think about it. It is NOT as good as the 35mm and 55mm you have, but it is very comparable with the best APS-C combinations possible for that FOV zoom range:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...6-OSS-on-Sony-A7R___786_914_1140_928_1244_917

People who need terrific lenses will not like it. People who need to cut costs see it as a good value and good enough for many uses. It is not a lens that will take full advantage of a 36MP FF sensor, but hey - it's $300 white box on ebay.

Align your expectation with what it is and decide if good but not great at a low price is what you want.

Well put. I'd say that on an APS-C camera, such as the A6000, it is a BETTER zoom than any of the kit zooms.

To paraphrase the OP; I've NOT read ANY reviews knocking this lens.

 

[captura]

I've read multiple reviews knocking this lens.

I've NOT read ANY reviews knocking this lens. Please supply?

I recently had occasion to borrow a friend's copy. It seemed very sharp with good color. There was some fall off in sharpness at the edges when shooting at 5.6. I'm wondering what the consensus is on this lens.

I have the 7R with the Zeiss 35 and 55 FE lenses and love them but a zoom in the 28 or 24-70 range would be handy. What do you recommend? The kit lens or the also-criticized Zeiss zoom? Is either significantly better?

thanks for any insights you can give.

 

[Horshack]

Test @ infinity to compare lenses for landscape use. I was extremely impressed with the Sony 28-70, esp it's extreme edge and corner sharpness.

Sony 28-70 FE on A7

Tamron 24-70 on D600

Panasonic 12-35mm on E-M5

Sony RX10

Here is the full scene @ 24mm: Full Scene

 

[zuikokiuz]

so does it mean kit lens is bad?

you can pair 16-70 to your camera, you can pair 500mm to your camera, but that doesnt mean kit lens is bad. this is an ILC, of course you can pair any lens to your camera.

but it doesnt mean kit lens is bad.

--

Do not fear the photographer who shot with a thousand lens, but fear the one who shot with the one lens a thousand times -Bruce Lee

 

[Tom2572]

so does it mean kit lens is bad?

you can pair 16-70 to your camera, you can pair 500mm to your camera, but that doesnt mean kit lens is bad. this is an ILC, of course you can pair any lens to your camera.

but it doesnt mean kit lens is bad.

--

Do not fear the photographer who shot with a thousand lens, but fear the one who shot with the one lens a thousand times -Bruce Lee

No, you were making some silly point about never putting racing tires on a Prius and I was pointing out the silliness of your comment. Of course the fact that better lenses exist than kit lenses doesn't make kit lenses bad. They are mutually exclusive. Some of us just like putting racing tires on our Prius' and some of us like to put great lenses on pedestrian cameras.

 

[Daniel Lauring]

I've read multiple reviews knocking this lens. I recently had occasion to borrow a friend's copy. It seemed very sharp with good color. There was some fall off in sharpness at the edges when shooting at 5.6. I'm wondering what the consensus is on this lens.

I have the 7R with the Zeiss 35 and 55 FE lenses and love them but a zoom in the 28 or 24-70 range would be handy. What do you recommend? The kit lens or the also-criticized Zeiss zoom? Is either significantly better?

thanks for any insights you can give.

Here is a way to think about it. It is NOT as good as the 35mm and 55mm you have, but it is very comparable with the best APS-C combinations possible for that FOV zoom range:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...6-OSS-on-Sony-A7R___786_914_1140_928_1244_917

People who need terrific lenses will not like it. People who need to cut costs see it as a good value and good enough for many uses. It is not a lens that will take full advantage of a 36MP FF sensor, but hey - it's $300 white box on ebay.

Align your expectation with what it is and decide if good but not great at a low price is what you want.

Unfortunately, neither is the Carl Zeiss 24-70 F4, but that lens costs 3 times as much.

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

 

[zuikokiuz]

who said never put racing tyre on a prius? why put word into my mouth when you have nothing better to say? you can even put bicycle tire on a prius. but that still doesnt make kit lens a bad lens.

but it seems like you got offended, you can always sell your 16-70 away. regretted huh?

 

[blue_skies]

who said never put racing tyre on a prius?

But people do

why put word into my mouth when you have nothing better to say? you can even put bicycle tire on a prius. but that still doesnt make kit lens a bad lens.

but it seems like you got offended, you can always sell your 16-70 away. regretted huh?

--
Do not fear the photographer who shot with a thousand lens, but fear the one who shot with the one lens a thousand times -Bruce Lee

--
Cheers,
Henry

 

[pixelpushing]

Like most other zooms, it has some weak areas and stronger areas.