Stu 5: But here we are judging differences of high end lenses, which is much more challenging than just looking at corner sharpness and resolution.

I would think lenses in this league are all pretty useable, even for demanding amateur photographers.

Stu 5: Well I am a professional photographer too, who aso have studied perception and how we deal with images. I know that we tend to see what we want to see, and also how incredible hard it can be to compare lenses from looking at random pictures and not well-controlled test shots. ;-)

Are you really saying you cannot see problems with this lens? The issues with it are obvious from the photos.

There are issues with all high end lenses - if you dig into it. You trade some flaws against other, and you can't get it all: corner sharpness/flat field, no distortion, well controlled vignetting, coma, astigmatism, micro contrast, balance between high/low frequency contrast, etc. You need to find a balance that works for you, at a price you can accept.

The problems with this lens though appear to be huge especially for the price. This will be the 3rd duff Sony made lens in a row of a similar range. They have trashed the Zeiss name already with poor lenses and poor quality control. Now we have the Sony G Master series and already they have messed up. At present Sony make 1 decent lens that can resolve at high mp. Canon have a lot. That is appalling. It is like a masterclass is poor lens design and poor quality control.

Something doesn't quite stack up here Stu 5 (apart from the ridiculously exaggerated mock outrage at some lens sample photos - how dare they!!!!).

When you studied lens design, did you study how lenses are tested? If your course tutor said an objective comparison could be done from some sample photos on the internet, I might hold that degree certificate up to the light if I were you.

That said, we all have to take seriously your use of the phrase 'Pro photographer', clearly that gives anything you say more cache than if you were just an ordinary human being.

Stu 5: With your last answer you are light years away from factual arguments, so I think I will stop here. Be free to think and feel what you want about any lenses, no matter brand. Personally I prefer facts and real world samples, since feelings so easily carry us away - like you are confirming here.

Stu 5: Pray tell us ignoramuses, such as myself, the obvious flaw with this lens and what lens do you recommend in te 24-70 f2.8 category. Surely, you know best which is the best lens and why it is better than this flawed Sony.

im struggling to find what flaws Stu has identified.. can someone enlighten me as to what he is complaining about from these sample images? :\

Ragnar W the facts and real world samples are in front of your eyes with these samples if you know what you are looking for. A lot of other people can see the same problems with the lens as well.

mickspawn look at the distortion on 19 (sides and bottom) even though the lens is at 70mm and 24 with the distortion at the top even though it is not being used on the wide setting. Then there is edge sharpens issues at certain apertures and focal lengths. It is all there to see.

@stu 5
Congratulations, your posts are the most intellectually arid I have ever encountered on here. You claim to know about lens design but don't appear to even know the difference between converging verticals and lens distortion.

You probably are not familiar with the LAEA4 adapter. I have tested this lens on the A7RII with this adapter vs the LAEA3. The 4's AF is still the fastest, and when doing video and AF-C there is no comparison. It doesn't have as many AF points but it is fast.

You must be an accomplished photographer to deduce that from a few sample images. You do know that your pro grade Olympus zooms, such as the 12-40 f/2.8 ED Pro, require significant and mandatory software lens correction to produce a useable image and give you that "3D pop" you like.

It's just my opinion- I'm only an amateur but I love photography. One of my very favorite photographers was Yousuf Karsh(he used a large format camera). In general Sony cameras and lenses don't impress me but they may impress you. If they do, then you can purchase them and use them. I just think that Nikon (especially Nikon) and Olympus are better. If you think that Sony is better than Nikon and Olympus- I respect your opinion.

Actually Imaging Resource gave it an excellent review. Do I think it's overpriced? The answer is Yes. Do I think it's better than the Sony? Yes. Nikon started out as an optics manufacturer in 1917- they know how to design and manufacture optics. The only other companies that can match them are Canon, Zeiss and Leica. Fuji and Olympus also have a lot of experience with Optics and produce very fine optics.

Yep, still designing optics like it's 1917 ;)

Besides, their 'designed optics' were copies, not even innovative like those coming out of China right now.

Nikon cameras and lenses have in the hands of skilled photographers taken many of the worlds most famous and greatest images. Didn't Nikon invent ED glass? Don't most lense manufacturers use either ED or some from of ED glass? On the international space station the cameras and lenses used are Nikons. How about NASA? They also use primarily Nikon cameras and lenses- Why? Due to the fact that the image quality, build and durability are second to none.

Ragnar W Cgoor is generally just stating on average how bad Sony lens are at present for this series of cameras. They have huge quality control issues with lenses being returned up to 5 times before someone gets a decent copy. They sell only one lens at present that can resolve to a high MP. Other brands sell many. BJP magazine has commented how bad their lenses are when you turn the software correction off compared to other brands, which in turn means they are overpriced for what you get. But even the software cannot hide all the issues. Sony have little experience at designing lenses and it shows.

Stu 5: Sony lenses are not worse than lenses from other makers. Those returning lenses often don't know what to expect, what to look for, and how to do a proper test. The Sony forum documents this. Yes, some lenses are decentered, and so are some lenses from other makers. But not all makers offer 42 Mp sensors for extreme pixel peeping, revealing flaws with any lens out there.

Software correction is not the same as a faulty or bad lens. It is just a part of the optical system and modern optical design. Even the most expensive lenses have their flaws.

Note that Leica also rely on software correction!

Also, Sony took over Minolta, a company known for very high optical expertise, and brilliant and inovative optical design. They even made a lot of lenses for ... Leica! So this is what you think is little experience with lenses and optical design?

Fact is: Sony lenses are not worse than for other systems, and software correction is part of modern optical design.

maybe Magnar can tell me how to get the high definition images that are like 3d HD of people on the Sony lenses.. i guess its just increasing clarity on the background in lightroom.. i haven't been able to get an eye popping high def pic on the sony

Magnar W helps if you get your facts right. Sony took over the Minolta name. They did NOT get their lens designers with the deal. Konica Minolta still design lenses. The lenses Minolta made for Leica were each individually checked unlike their own lenses which were only batch tested. So I say again, Sony does not have that much experience at designing and building lenses. Their lenses need more software correction which is why they tend to be so bad compared to other brands. Yes other brands reply on software correction but not to the degree Sony does. Yes Sony makes a 42mp sensor but they make no lenses at present that can exploit it. Their one single high resolution lens made for the camera falls well short of 42mp resolution. It is also not rocket science to test a decentered lens.

Just to stop you waisting your time checking your fact is wrong here is the website link: http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/about/index.html

Even with software correction a lot of Sony lenses for the A7 series are simple not up to the task. Turning the software correction off reveals the reasons why because the software is trying to correct too many problems.

Are you sure the 2.8 has IS? The f/4 does.

Hi miksto, I am a Canon shooter and definitely, the 24-70mm F2.8 L from Canon has no in lens stabilization.
However, I agree about the quality of the Sony. The images presented here do not impress me at all regarding corner sharpness and distortion. The Canon is at least as good - no, in my opinion it is even better, but on a Canon body, not on the Sony. I tried on a a7RII and in connection with a Metabones adapter the corner sharpness is awful.

Weight is only part of the equation.

But also for me packing light, means packing tight and the A7Rii is smaller. Small enough that I usually get more gear into a bag than advertised.

End result:
Packing for a 10 day with an Osprey Meridian 22" (wheeled/backpack convertible carry-on), and in the attachable day pack, I can shove a PacSafe V5, and in that V5 I can put my camera with my 50mm and two more lenses comfortable (3 if I'm not as concerned with rapid access).

>> I am a Canon shooter and definitely, the 24-70mm F2.8 L from Canon has no in lens stabilization

I stand corrected. I have Tamron 24-70 F2.8 and that one has stabilization and is lighter than this lens from Sony and is twice cheaper. I have wrongly assumed that Canon's would have it as well.

>> But also for me packing light, means packing tight and the A7Rii is smaller

And with this lens from Sony you do not get either. It is heavier but it is also 2cm longer than the Canon lens. So no packing tight here, no packing light here. In fact you may be better off with Canon DSLR since with Sony you also need spare batteries and may be vertical grip for such a large lens.

Hey Miksto, in another thread you told me you tried the Canon 24-70 mkII on your A7rII and it was poorly balanced and handled badly.

Now you're saying that you didn't realise the Canon lens didn't have stabilisation and you actually own a Tamron.

You're what we in the UK call a BS merchant.

RubberDials, I think you are crossing the border into deep BS using your own language. I own a lot of lenses - may be about 15 of them now including a few Canon's. That does not mean those are the only ones I try out. BS comment really. I revolve in circles where getting lenses to try is easy and does not cost me.
Similarly many in my circle tried out my lenses. You must be a complete loner if your only use case is "I only use what I own and vice versa".

Let us not cross the border into such BS nonsense.

Really pathetic miksto, hating on Sony by comparing the GM lens to a Canon lens you obviously know nothing about, and then admit you don't even shoot with. Seriously? That's the problem with these haters: they're so eager to say something bad about Sony they invent some phony criticism. It's transparent.

No it's not, but your's is. Apart from using it with small primes in the sweet spot from 35-60mm, there is no gain in size and weight. Did you note the confinement in my comment?

I don't disagree, but one might consider the mirrorless option for other reasons such as EVF & focus peaking, AF accuracy and good videos...etc.

But that's nothing specific to mirrorless. EVF, Focus peaking and DPAF are all possible in DSLRs, too. Other way round doesn't work. If I prefere OVF (which I do) the mirrorlesscams don't catch up.

The only problem is that the new mirrorless cams are more innovative (because they have to). If Canon/Nikon came up to compete again they would show Sony how to make it right. EVF/OVF Hybrid f.e., wold be great.

Why is it nuts? Are you saying that mirrorless has always got to be smaller to be a valid format? Why? I find the great strength of mirrorless is that it CAN be small if I want it to be, with some obvious compromises, this simply isn't an option for DSLR's. If I want bright tele glass then at worst its the same size or weight as a DSLR... most of that is simply the glass, until other innovations arrive such as curved sensors then bright AF glass is always going to have to be big, is that a failure of mirrorless?

vscd,
1) Mirroless are not strictly for small sensors and small primes. You can have mirroless for large sensors and large primes but the bodies need to be larger for better ergonomics and full hand grip.
This is similar to your argument that EVFs are not strictly for mirrorless. Though EVFs have too poor refresh rate currently.
2) Sony now has terrible mismatch:
2-1) It has new lenses that do not have cameras that are comfortable with such larger and heavier lenses. Cameras need to be larger with full hand grip.
2-2) Yet Sony also has small cameras with high megapixels sensors that do not have small lenses that match the sensor resolution.
2-3) Sony has vertical grip that can sort of extend the grip to full hand but is still not as comfortable as Canon or Nikon DSLRs without additional grip and Sony even with vertical grip still has less battery life than Canon/Nikon without additional battery power grip.

Something yet to work our for Sony and to get right at some point in future.

Size and balance is a matter of opinion, I accept that some won't like the smaller sized body but please let's not pretend it's a fact for all users. I have the 70-400 Sony lens which is huge. Have I ever had any balance issues with it? No. Why? Because I have to hold the lens as well as the body. Now if we're saying it looks stupid, well I don't take many pictures of my camera with different lenses on, tends to be people, landscapes etc so i can't comment on that... :-)

Jonath,

It is no solely about when you make a shot. Yes, at that moment you would tend to hold the camera by the lens as well but when you adjust settings between the shots, when you move about or move obstacles you hold the camera with one hand and small Sony cameras with only two finger firm grip get the hand tired very quickly when on a long shoot compared to Canon/Nikon cameras that have better ergonomics for larger lenses.

The problem with Sony is that it does not get right: either both the camera and lenses need to be smaller or both need be larger. And vertical grip does not help - it is still not as comfortable as Canon/Nikon without additional grip and is still worse on battery life despite extra juice from the vertical grip.

I had long shoots with A7R II where I ran out of 3 batteries and had to stop shooting because I did not have 4th one, and my hand got tired so much as never did with Canon/Nikon. I reckon it is due to ergonomics of smaller cameras.

Film bodies were small and the lenses big. Just grab your camera correctly and voilá no problems.

Raziel Orlando, there is no correct way of grabbing a camera with larger lenses if the camera only has two finger firm grip. I need to hold it on the side where the shutter button is and then I only have two fingers with firm grip.
I think you are still missing the point I am making.

It is also wrong to compare with film cameras. Those were used very differently for event shooting and film days expectations were different. With digital cameras you do not have the limitations of film and in film days you were not expected to grab most moments of the event - only the main parts and a group photo. Today expectations are different. Customers actually want way more than in film days. Up to the point that in some cases apart from selected processed photos I often have to provide the full shoot as well in raw for archive and that often is thousands of photos. This was never the case and the scale in film days. Wrong to bring it up.

I don't have a problem with the size of the camera body or the battery life for that matter. I've shot whole weddings, landscapes, holidays with massive zooms and tiny UWA lenses and neither have been an issue for me. That's my opinion. Clearly you hold a different one, but that doesn't make either one of us right or wrong. They're simply our opinions. What riles me is when I'm told it's a problem, it is, but it's your problem not mine and it's not a fact as its so often stated on here. There's a very simple solution if you think it's too small BTW, buy something else.

Aside from the usual comment (lots of other reasons for mirrorless besides size/weight) it's just not true that there is no saving if you need fast primes. You save a lot on the body, and I for one find the overall balance better and more like SLRs of old rather than big DSLRs. But the other size weight advantage comes if you want to take along a few small primes with your f2.8 zoom.

Exactly dbm305,
I find it hilarious that many mirrorless detractors like to complain about the size of the 2.8 zooms. Of course they are going to be big. But the point is, it is extremely unlikely for the buyers of a7rii & the 2.8 zooms to only have a 2.8 zoom lens. When you consider the fact that working professionals are likely to carry multiple lenses on a shoot (not to mention a second/third body), the weight saving advantage of the a7rii is tremendous.

Reading some coments it seems that the ones than can hold a small body camera with big lenses are kind of special beings :) . Well, good for us lol.

>> the weight saving advantage of the a7rii is tremendous.

Angrymagpie, there is no weight saving advantage once you count in all you need as a professional to work with such a camera. If I go on a day event shoot where I expect to take a few thousand shoots I would really need a vertical grip, I would need may be about 10 spare batteries for A7R II and that is in comparison to Canons and Nikons where I often would need may be 2-3 spare batteries and and no vertical grip. Depending on which specific Canon or Nikon DSLR you choose your package with Canon or Nikon may well be lighter. But either way the difference of full package will be negligible. The 'tremendous weight saving' is complete BS. It is just not there.

If you go on holiday your requirements may be quite different. So for me A7R II ended up a holiday/weekend camera as it is no good for professional use for quite a lot of reasons. It is a 'may have been' camera. May be Sony will yet get it right but not just yet.

miksto

I don't know what sort of shoot you do. Maybe for you the weight saving advantage is not there. For me, I'm happy carrying around 2 A7 series bodies, a few primes of various focal lengths and a 70-200 instead of the the Nikon ff equivalents I used to carry. Maybe I'd even throw in an a6000 if I feel like I could use the reach. It'd still be lighter than the equivalent DSLR kit anyway.
Also, let's not exaggerate the weight of the battery here. They are tiny and negligible.

>> I don't know what sort of shoot you do.
Event shooting. My best friends are portrait (for setup shots) and 24-70 F2.8 (for the rest of shooting). I find I hardly ever need 70-200 F2.8 but I still have it for some occasions - really depends on set up of a specific event and the kind of distance to the subjects I expect.
Up till now Sony did not have good lenses to my purpose. I have 90mm F2.8 of Sony's but I find the F4 zooms to be just awful.
As event shooting often in great part happens indoors I also find AF of A7R II to be downright awful as it often does not focus at all in low light (and it does not need to be too low light either) and with subjects moving about all the time I just cannot have that kind of unreliability of AF and cannot always fallback to manual focus as that loses the moment. I also find it awful I cannot choose focusing point with native lenses on A7R II and focusing areas are not small enough for pinpoint focus and worst they often make AF fail more often.

I would only consider the size/weight issue between DSLR and mirrorless if they are equal in image quality. I mean why would I pick a "comfortably-gripped" camera that has inferior IQ?

Had the DSLRs' IQ come close to the A7 mirrorless systems, then it would be valid to compare their handling.

>> "comfortably-gripped" camera that has inferior IQ?

IQ is highly subjective. Recently many misinterpret IQ for dynamic range and the related ability to pull out shadows/highlights. Frankly Nikon's here are better than Sony. Yet once you go outside of dynamic range most modern cameras have very decent IQ and it is no longer as much about IQ as about 'I seem to prefer'.

For me with mainly event shooting focus A7R II AF is unforgivably bad and unreliable precisely in the circumstances that are common - low light and where I need pinpoint focus.
I would lose all that dynamic range easily for the comfort of day shooting and reliable AF. I also do not like when I have to carry 10 batteries and change them often - I can lose the moment.

I equally do not care about size/weight but only as long as ergonomics are still good and on A7R II they are not. It is not really the size/weight that matter for long shoot but overall ergonomics of the system that is camera+lens should not mismatch.

I would say slamming mirror, no evf, no true depth of focus check, many lacking electronic first curtain shutter for ultra sharp telephoto/macro photo, large, heavy and bulky camera etc. would be nonsense, no matter small or large lenses. Yesterday's technology.

Guess what: Mirrorless can take any size lenses! Even the larges ones! ;-)

Magnar W,

It is all good except that the described 'may be' future is far not here yet. At least that future is not Sony A7R II which is the camera I am most familiar with from that segment and have lying about. It has too many deficiencies yet to be a serious contender for me. It really ended up being just a holiday/weekend 'just-in-case' camera rather than 'take-when-you-need-something-dependable'.

I do not deny it may grow into something serious another few generations from now but not yet. Most critical for me to get sorted:
1) Low light AF failure. Ideally remove dependency of AF on lens aperture or make the AF so sensitive that this dependency does not matter.
2) Give AF point selection with native lenses (currently only with non-native). Again I want to see AF point sensitivity around -3EV without serious restrictions on lens aperture. Currently it is only -2EV and even that only on F1.4 which is quite appalling. I presume that is why it fails too often in low light.

mixto:
1) As good as high end DSLR for low light, Dpreview staff says.
2) What other system offer support for non-native lenses? With all features available?
4) With long/heavy lenses, place the left hand under the lens, and you will never have problems with balance.
5) Lens line is growing fast, with a lot to offer already. What do you miss for general photography?
6) This is not a mirrorless problem!
7) They are almost there with the A6300. I do not have problems with EVF lag, and find such viewfinders much more useful than OVF's. And yes, I shoot action.
8) Using a slow card?
9) So you expect a 42 Mp camera to shoot very fast bursts?
10) Bring with a spare battery.

We could easily make a similar list with drawbacks of DSLR cameras. I am not looking back to those cameras after I started to use mirrorles some years ago.

Leica is mirrorless since decades, but they don't walk around in a crusade telling everyone 'bout it. Why do the Sony-/Fujiusers think that we can't decide for our own? ;) Funny.

ha ha ha ha... you post the first comment in this thread essentially passivelly aggressively slating mirrorless then have the gall to ask others why they defend it..
On a thread about a mirrorless lens...
Jeez, get a life.
;)
Funny.

mixto: Wow! WOW!! WOOOW!!! 2500-4000 shot a day!

How do you find time to go trough all the files and pick the best?

If so, I also undestand that the Sony A7 series cameras is not for you! But they will do great for many others with a less intense trigger finger!

I asked Schneider Kreuznach exactly on this behalf. Those Large Format/Medium Format Lenses are calculated for about 60lpm, which gives you damn sharp pictures on larger formats, but for digital they are not good enough. Sounds weird, but really seems to be the problem. The Bayerbased Sensors even demand higher sharpness for the colorarrays.

What vscd is the exact reason.
Back in the day we used larger formats not because we wanted even shallower DoF or better light performance. We used larger sensors to get sharper pictures. There are basically 2 ways to do this: better performing optics or larger "pixels". The latter was easier and cheaper.

Today we have a very different situation. Good optics are much cheaper to make. On the other hand: a larger sensor is MUCH harder to implement and way more expensive than a smaller one (well above the size ratio). So now we have cheap sensors and good lenses.

The results are still impressive. Better 1" cameras are sharper than what you got for similar money around 1980. Smartphones are way sharper than a typical cheap analog compact from late XX century - the kind of camera I had when I took on photography. :)

y Le Frog are writing: "at the end of the day, the savings, in terms of size and weight, will be limited to the body; lens size (if that was the ultimate holy grail of going mirrorless) is not going to shrink."

Try buying small lenses fora DSLR type camera? Everything wiill be large, heavy and bulky, even with pancace lenses. ;-)

@Magnar W
You have to image a very simple explanation for this phenomenon. For quite a lot of photographers large size of camera is not a drawback. It's a FEATURE. We want large bodies and lenses.

The general form of modern SLRs was not born by coincidence. It was not a result of the size of necessary interiors. It was designed *to fit a hand*. If someone needed a smaller camera to carry around, there were excellent alternatives.

Of course something like a 5D+24-70/2.8 is a pain to carry around, but it's such a pleasure to use. The size is very natural, very ergonomic.

Maybe others can back me up here, I see lots of wavy distortion -
I'm not referring to loads of waves, just like a smile with downturned edges.

yup that wavy distortion is there for all 24mm shots.

interstingly I also see the opposite effect in shots that are >50mm, same location, bottom center of the screen

I saw the same thing before even reading your post. It has very bad distortion at times including wavy. Looks like another duff lens from Sony.

a sad dslr user again :D

Sad that Sony has yet to offer a competent replacement for their premium DSLR lenses?

Probably true.

The first thing I saw was the readily apparent distortion. If you can't see it, then you need to take off you fanboy glasses.

The lens distorts. Either that or nearly every person working on the construction of the photographed architectural features handily forgot their square/level that day, many years ago, for the sake of making Sony look bad during this shoot.

I tend to think the prior is more likely.

The 85 looks great, IMO, and I have no hatred for Sony, but this lens looks mediocre. People should expect more for $2000.

ijustloveshooting has nothing to do with what type of camera you use. You still need to make decent lenses for it and this does not seem to be one of them.

The distortion was pointed out right after the release.
Many people also mentioned so-so border sharpness.

I checked the shots and I'm really not impressed. Detail-wise this doesn't look like a lens designed for 42 MPx. Overall it is not as refined as other f/2.8 flagships.
I'm not saying this lens is bad, but some manufacturers pushed zoom optics so far that you really don't need primes, if you can live with f/2.8. This is still not true in the Sony world...

Obviously, they sacrificed some performance to keep the size down, which makes me wonder how big the lens would be, if they wanted it to perform like a Canon 24-70/2.8LII.
Again we have a good proof that Sony is still not there in the lens business.
At least they got brave enough to remove the Zeiss badge. Otherwise this lens would easily brake the $2500 barrier. :)

Personally speaking, I don't even like the rendering. :P

Read the narrative on lenstip, they refer to it as moustache, looks like moustache to me too. As for whether it's much worse or not, that's a point of debate.

Try looking at the image of the apartments and then the image of the pool at 50 or 70mm. Theyre sharp corner to corner... Some of these are shot at F5.6 with subjects in the same frame being a different distances so they look a little blurred, but that isnt the lens that is the aperture choice.

The back edge of the pool appears to be physically curved. Draw a line across the water's edge, which must by definition be level, and you'll see a large deviation in the center. Unless the lens is *really* bad (very unlikely), this deviation means the back edge of pool actually bulges outward slightly. So the pool itself, not the lens, exhibits barrel distortion ;-)

Similarly, the tile line at the front of the pool image deviates in a complex way from a straight line, in what appears to be almost "mustache" distortion, also very unlikely in this caliber lens. More likely inaccurate tile laying.

>> Try looking at the image of the apartments and then the image of the pool at 50 or 70mm

No, not sharp, I opened the 51mm image and I see the tiling next to the pool is not sharp at the edges but is sharp closer to the center. So no. It is not sharp corner-to-corner.
Same goes for 70mm one and for the 24 mm one.

>> Also I dont know if its barrel distortion of it someone just cant make a straight building over there...?

I cannot confirm that but it is not just the lines I mentioned. Look again at 50mm and follow the lines on right hand side (e.g. the wall edge). They are very visibly curved. I doubt all walls in those buildings are curved to the center of the image. I reckon it is the lens distortion.

Then the same inwards distortion can be observed at the bottom though less pronounced. It is too consistently distorted towards the center to be just 'someone cannot make straight building'.

So I reckon this confirms both no corner-to-corner sharpness. and noticeable distortion.

>> The back edge of the pool appears to be physically curved.

How interesting then that it is curved differently at different focusing distances, eh?
Even if you are right and the back is truly curved (though I very much doubt that) the lens still shows noticeable distortion because curvature is different at different focusing distances. In fact at 24mm the line is practically straight for both the back of the pool line and for the back wall at the top of the image.
While at 51mm they both have pincushion distortion.

Do not kid yourself. It is not the pool being curved. It is lens distortion.

Things are even more interesting for vertical lines. At 24mm I see slight barrel distortion while at 51mm I see clear pincushion distortion.

Dan in CA, may be you will now suggest that someone physically changed the curvature of the walls between the shots at different focusing distances? Still nothing to do with lens distortion?

pretty bad distortion at 24mm.. there in the kitchen shot as well.

Really don't know what DRR are going on about. This lens has real problems. Certainly not worth the asking price. There is barrel and pincushion distortion. It is not always sharp to the edges. Sometimes sharper on one side than the other.

It's hard to say whether it's a lens problem or limits on DOF. I see the unsharpness, but it doesn't look like the edge/corner effects I get with some other lenses, which seem to smear in a concentric fashion.

DOF, of course, is a fiction of convenience. Looking at a 42 MP image at 100% (pixel=pixel), the plane of focus is sharply defined, even at moderate apertures (e.g., 5.6), even with wide and super wide lenses (my Batis 25/2, for example).

The focus point for the apartment building is in the center of the frame. The bottom and top of the building are significantly closer and further simply by geometry.

I happen to think that the FE28-70 "kit zoom" is a very decent lens for the A7 & A7S (first generation). The Zeiss 24-70 f4 is disappointing, but if you can get one cheaply (second hand), it's actually not too bad.

there more photographers on the event... so sony hand-picked more lenses :)

I hope lens variation is well kept under control, and if you read Roger's blog (from lensrental) it seems that new lenses from all brands, tend to have less variation. And it is normal since they are designed with high res sensors in mind. Probably these sony's can resolve at least some 80MPx FF sensor, since their current sensor is at 42 :)

Sony's 35mm f1.4 and 90mm have more-than-desirable variations, unfortunately.

yeah... and with the new sigma adapter, these big lenses have a serious competitor from sigma's art lenses.

Also to note that these are a new lens lineup that sony says it's best of the best, designed for best to be used by the best :) ... so they should pay attention to variation as well...

jonikon; Rather typical of your Nikon fanboy anti Sony rhetoric Jon. You haven't changed a bit.

Which are gangsters and which are cops? It's hard to tell. On the other hand, none of the subjects has ever handled a firearm with any competency (finger should be alongside the frame, not on the trigger).

What's to understand? It's a iconic pop culture film from 30+ years ago that was set in Miami (though primarily filmed in L.A.) Some were offended when it came out and I'm sure some people are still offended by it now but most realize it is nothing more than fiction and don't care (Latinos included).

FWIW, I am Latino, and I am not even borderline offended.