Avoid: Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS Lens
- Thread starter Dylan777
- Start date
Which of the Sony FE native lenses are good? I see great reviews of the 55 f/1.8. Positive reviews of the 35 f/2.8 (although if Sony had a great 24-70 f/2.8 like Canon's then a lot fewer people would look at this lens) and less positive reviews for the rest.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
I've tried all Sony FE native lenses. I would say:
1. 55mm f1.8: BEST
2. 35mm f2.8: Very good. Not razor sharp at f2.8. However, from f3.5 to smaller, very sharp. Best fit for a7 series
3. 16-35: Very Very good. Very close to Canon 16-35 f4 IS. Balance is off
4. 24-70: Good. however, not as good as Canon f2.8 II. Balance is off
5. 24-240: I feel it below par, heavy, and balance is off
6. 70-200: Very close to Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Balance is off
Upvote
0
I also checked some reviews for E mount on photozone. Though mirror less saves weight for me, it is going to expensive than crop dslr for equivalent features and lens quality. Most of E lens reviews are not great on photozone. They did 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS test recently. Not sure how Sony produced this one for $1000 with price target (1 and 1/2 star from photozone). I think, people are too much concerned with sensor ratings in dxo rather than checking lens ratings and performance for price.
"Sony/Zeiss did many things right - range, build quality, image stabilization but optical quality is not part of the list. Yes, the center quality is outstanding but the corners are often mediocre or even dismal. The 70mm setting is especially terrible here. Lateral CAs are high in the lower range. In critical scenes you will also notice a heavy barrel distortion at 16mm and the high vignetting at 16mm @ f/4. At this stage it is worth to mention AGAIN that we also send the lens to the Sony service in order to let them verify that our sample was within specs - TWICE and we let them know who we are and that there'll be a review. So we have to take their word.
Typical for most Sony-made lenses the build quality is impressive. The tightly assembled metal body feels reassuring and mechanically it's simply a joy to use it out there. The AF speed is noiseless and fast without being a speed demon though (even on the A6000). The optical image stabilizer is certainly handy at times.
However, the high mechanical qualities doesn't overshadow the fact that this Zeiss lens is both heavily overpriced and below average by today's standards. As such we can only conclude ... not recommended."
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss?start=2
"Sony/Zeiss did many things right - range, build quality, image stabilization but optical quality is not part of the list. Yes, the center quality is outstanding but the corners are often mediocre or even dismal. The 70mm setting is especially terrible here. Lateral CAs are high in the lower range. In critical scenes you will also notice a heavy barrel distortion at 16mm and the high vignetting at 16mm @ f/4. At this stage it is worth to mention AGAIN that we also send the lens to the Sony service in order to let them verify that our sample was within specs - TWICE and we let them know who we are and that there'll be a review. So we have to take their word.
Typical for most Sony-made lenses the build quality is impressive. The tightly assembled metal body feels reassuring and mechanically it's simply a joy to use it out there. The AF speed is noiseless and fast without being a speed demon though (even on the A6000). The optical image stabilizer is certainly handy at times.
However, the high mechanical qualities doesn't overshadow the fact that this Zeiss lens is both heavily overpriced and below average by today's standards. As such we can only conclude ... not recommended."
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss?start=2
Upvote
0
Unfortunately, in the past, Sony lenses are vastly over priced for what you get. However, you might be able to use some of the Sigma lenses and get a much better performance for less. Just because the lenses say Zeiss does not guarantee anything but a high price.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Dylan777 said:
With a comparable focal range, you could certainly beat someone with the 28-300L.
With the Canon at almost 4 lbs whereas the Sony is 2 lbs, I take it the joke was that you could physically beat somebody with the Canon... using it as a blunt object (not that I'm advocating violence). Was that the joke? ;D
Upvote
0
I particularly disagree with photozone's review and ratings on the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm, and my experience match the review made by PhotogrtaphyBlog on the same lens. I also own this lens paired with the Sony a6000 and the IQ and color rendition are very good. Yes, I also consider these lenses overpriced and that is why I normally buy them on eBay for less.ritholtz said:
I am not planning to build a Sony arsenal at all unless their lenses can match IQ and sharpness of Canon 'L' glasses and newer consumer primes (e.g. 35/2 IS). I am very happy to have the a6000+16-70/4 as travel camera, while keeping my Canon gear for more serious work.
I know some photographers have switch from Canon & Nikon to Sony FF mirrorless but some of them still use Canon glasses via adapter.
Few native Sony lenses can match the resolving power of the Canon 'L' lenses and their own high MP sensors. So, I'd rather stick to Canon for now.
Upvote
0
I checked out other Sony E mount lens reviews on photozone website. Their 35mm prime seems to be the best of the bunch vs price. Not sure if Sony is still selling kit lens 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ. This has to be one of the worst lens score I have seen from photozone. Does Sigma makes all of their lens available for E mount (30mm, 17-50, 10-20 and 18-35).Mt Spokane Photography said:
Upvote
0
Hjalmarg1 said:
Thanks for the information. What general purpose lens, are you using with a6000 (something similar to 17-50 f2.8. Is 16-70 F4 is the only option. Sony 35mm prime is very good. That will cover my prime needs. Photozone lens reviews always felt very honest to me. Reviewer (Klaus) sent his copy twice to Sony to makes sure everything is fine with the lens. Not just Canon L lens, STM kit/budget lens are also seems to be doing much better than Sony kit/budget lens. I guess, I will wait for next iteration of these lens from Sony before thinking about switching to smaller mirrorless Sony system.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
It all depends on how relevant for you is a pixel-peeping analysis on the corner of a 36 MP sensor. In other words, how much clinical corner-to-corner sharpness is important to you in determining the value of a lens.
The Zeiss 24-70 f/4 doesn't perform well on lab tests but takes awesome photos. There are many awesome lenses that share this same philosophy (the Nokton 1.2/35 being one of them). I've had the Canon 24-70 f/4 L and the Zeiss is miles ahead in terms of IQ (notice that I didn't say sharpness).
I rarely print larger than A4-size and I only need a 7.5 MP file for that (300 dpi). So, for me, poor performance in the far corners of a 36 MP file is not field-relevant. My impression is that this lens has happy users and unhappy reviewers.
Having had both, I can say that the Canon sharpens up better upon stopping down, but the Zeiss is sharper wide-open (a lot sharper in the centre); the Canon has more vivid colors but the Zeiss has its signature look; the Zeiss is smaller, lighter and the build quality appears more elegant to me. I haven't found appreciable differences in IS or AF. Overall I have no doubts that the Zeiss is the better lens and produces better photos, although I don't find it sharper than the Canon.
Sharpenss is one variable in the IQ equation but IMHO not everything. I wouldn't want manufacturers to design lenses with the goal of performing well in the lab rather than in the field.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
