Sony A900 with Zeiss 24-70mm vs 5D2 with 24-70L

[Hank K]

After reading the recent comparison of the A900 and 5D2, I was left with an unanswered question.  In several places, the Zeiss 24-70mm was mentioned as a superior lens.   This left me with a question, is there a noticeable difference between prints with the A900 Zeiss 24-70mm vs the Canon 5D2 with the 24-70L.   At a 20x30 inch print level, would one see a difference.   And if so, could one describe such differences.

The article states no real IQ differences between the two cameras but the lens selection would seem to make some difference.  So the question.

It was a valuable article for me, thanks.

[BernardLanguillier]

After reading the recent comparison of the A900 and 5D2, I was left with an unanswered question.  In several places, the Zeiss 24-70mm was mentioned as a superior lens.   This left me with a question, is there a noticeable difference between prints with the A900 Zeiss 24-70mm vs the Canon 5D2 with the 24-70L.   At a 20x30 inch print level, would one see a difference.   And if so, could one describe such differences.

For what it is worth Chasseur d'Image published last month an in depth testing of the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 tested on both the A700 and A900, and the conclusion was that the 24-70 on the A900 was a bit of a disapointement in the corners. It only got 4 stars.

The conclusion was that the Canon and Nikkor 24-70f2.8 were both superior lenses for FF applications (they both got 5 stars on FF bodies although the Nikkor was tested on a D700). It means that, based on these tests, they assessed the image quality of the D700 + 24-70f2.8 to be superior to that of the A900 + 24-70f2.8 Zeiss.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Camp]

The Zeiss name carries a lot of magic, and their lenses feel like they're carved from stainless steel. I bought the zf 25 just to try it out, and frankly, I was not wildly impressed. Images look a bit different, but not a lot "better" to my eye than the Nikon 14-24. YMMV. Sean Reid had something similar to say when he compared Nikon and Zeiss 50s. If I recall correctly, he *liked* the Zeiss a bit better, because of the way it drew, but there was no real serious IQ difference...and the Nikon was autofocus in addition to working manually. People who see Zeiss as a big step up from their system lenses may in some cases be disappointed, I think...

JC

[BernardLanguillier]

People who see Zeiss as a big step up from their system lenses may in some cases be disappointed, I think...

There is of course the look that might match more or less a given photograph's shooting style and might be more important in the end, but in terms of measured performance it appears that those Zeiss lenses for Sony mount are very good, but not best in class. They are the most expensive offering of the bunch though.

If only Nikon could come up with a set of wide primes featuring their latest technology and optimized for best possible image quality between f5.6 and f11... I wouln't mind if such 20, 24, 28 and 35 mm only opened at 2.8.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have the 24-70/2.8. It is definitively soft in the very extreme corners. The sample I have is probably not a particularly bad copy. In practical picture taking I'm quite impressed by the lens. The weakness in the corners is not really visible in real pictures because I normally shoot stopped down and because we normally don't shoot flat walls parallell to sensor in normal photography so at full aperture depth of field would be very short. There is more to image quality than just MTF, although I'm a strong believer in measurable quantities.

My buy of the 24-70/2.8 ZA was influenced by info on this site but also also this discussion:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30296682

Comparison images with KM 28-75/2.8 (identical to Tamron 28-75/2.8 which is known to be a good lens) here:

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/2470za_test1

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/km_28_75_test

Generic samples are here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_samples

Please check images in "original" size, these are full size high res images. The sample images are edited in LR/PS.

Erik

For what it is worth Chasseur d'Image published last month an in depth testing of the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 tested on both the A700 and A900, and the conclusion was that the 24-70 on the A900 was a bit of a disapointement in the corners. It only got 4 stars.

The conclusion was that the Canon and Nikkor 24-70f2.8 were both superior lenses for FF applications (they both got 5 stars on FF bodies although the Nikkor was tested on a D700). It means that, based on these tests, they assessed the image quality of the D700 + 24-70f2.8 to be superior to that of the A900 + 24-70f2.8 Zeiss.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ndevlin]

Michael and I shot a few fames side-by-side to test noise on these cameras with these lenses and, incidentally, looked at the sharpness. From a very casual view, the EF lens held its own very nicely at 70mm, but gave up a bit at 24mm, which is consistent with my experience in the field.

Both great lenses, but neither a holy grail..

- N.

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Michael and I shot a few fames side-by-side to test noise on these cameras with these lenses and, incidentally, looked at the sharpness. From a very casual view, the EF lens held its own very nicely at 70mm, but gave up a bit at 24mm, which is consistent with my experience in the field.

Both great lenses, but neither a holy grail..

- N.

I agree with Nick (now there's something to celebrate!). I have owned both the Canon 28-70 and the 24-105. Where the Zeiss is clearly the winner is at 24-35mm - at the middle and long end, there is little to choose. At least for my copy.
Bill

[NikosR]

The Zeiss name carries a lot of magic, and their lenses feel like they're carved from stainless steel.

The Sony Zeiss 24-70 most definitely does not feel like that, especially compared to the Nikon and Canon competition. Good quality plastic, yes, stainless steel, no.

[01af]

I have the [SAL] 24-70/2.8 [ZA]. It is definitively soft in the very extreme corners. [...] The weakness in the corners is not really visible in real pictures [...] because we normally don't shoot flat walls parallel to sensor ...

Erik, have you ever tried to find out whether that corner softness is due to general lack of sharpness at the corners or due to field curvature? Maybe the sharpness is there but just not in the plane where you're looking for it?

-- Olaf

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

The Sony Zeiss 24-70 most definitely does not feel like that, especially compared to the Nikon and Canon competition. Good quality plastic, yes, stainless steel, no.

I'm surprised at your comment. A few moments ago I had the Sony Zeiss in one hand and the Canon 24-105 in the other. To me, the Zeiss feels much more solid and also smoother in operation. The Zeiss weighs 950 gms, the Canon 750 gms. Hard to compare though because one has a full stop wider aperture and the other has a longer focal length...

The Zeiss looks and feels like mostly steel to me.

Bill

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That is perfectly possible. I was photographics a small historic house. The walls don't really have any curvature. The shooting I was doing was at quite a few meters.

I do consider field curvature to be a problem. Lloyd Chambers had a series of articles about Carl Zeiss lenses and according to his findings it seems that Zeiss doesn't place much priority on the extreme corners, that is consistent with my findings.

Actually I'm perfectly satisfied with the lens, but it is not sharp from corner to corner on full frame. Probably very few lenses are!

Best regards
Erik

Erik, have you ever tried to find out whether that corner softness is due to general lack of sharpness at the corners or due to field curvature? Maybe the sharpness is there but just not in the plane where you're looking for it?

-- Olaf