Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Why I plan to buy a Canon 24-70/2.8LII for my Sony A7rII ,having a Sony 24-70 ZA  (Read 7302 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Hi,

On some thread, someone asked me why I am planning to buy a Canon 24-70/2.8LII lens for my Sony A7rII when I already have a Sony 24-70/2.8ZA lens.

The answer is a bit complex. What I find is that the Sony lens not so great at 70 mm. Well it is not just not great it is pretty bad in the corners. At shorter focal lengths it is great. At 24 mm it is better than my Canon 24/3.5 TSE/LII but behind my Canon 16-35/4L. But at 70 mm it is a PITA.

Now, I have a 70-400/4-5.6 G that is shining at 70 mm, but it is big and heavy lens. Also, the 70-400/4-5.6 G is useless if I need a 60 mm lens.

But, the great thing is that I have a tilt and shift adapter from HCam. It has Canon mount. I can use it with my Hasselblad lenses and with Canon lenses but not with Sony. The Canon 16-35/24-70 combination would give me tilt ability from 16 to 70 mm, covering the range I shoot mostly.

I have a friend who owns a few Canon cameras including the 5DsR and he owns some canon lenses. His 24-70/2.8 is at Canon since September, for repair, with issues of bad sharpness on the right side of the image. So, now he has a loaner from Canon which has similar problems. The lens is pretty bad on my Sony A7rII, too. So everything is not bright on the Canon side either!

Best Regards
Erik
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 04:22:22 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686

After getting my first 35mm format digicam (now just over a decade ago), the v1 Canon 5D, I soon realized many of my EF lenses were decentered to varying degrees. The best performers in this respect were the 17–40/4 and 100/2. (Nowadays I wish I'd kept the latter as it was an everything in its right place lens that occasionally turns up if you're lucky.) Some were more or less redundant so I just stopped using them. Others I sent to Canon for calibration/repair…and I have to say they did a very good job.

My copy of the Sony/Zeiss 24–70/4 does fall off at 70mm, particularly in the f/4–5.6 range. Frankly this has been my experience with other 24–70 lenses too. Even the lovely m43 format Olympus 12–40/2.8 (roughly 24–80mm "equivalent") dips a bit past 35mm.

-Dave-
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer

After getting my first 35mm format digicam (now just over a decade ago), the v1 Canon 5D, I soon realized many of my EF lenses were decentered to varying degrees. The best performers in this respect were the 17–40/4 and 100/2. (Nowadays I wish I'd kept the latter as it was an everything in its right place lens that occasionally turns up if you're lucky.) Some were more or less redundant so I just stopped using them. Others I sent to Canon for calibration/repair…and I have to say they did a very good job.

My copy of the Sony/Zeiss 24–70/4 does fall off at 70mm, particularly in the f/4–5.6 range. Frankly this has been my experience with other 24–70 lenses too. Even the lovely m43 format Olympus 12–40/2.8 (roughly 24–80mm "equivalent") dips a bit past 35mm.

-Dave-

Yes, I have seen many Canon lenses with decentering problems. Some came that way from the manufacturer (far too many) and some may have gotten that way through use. I have never seen a Canon 17-40mm zoom that did not have some noticeable decentering at high magnification. I gather that zooms are more susceptible to this than prime lenses, due to more complex designs and more moving parts.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Hi,

I have seen some articles at Lensrentals indicating that lenses are getting better. Mechanical construction is improved.

Just as an example, of their stock of the original 24-70/2.8 L about half was in need of repair, but the new 24-70/2.8LII is much better that sense.

Lensrentals dissected three 35/1.4 lenses recently, and they were pretty much impressed by the mechanical construction on all three of them

Best regards
Erik

Yes, I have seen many Canon lenses with decentering problems. Some came that way from the manufacturer (far too many) and some may have gotten that way through use. I have never seen a Canon 17-40mm zoom that did not have some noticeable decentering at high magnification. I gather that zooms are more susceptible to this than prime lenses, due to more complex designs and more moving parts.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Hi

Good zooms can be great performers but perhaps not over their entire range. One problems with zooms is that they have a complex mechanical design that can wear out, that is what Lensrentals found with the original 24-70/2.8L. That lens had very high repair frequency.

The problem with primes is that say you have 40/60/100/120/180 in your kit (these happen to be the Hasselblad lenses I have). Now if you happen to have a 100 mm but you need a 90 mm than you have to fall back to 60 mm or crop. Or move to another place but that will change perspective. In those situations I often resort to stitching.

Traveling by car, I can transport all my lenses but air travel has quit severe limitations on luggage weights, far more in Europe than US, and I do some air travel.

Another disadvantage with primes is that high end primes are often large aperture lenses that are expensive and heavy. The Otuses are great examples.

I am quite happy with the Canon 16-35/4L I have:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/24mm_compared/

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Canon_16_35_4/

Some of the samples in the second set of samples may be using shift on the lens.


Best regards
Erik

I don't know about the 24-70mm, but the 24-105mm f4 from Canon has to be one of the worst lenses that I have ever used. I know  it's the kit lens on the 5D MKIII, and also that it's not expensive, but still, soft, poor contrast, terrible in the corners, CA galore.

I guess a lot of people don't really care/see these things but I'm sticking to primes for the time being.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 12:05:19 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer

I don't know about the 24-70mm, but the 24-105mm f4 from Canon has to be one of the worst lenses that I have ever used. I know  it's the kit lens on the 5D MKIII, and also that it's not expensive, but still, soft, poor contrast, terrible in the corners, CA galore.

I guess a lot of people don't really care/see these things but I'm sticking to primes for the time being.

I have used several copies of this lens and own one, and have had pretty good luck with it. However, bear in mind that, though it is good design, it is not perfect. It is best at the middle of its range and quality falls off a it toward the extremes. Nevertheless, it is a very good all around mid-range zoom, considering its range, provided you get a good copy of it, and it is very sharp across the field in the middle of its range (about 35-60mm), if you stop down a little.
Logged

Hans van Driest

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25

Thanks for this. It is good to see the Canon 16-35 f4 is also not perfect at 16mm. Will keep my Sony 16-35 f4.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686

I found the Canon 24–105/4 to be a fine portrait lens. The falloff in resolution at the long end worked well on people. My favorite pic of my dad in his later years came from this lens and a 5D. Once stopped down it was a decent all-rounder too.

-Dave-
Logged

lowep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • http://sites.google.com/site/peterlowefoto/

"I also have the Sony Zeiss 24-70 2.8 a mount I now use on the a7sII with the lea-4 adapater and though the camera is kind of perplexing, the lens is way sharp, with more bite than the canons, but a very nice lens and very accurate manual focus."

Cooter would you say this is more or less the case comparing how most Canon lenses perform compared to Sony and Zeiss for Sony lenses on the Sony mirrorless system or does what you say only apply to this specific zoom lens?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 08:22:09 pm by lowep »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Hi,

My main interest is flexibility. With the Canon lenses I can use a T&S adapter, so I can use Scheimpflug to extend depth of field. With the Sony lenses this is not really possible.

A major aspect for me is aerial travel. I can pack half a dozen Hasselblad V-lenses in the car, but when I am flying to the Dolomites I am limited by carry on limits. Having say the Canon 16-35/4, the 24-70/2.8 and my trusty 70-400/4-5.6 G I can do with just three lenses.

Now, choosing between Canon 24-70/2.8LII and the Sony 24-70/2.8ZA, I feel that the Sony lens is not up to snuff at the long end. 24-50 it is OK. The Canon is known to be the best of that crop, but I have seen pictures from a sample a friend has and that lens is also pretty bad at the long end, but only at the right side. Now, the lens my friend has is a loaner from Canon, his own lens spending quite a few months at Canon for repair.

So, I want a good sample of a good lens. Preferable a lens that allows stills.

I did not make a lot of comparisons, but my Canon 16-35/4L is just great at most focal lengths I have tried. It is better than my Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII. At 24 mm the Sony 24-70/2.8 does also pretty well, not as good as the Canon zoom but better than the 24/3.5 TSE LII.

Two or three Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII owners told me that they observed similar performance on their samples, one of them had two different samples. So I don't think I have an extremely bad sample but probably not a good one either. But the 16-35/4 really shines, I love that lens.

Best regards
Erik




sorry for the long reply. . .


I have three flavors of zeiss lenses ZF's I use for one of my REDs, A mounts I am trying to use on the Sony A7SII, Contax/Zeiss I use on my p+Contax and Leica S2.  Also Nikon Lenses, Canon lenses of all sizes, Leica lenses, olympus, panasonic/leica branded and RED PL.

The Zeiss lenses seem to have the same character regardless of the camera.   They are more contrasty and give the impression of more sharpness compared to the others and seem much more connected using manual focus.

The Canons seem smoother, easier roll off, more like the Leica glass but some of this depends on the cameras I use them on.

I bought the 24 to 70 A mount a long time ago for the FS 100 and kept it hoping for a use with the A7s series.   It works with the A7sII, works well with stills, good for motion, though autofocus with the lea-4 adapter limits the focus points but does offer phase detect.

It's not a low light track focus camera and the adapter needs a firmware update because with video it locks the A mount lenses to 3.5 and won't allow the shutter to lock down, so the shutter is constantly moving from 1/30 to 1/500th, depending on the scene.

For stills it will track focus and gives full functionality with autofocus, but it's still a good lens.

Sorry to go off topic but the A7sII is a camera I want to like, but really don't.  Battery usage is insane for heavy use, though there is some workarounds.   The a7sII like the R also suffers from overheating.  I haven't had any shutdowns, but noise builds quickly and noise reduction needs to be set differently for different scenes.

But comparing the Zeiss Sony's next to Canons for the A7 series is a matter of taste.   The Zeiss appear sharper, the Canons less contrast, though if your manually focusing the Sony/Zeiss feel more connected.

Once again off topic but Sony plays a lot of games.  I heard from a Sony rep that you shouldn't use A mounts of the A7 series, use FE's but all sony constant FE zooms are F4 and not inexpensive.  He said don't worry we'll have 2.8's soon and when I asked when he said he can't say.

So do you buy FE mounts, knowing that when the 2.8's come out you buy again, do you use your current Canon lenses, or like me try to adapt A mounts?

I bought the A7sII for lifestyle quick motion imagery and find the asa tops at 5,000.   I've seen samples of 10,000 asa but don't know where they are getting them, because mine gets pretty ragged at 5,000 which I don't think is really 5,000.

It's a very sensitive camera.   Most people suggest overexposing for a clean file, but that's a fine line as 2/3 overexpose is at the limit of recovering highlights.   It's also not a camera that you underexpose and try to pull up the shadows (in motion imagery) as it gets ragged very quickly.

Maybe with a 10 bit recorder it would get better but honestly, I'm kind of at the point where it's time to move off my Sony experience.   I'll give it a few more tries with a recorder and see if it makes a difference.

I also get the feeling Sony is slowly abandoning the A mount cameras and lenses and that's kind of a shame given the amount of lenses available and the fact the a7 cameras really needs to be bigger to handle the heat and battery consumption.



IMO

BC
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

lowep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • http://sites.google.com/site/peterlowefoto/

Thanks for the meaty replies that are very useful :-)

I have the Zeiss FE 35mm and 85mm lenses and am pondering about how to complete my A7II kit with a bright wide angle lens -- without having to sell the camera to finance another expensive Zeiss lens purchase.

I also have a dinky Canon EF-Sony e-mount adapter that is why I am asking about how Canon lenses compare with Zeiss and Sony FE lenses on the A7II, as price and wide aperture of Canon wide angle lenses is very attractive. I figure with A7II firmware 2.0 update that phase-AF with the Canon lenses is doable, even if not as fast or accurate as with the FE lenses.

Against this has to be weighed if and how the "character" (whatever that means) of photos made with the Canon lenses would fit together in a series with photos made with the Sony Zeiss lenses?

It seems, according to what Cooter says about the impression of the more contrasty and sharp character with Zeiss lenses and more smoothness and roll off with the Canon lenses, this may be an issue?

So maybe an A-mount lens with an adapter is the best middle way to go until (if ever) Sony comes out with a bright wide angle FE lens that doesn´t cost more than the camera?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Here are some sample images shot with the Canon 16-35/4. Some of these shots were made with tilt or shift, on these lens aperture is not shown in the EXIF info. Camera is Sony A7rII. Sharpening on these images is mostly moderate.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Canon_16_35_4/

My friend who had his Canon 24-70/2.8LII in repair finally got it back, in a much improved shape.


Best regards
Erik

 




Thanks for the meaty replies that are very useful :-)

I have the Zeiss FE 35mm and 85mm lenses and am pondering about how to complete my A7II kit with a bright wide angle lens -- without having to sell the camera to finance another expensive Zeiss lens purchase.

I also have a dinky Canon EF-Sony e-mount adapter that is why I am asking about how Canon lenses compare with Zeiss and Sony FE lenses on the A7II, as price and wide aperture of Canon wide angle lenses is very attractive. I figure with A7II firmware 2.0 update that phase-AF with the Canon lenses is doable, even if not as fast or accurate as with the FE lenses.

Against this has to be weighed if and how the "character" (whatever that means) of photos made with the Canon lenses would fit together in a series with photos made with the Sony Zeiss lenses?

It seems, according to what Cooter says about the impression of the more contrasty and sharp character with Zeiss lenses and more smoothness and roll off with the Canon lenses, this may be an issue?

So maybe an A-mount lens with an adapter is the best middle way to go until (if ever) Sony comes out with a bright wide angle FE lens that doesn´t cost more than the camera?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

lowep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • http://sites.google.com/site/peterlowefoto/

Good to see these careful sample shots that seem to confirm what Cooter says about difference in character to my Sony Zeiss lenses, at least as far as I can judge. I suppose the differences could be patched up in Photoshop if spent more time on it than I do on the internet but not easily. It is also why I have avoided so far exploring legacy Minolta lenses.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up