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