A99 II

[shadowblade]

The 16-35 is soft at the edges of the frame, even at f8 at all focal lengths, and more so on the right side of the frame.  It is probably decentered a bit.    My FE mount 16-35 F4 on my A7RII gives much better image quality with sharpness in the edges and corners. 
The 24-70 is better and sharpens up nicely by F8 across most of the frame.  But it seems to really struggle at 70mm, even by f8 it's only sharp in the center.   There is nothing about the lens that wows me or stands out, thats why I said it's kinda meh.
Both of these zooms provide fast autofocus and the images from the lenses have nice contrast and color.
When you compare these lenses to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 art prime, or any of the nicer primes for the A7 series cameras, like the Zeiss Loxia, and Batis lenses it becomes really hard to get exited about what these zooms produce.  I think if I got this camera I'd have to check out the Tamron 15-30mm zoom that is supposed to be awesome. (Cant believe I'd ever consider a Tamron lens, LOL!) But there are no other wide angle options for this camera and I do a lot of landscape work so it's of great importance to me.
BTW the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8 lens is still a rock star.  Super fast autofocus, even though it uses the older autofocus drive system and it's freaking sharp even wide open at 1.8. 
The autofocus in general is the best I have ever used.  Snappy and accurate.  I'll be shooting some Collegiate spring football stuff on Friday and plan to really use the autofocus then.  But yesterday I had my 10 year old son run straight at me full speed and the auto focus nailed 10 of the twelve frames in perfect focus.  The other two shots would still be usable but the focus was a little behind the face.  Keep in mind this was with the 135mm lens at f2 so super shallow depth of field. 

A possible setup might be the Tamron 15-30 zoom for Landscape/Architecture, Sigma 35 and 50mm art lenses, the Sony Zeiss 85mm f 1.4 and finally the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8.  This system could work for my uses.

Put them side-by-side against their E-mount equivalents (for the 24-70 and 70-200 anyway) and the difference is striking. The current A-mount lenses just aren't up to scratch for a 42MP sensor.

[jhemp]

I agree, except for the Sony/Zeiss 85 and 135mm primes.  It really is a shame because the a99ii is a very responsive and fun camera to use.  I've been shooting it for a three days now and this afternoon I took my A7Rii setup out for some work and I kept thinking "Damn this thing is sluggish"

I'm hoping Sony will release an A9 camera that shares the same kind of responsive handling and shooting of the a99ii but uses the better FE mount lenses. 

[shadowblade]

I agree, except for the Sony/Zeiss 85 and 135mm primes.  It really is a shame because the a99ii is a very responsive and fun camera to use.  I've been shooting it for a three days now and this afternoon I took my A7Rii setup out for some work and I kept thinking "Damn this thing is sluggish"

I'm hoping Sony will release an A9 camera that shares the same kind of responsive handling and shooting of the a99ii but uses the better FE mount lenses.

According to SonyAlphaRumors, the A9 will be a standard-resolution, high-fps, high-performance AF body. I'm guessing this means 24-30MP - like a competitor to the 5D4. It's an SR5 rumour, so likely to be fairly accurate. But I'd expect there to be an A9r high-resolution version as well, once the 70-80MP sensor is ready.

[pegelli]

Thanks for the explanation jhemp. I also have the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8 and agree it's a hell of a lens, even on the old A850

I never bought into the 16-35 and 24-70 for my A850 and make do with the older Minolta 17-35 and 28-70, adding a little local contrast/clarity in post these lenses are sharp enough for the 24 MP sensor, but I'm afraid they will also fall through at 42 MP. I'll see that whenever I get an A99ii, but for the time being my A850 will have to do.

[Witzgall]

Sone has said that the a99ii is for existing a-mount owners. I ignored that, and bought into the system. I wanted the sensor with a responsive body. I have put together a kit not too far from what you are talking about. The sigma 35, Zeiss 135, minolta 200mm, Tamron 15-30, sony 24-70 and 70-400 gen1, and a cheap sony 50. This is for weddings, portraits, real estate, and boating. So far so good. I bought everything used, so the total $$was not too outrageous. So far so good. This is my first Sony (stills) camera.

Chris

The 16-35 is soft at the edges of the frame, even at f8 at all focal lengths, and more so on the right side of the frame.  It is probably decentered a bit.    My FE mount 16-35 F4 on my A7RII gives much better image quality with sharpness in the edges and corners. 
The 24-70 is better and sharpens up nicely by F8 across most of the frame.  But it seems to really struggle at 70mm, even by f8 it's only sharp in the center.   There is nothing about the lens that wows me or stands out, thats why I said it's kinda meh.
Both of these zooms provide fast autofocus and the images from the lenses have nice contrast and color.
When you compare these lenses to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 art prime, or any of the nicer primes for the A7 series cameras, like the Zeiss Loxia, and Batis lenses it becomes really hard to get exited about what these zooms produce.  I think if I got this camera I'd have to check out the Tamron 15-30mm zoom that is supposed to be awesome. (Cant believe I'd ever consider a Tamron lens, LOL!) But there are no other wide angle options for this camera and I do a lot of landscape work so it's of great importance to me.
BTW the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8 lens is still a rock star.  Super fast autofocus, even though it uses the older autofocus drive system and it's freaking sharp even wide open at 1.8. 
The autofocus in general is the best I have ever used.  Snappy and accurate.  I'll be shooting some Collegiate spring football stuff on Friday and plan to really use the autofocus then.  But yesterday I had my 10 year old son run straight at me full speed and the auto focus nailed 10 of the twelve frames in perfect focus.  The other two shots would still be usable but the focus was a little behind the face.  Keep in mind this was with the 135mm lens at f2 so super shallow depth of field. 

A possible setup might be the Tamron 15-30 zoom for Landscape/Architecture, Sigma 35 and 50mm art lenses, the Sony Zeiss 85mm f 1.4 and finally the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8.  This system could work for my uses.

[shadowblade]

The AF is nice, but I'm waiting for either a Sony A9r (60-80MP with better AF and functionality than the A7) or a Canon 5Ds2 (with better DR than the 5Ds2, probably also in the 60-80MP range). The A-mount lens lineup just doesn't cut it. As Sony pretty much said themselves, the A99II is for existing users, to extend the useful life of their gear, rather than to attract new users to the system.