The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

I have been toiling with back troubles for quite a while. I have a 24-70 2.8 GM, which is a great lens IMO, but it is big and heavy. I’m wondering if it would make sense to swap it for a Zeiss 24-70 f4, which is so much smaller and lighter. Trouble is the reviews of the Zeiss are pretty mixed- anyone here have relevant experience and able to advise?

The Zeiss is OK. If using it on one of the R bodies it may highlight its lack of sharpness a little more. I personally think a lot of the early criticism was due to it being an expensive lens that didn't quote perform to the price tag. If you can find one used for about £450 it's worth that and it is very lightweight.
 
I have been toiling with back troubles for quite a while. I have a 24-70 2.8 GM, which is a great lens IMO, but it is big and heavy. I’m wondering if it would make sense to swap it for a Zeiss 24-70 f4, which is so much smaller and lighter. Trouble is the reviews of the Zeiss are pretty mixed- anyone here have relevant experience and able to advise?
You could also look at the Sony 24-105mm or tamron 28-75mm which get better reviews.

As mentioned above Zeiss is OK. It's not spectacular but it's a small f4 zoom. Smallest of the lot bar 28-70 kit lens.
 
Last edited:
You could also look at the Sony 24-105mm or tamron 28-75mm which get better reviews.

As mentioned above Zeiss is OK. It's not spectacular but it's a small f4 zoom. Smallest of the lot bar 28-70 kit lens.

I remember some reviewers saying the f4 was a good lens but criticising it for not leave the kit lens far enough behind.
 
I just didn't gel with the 55mm focal length when I tried it right at the beginning. Couldn't really fault the lens itself though from what I remember.

I also didn't try the Zeiss f/4 zoom because of what Alan just said there ^^ It apparently isn't that much better for the extra cost. If that's actually true, I don't know. But I didn't risk it :)

Plus, I'm more than happy with 21mm on the wide end now :)
 
Could always pick up a samyang 24mm..
Thanks, but that's not really the direction I want to go in- I'm considering replacing my very heavy zoom with another similarly spec'd but more compact one, subject to assessing the difference in quality of optics, build, etc
 
The 55 left me cold. Not sure why as it’s super sharp etc but it just had a clinical look I didn’t like. I far prefer the 50mm Planar. Much costlier and heavier though.
 
The 55 left me cold. Not sure why as it’s super sharp etc but it just had a clinical look I didn’t like. I far prefer the 50mm Planar. Much costlier and heavier though.

You can give pictures taken with a very good accurate lens character but I do know what you and others mean. It's a lot easier to get instant character with a lens which is comparatively less good but gives you what are in reality optical issues which the 55 doesn't have.
 
I remember some reviewers saying the f4 was a good lens but criticising it for not leave the kit lens far enough behind.

Stephen kindly let me look at some of his images taken with a Zeiss 24-70 f4 and performance really doesn't match price. It's OK in the centre but the edges are smeary, even at f8, and that was obvious at normal screen viewing size & not just pixel peeping. Assuming this is normal (and I've seen several reviews that suggest it is) then it's fine if you have a central subject with OOF edges, but it's not a lens you'd use for landscape or architecture. I was very disappointed, because this was the lens I'd have bought first off otherwise.
 
You can give pictures taken with a very good accurate lens character but I do know what you and others mean. It's a lot easier to get instant character with a lens which is comparatively less good but gives you what are in reality optical issues which the 55 doesn't have.

Couldn’t ever put my finger on why. Just didn’t click.
 
I admit to only trying it in a shop and outside the door of it, but I just could not see a difference between the Sony 50 and Zeiss 55 worth, what, 3 times the price? I know it AFs faster and quieter and can give more contrast in some of the tests I have seen but still. I'll end up buying it like a mug at some point I'm sure. :)
 
OK, so eye-AF apparently works with the sammy 50 f1.4. :D

DSC00059.jpg

"Can I borrow you for a moment to test my camera? It's supposed to focus on your eyes."

"What happens if I shut them? Or if I turn round?"

Seems it tracks well, and although I can hear the lens motor twitching away continuously re-focusing, it's not annoying or worrying. This was at f1.6, and it got 7 out of 8 sharp, with only the image where my wife closed her eyes focussed a little behind the intended target.

Just spent a 'happy' 2 hours in the manual, setting up the 2 user profiles. I need to start assigning buttons in addition to ISO on the rear wheel, but haven't got familiar enough with the operation yet to know what I want. Hoping I can quickly get past the stage of thinking about the camera so I can start taking pictures properly again.
 
... Zeiss 24-70 f4 ... I was very disappointed, because this was the lens I'd have bought first off otherwise.
Yeah- reckon I'll stick with the GM- I've come across too many opinions similar to yours. Surprising Zeiss haven't come out with an improved version, in view of the widespread lack of enthusiasm for this product and the associated element of damage to the brand.
 
Yeah- reckon I'll stick with the GM- I've come across too many opinions similar to yours. Surprising Zeiss haven't come out with an improved version, in view of the widespread lack of enthusiasm for this product and the associated element of damage to the brand.

If it was a £100 kit lens then it would be acceptable, but you'd replace it as soon as you could. I have a zeiss 16-80 in A mount and stopped down a little it's almost prime-sharp, but the 24-70 doesn't appear to be near that.
 
I got as far as asking MBP to quote for a trade in of my GM v a zeiss 24-70, but on mature reflection I reckon that the drop in optical quality in particular would be unacceptable, and the swap much regretted, so I'm not going ahead with that. I'll just have to carry on putting up with the size & weight of the GM and hope my back sorts itself out sharpish :grumpy:
 
I got as far as asking MBP to quote for a trade in of my GM v a zeiss 24-70, but on mature reflection I reckon that the drop in optical quality in particular would be unacceptable, and the swap much regretted, so I'm not going ahead with that. I'll just have to carry on putting up with the size & weight of the GM and hope my back sorts itself out sharpish :grumpy:

Yeap. Its only your back.
 
The 55 left me cold. Not sure why as it’s super sharp etc but it just had a clinical look I didn’t like. I far prefer the 50mm Planar. Much costlier and heavier though.

I kinda get that, it misses a little character. But super sharp, af very quick and solid build.
 
OK, so eye-AF apparently works with the sammy 50 f1.4. :D

View attachment 239263

"Can I borrow you for a moment to test my camera? It's supposed to focus on your eyes."

"What happens if I shut them? Or if I turn round?"

Seems it tracks well, and although I can hear the lens motor twitching away continuously re-focusing, it's not annoying or worrying. This was at f1.6, and it got 7 out of 8 sharp, with only the image where my wife closed her eyes focussed a little behind the intended target.

Just spent a 'happy' 2 hours in the manual, setting up the 2 user profiles. I need to start assigning buttons in addition to ISO on the rear wheel, but haven't got familiar enough with the operation yet to know what I want. Hoping I can quickly get past the stage of thinking about the camera so I can start taking pictures properly again.

It’s natural to set it up as you did your Nikon, i did too. But there’s a few things not needed, like BBF, which may well change how you shoot. My faves menu has grown quite a bit from the start. The AF options will keep you busy for a good while yet. Enjoy!
 
I do think my Sony bodies seem solid enough but the card door seems to be so damn flimsy and always feels a bit loose and cheap! Anyone else feel it’s a bit of a weak point?!
 
DXOmark just finished testing the Z6, and no real surprise it's much of a muchness in comparison to the 7III but the Sony is ahead on points overall. Thought maybe some A7III users might find that interesting.
 
It’s natural to set it up as you did your Nikon, i did too. But there’s a few things not needed, like BBF, which may well change how you shoot. My faves menu has grown quite a bit from the start. The AF options will keep you busy for a good while yet. Enjoy!

I've actually treated it quite differently. ;)

The D610 was really simple: single group of settings, spot metering & central focus spot - just point & squirt. All the controls you'd need were based on simple dials & switches apart from ISO which was a labelled button to activate. Manual focus, just flip a physical switch. Want continuous, just turn a dial. Never used BBF in my life. I should probably assign some of those functions to buttons in the future.

On the A7 U1 is set to manual focus full time with focus peaking, U2 set to centre point AF & spot metering like the Nikon. General user mode has matrix metering and continuous AF with eye-detect on the centre button as per manual.
 
Last edited:
Another good 'un is Photographic Solutions Eclipse Lens and CCD Cleaning Fluid (available from Amazon) Some prefer their apparently gentler product Aeroclipse.
 
I...read that you’re supposed to use aero eclipse on the a7iiii
The manufacturers now say that following tests they are satisfied that the original eclipse fluid is fine on the A7 series- personally I prefer to play safe and stick to the Aeroclipse fluid:cool:
 
Mine's always cack-up, I've become quite good at using spot removal in LR :D
 
The risk of getting dust directly on the sensor vs it building up on the shutter each time you expose it out doors - but we don't really know which way is best as they are the first to do it, for ML bodies at least
Are you a Sony shooter now Keith?
 
Back
Top