Contents
Conclusion
Pros
- Solidly constructed lens with smooth controls
- Fast autofocus in good light
- Optical stabilization is good for around 3 stops
- Images are very sharp in the central area wide open and sharp to the edges stopped down over most of the focal range
- Outstanding color and contrast
- Good control of longitudinal CA
- Good flare control
Cons
- Image edges are a bit soft at 24mm, and corners stay soft stopped down at 24mm
- Bokeh is somewhat nervous
- High native distortion that requires profile correction for most images
- High vignetting
- Autofocus can hunt a bit in lower light
The Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS is a lens with a lot of promise and a fairly high price tag to go along with the Zeiss name. It’s also a lens that has been criticized in many reviews for optical shortcomings, and I certainly saw some of those shortcomings myself: it has fairly high native distortion, unremarkable bokeh, high vignetting and some lateral CA. It also has some image softness at the wider end of the zoom towards the edges. Because of these faults, the $1,200 retail price is a bit hard to justify in pure terms.
With all of that said, I actually quite liked the lens. There are certainly some optical flaws with thie 24-70mm, but ultimately, I was still able to produce images that look great, and I think that for most print sizes, the 24-70 will do a great job. It’s plenty sharp where it really matters wide open and stopped down it’s quite good. The biggest positive for me is the excellent rendering, with punchy color and strong contrast that really makes the images pop. It’s a convenient focal range and it’s a well-built lens that’s not too heavy to carry for an extended period of time.
While I think $800-900 is a more appropriate price considering some of the flaws, it’s ultimately a very competent lens that is capable of producing excellent images.
Image Samples
Click on an image to enlarge
Jordan,
Thanks for this balanced and informative review. Greatly appreciated, as with all your other contributions.
I am curious to know if you’ve ever used the “kit” lens FE 28-70 and if so, how do you compare them. Some people say that the 28-70 is not terribly far in quality from the 24-70, although it is not a constant f/4 aperture.
Thanks again!!
Marc
I have. Sharpness wise they are fairly comparable. I didn’t review the 28-70 because my copy had a bizarre AF issue where it would randomly miss focus in bright daylight fairly consistently, but when manually focused, it was quite good. The copy I had did have a lot of field curvature, though, but I can’t say whether that was the reason I had focus issues (some element misalignment or something) or whether that’s how it’s supposed to be. I simply returned it and didn’t try another copy. I might eventually pick another one up to try out though. It produced very nice images when I nailed focus. Not quite as much pop as the Zeiss, but overall quite nice. The 28-70 also feels better in the hand than it looks. It looks super cheap, but I was pleased to find the zoom action was smooth and nicely damped.
Jordan,
Great review, I have a big dilemma. I own the A6000 and the A7r2 as well as the Sony FE 16-35 and FE 70-200.
I really need a mid range zoom 24-70 or 24- 105 as a travel lens. I can not decide between the Sony FE 24-70 or the Sony E 16-70 (24-105 cropped). Given your review of both lenses. Which has the best over all quality as travel zoom for landscapes, people, and urban settings? I really love my 16-35 for travel but I feel I also some times need a little more reach.
That’s a very tough choice. Both lenses aren’t exactly flawless, but both are good enough to produce good images. The 16-70mm might be a bit better optically, but it’s been a while since I used the lens. I do think that the extra range of the 16-70 makes for a better travel lens. However, for travel, a lot depends on how you plan to go about it. Will you be bringing both cameras? If so, then the 16-70mm may make a lot more sense, as you can have the 16-35 on the A7R II and the 16-70 on the a6000 and have a great range covered without having to change lenses. Do you want to bring the heavier kit or go super light? If you’re going to bring the A7R II, 16-35 and 70-200, but only plan on using the a6000 as a backup, then the 24-70 would make more sense.
For one lens on one camera, I think I’d lean towards the a6000 with 16-70 because of the versatility and small size, but everyone is different.
Jordan
Thanks for the advice. Next month, I am traveling for three weeks to Cuba and Costa Rica. I just purchased the 16-70mm that will be used on the A6000 and the Sony 16-35mm will used on the A7R2. I will be leaving the 70-200mm at home since I want to go as light as possible. I will have 16mm through 105mm continuously available without switching lenses. In cases where a longer reach is necessary, I can use “digital zoom” or crop on the computer. I know that using “digital zoom” is considered by many as “unprofessional” but when traveling light for three weeks this tool can often have amazingly good results.
Thank you for the review. Now that there are so many other choices for FF E mount cameras, this lens seems to be a weak choice. I have found, however, that I really like to use this lens for video on both the A7s and the A7MII. The front diameter allows use of a relatively inexpensive ND filter, and the lens has a constant aperture. The in-camera distortion correction works fine for video, and Sony has done a great job of adding excellent codec support. This is a much more powerful tool than an equivalent Canon or Nikon kit.
Hello Jordan,
thank you for the comprehensive and honest review. After a few years later, it is still relevant.
I am considering renting an a7R III for one of my trips where my main focus is portraits and street photography (aiming mainly on the 28 to 50mm range). I first wanted to rent the 24-70 2.8 GM, but it is not offered, so I was offered this 24-70 4 Zeiss instead. Do you believe that this lens will be just fine, or might it have a hard time in terms of sharpness and AF when combined with such a demanding sensor as the one in an a7R III?
Thank you in advance for a potential reply.