FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony 28-75 vs Zeiss 24-70

 Page  12>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
clarencewstone View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 27 December 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 116 		Post Options Post Options   Quote clarencewstone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sony 28-75 vs Zeiss 24-70
    Posted: 28 January 2010 at 20:41
I'm very close to getting a full frame camera. I was recently at BH playing with the lenses and was pleasantly pleased by the way it feels as well as the AF speed. However, I've read in reviews that the performance of the sony f2.8 is not too far from the zeiss.

To all the folks who own zeiss, what do you think? Worth the extra bank?
Hows the IQ? CA?
Any little things that make dealing with the huge filter mount worth it?

Bear in mind at most time I prefer to be stuck to a prime.
A700, A300, Minolta 7d, Maxxum 7000, Minolta 500si,58 f1.4, MD 50 f2, MD 45 f2, AF 28 f2.8, AF 50 1.7, AF 70-210 f4 beercan , AF 35-70 f4, Tamron 70-200 2.8, Sigma 28-200, Tamron 28-75 2.8, 35 1.8 SAM
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
natamambo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 September 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1463 		Post Options Post Options   Quote natamambo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2010 at 23:02
I own the 28-70G and have used on the CZ 24-70 at the same spot on the same day on A900. CZ is sharper but cold in comparison, lacking warmth and depth of colour and with chunkier bokeh. It's a nice lens though and probably wouldn't suffer from flare as much and has a better minimum focus point distance (which isn't really an issue with landscapes, if I want right up close and a long way away in focus I head for the 17-35 anyway). The 28-70 has more distortion at the wide end but you wouldn't see it on an APS-C.

Not sure why you think you are a prime person, more than half that list in your siggy is zooms .

Edit, just realised you asked about 28-75, I had that lens for 5 years (well, twice as one got pinched), loved it but it hasn't been on the camera since I got the G. No comparison in my opinion but I prefer to blow my pics up big rather than pixel peep on a 72DPI screen

Edited by natamambo - 28 January 2010 at 23:09
A900; A700;17-35;28-70G;28-135;70-200GSSM;70-300GSSM;2XAPO(D)TC;85 1.4G;100 macro;5600HS(D)
Back to Top
ecsh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 June 2009
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 380 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ecsh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 00:03
You have so many lens which impede that focul length, just get the CZ 135 and be done with it. You will be glad you did on FF.
A99,CZ 85 1.4, Sigma 70mm macro, Tamron 70-300,Minolta 20 2.8,85 2.8,Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 70-200 OS, Tamron 24-70 2,8 + Lusting more
Back to Top
jedidentite View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 16 September 2008
Country: United States
Location: Los Angeles, US
Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote jedidentite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 04:07
I have the Zeiss and the KM version 28-75. To me, the Zeiss is noticeably better with better colors and contrast for a nice "3D" effect. If you're a prime guy, you're probably better off getting the 28-75 and a prime for the same price as the zeiss.
Thomas
Max's Blog | CZ 85, 135 | a850, RX 1
Back to Top
alpharaider View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 29 December 2008
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 68 		Post Options Post Options   Quote alpharaider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 04:35
You could buy a Tamron 28-75mm and CZ 135mm 1.8 for roughly the same price as CZ24-70.
A700- S85 1.4HSM, S50 1.4, M100/2, M80-200 2.8 HS
Back to Top
amflmnt View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 March 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 804 		Post Options Post Options   Quote amflmnt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 04:36
I've got the older KM28-75 and can't find much wrong with it for IQ not CA. Still, color and contrast I control in PP since I shoot RAW. Given your line-up it may be time to experience some Zeiss glass anyway. Hey, i've still got my MD 45mm too-on the xe-5.

If your style is as a prime shooter, an equivalent in the Zeiss may also be an option. I can say that the Zeiss zooms I have match well when set to a prime focal length with no surprises in FOV. Still, a zoom by it's nature will trade-off edge clarity compared to a prime when you peep.

It's a good bet that if BH will let you play with the body, they'll let you try the lenses. Just take in your own CF card. The only filter I use is a UV for protection. Why is the filter mount a factor?
('77) SRT-201; ('83) XE-5; ('06) KM-5D; ('07) A700; (09) A850; Ipernity RF
Back to Top
roweraay View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 May 2008
Location: Minnesota, USA
Status: Offline
Posts: 4021 		Post Options Post Options   Quote roweraay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 04:45
I have the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 but would have no hesitation whatsoever in considering the new Sony 28-75 f/2.8 SAM or the Tamron non-SAM equivalent, for usage on the A900/A850. Add a light, cheap and fast "classic 50" to your full-frame to complement the zoom.

The Sony 28-75 or the Tamron 28-75 are very light (550 gms or so for an f/2.8 all-purpose Full-frame zoom) and compact, and you should not discount the importance of lightness/compactness for portability. The Zeiss is a world-class lens with no other parallel in any other mount for sheer imaging excellence, AF speed and silence, but the trade-off is price, size and weight......I would go with the new f/2.8 Sony zoom since all indications are that it is not giving up much in terms of image quality on Full-frame.
Alpha 9OO and a few other bits and pieces..
Back to Top
touareg View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 12 December 2009
Country: Canada
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 190 		Post Options Post Options   Quote touareg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 04:57
I had the chance to try both lenses along with the Sig 28-75 f2.8 on the A850 and I too didn't see that much of a difference as far as sharpness is concerned. I do prefer the colors of the Zeiss. The SAM didn't impress me at all on the Sony. It sounds like a coffee grinder at times. Maybe the demo went through a lot of bad experiences...

The Zeiss was sharper at f2.8 than the Sig at f4. The Sony was closer to Zeiss but I'd still go for the Zeiss if the money is not the biggest issue and IQ is.
A900-850-77-99-Nex7 Too many lenses
Bronica EC - Minolta 35mm
touareg.smugmug.com
Back to Top
clarencewstone View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 27 December 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 116 		Post Options Post Options   Quote clarencewstone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 05:20
Originally posted by natamambo natamambo wrote:

I own the 28-70G and have used on the CZ 24-70 at the same spot on the same day on A900. CZ is sharper but cold in comparison, lacking warmth and depth of colour and with chunkier bokeh. It's a nice lens though and probably wouldn't suffer from flare as much and has a better minimum focus point distance (which isn't really an issue with landscapes, if I want right up close and a long way away in focus I head for the 17-35 anyway). The 28-70 has more distortion at the wide end but you wouldn't see it on an APS-C.

Not sure why you think you are a prime person, more than half that list in your siggy is zooms .

Edit, just realised you asked about 28-75, I had that lens for 5 years (well, twice as one got pinched), loved it but it hasn't been on the camera since I got the G. No comparison in my opinion but I prefer to blow my pics up big rather than pixel peep on a 72DPI screen




haha yah my list is all zooms but they are all inherited pieces from my dad.

I recently got a Mino 50 1.4 and the opetka 85 1.4

Those things have been leaps and bounds more fun to shoot with. Dont get me wrong the beercan gets its ddays.

You guys seem to liek the 135!
The opetka makes me want to pick up the zeiss 85?

I think the reason why i dont appreciate any of those zoom is because there isnt enough light in Jersey right now to really be able to use them more creatively...

I usually shoot concerts and night so lots of movement etc.


Edited by clarencewstone - 29 January 2010 at 05:22
A700, A300, Minolta 7d, Maxxum 7000, Minolta 500si,58 f1.4, MD 50 f2, MD 45 f2, AF 28 f2.8, AF 50 1.7, AF 70-210 f4 beercan , AF 35-70 f4, Tamron 70-200 2.8, Sigma 28-200, Tamron 28-75 2.8, 35 1.8 SAM
Back to Top
KoprivaMedia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 May 2009
Country: United States
Location: Tacoma, WA
Status: Offline
Posts: 1749 		Post Options Post Options   Quote KoprivaMedia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 05:20
touareg - which 'Sig' are you talking about? Sigma doesn't have a 28-75
KoprivaMedia
Back to Top
seagr112 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 344 		Post Options Post Options   Quote seagr112 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 07:09
kop, he's referring to his 'signature' below his post, not a siggy lens.

I have the CZ 24-70. Roweraay nailed the great and not so great about this lens (the weight!).

Something else to add is that 24mm is miles wider than 28mm and a lot of my shots are at 24mm so the CZ works for me on the A900. The CZ is expensive, but I find that it sees more use than any other lens in my bag so for me it was a good purchase and I don't mind lugging it.

CZ photos
Photostream
Back to Top
seagr112 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 344 		Post Options Post Options   Quote seagr112 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 07:10
Oops, never mind kop - I was thinking of a different post.
Photostream
Back to Top
KoprivaMedia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 May 2009
Country: United States
Location: Tacoma, WA
Status: Offline
Posts: 1749 		Post Options Post Options   Quote KoprivaMedia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 08:00
seagr - no big deal haha.

On another note, you're definitely right about the extra width. Whether you've got focal length wider than 28 covered with another lens or not, the flexibility to go wider in a zoom when necessary is certainly a nice thing to have. As a past owner of the tamron 28-75 and the sigma 24-70, I'd probably go with the Sigma again if I had to choose simply because the width came more in handy than the length.
KoprivaMedia
Back to Top
lionking View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 01 July 2008
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Posts: 44 		Post Options Post Options   Quote lionking Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2010 at 17:56
to me, if got plenty of money, buying both is no issue.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.107 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer.

Feel free to contact us if needed. You can support future development by making a donation.

Links monetized by viglink VigLink