JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 177000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Stabilization, image quality, sharpness, AF, construction, tropicalization
Cons:
Opinion:And the best standard lens and also all do to have as a first lens despite being at F 4 starting. Having one more step up to 105 helps. The construction is very good and compact and has a balanced weight. Stabilization and a plus. AF Fast and accurate does not mistake a shot. Sharp already at F4, but for me the best comes from F 8 to F 16. Good management of flare.
Pros:Focus-sharpness-nice blur (for an F/4)-absence of chromatic aberrations-well-controlled distortion-tropicalization-Excellent stabilizer
Cons:Size and weight-zoom ring a little stiff-compromise lens, but already you know when you buy it
Opinion:Build quality: (9/10) Although we appreciate the quality of the materials and the design of the first Sony-Zeiss lenses, even in this G-series lens, very few criticisms can be moved. It's built like a rock. Heavy (but less than the other 24-105 or 24-120 Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Panasonic), does not overbalance the machine, but still those who seek compactness, look elsewhere. Important dimensions with lens hood mounted. Good construction materials, well made pairs. A little stiff in scrolling the zoom ring, which however prevents the zoom to lengthen when it is brought upside down. AUTOFOCUS: (10/10) frankly difficult to ask for more. With A7R III quick and precise focus. Key on the programmable barrel for special shooting modes (you can assign the Eye AF or an entire set of custom parameters to be activated when pressing the button, very interesting). Even in low light, I consider myself satisfied. But I must say, for intellectual honesty, that I have never really tested it in challenging situations. Manual focus very comfortable and precise in combination with the Focus assistant Sony image quality: (9.5/10) from a zoom handyman I think it is very difficult to do better. Universal focal Range (of course it was-120 would have been better, but we are uncontentable!). Excellent sharpness at all focal lengths (indispensable feature for a handyman, needless to have extended focal ranges if then over 70mm becomes soft) and especially at all openings (indispensable for a "dark" lens that will often be used to TA even in cases Other than the portrait and then you want sharpness all over the frame). Optically very correct from the point of view of chromatic aberrations and distortion (although sometimes these corrections are reached via software). To TA and to the longest focal even the blurred becomes pleasant, obviously without comparisons impossible with lenses with more generous openings. With the stabilizer then it allows me to shoot at 1/5 second freehand with a percentage of photos in focus of about 60-70%, really remarkable. Occasionally I took home even photos at 1 second exposure, when I had a chance to lean somewhere... Discrete magnifying capacity for photo-like macro PRICE: (9/10) high, but not in an unjustified way. Costs what it cost to list the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F/4g ED VR that qualitatively is not comparable, obviously more of the Sigma 24-105mm F/4 OS DG HSM, €100 more of the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4l IS USM II which however is lower, €50 less than the Panasonic LUMIX S 24-105mm F /4L Macro OIS Lens. That then street price are different depends on many things (release date, market demand and company policies). In Truth it seems to me properly priced for the type and quality of the lens, they also begin to find themselves used interesting. CONCLUSION: Although not perfect (for a short while!) I find that this lens really has the features that are usually found in the "professional" 24-70 f 2.8 zooms, but with a less stop and a broader focal range. It is up to us to decide which of the two characteristics we need the most, from the point of view of image quality We do not renounce anything.
Pros:Discrete optical quality, even exaggerated construction
Cons:Devastating price, hard zoom ring, tenting AF in interior
Opinion:In my way of seeing things is a lens that doesn't make sense. Over €1200 for a heavy, bulky zoom, with fixed brightness at F4, when at just over half the price there is the Tamron 28-75 2.8? For goodness sake the construction is enviable, as usual Sony on the series G \ \ GM does not make you wish better. However the price is too high, and the lens is not free from defects. With light down the AF is lame, but it is still an F4. Although silent in fact, I realized how to face a little ' too up and down indoors, and a lens so expensive can not afford it. The zoom ring is also excessively friction. Accomplice this "tropicalization" of which everyone goes crazy, which then to the practical act destroys the usability of the rings for zooming (except where this happens internally), having to force things to seal as much as possible the cracks. On a zoom like that frankly I would have avoided, so as to facilitate the sliding of the cylinder. In conclusion the optical quality is discrete, the construction is Egregia, but in the end the usability is low. Accomplice an important weight, an AF that given the opening has its limits, a challenging zoom ring to rotate for hours and hours, and a price not competitive, make for me a lens to avoid. If you want to spend €1200 for the "Zoommone Tuttofare" to take you on a trip to make photos to Uncle Peppino that makes the chop in full sun, then this optics can very well satisfy you. But for professional needs, where you can not buy the 24-70 GM, you have to be masochistic to prefer this to the Tamron 28-75.
Pros:Color Resolution, fast and reliable AF, flare management, proper price.
Cons:Weight
Opinion:I have been using it for several months and it has never disappointed me. I use it at 50% of the focal ranges I stretch; The other is the 70-200 F/4 which did not disappoint me, indeed. As color resolution and restitution, I think is excellent, an AF that does not disappoint to 90% using it on A7 III. The weight An excessive attempt to be an F/4, but as length is well balanced on the A7, maybe with the grip or BG. Before the purchase I had compared with the 24-70 F/4 the various reviews and opinions that advised this model and although more expensive I have not regretted it at all
Pros:Building quality images feeling great building customizable key
Cons:If it had been 2.8 would have been the greatest, me was unthinkable to 1200 euros
Opinion:A great optics, ideal all to do for the trip, well built scales well with my a7rII return of beautiful images (excellent resolution held to flare beautiful colors) The optics weighs the right, certainly to prefer to 24 70, if he had a little of Extra brightness would be a perfect optics but the price is more than correct for the overall quality returned.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
