FS7: Best 24-70 2.8 with Fs7?

R

remsyatassi

Well-known member
I'm trying to decide between the Canon 24-70 2.8 ii and the new Sony 24-70 2.8. Anyone have any thoughts on these two lenses on the Fs7? I do also have an A7Rii which would benefit from the native lens, but I'm reluctant to buy Sony lenses since all my glass is Canon mount.

Right now I rely on the Canon 24-105 IS often and am not happy with the results. I do have a full set of very nice primes but sometimes the zoom is necessary, and I can't afford $5k+ for a lens.

If there is a better overall zoom I'm open to other options too, but the performance of the 24-105 - especially the transmission loss - are killing me. It would be nice to also get good still performance the A7r.

Appreciate any input - thanks!
 
Canon just announced a new 24-105. And sigma makes a 24-105 that might be good. I own tamrons 24-70 which is pretty good.
 
I personally use the Canon 24-70 and I am a fan. The Canon 24-70 V1 can be had for around $800..just under 1/3 the cost of the Sony GM lens. Additionally you can use a speedbooster to make it an F2.
 
dmitrizigany said:
If you also have a A7RII then the Sony seems like the obvious choice...
Click to expand...

I agree. The Sony 24-70mm G Master is receiving good reviews. Tests show it has lower chromatic aberration than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 ii. One consideration for you might be which 70-200mm, Sony or Canon, you will go with when you add to your kit. Both Sony GM zooms are more expensive than their Canon counterparts.

For myself one downside to e-mount glass is that there are times where I am hired to shoot on Canon c300's and Sony F5's. It would be nice to have the option of using my personally owned lenses on those cameras. I can do that with my EF and PL mount glass, but not with my e-mount glass.
 
JPNola said:
I agree. The Sony 24-70mm G Master is receiving good reviews. Tests show it has lower chromatic aberration than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 ii. One consideration for you might be which 70-200mm, Sony or Canon, you will go with when you add to your kit. Both Sony GM zooms are more expensive than their Canon counterparts.

For myself one downside to e-mount glass is that there are times where I am hired to shoot on Canon c300's and Sony F5's. It would be nice to have the option of using my personally owned lenses on those cameras. I can do that with my EF and PL mount glass, but not with my e-mount glass.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same situation really. I'd rather not be limited to e-mount though it sucks because I'd love native AF. Though the metabones and speedbooster are actually pretty good AF performance on the a7rii with other Canons I've used.

I have a 70-200 f4IS Canon but don't love it, planning to upgrade it eventually too. I'm starting to think it makes more sense to go Canon, and it's a bit cheaper too. Such a tossup.
 
Lenilenapi said:
Tamron is the only f2.89 one with IS . Its sharp but focuses in the backwards direction.
Click to expand...

+1 in support of the Tamron 24-70, it's the only 24-70 with IS built in (and at this focal length, IS is ostensibly the most useful IMO). Other than that optically very good, wih some tests showing it to out-perform the Canon. The reverse focusing is a bit irritating, but a FF will help with that too.

Hmmmmm.

J
 
Yoak said:
The Canon, manually focusing with the Sony lenses is a PITA.
Click to expand...

Can't stress this enough. All of the Sony lenses are an absolute nightmare to manually focus with. Haven't personally used the 24-70, but I'm pretty sure it is the same as all the other Sony lenses and not a true, mechanical manual focus ring.

I don't understand why they don't just program them to have a constant rotation/sensitivity ratio - even make it a user-definable speed - but please, get rid of this awful exponential focus-speed system.
 
Last edited:
deltoidjohn said:
Can't stress this enough. All of the Sony lenses are an absolute nightmare to manually focus with. Haven't personally used the 24-70, but I'm pretty sure it is the same as all the other Sony lenses and not a true, mechanical manual focus ring.

I don't understand why they don't just program them to have a constant rotation/sensitivity ratio - even make it a user-definable speed - but please, get rid of this awful exponential focus-speed system.
Click to expand...


"All of the Sony lenses" would include the Sony Cinealta primes which, to my knowledge, are fully mechanical focus and quite nice. "All" would include the Sony SCL 11-16mm T3 zoom, a Sony lens that is also fully mechanical focus.

You say definitively "All of the Sony lenses are an absolute nightmare to manually focus with." and then, in the very next sentence, acknowledge that there is a Sony lens you have no experience with. So "All" except for the fully manual focus Sony primes you forgot about and the new line of Sony lenses that you can only speculate about. Or, in other words, not all. All but not all. Without a doubt!

The Newsshooter review of the Sony GM lenses has this to say regarding the focus:

"At the end of the day I was won over – especially by the 85mm. What Sony have somehow managed to do is improve the fly-by-wire system focus to the point where it now feels and acts much more naturally – more like the ones found on Canon L and Nikon lenses (which are mostly mechanically coupled via rollers). There is very little lag between you stopping focussing and the lens following you. Both lenses have over 100 degrees of rotation between near focus and infinity. Both also focus past infinity like many other stills designs. I found it relatively easy to do rack focus shots by hand. If there were focus errors in the video it was usually my fault and not the lens."


http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/03/05/review-sony-g-master-24-70mm-f2-8-and-85mm-f1-4-are-they-worth-it-for-video/


I know what you meant- and I don't mean to be a dick- but when making harsh criticisms I think we need to be careful in our language and be fair in the criticism. The blanket statement that "All Sony lenses are a nightmare to manually focus" could mislead and misinform someone interested in the Sony CineAlta primes or the new GM line of Sony lenses.
 
One other thought to keep in mind about the 24-70 choices to me is the advantage of having speed booster on your side. 24 is not terribly wide for a lot of doc shooting. With speed booster you have the instant choice of a 24-70 f2.8 or a 17-50 f2 lens which is no small advantage. With the Sony e mt lens you probably have auto focus available if that is of value to youand you may have finer increments on the iris changes instead of the hideous 1/3 stop changes we've all come to expect in the canon world. I'm just guess at the Sony as I have experience with it.
 
I own the 24-70 GM and 85 GM. They are wonderful lenses for the FS7 and A7RII. I own both cameras and use these lenses exclusively with it. One of the most impressive things about these new GM lenses is there is virtually no breathing in both lenses. I sold my XEEN lens set when I bought the 24-70.

The manual focus takes a bit to get used to but after using it on a few shoots, I have adjusted pretty well to it and can pull focus easily. I am an owner/operator though so I don't mind the fly by wire control of the lens. It is better than other E-Mount lenses, especially on the 85 GM.

If you want to cover your butt and use a bunch of cameras, get a Canon 24-70 or the new 24-105. You can't go wrong with a good ole Metabones Speedbooster and the 24-70. I used it for the first year I owned the FS7 before moving to the A7RII for my photos and couldn't justify using the AF on the Metabones for the A7RII...

I shot some test footage with the two lenses (Xeen vs. Sony GM) that I will try to upload this week and post to this thread.
 
JPNola said:
"All of the Sony lenses" would include the Sony Cinealta primes which, to my knowledge, are fully mechanical focus and quite nice. "All" would include the Sony SCL 11-16mm T3 zoom, a Sony lens that is also fully mechanical focus.
Click to expand...

In the context of this conversation (ie the Sony G vs Canon 24-70L as in the original post) I think people would understand that I am not talking about Sony Cinema Primes, but the native E-mount photo-zooms.

Point taken about personal experience, but when you take things out of context in order to disparage people in an un-neccesary tone, then you do come off in exactly the way that you "don't mean to".
 
Last edited:
remsyatassi said:
Right now I rely on the Canon 24-105 IS often and am not happy with the results. I do have a full set of very nice primes but sometimes the zoom is necessary, and I can't afford $5k+ for a lens.
Click to expand...

Just curious, but what's wrong with the 24-105 IS?

I use it with Speed Booster all the time for doc stuff and I love it. Goes a little darker on the long end, but not a deal breaker. Great range on Speed Booster. Plus the IS is great. With 2x crop in on FS7, so flexible.

I wish Sigma would come out with an Art 24-70 f2.8 with IS. Surprised they haven't done it already.
 
For me what's wrong is CA. I just did an ordinary shot of someone walking into a building with handrails and there was bad CA all across the handrails. Now that was with a speedbooster, but I've seen similar posts on the web - usually with speedbooster and the Canon 24-105. I'd like to try another Sigma to see if can get one that's more par focal than the one I tried a year ago.
 
Lenilenapi said:
For me what's wrong is CA. I just did an ordinary shot of someone walking into a building with handrails and there was bad CA all across the handrails. Now that was with a speedbooster, but I've seen similar posts on the web - usually with speedbooster and the Canon 24-105. I'd like to try another Sigma to see if can get one that's more par focal than the one I tried a year ago.
Click to expand...

I tried a couple Sigmas and neither was parfocal, but I decided to live with that for the IQ advantage on the wide end over the Canon, as well as it keeping a constant aperture when zooming in. However, the new Canon 24-105 II was just announced so I would wait to see how that is.

As far as the original question, don't underestimate the importance of image stabilization. If you plan to do any handheld, the 24-105 is much better than the 24-70 because shaky cam is much worse than any other image quality issues. If you're only shooting on sticks, than the 24-70 II is of course a great option.
 
Is everyone really that put-off by a reverse-focus direction that they're not considering the Canon-mount Tamron 24-70 with (very capapble) IS? Now that I've 're-wired' my focus hand with the help of a FF, it's a breeze to use, and optically very nice too. :-)

-jason

[EDIT] P.S. I also experienced pretty damned ugly CA on a 24-105 Canon that I tried once. I believe that it may be variable between copies, but still it was horrible enough to make me put the lens straight back into the hands of the guy that lent it to me!
 
I doubt that Canon lenses have a great deal of variability. Something like CA is probably just the nature of the glass. Whether something is par focal or not is easier to understand as a quality control issue.
Re the focus direction. I've put little notes on my eyepiece indicating which direction is infinity for both kinds of glass just to remember . Seems to help. I agree that IS is a bigger deal for a 24-70.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top