sony 24-70 f2.8 is it worth ?

It's a great performer, the focus is very smooth with soft stops but the focus ring on mine at least is not as smooth - i'd never do a live zoom with it. I don't know whether that's true of all of them. I suspect in general it is because my 16-35 is similar. Image wise it's pretty damn good. Some distortion but then i'm used to primes.

cheers
paul
 
paulcurtis said:
It's a great performer, the focus is very smooth with soft stops but the focus ring on mine at least is not as smooth - i'd never do a live zoom with it. I don't know whether that's true of all of them. I suspect in general it is because my 16-35 is similar. Image wise it's pretty damn good. Some distortion but then i'm used to primes.

cheers
paul
Click to expand...



So zoom ring is stiff and hard to use `live zoom` . I need 24-70 and I do not know which one take it . I do not use it adapter metabones so I have to choose between new tamron -sigma -sony .
I can get sony for 1200e but for this price I wish to have nice zoom,focus ring .
cheers
 
tom1 said:
So zoom ring is stiff and hard to use `live zoom` . I need 24-70 and I do not know which one take it . I do not use it adapter metabones so I have to choose between new tamron -sigma -sony .
I can get sony for 1200e but for this price I wish to have nice zoom,focus ring .
cheers
Click to expand...

The 2470z has a reasonable focus throw for a modern zoom plus it can auto focus with the EA2 adapter (at least one shot focus). None of the canon zooms really offer decent manual focusing. The canon 1755 is a fantastic zoom but really awful to focus. The sigma doesn't have that much of a focus and i can't speak for tamrom etc,.

There really aren't many (any) zooms in that price range that will give you everything (good manual focus control and smooth zoom), if zoom is important to you i'd be tempted to look at the range of e mount zooms out there and see if electronic zoom would do you better off?

There's still a reason why cine lenses are $10k upwards... At this price level you have to choose what compromises work for you...

cheers
paul
 
I'm a fan of the Angenieux 28-70 f2.6/2.8, i have two in F mounts for A & B cam, and Tokina version of the same lens in an A mount that i got for it's autofocus ablity.. there's an Angenieux on Leboncoin/Paris currently, asking 680 euro;

http://www.leboncoin.fr/image_son/394412241.htm?ca=12_s

I have never seen a Angenieux in A mount, if i could find one, i'd buy it in a heartbeat, the Tokina version creates pretty much identical images, but no where near as well made.

d
 
The CZ24-70 has about 100 deg of focus throw - consistent with other modern zooms - and mine is very smooth. Its very easy to rack focus in a smooth manner. I find the zoom fine for that look like "The Office" with a quick push and focus, but for smooth/slow cine zooms a follow focus would be needed as the entire range is covered in less than 90 degrees, so it can be a little abrupt. The IQ of this lens is awesome, its pricey, but Zeiss and cheap never seem to occupy the same space these days.
 
I do not know how much true is in what I found out but some people says old part cz24-70 have problem with smooth zoom ring ,and sony improved it .
 
I was never a fan of the image quality out of the Angenieux/Tokinas so i avoided those. It's certainly possible that the newer 2470z have better zooms though. The 1635 and 2470 are well matched high performance lenses. I believe there's a 70200z on the cards too for next year. The focus is very smooth but that 100 degress is quite logarithmic, the focus points aren't ideal for drama (1 to 2m distance) because they're so close together - sometimes using a follow focus adds another layer of inprecision. However broadly speaking at this price level i'm not aware of anything better and you literally have to go to $5000 plus to get decent mechanics...

cheers
paul
 
I do love my z16-35, awesome lens - for me the advantage of the Angenieux is a slight softness in the reds, while holding the green and blue makes for wonderful skintones, nearly 70% of the film i'm shooting currently is shot with these, the other main lens is the zeiss 16-35

the build quality with the real Angenieux seems to cine standards, focus and zoom are creamy smooth, and the lenses are internal focus and zoom so they can live behind a matte box

the call against them is flare and weight, flare is something to be aware of, the Angenieux has a 16x9 hard matt on the front something the ATX verson could really use but chances are that before that becomes a deal - sensor reflections will nail you

The Tokina version does not have the same build quality, weight & responce to input on focus and zoom in my experience

The reason i sold on my 24-70 was mainly the mechnic's.. the AC's i work with hated it, and it was not internal focus/zoom so using grads was a PITA... now the same focus point issues exist with the 16-35, but there is nothing even close to that lens, so we live with it!

The 24-70 lens it's self was great, but actualy using it was a compromise for the stuff i shoot when the Angenieux was avb
 
Dermot said:
I do love my z16-35, awesome lens - for me the advantage of the Angenieux is a slight softness in the reds, while holding the green and blue makes for wonderful skintones, nearly 70% of the film i'm shooting currently is shot with these, the other main lens is the zeiss 16-35 the build quality with the real Angenieux seems to cine standards, focus and zoom are creamy smooth, and the lenses are internal focus and zoom so they can live behind a matte box
Click to expand...

Interesting observation, i tried a variety of zooms from various places (i couldn't actually find an Angenieux though but based my opinion on a review someone had done and found a lot of CA around the edges of the frame). The problem i had with mixing lenses was the rendering can be really quite different, so i stuck with Zeiss as much as possible. I do have a lot of older rangefinder lenses that i'd have loved to have used, probably for similar reasons to the rendering of the angenieux, but i'd have to shoot something in its entirety with them.

Dermot said:
The reason i sold on my 24-70 was mainly the mechnic's.. the AC's i work with hated it, and it was not internal focus/zoom so using grads was a PITA... now the same focus point issues exist with the 16-35, but there is nothing even close to that lens, so we live with it! The 24-70 lens it's self was great, but actualy using it was a compromise for the stuff i shoot when the Angenieux was avb
Click to expand...

Yes, i can understand that. It helped us to put on one of those larger focus rings that made the diameter 15cm across, allowed a bit more precision. But yeah. Understood.

cheers
paul
 
I think the general consensus is yes on the FS100 (and 700). I use the tripod mount on the base of the LA-EA2 adapter with a lens mount from MTF. If you don't and you have a follow focus for example you can see the FF twisting the lens in the camera mount. I'm shocked at how much flex there is on both the 100 and 700 mounts - one of the biggest differences between these are their pro brothers. So yes, fix that LA-EA2 down to stop that.

cheers
paul
 
A few simple physics equations help in determining whether a lens should be supported.

F = ma and M = Fd

Therefore,

M = ma x d

Let's simplify,

(mass of lens x how clumsy you are) x (damage multiplier) = (money)-1

Hope that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top