Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Cameras

The title about sums up my feelings towards this lens. Construction: ######### The craftsmanship associated with this lens starts right from the packaging - the lens comes lovingly cradled in cardboard packaging that is impressively constructed to withstand even the roughest delivery, and is accompanied by a hand signed inspection card. The accompanying accessories are just as classy. The lens case looks luxurious and feels supple and soft, with an elastic drawstring, and decent padding along its sides and base. And, the lens hood is constructed well and screws on securely. Then comes the lens itself, which feels as solid as a tank (and weighs about half as much). It is constructed well, with silky smooth zoom and focusing actions, powered by rubberized and grooved grips on the lens barrel. And, let's not forget that much-valued discreet Zeiss label on the side! Performance: ########## The performance of this lens is just as you would expect. ++ Images with excellent color saturation ++ Smooth bokeh ++ Sharp images ++ No hint of vignetting that I could discern. ++ 24mm is awesome on a full-framer ++ Constant f2.8 across the whole range is the icing on the cake. ++ Very well balanced on an A99. ++ Compatible with the AF-D depth map assist continuous AF. ++ Focus-Hold button on the lens means that you now have yet another hard button at your disposal. I mapped mine to Depth Of Field preview - moving this function to a much more natural access location. Alternatives considered: ################## While deciding on this lens, I toyed with the idea of buying the Sony Zeiss SAL1635Z instead. However, I ultimately decided on the SAL2470Z for the following reasons: 1) it is the closest to what might be considered a walkabout lens in the Zeiss stable. 2) at the telephoto end, it can be paired with the highly rated SAL70200G, without any overlap, or gaps, in focal lengths. 3) at the wide end, it can be paired with the excellent Rokinon FE14M-S 14/2.8 . I even considered the Sony SAL2875 (a rebadged Tamron A09M ). I shortlisted this lens because of its lower weight (by about a pound) which puts it squarely in comfortable walkabout territory, and because of the much cited kurt munger review on its image quality. I chose to discount the Tamron early in the process as it is not compatible with the A99's AF-D - a must-have feature, in my opinion. In the end, I chose the SAL2470Z because of: 1) its superior build quality - I expect this lens to outlast many bodies. 2) its Super Sonic Wave Motor (SSM) focus mechanism - which is scary silent, making it great for video. 3) its better optical quality as evidenced by other reviewers and bloggers. 4) its speed - many reviewers considered the SAL2875 to be more of an f4 than an f2.8. I also discounted the weight because good, fast glass is heavy. So far, I could not be happier with my decision. Conclusion: ######## IMHO this is definitely the lens to get for the A99. When combined with the superb SAL50F14, and with the mind blowing ISO range of the A99, the SAL2470Z's constant f2.8 makes low-light captures (almost!) easy. I worried about the weight of this lens - and in many ways my fears were justified. No two ways about it, this is a heavy lens, and I can feel it after about half a day's worth of shooting. However, had I gone with the SAL2875, the "what-ifs" would have been just as much a problem. This way, at least my shoulder strain is resulting in some amazing imaging :") Happy Photography!

A Zeiss lens like this you'd expect to be built well to last. Yet, mine (and many others if you search) the front of the lens to becomes lose after just a few years of use. With some, the lens will get "stuck" and unable to zoom. Mine has never been dropped or abused, yet this has become a problem. The worst part: Sony wants $1400 to fix it.

I've been pinching pennies until they screamed to get this lens and it just arrived. First impression: This is a massive piece of metal and glass. The illustration do not do it justice. It tips the scales at two pounds and it totally changes the balance of the camera. Long, fat and heavy, I had to shift my grip on the A77. The zoom is smooth and firm, no creep. Focus is sharp and reasonably fast. I have only shot about 60 frames so far, mostly landscapes with a polarizing warming filter. Shots so far have been clear, clean and crisp. I'm really enjoying having a slightly wider bottom than the Tamron 28-70. 4mm makes a huge difference in a crop sensor sometimes. Update. The lens has been used for some time now and it still does not disappoint. I got it used so this is a cautionary tale. There was an issue with the lens pulled in for full zoom. It turned out that there was some looseness, bummer. Fortunately I live in the SF Bay area and there is a local shop that was able to re-tighten the lens. Word to the wise, be careful about purchasing used lenses especially from private sellers. With the lens repaired the mush I encountered earlier is now gone. Zoomed in to 70mm the image is tack-sharp and looking at the results the bokeh is pleasing. This is my workhorse lens, the one I use for 75% of my shots or more. It shares pride of place only with the Tokina super-wide. Zoomed out to 24mm, 35mm effective in my A77 it is surprising how wide I can go with the lens. There are sometimes I still have to pull out the super-wide but not as much as before. The penalty here is that I am carrying a much heavier lens than my old Tamron. The lens is still a beast and lugging it around all the live long day gets tiring. The weight also brings comments anytime the camera is lent out for a quick photo dual snap. Selfies are not an option with this lens mounted to an A77. I have even has shots ruined when the tripod was not tightened down enough. You really need to bolt down all the controls on a tripod because of the weight. Overall, even with the need for the repair, the lens has been worth every penny pinched for the purchase.

Decent lens

Bought this lens for my Sony A57. Immediately I took a series of pictures with both this lens and my Tamron 28-75mm. Yes, the Zeiss photos were better. I could see that without too much effort. Someone mentioned "Zeiss eyes" in his review. Yeah, good nomenclature, the photos had a little something extra, a crispness, a brightness, no stumble with areas of detail. Not night and day better than the Tamron but, say, 10~15% better. Downside: people mention its weight - a recurring observation in reviews. Didn't think it would bother me but in practice, it did. Over a couple of hours, like a stone in the shoe, it bothered me. Even slung over my shoulder it was noticeable. I could tell it would get annoying over a day's shooting especially out and about and around such as when sightseeing and traveling. The Tamron is lighter and the pictures are almost as good. Secondly the Zeiss did not feel as high quality as I expected. The weight insinuates high quality but it wasn't super tight. There was a little play in it. I have Nikkor lenses and have had Minolta lenses. Both feel much more precise and smooth in operation. My Nikkor and Minolotas are 5 years and more older - maybe quality's gone down on them too lately. I noticed the Sony A57 body is nowhere near high-quality in feel as My Nikon, Canons, and Minolta cameras but that's another review. The Zeiss while good to very good quality did not have as high a quality feel to it. I returned this lens. I don't begrudge someone who wants to get the very best photos and carry it around. For me the tradeoff of weight and less than top-shelf quality didn't outweigh the Tamron's.

I bought this lens as an upgrade from the SAL-1680Z, which I gave to my wife. Compared to the 16-80, this lens is slightly sharper, with slightly better color, slightly better flare control, no vignetting, and no distortion (although it's not as wide as the other Zeiss' 16mm). The SSM focus is faster and quieter, and the build quality is better overall. How do I know this? Because sand got kicked into the 16-80 and it pretty much ruined it (Sony wanted $550 to repair it, our local guy is doing it for $170). Meanwhile, the 24-70 just got back from a very sandy trip to the desert, as seen in my attached pictures, and still works great. Sand was everywhere; on the lens, in the camera bag, in the air -- the camera and lens even took a tumble off the tripod and survived just fine. That tells me the tolerances are tighter. As far as image quality goes, the difference between the two lenses is only marginal. I do like the faster 2.8, which came in very handy in a no-flash situation at a dark concert. Another significant advantage for the 24-70 is the rich bokeh, which rivals any prime lens. However, for landscapes and in bright settings, the cheaper lens will perform almost as well. The downsides to this lens are of course its very high cost, its weight (a sacrifice for quality) and its sheer size. I don't look forward to hauling this baby on my next trek in the mountains. The 16-80 is a great travel lens because it's relatively lightweight and small, with a great range. The 24-70 is less versatile, heavier and much larger. Yes, you will get the best pictures possible on a Sony camera with this lens, and that's why I bought it, but for the money, the 16-80 is just as good, if not better (just buy the insurance).

A gallon of milk weighs between 8.5 and 8.8 pounds depending on the percentage of fat. Compare that to 3 pounds, 13 ounces. That's the total weight of this lens on my Sony A57 camera, including the A57 strap, its battery, and a memory card. That's exactly 2 pounds heavier than the DSLR camera kit it replaced, an Olympus E-510--also with strap, battery, and memory card. So even though I really heard, processed, and took into consideration what people said about the weight of this Zeiss lens, I was still ever so slightly surprised to experience its feel in my hands. For about 5 minutes I even wondered if I'd made a mistake. Thankfully, I hadn't; this was a wise buy for my purposes. I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm a very experienced amateur. In light of that, I was called upon to act as the impromptu photographer at one wedding and the videographer at three weddings. I bought this lens to be the only lens for my Sony A57, reasoning that I could justify its expense because with a lens of this quality (1) my photos would be far nicer than with the kit lens; (2) I could take better advantage of the full HD video of which my camera is capable; (3) the total cost would be comparable to buying a DSLR with kit lens AND a decent digital video camera, while taking better video than that video camera would, and better photos than that camera would; and (4) it would hopefully outlast the camera and be used on new Sony cameras over the next couple of decades--or longer. That last point is still a hope, and impossible to verify until quite a lot of time passes, obviously, but the other points have borne themselves out. With this lens I often get stellar photos. The video is likewise excellent, although especially in quiet environments the camera's microphone does pick up the sound of the lens refocusing. I was marginally disappointed by this, thinking that the focusing would be whisper quiet. It is indeed nearly noiseless to the ear while in use--but the built in microphone is closer than one's ear. Naturally, a shotgun mic or a lapel mic setup could solve this problem; for me, though, it's just not a big enough problem to warrant going to the extra expense and bother of enacting either solution. And if what I've seen about the A57 on YouTube and elsewhere is accurate, the kit lens sounds louder--although I have not verified this in person. To end where I began, my camera with this lens is objectively a lot heavier than the camera kit it replaced--more than double the weight. But I'm a grown man, so carrying around something that weighs less than a half gallon of milk is not a ridiculous proposition. You know you're carrying it, but in my final analysis, the benefits outweigh (sorry for the pun; I couldn't help myself!) that one drawback. I've several times used it to--on a single day--take hundreds of photos and a half hour or more of video. Not once have I thought the camera was too bulky or heavy even after carrying it around for a number of hours--especially upon review of the photos and video I've captured. In fact, the lens weight eliminates a bit of hand shake, which is especially noticeable in the smoother handheld video footage. Maybe the weight isn't a net drawback after all.

The Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM Lens is an impressively high performing zoom lens. I regard it as one of the best general purpose lenses. The lens build and mechanical quality are top of the line. It focuses quietly and very fast thanks to the SSM (Super Sonic Wave Motor). Also the focus zoom ring is nicely sized and operate smoothly. The Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 is very shapr for zoom lens. It is sharp in the center at f/2.8 at all focal lengths, and the excellent contrast and saturation are what strike me the most in real life applications. Now on the negatives. The biggest downside of 24-70mm F2.8 is it's size and weight. This lens is not small or light enough for a walkaround lens(due to solid build heavy body), and I find holding this lens can be tiring for half day shooting. All in all, it is one the best Sony/Carl Zeiss all purpose lens made. The box contains a Carl Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 SSM lens, front and rear lens cap, a metal petal lens hood, and a leather lens carrying case.