Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

View Poll Results: Have you purchased one of the new Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 Lenses yet?
Yes, and I love it! 0 0%
Yes, and it was a waste of money! 0 0%
No, but I'm saving up for it. 1 100.00%
No. I use the kit lens for that range. 0 0%
No. It costs more than my car. 0 0%
No. It costs more than my house. 0 0%
Voters: 1. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 11, 2008, 8:01 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Just checking.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 11, 2008, 8:22 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

:lol:



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 8:02 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

User reviews of the new Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM lens I've seen have been extremely positive.

If money were no concern, I wouldn't mind having one. But, with my budget, I'd stick to the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG in this range if I were looking for a new lens (around $400). lol

The Sigma tests quite well compared to the 24-70mm f/2.8 offerings from Nikon or Canon. For example, here is someone that has used multiple copies of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 with lens tests and comments about them:


http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 9:49 AM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

For example, note his July 16, 2005 comments in the forums below the test images. Here's a quote from some of the comments he made in that post:

"For $370 USD, the Sigma 24-70 EX is unbeatable. Optically it's better than any 24-70L I've used (or seen), and coupled to my 70-200L IS USM, it's a combination that can't be beat for $2000 USD."


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 1:24 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

There are more than a few f/2.8 24 ( to 28 )-70 ( to 90 )mm lenses listed on eBay right now that I'm watching. With all that great glass out there, I think it's ludicrous that Sony would release a 24-70/2.8 for $1750, even if it is from Zeiss.

And while it would be nice to have something between my Tamron 17-50/2.8 and my Beercan, my first priority is to replace my Beercan with something faster.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 1:57 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
With all that great glass out there, I think it's ludicrous that Sony would release a 24-70/2.8 for $1750, even if it is from Zeiss.
Here's a price search for the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 (with prices starting at $1699.99):

http://www50.shopping.com/xFS?KW=Nikkor+24-70mm+f%2F2.8&FN=&FD=0]

As the saying goes, good glass ain't cheap.

If you want the highest grade premium glass, you'll tend to pay a lot more for the extra bit of quality you'll see in images that makes them stand out from similar lenses.

Of course, the same thing is true for automobiles, stereo gear, monitors...

You'll often pay a lot more to get the best products, even if other products serve the same purpose with a small (or negligible) difference in the end result. :-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 7:47 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Absolutely.

But the Sony product line already contains several examples of 'Best In Class' lenses. What it lacks is some good general purpose stuff. Sony should look at the kinds of lenses that are selling well for Canon and Nikon, and build better, cheaper examples for the Alphas.

Like, for instance, a 70-200/2.8. The Minolta/Sony 75-300/4.5-5.6 was nothing special in a field of 'nothing special' lenses. The new Sony 75-300G is an $800 lens whose only equiivalent is the $1,100 Canon 70-300 DO IS USM. The Sony is arguably better, but so what? Wouldn't Sony be better served by a very good 70-200/4.0 G to compete with the Canon and Nikon equivalents?

As nice as they are, Carl Zeiss lenses aren't going to sell, or even save, the Sony Alpha line of dSLRs. After all, they couldn't keep the Contax product line afloat.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 8:45 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Higher end products tend to make up a relatively small share of revenue and profit. But, the image projected by having these products in the lineup helps to sell the entry level products, since buyers want to have the prestige of owning a brand associated with luxury type items.

I can imagine Sony is doing lots of market research to figure out what they need to offer to increase market share, and the Carl Zeiss name on lenses probably helps them more than you think (they've been using Carl Zeiss branded lenses on a number of their non-DSLR models for a long time now, and they're the second largest manufacturer of digital cameras in the world, right behind Canon).

They're just getting warmed up in the dSLR market niche. I'm sure we'll see more products as time passes.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2008, 11:33 AM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

I have the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG as a backup to my kit in case it all goes horribly wrong at a wedding and have done a few test shots with it and I'm very happy even at f2.8. As ever with Sigma, make sure you get a good one, my first copy was horrible when it came to getting accurate AF. The one I replaced is with is up there with my Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS and only use the 24-105 as it has IS (something you don't need to worry about) and also it has the better range.

The only other thing with the Sigma is that it doesn't focus as quickly as lenses with USM/HSM (SSM or whatever Sony class it as) but it is still fine for general use. I always struggle to justify the big bucks unless I'm going to find a huge improvement and from looking at the results I get from the Sigma I would struggle to justify the extra cost.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2008, 11:45 AM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
The Sony is arguably better, but so what? Wouldn't Sony be better served by a very good 70-200/4.0 G to compete with the Canon and Nikon equivalents?
P.S.

Nikon doesn't make a 70-200mm f/4 either. ;-)

Be glad you can find a used Beercan (Minolta 70-210mm f/4 AF lens) for around $200 on the used market. A few years back, they were under $100 all day long. But, prices have gone up a bit lately. lol

Nikon's zooms in similar focal ranges

Sony has recently launched 4 new DSLR models (A200, A300, A350, A700), and they still haven't "let the cat out of the bag" on all of the lenses they plan on introducing (not even specs for all the lenses they've already shown prototypes for). We'll see more new lenses as time passes.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:26 AM.