And wedding 'togs with the flagship will love it!

Now, waiting for the cheap Zeiss 400mm F4 :)

Thanks for an excellent and comprehensive review Carl. Btw it would be even greater if you could do a comparison shoot between the old Minolta 28-70/2.8 G lens and this one if possible. For ppl like me owning the older lens I think it would be quite an informative and interesting comparison.

Only thing is, I need that lens to do the comparison. Buying them as fast as we can here (Minolta Lenses that is), but there are a lot to catch up on :).

Carl

Best review I have seen yet. You have put a-lot of work into this and it shows. The flower shots are amazing, esp. the one with the fly. Good work here.

Thankyou, glad you like! Eric and I are working hard over here, someone throw a bucket of water on us! :) j/k.

Glad it seems to be helpful enjoyed doing this review, lens is stellar and fun to use.

Carl

I know that you've comment on the weight but not the balance. Since I purchased this lens last month it has been welded to my A700. Together with the vertical grip and a Minolta handstrap, I find the lens-body combination to balance well for handheld shots. Because I'm anal about scratches to the finish, I keep the setup in a Tamrac holster case when not in use. Although I managed to squeeze a free Hoya UV filter from my retailer, I only use it as protection in bad weather and go bare if it's not rainy or foggy and cold. My real problem is it's so good what do I do with all the primes it replaces?

Hi Carl

Thanks for another fantastic review. That is sure on nice lens, great bokeh and pin sharp. All the good stuff Sony is coming up with will ruin me ;-)
Cheers,
Andrew

I will add that it balances much better to the A700. I liked it best on the A200 of the three new models as well.

Either way it is a bit front heavy as to be expected, but its not as bad as anyone would probably imagine. It was a very pleasant balance on the A700. :)

And good question on the primes! :)

C

Hi Carl,

Seeing the comments regarding weight and balance, how does it compare to the Sigma 24-70 ex dg? That's reasonably heavy on the 5D- I'm guessing the CZ will be even more front heavy due to the use of metal in the casing?

Cheers in advance.

That's the lens the CZ replaced for me. I found it more head heavy than the CZ. I think the reason is the Sigma is narrower towards the body and carries most of its weight towards the front element whereas the Zeiss is tubular and seems to have the weight distributed throughout its length. Certainly, the Sigma is not a shabby lens but optically speaking, the Zeiss is in a class by itself.

Ken thank you for answering this. I don't have the Sigma yet, lets hope the future brings good connections with Sigma and Tamron both for review sample lenses, as I would be happy to do comparisons and reviews for both companies.

Carl

Thanks Ken and Carl.

A 36-105 effective focal length sounds okay but how practical is it for the price range? My Zeiss 16-80 is not built as well but it is very wide and yet long enough for all types of work with the ef at 24-120 coverage. Add a beercan and the spread is well covered. This one seems to me to be a three lens setup for wide and then long on the other end. For the dollar value I am wondering if many folks will go that route?

My guess is for the grip & grin photographer it will be an excellent choice because my experience was that a 35mm focal length was perfect for most smile and handshake work while portrait photographers may want to go for a prime lens like the 85mm Zeiss. This focal length just does not seem that attractive to me. What did your experience with it reveal, did you feel at all limited? Did you have enough spread in the zoom to work well without switching out to something longer?

There's no doubt the range of this lens makes it an effective walking around and general purpose landscape lens. When in a confined space (e.g indoors) or when in need of a truly wide landscape perspective, I switch to my Sigma 12-24. Although stitching in PS CS3 is my preferred method of creating a panorama. When the A900 becomes available the need for an ultra wide angle becomes less compelling. At least until Zeiss creates a lens equal to or better than the Nikon 14-24. Photographic manufacturers must fantasize about people like me. As for the telephoto range, we are blessed with a great choice - the 70-200 G or the as yet to be released CZ 70-300. I don't believe there will be as uncompromising a trio of zooms to cover the spectrum of 95% of our needs in any other DSLR mount.

The sharpness of this lens gives you the feeling that massive crops are possible and will still retain detail. On the wide end 36mm isn't ultra wide by any means, but it isn't bad either.

Making it less than 24mm, might have compromised the fantastic lack of distortion this lens has. So I didn't miss the ultra wide angle at all.

I imagine some will, until they get the Flagship, but not me. Besides, its back home now till I buy one.

Carl

A lot of hard work and time has been put into this. Thanks again

I took this shot of an old cast iron ash tray with the a700 and the Carl Zeiss 24-70 mm lens yesterday. I wanted to see the Bokeh with a nice back ground and in this case some green grass. Shot at about a foot or so away. ISO 100 f 2.8 @ 70mm.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l285/Dan_Spend/gh2.jpg

Ok I am sold on this lens! Looks great.

So any millionaire's browsing the forum, feel free to splash out, I will do a nice review for ya!! lol

This lens seems to be better than lots of primes, but would it be better (sorry - subjective, I know, but say as sharp, or sharper) than the CZ 85mm 1.4? Just wondering if it would be better to spend the extra, and buy this lens, instead of a CZ 85mm 1.4. I know it's not comparing apples with apples, as one max's out at 70mm, and the other is 85mm, but I could probably live with "just" 105mm effective, instead of 135mm. Oh, and this comparison would be in respect to portrait photography. I could just imagine myself using the 24-70 much more often than the 85mm prime.

I have used the 28-75/2.8 for my main portrait lens for the last 2 years. Now that I have the 24-70, that will be my main lens UNTIL I get the flagship - then I'll switch over quite merrily to the 70-200 SSM. My subjects are generally young children, so longer focal lengths aren't needed or desired. I generally work in the 75-105 equivalent range anyway...
If I was working with adults, or teens, I'd probably use longer focal lengths much more often. So, portraits in itself doesn't tell us/me quite enough to help you judge.
The 85 will be sharper, but the 24-70 will be sharp enough to out resolve the a700 @ 12mp.

Your question should be how much will you use this lens for portraitures and/or do you prefer to have the flexibility of the zoom. Most folks will agree in strict terms that primes will produce superior sharpness that a zoom. Test can prove this out. However, the margin of difference today is becoming smaller and smaller. The Zeiss zoom lenses are truly spectacular in performance.

I suggest you ask yourself if a prime or a zoom best fits your working needs. The zoom definitely offers more flexibility to you kit. Also an 85mm will offer and effective focal length of about 125mm. This may change when full frame imaging cameras arrive in the near future but for now it is a factor.

Others will only carry prime lenses. I carry a mix of prime and zoom.

What meets your needs best, should be the deciding factor.

RADiuM,

Consider renting the lens to help you make a decision. That's what I'm doing from Matt at Alpha Lens Rental - http://www.alphalensrental.com. I've reserved the 24-70 for an event.

Since the 24-70 costs a pretty penny and none of my pennies are very pretty right now, it's my best option at the moment.

However, I think he can only serve the US. If you're outside of the US, there may be other places to rent. Ask Matt, he may know.

I live in Sydney, otherwise I'd have done just that - but thanks for the suggestion.

Ph0t0man - if I had the 85mm lens, portraits would essentially be all I'd use it for (well, 90+%) and 90+% of those would be of my 2 and 1/2 year old daughter, so it's a perfect way to judge for me!

I think I'll just stick with my new lenses at the moment (see the "what's in your kit, thread") and then work out after tax time (July in Australia) what's best to do...

I bought this lens a couple of weeks back to use for pro work. Instantly my number 1 lens... so damn good.

How is this fast SSM lens compared to Sony prime 28/f2.8?
Carl, You done both reviews.. can you please advise? Thanks

This lens is probably second overall in terms of speed at the wide end and even very very fast at it's telephoto. While the screw drive of the 28mm 2.8 is zippy and instantaneous (on the A200-700), the 24-70 2.8 is nearly as fast but ultra silent and precise. It's a different feel, but you won't have any troubles locking on with this lens in a hurry :). Hard to compare the two, but they are very close in terms of speed. Both can lock on in almost an instant in decent light.

Hope that helps.

Carl

What a gem you hav there, do you like the lens? Pick any one of my 3 Minolta lenses and they blow away my CZ 16-80 3.5-5.6. Not talking about speed, more with sharpness. I feel like I should have paid the extra cash for the CZ 24-70 2.8. Do you know anything about old Minolta glass working properly with a-850, a-900 full frame sensors?