Zeiss 24mm tested at Photoscala (terrible lens or bad copy?) +Sigma 30mm test.
We love measurebation or not? Than take a seat and read the full detailed and überwissenschaftliche review made by the from Photoscala (or click here to read the google english translation). Those german guys used three different software to analyze the lens: DxO Analyzer, IE Analyzer and Imatest! And now let’s drop the bomb. Photoscala says the lens is a not as good as they have expected from a Zeiss lens. The resolution of the other tested lenses, the Canon 24mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 24mm f/1.4 is much higher even wide open…at f/1.4! Only at medium apertures you get good results. There are also bigger issues with color aberrations. I have to say that I am very surprised to see such bad results. They might got a lens with production issues because the conclusion are quite the opposite we have seen at Photozone (Click here) where the lens gets Highly Recommended!!!
Check the lens price and availability at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
There is also a new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC review at Jhpvideotutorials (Click here). He used the lens on the Sony a55: “As you might have guessed this Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC lens is a little bit soft wide open at f/1.4, but still totally usable. The edges suffer the most from the softness, but the center of the frame is not to bad.”
Check the lens price and availability at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Related Posts
Share
Recent comments
Comment from S Gardner: Look, I ordered the 24 f2. It was pretty...- Comment from S Gardner: Hi, I'm not surprised by bad reviews of...
Comment from D.Ortego: Clearly, once you have owned a few Leica...
Comment from Edward: This hirano guy must be very active. All...
STeve
12 months ago |Why is it that when a review shows poor results for a lens, people say it must be a bad copy. Yet when the results are good rarely does anyone say they revieved a good copy just by luck.
Personally I am disappointed in len QC in general, considering how much many lense cost.
admin
12 months ago |A good copy is the reference, not the bad copy! or do you think a production problem can actually make a lens much better?
Myst
12 months ago |honestly, as far as i know zeiss lenses are tested before they go out on the market, if taht is true it’s almost impossible to send out a bad copy, though based on photozone tests zeiss is a bit better than canikon.
Daemonius
12 months ago |Zeiss lens are pretty good opticaly, but build quality sometimes leaves a lot to be desired, knobs falling off are not exception, they are not particulary sturdy and sample variation is bit too high to my liking.
Though I didnt notice CA on other samples of Zeiss 24mm on net (only real fault is bit weak anti-flare behavoir). Kinda wierd, though they could change formula.
Point is, that Zeiss isnt really Zeiss, its Cosina manufactured and sometimes maybe not to top quality.. (kinda wierd cause Voigtlaender lens are almost always perfectly working and sample variations seems to be really low). But Sony isnt known for high level of quality testing.. right?
Myst
12 months ago |i know zeiss build quality isn’t always top notch, well the sony made lenses anyway. But as i said i heard only that they are checked before exiting the factory, sony manufactures the lenses(under zeiss quality control, that is an important line here), zeiss only designs the lenses.
Well i always test my lenses, to see if they are optically good, cause sample variations can occur.
Matthias
12 months ago |Just to chim in here for some corrections:
While it is stated as a fact in many places in the net, nobody so far could bring out any kind of prove for statements that Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss ZA lenses were actually manufactured by Cosina in Japan. Fact is, we simply do not know, they could be manufactured almost anywhere. Stating things as facts we don’t know as facts is just creating rumors and will actually harm us in our desire to know the truth, as it will make it more difficult to almost impossible to find out the truth later on, if wild assumptions are repeated as if they were facts all over the net.
However, we do know for sure that all the ZF, ZK, ZS, and ZE lenses are manufactured by Cosina Japan for Zeiss. Cosina and Zeiss have both published this information.
Some of the ZM lenses are manufactured by Cosina Japan as well, while others are manufactured by Zeiss in Germany. This is based on official information from Zeiss.
ZV lenses are manufactured in Germany.
Superrotator lenses (with various mounts) are manufactured in the Ukraine by Hartblei, with the optics being manufactured by Zeiss in Germany. Official information as well.
Neither Sony nor Zeiss ever indicated where the ZA lenses come from (except for “from Sony and Zeiss”, of course), but since they have nothing in common with the ZF, ZK, ZS, and ZE lenses, it is not very likely that they are manufactured by Cosina.
Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss ZA lenses feature two serial numbers, one near the front of the lens (the Zeiss serial number for the optics group) and another one near the bayonet (the Sony serial number for the mechanics / electronics).
One more comment: Cosina still has a bad repution for their cheap OEM lens business in the Eighties and Nineties. However, like most other manufacturers, they are capable of manufacturing top-notch glass as well. Several of the ZF, ZK, ZS, ZE as well as some of the recent Voigtländer branded lenses are examples of really outstanding optical and mechanical qualility, perhaps most notably in the magnificent Cosina Voigtländer Macro Apo-Lanthar 2.5/125mm SL.
After all, it’s just a matter of the price. Personally, I don’t care much where it comes from if the quality is fine (and in relation to the price).
And yes, given their high price, Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss ZA lenses leave alot to be desired in terms of quality control so far. Here’s a list of issues frequently raised in our forum ( http://www.mi-fo.de ):
- Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/135mm ZA:
— Issues with front tubus coming loose and falling off eventually (very common, the majority of samples affected by this)
- Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 3.5-4.5/16-80mm DT ZA:
— Various issues with mediocre optical quality
— Issues with rubber focusing rings as dust-/dirt-catcher
- Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 2.8/24-70mm ZA:
— Issues with lens shade falling off frequently (very common)
— Issues with front tubus becoming somewhat loose over time (but not coming off and without factory standards according to Zeiss) (very common)
— Various issues with rotating AF/MF knob
— Issues with squeaky SSM AF motor
— Issues with rubber focusing rings as dust-/dirt-catcher
Greetings,
Matthias
Matthias
12 months ago |I wrote:
“Some of the ZM lenses are manufactured by Cosina Japan as well, while others are manufactured by Zeiss in Germany. This is based on official information from Zeiss.”
Since I just looked it up in my notes, the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm ZM und the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85mm ZM are known to be manufactured in Germany. The other ZM lenses as of 2009 have all been manufactured by Cosina in Japan.
Greetings,
Matthias
snrvl2
12 months ago |the result in the Photoscala test are not good. they are so bad that the testers did them over and over again, still finding about the same results. obviously, the lens they tested was a lemon, whether that type of lemon is common i don’t know. i have seen some very likewise comments in other places that do judge corner sharpness and CA as insufficient. it looks that those people that actually use this lens either are quite happy with it (so am i, no complaints at all, just a slight proneness to CA under very adverse conditions and some loss of sharpness in the extreme corners that can easily be overcome by just stopping down a little) whereas others seem to experience the same problems the testers saw.
it looks that the spread in IQ with this lens can be quite large, much larger then would be anticipated/acceptable with a Zeiss badged lens costing this kind of money.
Steve
12 months ago |With each Zeiss ZA lens I’ve purchased and I have now four of them you get this little card with a serial number and a signature (looks signed by hand but it’s printed).
I believe all four lenses had be checked by the same two people. I keep one pinned to by board at my desk the name is H.Hirano it think (hard to read).
We need to find this guy and get him to spill the beans
DP
12 months ago |I have the 24-70 and 135/1.8 both ‘signed’ by H. Hirano and they’re both excellent copies. Coincidence?
Daniel
12 months ago |I also have the 24-70, 135, and the 85 too and they are excelent lenses. Everey one I know can say the same about these beauties, no problems, no sample variation, very solidly built.
I haven’t got a chance to test the 24, but it doesnt seem to be on the same level.
Edward
12 months ago |This hirano guy must be very active. All ZA lenses around the world have been QC by him. It’s just a marketing gimmick. At least they should change the name from time to time.
Dude
12 months ago |@Matthias
Zeiss did talt about the production place.
I thought it was in the lens FAQ, but either they changed it or the message was in an E-Mail to single person.
AS you probably known this is an old topic.
And has gone through Dyxum and probably your forum.
Anyways it was mentioned that the Glass group is produced by Zeiss (no more detail).
And the Final assembling takes place in the G plant in Japan (that Sony bought back).
As well as all Designs are done by Zeiss.
This is even true for the lens designs in Cybershot models with Zeiss branding.
Also I wonder how you can call the 1680ZA a mediocre optical performance.
It is known that it has Distortion and dark corners wide open below 20mm.
But it’s sharpness is great and the micro contrast superb at all apertures.
Absolutely worth the Zeiss label.
In the first years there been forum threads with best vs worst images as well – and it seems that the 1680 suffered from terrible QC in it’s first years as well.
Not to mention that the 24-70 design is to much centre weighted on the wide angle and even on APS-C does not have super sharp corners at any Aperture.
Dude
12 months ago |[EDIT]
ofc only the design part is true for the Cybershot models
And the 24-70 remark on corners was about wide angle on it.
Comparing the 24-28 range on the big Zeiss to the 16-19 on the small one does not make the expansive Zoom look too good (even on APS-C).
Daniel
12 months ago |I just wonder how often does any one use 24 mm f 2.8 on the 24-70…I bet that this is not the setting where you would expect tack sharp corners, isn’t it? I don’t think that it crossed anybody;s mind to do landscape at 24 f 2.8.
)
Matthias
12 months ago |“Zeiss did talk about the production place.
I thought it was in the lens FAQ, but either they changed it or the message was in an E-Mail to single person.”
Please try to track this down.
My information on the ZF/ZK/ZS/ZE, the ZM, the ZV, and the Superrotator lens lines is based on officially published information from Zeiss, Cosina, and Hartblei.
However, I am not aware of any such official information in regard to ZA lenses, except for the fact that they are a joint development by Sony and Zeiss.
Whenever I talked to various official representatives from Sony and Zeiss between 2006 and 2010, they never wanted to tell me where the ZA lenses are manufactured (except for “in Japan”), but when asked directly, they clearly denied the possibility of the ZA lenses being manufactured by Cosina – but of course, they could have been lying to me. (I have heard other stories amongst journalists, that at least some ZA lenses were manufactured by Cosina, but seriously, how could they know for sure? They don’t know, either, unless they have seen it for themselves or there is proof in form of documents or reputable named sources, which I have yet to see.)
I don’t know if it helps in the discussion, but Toru Katsumoto once mentioned that he visited Zeiss Germany in Oberkochen in August 2005, that is, shortly after the official announcement of the Konica Minolta and Sony partnership on 2005-07-19, and only some months before Konica Minolta’s official announcement of their withdrawl from the photo business on 2006-01-19. It becomes clear that plans to jointly develop A-mount SLR lenses under the Sony brand must have been under way for at least some time by then. On 2006-06-06, the Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/85mm ZA and Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/135mm ZA were announced to be available beginning October 2006.
http://www.mi-fo.de/forum/index.php?showtopic=27402
http://www.sony.ca/html/uf/microsite/Zeiss_Lens_Minisite/
“AS you probably known this is an old topic.
And has gone through Dyxum and probably your forum.”
Yes, at length.
But the (unsourced) misinformation, that ZA lenses were manufactured by Cosina pops up again and again.
“Anyways it was mentioned that the Glass group is produced by Zeiss (no more detail).”
At least it has a Zeiss serial number on it, which is not the same as the Sony serial number.
“And the Final assembling takes place in the G plant in Japan (that Sony bought back).”
Quite possible, but I have yet to see any proof for this. We know, however, that the lenses are assembled in Japan.
“Also I wonder how you can call the 1680ZA a mediocre optical performance.
It is known that it has Distortion and dark corners wide open below 20mm.
But it’s sharpness is great and the micro contrast superb at all apertures.
Absolutely worth the Zeiss label.”
I don’t own any APS-C lenses and cameras myself. However, there have been lots of posts in our forum (and elsewhere) about quality problems with this particular lens.
“In the first years there been forum threads with best vs worst images as well – and it seems that the 1680 suffered from terrible QC in it’s first years as well.”
Yep.
Greetings,
Matthias
acolyte
12 months ago |I’m interested in the updates..
For the purple fringing and sharpness, even Kurtmunger mentions this.
I think Photoscala’s review is consistent with Kurtmunger’s. Seems like this lens hit its limits.
Steve
12 months ago |All of the reviews I’ve read have been less than glowing and If you read Kurt Munger’s review you will see what I mean.
Basically he points out if the already own the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 your equally covered with the exception of an extra stop.
For a prime, it’s a little disappointing and only f2
The A-mount is lacking top quality wide glass to compete with offerings from Nikon or Canon for those who require sharp and fast. With 24MP soon becoming the “standard” and will 40MP + coming soon its going to be a problem for some.
For those how can’t see the difference or don’t need to go to press with an high quality image and many that just can’t afford top quality The Zeiss 24mm f2.0 is currently the best available prime in full-frame wide.
If I know my lens is a little soft at a setting I sometimes just use a different lens and back up a bit
I do this with my Zeiss 85mm f1.4 as its much sharper than my Sony or Minolta 50mm
I’m hoping some of the five new lenses I keep hearing about will fix this problem for me.
Daemonius
12 months ago |Zeiss 16-35mm? Thats not bad..
Otherwise, you can use bit more exotic solutions if you really need good wide-angle prime.
Alfonso Cuitiño
12 months ago |Today’s 27th of May, seven days to peaking on NEX! haha I’m excited
and the pancanikonpus bug bite me 
morgul
12 months ago |LOL
You forgot to add that we are one day older, and God Bless Us.
GH
12 months ago |This just shows why one should take any lens test with a grain of salt. Sample selection, focusing distance, light soure, etc. can make tests vary quite a bit.
Carl
12 months ago |This isn’t the first person I’ve heard of with a bad sample of the 24/2. Makes me wonder if there’s quality control issues going on with it.
cal
12 months ago |I will not associate the ZA with Zeiss lenses… as the quality is vary so much… to normal people maybe not noticeable… the ZA is more digital feel but the Zeiss (Manual; all metal) one is much more photographic feel. Personal or not… this is my observation.
When I buy Zeiss, I would like to get the legendary IQ of Zeiss… not the normal digital feel which every major manufacturer is able to produce… I think this is y leica still exist today.
Till now, I am still a bit reluctant to get the Sony Zeiss. Bad copy or not. It doesn’t matter.
extra|ordinary
12 months ago |I bought the Zeiss 24/2 when it first came out. The first copy I received had pronounced back focus issues. I made some AF micro adjustments on my a850 to dial it in, but even with the adjustments, the lens remained pretty unreliable in regards to overall focus accuracy. In terms of sharpness, I felt the lens fell short. I simply wasn’t able to get the lens to deliver satisfactory results. I eventually sent the lens back and got another copy sent to me. The second copy turned out to be pretty solid all around with no issues to be found. However, even with the good copy, I simply wasn’t thrilled enough with the 24/2 to justify keeping it around. I ended up trading it for the Zeiss 85/1.4 and I do not regret that decision. I have since picked up a Zeiss 16-35/2.8 for wide angle duties and have had no issues with that lens either. The 16-35mm is a really fantastic lens.
peterv
12 months ago |Unfortunately I’ve had exactly the same issues with this lens. Bad CA, back focussing on three different camera’s, softness all over the image. Tested two copies, sent them both back and gave up on the 24. Bad QC I guess.
BTW all my Zeiss lenses are signed by H. Hariro. Does he/she actually exist for real, or is this marketing BS?
emopunk
12 months ago |Sorry but this lens never convinced me “on paper”. There’s not the wide approval you hear for 85mm or 135mm. Too bad..
peterv
12 months ago |Too bad indeed. I think the 135 is generally considered the best ZA though not SSM.
D.Ortego
5 months ago |Clearly, once you have owned a few Leica lenses, the CZ line looks pretty weak. I have the ZA 135/1,8 and so far it appears to be fine. The lens hood mounting isn’t as solid as I would like but overall, the lens produces good results. If Nikon or Canon had an updated body for the holidays I would have most likely gone that route. As it is, the A900 with the 135 seemed to be the better full-frame mousetrap in December of 2011. So far, no regrets.
If I were choosing a ‘second’ ZA lens based on its track record, I’d most likely go with the ZA 85/1,4. No SSM, a moving front section, and CA issues. Still, it produces excellent results in more applications with fewer user complaints.
S Gardner
5 months ago |Hi, I’m not surprised by bad reviews of the ZA 24 F2. I ordered a copy from B&H when my 16 to 35 2.8 developed mechanical issues. Anyway, I had the lens for a couple of hours and that was enough to convince me I did not want it. The pictures I took are currently being analyzed professionally, but even if it turns out the lens looks good on a chart that won’t change the fact that the pictures look lousy: way inferior to the ZA 16 to 35 zoom. Lots of chromatic abertation, just not a very pleasing image.
S Gardner
3 months ago |Look, I ordered the 24 f2. It was pretty awful. My CZ zoom is way sharper. I sent a couple of test samples to Zeiss and they said it looked okay. So, at this point I’m thinking the lens is just poorly designed, maybe poorly manufactured. Fortunately, B&H took it back with no questions and gave me a full refund. Whew, was I glad to be rid of that dog!