Review on 📷 Sony SAL2470Z2 Wide-Angle Lens: High-Quality Fixed Zoom for Sony/Minolta Alpha Cameras by Dan Brickley

This is a classic Zeiss lens - big, heavy, expensive, with excellent build quality, with a very smooth and solid zoom mechanism. It was recently updated, possibly before the new Sony A99II, and its predecessor, version 1, was a classic for a reason. So why only four stars? Well if I could put 4.5/5 I think that would be a more accurate rating but it loses half a star just for its cost and the fact that it's not the best 24-70 2.8 on the market - that honor belongs to the Canon 24-70 L2. It has some minor issues and indeed there are some indications that DxO might not be as sharp as the previous version, which it differs from only in terms of an updated SSM motor that's slightly faster in autofocus and some Revisions to the optics coatings. The difference between the DxO measured at V1 and V2 on the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 is probably not worth mentioning (the optical formulas of the lens are identical and the sharpness maps are almost identical, so DxO measured from V1 to V2 could even be close B. be a basic sample variation - or maybe the effect of different coatings on the resolution). But the lens (like its predecessor) has some modest issues that keep it from being consistently excellent, where at 35mm it never gets critically sharp in the corners, even at aperture, and at 50mm it's even worse in Regarding the angular sharpness and even with slightly reduced sharpness in the center. At 50mm at f4 sharpness gets sharp, and at 70mm (where many 3x zooms fall apart) the lens is a little soft wide open, but sharpens well at f4. At f4-5.6 the lens is fairly close to critical corner-to-corner sharpness at all focal lengths except at 35mm where the corners never get sharp enough. Is this lens your best all-around full-frame zoom with an alpha mount? ? Yes, and it's hard to argue that the Alpha mount has a better lens at this very popular zoom range. Is this your best option in this area? Probably not as I think the best value for money is probably the Tamron 24-70 2.8 unless you're crazy about the loss of hybrid AF on the A99II (hybrid AF is used outside of Sony lenses not supported). For an even cheaper and more affordable option, I might even suggest the Minolta Legend Secret Handshake 28-135 f4-4.5. It's got some quirky features (like a crazy almost 5ft MFD), it's not as sharp, especially on the wide end like Tamron or Zeiss, doesn't match the very useful 24mm on the wide end, but . . It has a much longer range and can be very sharp at medium and long focal lengths if you set the aperture to f5.6-8. It also has a handy wide-angle manual focus macro feature, and you can get one of these for $200. That's how wide the range of scaling options is - at the top of the food chain and by far the most expensive there's Zeiss, then Tamron, then Secret Handshake. In terms of colors and more qualitative and subjective aspects, SH could be just as good. If the Zeiss 24-70 V2 were a little lighter, a little cheaper, or completely on par with the Canon L2 in terms of optical performance, I think it would be a five star lens. It's close to a home run, but not quite. Very good and still a classic for good reason. Anything with that blue badge is probably very good at worst, but this lens doesn't quite live up to the "best in class" status of some other Zeiss Alpha lenses. like their outstanding prime lenses, the ZA 85 1.4 and most notably the ZA 135 1.8, which is simply and undeniably the best lens of its kind. In that sense, this lens is a bit like the ZA 16-35 2.8, another expensive and heavy Zeiss zoom lens. Very, very good, but a little less than excellent. Maybe version 3 will be a home game.