how is this lens different from the more expensive ZEISS 24-70 f 2.8 vario-sonnar
994201
If you like shooting in near darkness with no light, the 2.8 is for you. The other, which I have and use in low-light is marvelous. That ability coupled with the camera's keen excellence in auto program yields beautiful photos. Frankly, I hate shooting in the dark.
994202
This one is for mirrorless system (A7 series) with FE mount @ F4, the one you mentioned is for Alpha system A Mount (A99, A77 etc) @ F2.8
994203
The physical size of the two lenses differs greatly. The faster lens, having an f stop of 2.8, is larger and weighs 980 grams. The smaller, having an f stop of 4.0, is smaller and weighs 430 grams, or less than half the weight of the larger lens.
994204
Hi Hydra, the reason why the SAL2470Z is more expensive that the SEL2470Z is because the SAL2470Z uses SSM (Super Sonic wave Motor), its a kind of motor that contributes to smooth and silent AF operation. The moter produces high torque at slow rotation, and provides immediate start and stop responses which makes autofocusing extremely quite. The other lens doesn't have it. -Ely
994205
the Zeiss will have slightly better glass/optics in the lense and therefore slightly higher quality picture capture. However, all the reviews I have read indicate that 98% of the time the typical user/shots won't notice it.
994206
The 24-70 f4 is an FE lens meant for full frame Sony cameras like the A7 series
994207
The 2 lenses are good, but the main difference is on how sensitive the lens is. In the one i bought, it's lowest f-stop is 4. you need more light for avoiding grain. The one you are referring to works better in a low light condition (f 2.8).
1526808
Have not tried the tamron the cannon 24-70 2.8L II . Is a a purchase I'll never regret. It holds up against my friends zeiss primes plus blazing fast auto focus
466983
I don't have the 200mm, so can't compare. I have no complaints on this lens, if that helps.
2123153
Although the original Poster has probably long since made her decision, other interested potential buyers may find a visit to the Ken Rockwell forum worthwhile here, since he really spends time reviewing and discussing the pro's and cons of these two lenses. Definitely worth the visit...http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-24mm.htm#comparedDefinitely worth a read!
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
1901593
The FZ70 has a fixed LCD screen with less resolution, The lens has a variable aperture and not just F 2.8, No Remote control options, EVF is less capable, Fewer controls on lens and body, less capable sensor, fewer Movie options, does not come with lens hood, not as good in low light, and much more. The FZ70 will takea wider angle and longer telephoto images than FZ200. Under most circumstances the images taken outdoor will be hard to distinguish the difference.
933396
The main difference on the 24-70 2.8 will be the 24mm setting compared to the 35mm setting on the old lens. You can take a much wider shot with the new lens. In addition, the 24-70 is a "G" type lens which means there is no aperture ring on the lens. Aperture must be controlled through a compatible camera. The 24-70 2.8 is more expensive. The macro focusing gets a little closer on the 35-70 (.91ft) as opposed to 1.2 ft with the 24-70.
1445790
How does this lens compare to the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 (Mark I) with an adapter to E mount?
678610
I had the f4 version, and sold it to a friend to buy the F2.8II. Frankly, the increase in IQ is there but very slight. I would have no qualms about going back to the F4 version, it's a stunning lens. So unless you have a specific need for F2.8 (weddings for example as others mention), the added weight of the 2.8 to me is hard to justify. These are both exceptional lenses, the difference is like comparing a Bentley and a Rolls-Royce.
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
1253597
Strictly image quality, Nothing a non professional would notice. The lens is much more sturdy and the IS has saved me on more than one occasion, especially in low light. The IS version is worth it IMHO
532282
I have both on a nex-6 looking to move to a a6000 but both lenses are great. The 24mm much sharper when blown up but color contrast wise the 16-70 is good enough. the 24mm obviously has a super bright aperture but the telephoto is much versatile .
1011661
Hi thomyi, you may try checking on the link below for the direct comparison between the two lenses. -Elyhttp://store.sony.com/gsi/webstore/WFS/SNYNA-SNYUS-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductCompareService-Show?CategoryID=on0KmUBxnZQAAAFEYhlScEcW
464456
No comparison. Ability to go to F1.4 makes the depth of field control so much better. These two lens are in completely different class.
811136
I have a Nikon mount of this lens and I also have the Nikon's top of the line 70-200 VRII lens and the images produced by my copy of this lens are as sharp as the Nikons 70-200. I liked my copy of this Tamron lens better than the Nikon 24-70mm lens. I would say give it a shot and if you get a good copy of this lens it will be a keeper.
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
357722
I own both...in terms of image quality, there's no comparison - the 24-70 is in another league. It's a full stop faster (brighter viewfinder, better depth of field control, faster focusing, etc) and it gives you that "pop" you get from the best professional grade lenses. On the down-side, the 24-70 is a much narrower zoom range, so you might find yourself needing to carry two lenses whereas just the 24-120 would cover you otherwise. It's a personal thing I guess, but if I could only have one or the other, I'd take the 24-70 without a moment's thought.