Summary: Bought this lens for my Sony A57. Immediately I took a series of pictures with both this lens and my Tamron 28-75mm. Yes, the Zeiss photos were better. I could see that without too much effort. Someone mentioned "Zeiss eyes" in his review.
Summary: I just purchased the Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss a few weeks ago, and have been slightly Disappointed with its optical performance given the price... Wide open at f/2.8, things are soft... my tamron 70-200 is much sharper wide open.
Summary: Sony does not care about you as a customer and will give you time waisting run around until you give up! This is not even close to a real Zeiss lens! It has beautiful Zeiss coatings, but the optics do not even come close from what you'd expect from a lens with Zeiss on it, even if it also says...
Pros: T* Coating = Little Flare = No need to attach hood = Smaller profile than Nikon
Cons: Terrible customer support, Poor Bokeh, Not sharp unless up close , i.e. O.K. for people, poor for landscapes
Summary: While this lens can be used by either APS-C or full frame cameras, there are better lenses for indoor work with APS-C cameras. A 36-105 zoom range is simply too restrictive for many indoor subjects.
Summary: It is an excellently solid lens and very sharp in the centre and mid-frame. But at full aperture it is a bit soft in the corners and at widest angle it is not the sharpest of lenses. If you want good resolution across the whole frame then this is effectively an f4.0 lens.
Summary: Ich ziehe hier 2 Sterne ab für folgendes - Preis zu hoch für durchschnittliche Leistung Getestet an einer Sony A900 und einer Sony A99 hat das Objektiv mehr Chromatischer Aberration, Unschärfe und Verzeichnung als die Mitbewerber von Nikon und Canon und kostet allerdings nicht weniger bzw.