Thanks as always Fred - these comps are incredibly useful. Regarding the corners degrading on the zoom @ f/8 vs f/4, can you do me a favor and see if the edges degrade the same way as well? You don't have to post images - just your opinion would suffice.
GMPhotography wrote:
Fred how do you feel about the IQ of your zoom. Do you think you have a golden copy of it.
It's surprisingly well centered and that's rare for a zoom. Only at 105mm, I detect a very slight tilt but my centering test is a bit strict and even primes have a hard time passing. Most would say it's well centered even at 105mm.
This is the first Sony zoom, I don't feel the need to try another copy. It's sharp from center to edges at all focal lengths. At the wide range it's optimal wide open and after 50mm, it improves one stop down at f/5.6. I don't see any improvement stopping down further to f/8. (even at 105mm)
There is some field curvature and therefore these crops would look even better if focused at center or corner for these areas. My compromise was focusing at mid-field.
Having said all this, I don't know if I can get used to carrying this zoom instead of my primes. I may end up selling it for non-use.
At 105 F4 and 5.6 looked the same but jumped up at F8 but like you below that the loaner did not improve stopping down with wider focal lengths. At 50 I saw 5.6 slightly better though. As you and I know variance in zooms is kind of common. Your copy does look good here
At 105 F4 and 5.6 looked the same but jumped up at F8 but like you below that the loaner did not improve stopping down with wider focal lengths. At 50 I saw 5.6 slightly better though. As you and I know variance in zooms is kind of common. Your copy does look good here
snapsy wrote:
Thanks as always Fred - these comps are incredibly useful. Regarding the corners degrading on the zoom @ f/8 vs f/4, can you do me a favor and see if the edges degrade the same way as well? You don't have to post images - just your opinion would suffice.
That's an interesting question Adam and haven't checked for this..It only appears to happen at the very extreme corner but I will take a regular (non-slanted) picture tomorrow and report back.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's an interesting question Adam and I had never checked for this..It only appears to happen at the very extreme corner but I will take a regular (non-slanted) picture tomorrow and report back.
Awesome, thanks Fred. I know from your experience the corners are a better measure of acuity at the periphery since they're more demanding than the edges. But I find in practice the edges are a more useful/representative of my needs as a landscape shooter since many times nothing but sky in the upper two corners (or soft clouds), and soft corners at the bottom of the frame can be cropped out with a slight vertical crop. I tend to prefer wider framing so such cropping actually fits into my workflow, whereas cropping soft edges would go against that.
As for why the corners might be demanding than the edges, I would guess it has to do with them being more sensitive to off-axis lens tilt/alignment effects on aberrations like astigmatism.
snapsy wrote:
Awesome, thanks Fred. I know from your experience the corners are a better measure of acuity at the periphery since they're more demanding than the edges. But I find in practice the edges are a more useful/representative of my needs as a landscape shooter since many times nothing but sky in the upper two corners (or soft clouds), and soft corners at the bottom of the frame can be cropped out with a slight vertical crop. I tend to prefer wider framing so such cropping actually fits into my workflow, whereas cropping soft edges would go against that.
As for why the corners might be demanding than the edges, I would guess it has to do with them being more sensitive to off-axis lens tilt/alignment effects on aberrations like astigmatism....Show more →
The corners can almost touch the edge of the mage circle, whereas the edges are a few mm away from it...
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's surprisingly well centered and that's rare for a zoom. Only at 105mm, I detect a very slight tilt but my centering test is a bit strict and even primes have a hard time passing. Most would say it's well centered even at 105mm.
This is the first Sony zoom, I don't feel the need to try another copy. It's sharp from center to edges at all focal lengths. At the wide range it's optimal wide open and after 50mm, it improves one stop down at f/5.6. I don't see any improvement stopping down further to f/8. (even at 105mm)
There is some field curvature and therefore these crops would look even better if focused at center or corner for these areas. My compromise was focusing at mid-field.
Having said all this, I don't know if I can get used to carrying this zoom instead of my primes. I may end up selling it for non-use. ...Show more →
Yeah.
I actually think that there is a touch more resolution in those crops as well as contrast from the primes; but it's at the limit of being hard to tell. So probably wouldn't show up in most print sizes, or the images viewed whole even on vast high rez screens.
If I were a professional, and had certain kinds of images I had to get, I'd be in (I'd probably already have the GM zoom and be debating this one for pro wilderness photography)
But I'm not, I do this for pleasure, and I just like using the primes more. And, if I get an idea for a thin DOF image I have the tools. And I actually like going out into the wilderness with only one or at most two lenses, and finding things that fit the focal length. It means each trip involves seeing things in a different way, and looking for different things in the landscape.
If I tried to come up with a justification it might be that that constrained way of seeing gives rise (in me) to better images. But I've no idea really if that's true. But I do prefer it...
DavidBM wrote:
...
But I'm not, I do this for pleasure, and I just like using the primes more. And, if I get an idea for a thin DOF image I have the tools. And I actually like going out into the wilderness with only one or at most two lenses, and finding things that fit the focal length. It means each trip involves seeing things in a different way, and looking for different things in the landscape.
If I tried to come up with a justification it might be that that constrained way of seeing gives rise (in me) to better images. But I've no idea really if that's true. But I do prefer it......Show more →
Reading your post it occurred to me that a justification can be found in the notion that "true freedom can only be found within limits" or "the further one travels along a narrow path, the wider it becomes." A kind of "voluntary hardship" for lensaholics. Happily, it's a method that can be also applied to situations in which one is not necessarily weight-constrained, like photographing in the street. Thanks for the insight.
genji wrote:
Reading your post it occurred to me that a justification can be found in the notion that "true freedom can only be found within limits" or "the further one travels along a narrow path, the wider it becomes." A kind of "voluntary hardship" for lensaholics. Happily, it's a method that can be also applied to situations in which one is not necessarily weight-constrained, like photographing in the street. Thanks for the insight.
Yep that's the sort of thought I had.
One way that it strikes me is that if I go out with a single focal length, whether the street or city, I can see it through that focal length in my minds eye.
If I have a zoom, all I see is the world,I don't have my built in neuroological framing device, and finding images is harder. I have to look and think deliberately. Hmm. Any short tele images here. No? What if I back off? NO. OK. Any normal images here.....any moderate wide.....
It's exhausting. An alternative to that is putting the camera to the eye and zooming away. But that's almost guaranteed to create crap images.
Jan 22, 2018 at 05:40 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Thanks Fred. These are great tests and very helpful. The zooms is a great performer for this type of zoom and really in general. For those who want to take out just this zoom I think it will be able to create fantastic images. There still are arguments for primes, however, as for many uses the better flare control and sunstars and slightly better resolution in some cases may matter. I know those things would matter to me in some cases and in that order of how often.
I am greatly interested in the comparison between the 4/24-105 and the Contax 4.5-5.6/100-300 at 100 or 105mm. Could you do that please if you find a minute for that?
Thanks Fred! These shots show it to be a really strong zoom, along the same lines as the 12-24G. I'm looking forward to getting a copy when they are back in stock.
This solves my travel, PR type shooting. I hated the 24-70 f4 . Tried both Sigma and Tamron 24-70 2.8 recently and hated both of them too big and just okay which turned out a waste of money. In a pinch I can take this out with my Laowa 15 and just have a two lens kit for fun stuff as well. I still want to fill my gap of 15/40 but this will hold me over until we see what comes from Sigma and also the Loxia 25. Nice thing is I don’t have to fill that gap right now and waste more money waiting for that special prime. The 24-70 GM I really liked but with a set of great primes it did not at least for me justify the cost using it as a PR lens. This at least is within budget so I can spend more on primes
The big benefit I see in this lens above all else is how good it is wide open which for low light work is really bloody helpful .
Well, it's almost heresy but I did compare it to the CV 65/2 APO and Batis 135/2.8 APO lenses. IMO, the best lenses for the E-mount. (Perhaps any mount...)
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G vs Voigtlander 65/2 APO
f/4: This is a great performance for the zoom. It's wide-open! The CV prime is obviously better everywhere but the difference is not that big. The zoom will improve at f/5.6 though.
Thanks Fred for these tests and your summaries of the results. They somewhat mirror some tests that I did last week with my copy of the 12-24 G, 16-35 GM and 24-105 G. I found that all three of these zooms provide impressive performance from center to edges from wide open to f/11. There are some very subtle differences at some of the overlapping focal lengths that I tested. As we know copy variance can make findings from a single copy of one lens tested against a single copy another somewhat subjective. I would caution anyone from assuming that the tests that I or someone else runs and the results that are observed from one set of lenses will hold absolutely true for every other lens of the same kind produced. It certainly may give a good general idea of the strengths or weaknesses of the tested lenses, but particularly with the very complex lens formulas that are concocted to make these zooms perform at the multiple focal lengths, performance can certainly vary from lens to lens slightly. Roger’s Lensrental tests with multiple copies of a lens has shown us that over and over again.
I found from my tests that from 16-24mm my copy of the 16-35 GM outperforms my copy of the 12-24 G at the focal lengths of 16-24 and my copy of the 16-35 GM outperforms my copy of the 24-105 at the focal lengths of 24-28. The differences are not by any means large. They are subtle and would like only be noticable in very large prints or extreme high Rez monitor pixel peeping. But it is good to know so when I’m in the field I can use the lens that I know performs the best at these various over lapping focal lengths when practical (asumming I’m carrying all 3 of them). But I certainly wouldn’t have a problem using these lens at any of these focal lengths because they are still all very impressive for zooms. And at the end of the day sometimes getting the shot counts more then stressing over “do I have the best lens on the camera now?” I’m planning on running some more tests on My copy of the 24-105 G against the following primes that I have hopefully next week after I come back from a week long business trip. I will compare my 24-105 G against my 35 f/2.8 ZA, CV 65, Batis 85 and Batis 135. If I find the time I will post the crops or at least give a summary of my findings.
