GMPhotography wrote:
Laowa 15 or Batis 18 this zoom and call it a day. For a lot of folks this maybe just a perfect combo. Honestly this lens beats the GM from 50 up anyway. One reason I sold it.
Or a two lens kit of the 12-24G and 24-105G! Throw in a fast prime just for subject isolation like the CV65/2 and now call it a day.
GMPhotography wrote:
My lineup will be Laowa 15, CV 40, FE 85 1.8, Batis 135. I will add back in either the Loxia 21 or 25. I’m leaning at 25 and I’m done.
I doubt that last statement.
I am not surprised to see your latest iteration change from the CV 65/2 as the gapping from 40-65 does not fit your normal preferences as much as from 40-85, tho I bet you will miss the perfection and macro capability of the 65 sometimes.
I ran some interior tests comparing the 24-105 vs. the 24-70 GM and the 12-24 at the 24mm setting last night.
Consistent with most other people's experience I believe, the GM was superior to the 24-105, both near the center and towards the corners. The 24-105 came in second, with about comparable center sharpness and better corner sharpness compared to the 12-24.
Overall, I feel it is an excellent lens, but I'm conflicted by the clearly superior performance of the GM lens.
I didn't have time to test the other overlap focal lengths of the GM more carefully yet.
I am not surprised to see your latest iteration change from the CV 65/2 as the gapping from 40-65 does not fit your normal preferences as much as from 40-85, tho I bet you will miss the perfection and macro capability of the 65 sometimes.
I’m still thinking about the 65. Have not ruled that out. My 85 1.8 is super good but not a landscape lens. And going from 40/65/135 I like better anyway. But I’m slowing my buying down. I’m pretty happy right now. Fred’s debating his 65 so maybe I’ll buy his.
GMPhotography wrote:
I’m still thinking about the 65. Have not ruled that out. My 85 1.8 is super good but not a landscape lens. And going from 40/65/135 I like better anyway. But I’m slowing my buying down. I’m pretty happy right now. Fred’s debating his 65 so maybe I’ll buy his.
Depends I guess on whether you value the portrait advantages of the 85 over the landscape and macro advantages of the 65. The 65 can do portrait of course, but the 85 with AF is more sensible for that. The 135 is a great portrait lens if sometimes too long for indoors. Solution is easy—keep both! Spend some smugmug money on a thicker helmet.
I don't believe we have an oustanding native 28mm prime lens for the Sony E-mount so I didn't compare the 24-105@ 28mm against any prime lens. I have tested the 16-35/2.8 GM @ 28mm in the past and was not impressed by the resolution towards the corners.
From my previous tests, the 24-70/2.8 GM was also outstanding at 28mm starting at f/4 and optimum at f/5.6. So, perhaps both lenses perform similarly at this FL.
Well, here are the 1:1 crops for the 24-105/4G @28mm@ (f/4 vs f/8). As you can see, it's already outstanding from wide open.
This is the focal length I found maybe the best in the loaner I had. 29mm killed it . I’m waiting for my copy today but I can show you a crop from 24/28/35 where you can really see the extra detail on the 28mm. As I mentioned I found my new 28
GMPhotography wrote:
This is the focal length I found maybe the best in the loaner I had. 29mm killed it . I’m waiting for my copy today but I can show you a crop from 24/28/35 where you can really see the extra detail on the 28mm. As I mentioned I found my new 28
Although I don't see any weak focal length for this zoom, 28-70mm seems to be the optimal range.
24mm is just as good as 28mm but there is more field curvature so optimal focusing is needed.
The 85-105mm range is also excellent as we can see from the crops on this thread, but resolution improves at f/5.6 and smaller.
I still prefer shooting with primes but this is undoubtedly an outstanding zoom.
Just to show you and yes with field curvature 24 and 28 might equal out if focused on those area. This whole test was focused on the cross beam right above the B
But look closely at 29mm and see that detail where the arrow is pointing
And just for kicks here is 50mm. Now here is my issue with focusing on corners and such to make those corrections. First its a PITA and second not everyone is on tripod to do this. So it is somewhat counter intuitive to the everyday shooter to play this out. Most folks would AF the dang thing own the middle and call it a day.
Now we are talking very small differences but its there. Regardless of this the showing on this zoom is outstanding and at 5.6 its even better on some focal lengths
GMPhotography wrote:
As you can see what I picked up on when viewing this was 29mm is actually better than 24 and 34mm
If you focused the 24mm and 28mm image at the same exact position, the latter will show more resolution at the corners (as you demonstrated). Again, that's due to a more tamed FC at 28 compared to 24mm.
This all gets masked at smaller apertures though. I hope you get a great copy Guy! Too bad you could not keep the loaner.
IndyFab wrote:
How does the 24-105 fare compared to the 24-70 GM in its range
I have a feeling the 24-70 GM has better flare resistance. Just like with the 12-24/4G, we can't have it all. :-)
Whenever the sun is around or in the frame I see flare ghosting with the 24-105G coupled with a small loss in contrast...so veiling flare is not much of a problem.
Here is an extreme example. I took about 15 shots moving the sun around the frame (and even outside the frame) and ghosting was very present and similar to what's shown on the image below.
Any of the Loxia or Voigtlander primes perform much better.
Okay lens in hand. First blush looks very very very promising. Full Big Bronco test in morning. Just playing around 105 looks amazing at F4. Okay not going crazy here see what the tests bring. If its like the loaner I will be thrilled. Just working on my hood. Trying to get two blank 77mm filter rings but its starting to vignette
