Thank you Fred this is really interesting I just got the lens a week ago and had no idea it was this good. Since I seldom use my 24-70GM below F4 I am thinking of selling it if this lens is that good. I will do some comparisons of my own against the GM but if it has held its own as well as your test show for the 12-24 & 50 Loxia and even the CV 65 at 5.6 I cannot imagine the 2470GM being better than the 24-105G.
Does anyone have any opinions on the GM compared to the 24-105G?
trstahly wrote:
Thank you Fred this is really interesting I just got the lens a week ago and had no idea it was this good. Since I seldom use my 24-70GM below F4 I am thinking of selling it if this lens is that good. I will do some comparisons of my own against the GM but if it has held its own as well as your test show for the 12-24 & 50 Loxia and even the CV 65 at 5.6 I cannot imagine the 2470GM being better than the 24-105G.
Does anyone have any opinions on the GM compared to the 24-105G?...Show more →
I have both. I haven't done any side by side testing, but I think that my 24-70 GM is sharper than my 24-105. But considering its FL range and weight, the 24-105 gets put in the bag for travel.
Both are very sharp really be splitting hairs to tell any discernible difference. I like the longer focal length especially for hiking/landscape photog so I chose the 24-105. If I need faster apature lenses I usually shoot 1.4 primes in those situations anyway
trstahly wrote:
Thank you Fred this is really interesting I just got the lens a week ago and had no idea it was this good. Since I seldom use my 24-70GM below F4 I am thinking of selling it if this lens is that good. I will do some comparisons of my own against the GM but if it has held its own as well as your test show for the 12-24 & 50 Loxia and even the CV 65 at 5.6 I cannot imagine the 2470GM being better than the 24-105G.
Does anyone have any opinions on the GM compared to the 24-105G?...Show more →
The little I've shot the 24-70GM convinces me that it is superior to the other Sony/Zeiss E-mount zooms in that range. I consider it to be equivalent to the terrific 24-70/2.8L II. I own the Canon and the 24-105G (as well as Canon 24-105/4L) and consider that I'm well covered in that range.
If the 24-105 matches your 24-70GM, you need to send that GM in for tuning. It's extravagant to keep both, but they both have different uses, if you need them often enough.
Gunzorro wrote:
The little I've shot the 24-70GM convinces me that it is superior to the other Sony/Zeiss E-mount zooms in that range. I consider it to be equivalent to the terrific 24-70/2.8L II. I own the Canon and the 24-105G (as well as Canon 24-105/4L) and consider that I'm well covered in that range.
If the 24-105 matches your 24-70GM, you need to send that GM in for tuning. It's extravagant to keep both, but they both have different uses, if you need them often enough.
Most of the feedback I've seen shows the 24-105mm being equal or greater at the same aperture/FL, especially at the longer end (70mm vs 70mm and 70mm GM vs 105mm G) which is the main reason I chose it over the GM. I wonder if your copy of the GM is exceptional or if it has more variation than the 24-105mm.
trstahly wrote:
Thank you Fred this is really interesting I just got the lens a week ago and had no idea it was this good. Since I seldom use my 24-70GM below F4 I am thinking of selling it if this lens is that good. I will do some comparisons of my own against the GM but if it has held its own as well as your test show for the 12-24 & 50 Loxia and even the CV 65 at 5.6 I cannot imagine the 2470GM being better than the 24-105G.
Does anyone have any opinions on the GM compared to the 24-105G?...Show more →
I've had both lenses and they are very similar at f/5.6 at most focal lengths except 70mm where I think the 24-105G is better across the field. From 24mm until 50mm, there is a slight advantage for the GM when both are compared at f/4 since the G zoom is wide-open.
I guess the comparison really depends on sample quality used.
I recently compared my GM 24-70/2.8 (very good copy of the first delivery batch to Europe) to a G 24-105/4 (also very good copy) with the Sony A7R III.
The G seems to have the best performance at 24mm, and is on par with or even slightly better than the GM in the center. At 35mm, 50mm and 70mm the GM is sharper in the center and superior in the corners, and provides a visibly better micro-sharpness.
Also the color reproduction and tonality of the GM is clearly better. Plus, it's already very sharp at F2.8 - and peaks at F5.6, or F8 at 70mm. Also, the Bokeh / sharpness fall-off is much nicer and airier - similar to the extraordinary nice drawing of the Minolta AF 28-70/2.8 G.
In any case, the G Zoom is excellent without doubt, and also delivers from 35mm to 105mm a very good and consistent sharpness performance. But for me the GM delivers better end results, hence I sold the 24-105 G.
Can you post some samples? I've seen a lot of back and forth discussion about which is better but haven't seen many comparison photos to back up claims. Thanks
pwpub wrote:
I guess the comparison really depends on sample quality used.
I recently compared my GM 24-70/2.8 (very good copy of the first delivery batch to Europe) to a G 24-105/4 (also very good copy) with the Sony A7R III.
The G seems to have the best performance at 24mm, and is on par with or even slightly better than the GM in the center. At 35mm, 50mm and 70mm the GM is sharper in the center and superior in the corners, and provides a visibly better micro-sharpness.
Also the color reproduction and tonality of the GM is clearly better. Plus, it's already very sharp at F2.8 - and peaks at F5.6, or F8 at 70mm. Also, the Bokeh / sharpness fall-off is much nicer and airier - similar to the extraordinary nice drawing of the Minolta AF 28-70/2.8 G.
In any case, the G Zoom is excellent without doubt, and also delivers from 35mm to 105mm a very good and consistent sharpness performance. But for me the GM delivers better end results, hence I sold the 24-105 G. ...Show more →
Well I have the GM 24-70 and I've been very happy with it (have actually owned it twice). I've owned it for quite a while so and there was not a 24-105 when I bought it to compare to. The first time I owned it I didn't use it with a grip and it definitely felt a little unbalanced and front heavy. Now that I use it with a grip on either my A9 or A7RIII it feels more at home. I also own the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and I think it compares very favorably. Sure there are differences and the strength vary but if you want the fastest AF you can get for Sony the choice is straight forward.
I recently though have considered the getting the 24-105mm for walking around in a situation where the GM is too large and taking three primes is overkill. With it long pre-order times I figured why not put one on order and think about it some so I did that mid week. Imagine my surprise when B&H informed me on Friday that it had shipped. I guess they came in and the waiting list wasn't long so they sent me one.
Now I will have to take action and see how the copy I get performs when it arrives in a few days. Also had considered the Tamron as a walk around replacement for the GM. No extra reach but smaller size and very aggressive price. Any opinions on the two?
AlphaPhotography wrote:
Most of the feedback I've seen shows the 24-105mm being equal or greater at the same aperture/FL, especially at the longer end (70mm vs 70mm and 70mm GM vs 105mm G) which is the main reason I chose it over the GM. I wonder if your copy of the GM is exceptional or if it has more variation than the 24-105mm.
When the 24-70/2.8G lens was first purchased by a friend (a novice photographer, but very capable), I helped him assess the lens in outdoor settings at Huntington Library and Gardens in Pasadena, CA.
In reviewing the initial images, I noticed focusing irregularities (mis-focus), and he returned it to the local retailer where it was purchased (Samy's, in Pasadena). When it came back it was fantastic in focus and everything seemed tack-sharp at both ends of the zoom. Certainly this is one of the best zooms I've ever had the pleasure to shoot.
I'm not discounting my excellent 24-105G, but the two lenses were certainly in different categories, at least by a small margin, by my experience.
I currently have the 24-105G and the Canon 24-70/2.8L II (with Sigma MC-11), saving a bundle on a used Canon @ $1300 vs. the Sony 24-70G. The only real advantage for the Sony 24-70 is that is does focus more responsively on the Sony body than the Canon (which does pretty well!). Conversely, the Canon functions much better on Canon bodies than the Sony ever could!
..how would you who have this lens rate its colour reproduction compared to zeiss‘ batis or even the fe 24-70 (which i have and dont like because of its shortcomings, but i do like its colours, even more i like the colours of the batis 25 and 85)..?
Mirror wrote:
I much prefer the colors and contrast of the 24-105mm G vs. to the 24-70mm GM.
I found color rendition to be very similar between them. I actually think the GM is slightly better in contrast but confess never tested them side-by-side.
swldstn wrote:
Well I have the GM 24-70 and I've been very happy with it (have actually owned it twice). I've owned it for quite a while so and there was not a 24-105 when I bought it to compare to. The first time I owned it I didn't use it with a grip and it definitely felt a little unbalanced and front heavy. Now that I use it with a grip on either my A9 or A7RIII it feels more at home. I also own the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and I think it compares very favorably. Sure there are differences and the strength vary but if you want the fastest AF you can get for Sony the choice is straight forward.
I recently though have considered the getting the 24-105mm for walking around in a situation where the GM is too large and taking three primes is overkill. With it long pre-order times I figured why not put one on order and think about it some so I did that mid week. Imagine my surprise when B&H informed me on Friday that it had shipped. I guess they came in and the waiting list wasn't long so they sent me one.
Now I will have to take action and see how the copy I get performs when it arrives in a few days. Also had considered the Tamron as a walk around replacement for the GM. No extra reach but smaller size and very aggressive price. Any opinions on the two?...Show more →
I ended up keeping the 24-105 G and the 24-70 GM and I use them in different kits. At this point in my life I am fortunate enough to be able to afford that. The 24-70 GM stays with my gripped A7Riii I use for event work with a kit that is bigger and heavier along with my 16-35 f/2.8 GM. The 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/4, 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 are in my smaller, lighter bag and I am very happy with it. When I go really light I will use just it and one of the other three lenses depending on what I plan to shoot. In that kit I use with with a7iii that has just the small Sony grip extender. Not to big as a pair.
I would not hesitate using the FE 24-105G for landscapes. It covers a huge range and its performance is outstanding. Having said that, I sold mine right after reviewing it (to a lucky buyer) because I much prefer shooting with primes.
There are people who sell a bad lens, and then there are people who...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I would not hesitate using the FE 24-105G for landscapes. It covers a huge range and its performance is outstanding. Having said that, I sold mine right after reviewing it (to a lucky buyer) because I much prefer shooting with primes.
nandadevieast wrote:
There are people who sell a bad lens, and then there are people who...
Yes, I sold it to a regular FMer who has been very happy with it. I usually sell my personal gear here and they are all good copies.
For me personally I prefer shooting with a few primes instead. I do like the size/weight of the Tamron 28-75 and the fact that it takes 67mm filters which allows me to use it with my Seven5 filter system but IMO, the 24-105 is a better choice for landscapes mainly because of the higher IQ across the frame. (including extreme corners)
Fred the background blur will be more than GM at 105/4 compared to 70/2.8, mostly similar.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Well it's a f/4 lens so not much blur unless shooting at very close distance. It also lacks micro-contrast, so we should not expecting much pop either.
To be fair, the lighting was very harsh and the background was very complex with lots of foliage under the sun...not a good combination for any lens.
