What few comments that have come out so far have been this zoom is good, but no G master. What about comparing it to the other G zooms. I have looked at the images available from various sources, the most samples being posted on Dpreview, and tend to agree.
I don't have enough experience with the FE 24-70/4 zoom to get a sense how it compares there. That seems to be its closest sibling. While no scientific comparisons can be done at this time, does anyone know the 24-70/4 well enough to offer an opinion whether the samples look like an IQ improvement over the 24-70-- ignoring of course difference in coverage and other factors?
I'm interested in this too, but I'd like to also know how it compares to the Canon or Sigma 24-105mm lenses. I use the Canon 24-105 with a Metabones adapter on my Sony 7RM2. It's OK, but I'd like better performance than the Sony/Metabones/Canon setup.
Well havijng used the canon 24-105 for years as a bread and butter lens, I am always amazed at how good it is all around...if the sony matches it, I would be very happy
The lens isn’t wildly available yet. I liked it when I played with it for a few minutes at Photo Plus but the Sony reps wouldn’t let me put it on my camera. I did try it out on another A9 but because it wasn’t my camera, didn’t realize I was shooting in JPG only! I feel like you can’t tell much from JPEGS in a poorly lit exp hall. I also think the 27-70Z got a worse-than-deserved rep. I don’t think 24mm will be any better wide open. That seems to be the weak point of the new zoom too. However, stopped down and/or zoomed in I think it will do very well. Perhaps class leading but certainly worse than the GM.
Since the lens itself is not out, that does preclude any real testing. What I'm wondering is whether anyone with a lot of experience with other G or Zeiss lenses, say the 24-70/4 can get any sense at all whether the 24-105 is comparable or (hopefully) better? That is by looking at the sample images available.
nekrosoft13 wrote:
But I wouldn't mind swapping the 24-70 GM for 24-105 if it good.
Here is a question I ask myself as owner of 24-70 GM: Would it be worth it to me to get a stop slower lens and potentially lower IQ too just to save half of a pound and get little extra reach?
ZoranC wrote:
Here is a question I ask myself as owner of 24-70 GM: Would it be worth it to me to get a stop slower lens and potentially lower IQ too just to save half of a pound and get little extra reach?
You could also ask yourself what you would do with the extra $1000.
ZoranC wrote:
Here is a question I ask myself as owner of 24-70 GM: Would it be worth it to me to get a stop slower lens and potentially lower IQ too just to save half of a pound and get little extra reach?
Gary Clennan wrote:
I'm more interested in how the 24-105mm will compare to the 24-70mm f/4.
This is the kicker- Sony compromised IQ on the 24-70/4, possibly for the sake of size. The 24-105/4 just needs to be solid all around, not necessarily even outstanding, to be really tempting.
And the samples I've seen so far are a cut above say the Sigma 24-105/4 | Art, let alone the Canon 24-105L I/II and 24-120/4G. Lens looks worthy of 42MP, if not necessarily at f/4, definitely by one stop down. Should make an effective reportage/event lens, and potentially a decent landscape lens if one wants the extra reach/doesn't want the extra size/weight of the outstanding 24-70/2.8GM, or alternatively a bag of primes.
johnctharp wrote:
Should make an effective reportage/event lens, and potentially a decent landscape lens if one wants the extra reach/doesn't want the extra size/weight of the outstanding 24-70/2.8GM ...
GM is only half pound heavier and less than an inch longer. Are we really saving that much? And if I was looking for a reportage/events lens wouldn't stop slower mean a lot of difference?
ZoranC wrote:
GM is only half pound heavier and less than an inch longer. Are we really saving that much? And if I was looking for a reportage/events lens wouldn't stop slower mean a lot of difference?
Well, I'm not really the person to ask, but I'm sure that there are plenty who would notice the difference. There's also the extra 35mm on the long end, which adds to the question, and the benefit of optical stabilization alongside IBIS, potentially for video shooters.
[I recently rented a Sigma 135/1.8 | Art, and had no problem tossing it about for an hour; for me, smaller would matter more only because it'd be less imposing on the subject...]
nekrosoft13 wrote:
zony 24-70 is a turd even the kit lens is better
You must have gotten a really bad 24-70/4. I've had two kit lenses and three 24-70/4's over the past 2 or 3 years, and while I was not entirely happy with any of the 24-70s never found any of them worse than the kit lens. I also had one kit lens that was much much better than the other. I don't know which was the norm and which the exception, but the Zony's were all better than both. The one exception was dead center. Even, however, just a little off-center and I don't mean even to mid-field, the Zony exceeded the kit.
My disappointment with the Zony was mainly the long end, as it began to deteriorate a little after 50mm. The samples I have seen of the 24-105 suggest that it is strong at the long end.
My main problem with the 24-70/2.8 is the size. I tried carrying around the 70-300/4.5.6, which is about the same size as the 24-70GM, and realized I do not want to carry around a standard lens that size.
If you want a small outstanding IQ zoom I suggest the C/Y 35-70 3.4. It can easily rival many top-of-the-line primes.
I’m passing for awhile just got aTamron 24-70 F2.8 generation 2 lens to try. This is strictly a PR , event lens. Want to see how the 24-105 pans out first.
realVivek wrote:
Recently, I bought the kit lens. I have had 2 of the Zony 24-70 f/4. I thank you for saying it. Yes, it is.
I think the 28-70 being better than the 24-70 f4 is wishful thinking unless you are talking about price and not performance. The 24-70 f4 is a disappointment in many respects but being worse than the 28-70 is not one of them. I'm not knocking the 28-70 because it should be worse considering the price but still it is worse.
even the kit lens is better