I finally got my 24-105 that was delayed by non pickup and flight delays from B&H. Just got off the phone with Sony pro service. Mine, on the II and III is shifting focus forward by about 1/2 inch at 18 inches. Went through everything with them but it appears that the lens focuses correctly but once the shutter button is pressed halfway or all the way, it shifts the lens forward. Frustrating.
I notice that on some objects it will focus and shoot correctly but if the lens is stopped down it starts to shift the focus forward.
Joshua, I agree with the f8 assertion you made. For the most part, 'normal' lenses that do not have extreme amounts of optical distortions will all look about the same at f8 or so, and at normal shooting distances.
The differences in most of these lenses (however small, for many of them) appears with large apertures, and in the case of the GM, you gain a full stop of speed, so it is possible that the GM can produce a substantially different end result if shooting at full aperture.
That's not the normal circumstance for many shooting conditions, but there are people who specifically try to work full open for a specific aesthetic, going so far as to use ND filters so they can shoot wide open in full daylight, for example. However, I see that being logical with an f1.4 lens (or faster), and not really too logical with an f2.8 lens.
Anyway, the 24-105 is looking like the lens that some (many?) of us would have preferred instead of the 24-70 GM. That is certainly the case for me, but I'm still waiting for a bit more information before I make a purchase to swap out the GM.
Joshua was specifically responding to a question about stopped down landscape work...and he answered in that context. Full open comparison is apples and oranges, to your point. The GM is a faster lens (and the G is a longer one.) The GM is probably more optimized for bokeh, like faster lenses usually are. The 24-105 is supposed to be pretty good, but it's not playing on a level playing field just due to speed.
At the end of the day, they truly are different lenses, and needs will probably drive choice. Seems like they are both solid lenses. (I just got my 24-105 today, so I haven't formed an opinion yet.)
I apologize for not searching back through this thread... but... Has anyone done a comparison of this lens with the 24-240 in the overlapping range? I’m guessing this lens is a lot better, but how much better?
virtualrain wrote:
I apologize for not searching back through this thread... but... Has anyone done a comparison of this lens with the 24-240 in the overlapping range? I’m guessing this lens is a lot better, but how much better?
I've never used the 24-240 so can't answer this myself but in my research on this lens I've seen several user reports from users that have experience with the 24-240 and I haven't seen one yet that doesn't say the 24-105 is much better.
I knew I would be opening a can of worms, but that’s how I feel by looking at the dozens of pictures taken using these lenses. That’s why I said, it’s just how I see it :-)
I understand your point, but, Brian Smith quotes the same observation in his review too. See his comments when some one asks about micro-contrast. I tend to use somewhere between F2 and F5.6 to try get some pop, of course under the right lighting, location, composition etc.
It’s very good lens with all the sharpness and good bokeh, I still think the pictures from this lens are a bit flatter to my taste, compared to the Zeiss 35 1.4 or Zeiss 50 1.4
These are very different lenses lenses, not apples to apples comparison, but I choose rendering above versatility. And the 24-70GM has a similar pop too.
PS: Not trying to wrong what you said, or prove that I’m correct. Sharing my analysis, hoping it might help someone.
nash07 wrote:
I understand your point, but, Brian Smith quotes the same observation in his review too. See his comments when some one asks about micro-contrast. I tend to use somewhere between F2 and F5.6 to try get some pop, of course under the right lighting, location, composition etc.
It’s very good lens with all the sharpness and good bokeh, I still think the pictures from this lens are a bit flatter to my taste, compared to the Zeiss 35 1.4 or Zeiss 50 1.4
These are very different lenses lenses, not apples to apples comparison, but I choose rendering above versatility. And the 24-70GM has a similar pop too.
What comments are you talking about? Using your link there were no comments about micro contrast that I saw. He did say that the 24-105 f4 is much closer to the 24-70 GM than the 24-70 f4 though.
This lens probably is sharp but so far I don't see any characters of it. Neither any f4.0 lenses do. All f4.0 lenses are just travel, convenient lenses IMHO .
However, size and weight are the advantages. I'm not going to sell my 24-70 GM until I get a really good copy.
Not micro-contrast. Search for 3D on the page. He replied on Nov 7 to Eric’s question on the 24-105.
Eric’s question:
This is subjective, of course, but I’m curious how the rendering is on this lens. Technical sharpness is one thing, but I’d be curious to hear how you describe the rendering in general. I’ve seen insanely sharp lenses that just look “flat” and boring, while other lenses have a three-dimensional rendering that is more textured.
Brian Smith response:
November 7, 2017
It’s more like the clinical sharpness of Canon 24-70 2.8 L II than the lovely bokeh an 3D look of the FE 24-70 2.8 GM
nash07 wrote:
Not micro-contrast. Search for 3D on the page. He replied on Nov 7 to Eric’s question on the 24-105.
Eric’s question:
This is subjective, of course, but I’m curious how the rendering is on this lens. Technical sharpness is one thing, but I’d be curious to hear how you describe the rendering in general. I’ve seen insanely sharp lenses that just look “flat” and boring, while other lenses have a three-dimensional rendering that is more textured.
Brian Smith response:
November 7, 2017
It’s more like the clinical sharpness of Canon 24-70 2.8 L II than the lovely bokeh an 3D look of the FE 24-70 2.8 GM...Show more →
I think you're really reaching here. He has nothing but great things to say and even in the above compares it to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II lens. Did you really expect to have such an embarrassment of riches by getting the 24-105 f4 to equal the rendering, micro contrast, sharpness and overall performance of the 24-70 f2.8 lens while covering more range, being lighter, smaller and almost half the price? You are asking for an awful lot and I don't think your expectations are very realistic.
I’m neither expecting it to equal the GMaster by any chance, nor am I saying it is a bad lens :-)
All I’m saying is that, the rendering doesn’t please me too much.
I was looking to invest in a lens which could give some pop and rendering, not just sharpness.
For someone who doesn’t care about this much, the 24-105 is a no brainer. It's an overall fantastic package.
The 24-105 looks like a very solid lens, and the rendering is really good, not just to my taste, that’s all :-).
nash07 wrote:
I’m neither expecting it to equal the GMaster by any chance, nor am I saying it is a bad lens :-)
All I’m saying is that, the rendering doesn’t please me too much.
I was looking to invest in a lens which could give some pop and rendering, not just sharpness.
For someone who doesn’t care about this much, the 24-105 is a no brainer. It's an overall fantastic package.
The 24-105 looks like a very solid lens, and the rendering is really good, not just to my taste, that’s all :-).
I understand, just think it's unlikely that many if any 24-105 type lenses will excel in the areas you're looking for when compared with the top of the line zooms and primes.
It’s not really designed as a character lens . It’s a general purpose lens more than anything. Honestly I never expected it to match any of my primes for a look lens. I’m buying it anyway as it seems to be very good at what the design was made for. I want a look I’m reaching for my VC 40 1.2 or something like that. But so far it’s a nice lens.
I think with lenses....its sometimes a case of the "emperors new clothes" When I hear things like rendering, character....these are very elusive values. Yes...there are some lenses that give a certain feel that is different, like the canon 50 mm 1.2. Lots of that is due to lens aberrations. I got my copy of the 24-105 and it is definitely better and cleaner than the 24-70 GM I had. It also has a smoother zoom ,focuses faster and is lighter...that's good enough for me. When you absolutely need to get the shot...that is what matters. Yes, I love to shoot wide open at fast f stops for an "artistic" rendering,that's why I own quite a few primes, but the bread and butter of our business is to get the shot, make people look good and make sure the detail is there that you need. Nothing worse than a photographer fumbling to change a lens while the action around him has dissapated.
Absolutely I’m paid to get the shot. That is exactly why I’m buying it for PR,Event type work. For this is a work lens. It won’t be part of my creative Guy type shooting per say. It may fill in some gaps at times sure but it’s going to be a work kens for me and I suspect for a lot of shooters a on camera flash lens to cover that type of work. Exactly it’s purpose for me. I’m not trying to melt tree backgrounds to butter smooth. I have other lenses that are far faster and designed to do that.
I love having different types of lenses for different types of shooting. Heck we are lens whores for God sake we have more than one lens.
I actually got my copy by the end of November after preordering while there was a temporary discount in an online photo shop. There was something that gave me the impression this would be a better offering than the FE 24-70/4 and I wanted an allround lens I could bring for family outings and such. I haven't had the opportunity to use it a lot - the days are short here in Sweden this time of year - but so far I have been pleasantly surprised. It's better than the Canon 24-105 I had initially when I switched systems a few years back which had a lackluster performance on the Sony a7R II. It's not a character lens but I have other lenses for that. It records what you put in front of it and does it quite well.
My favorite is the 135L. But for me, it, on much of my work is too limiting and because I haul the stuff on my back to where I am documenting, every bit of unneeded weight has to stay at home.
I have the 24-105 here but sadly the focus is off, shifting forward the smaller the f stop. Wide open, no shift etc unless on continuous focus. Strangely even on manual focus, it will shift. I can focus and if I take the image at that moment it is ok but if I take my finger off of the shutter and then shoot, the focus is forward by a couple of inches, depending upon the f stop. Also the long end is fairly soft but the wider ends are extremely sharp so back it goes.
Here's my summary after three weeks with the 24-105mm: it's remarkably good.
Coming on the heels of the excellent 12-24mm, and the overachieving 85mm 1.8, I take it as proof that Sony is very serious about making great lenses that don't cost a fortune.
