It should not cost a fortune for any f4 zooms and f1.8 primes ;-). These are easy lenses to make, I would say. Sony lenses are still too expensive vs other Nikon, Canon lenses. Canon 24-105/4 mkII is being sold for just $1100 new.
I think I keep using my 24-70 GM until this 24-105 drops to least $1100.
Not sure this was made to replace the GM 24-70. Some may try to do that but you lose a stop and it’s not going to have the same bokeh as the GM was designed for that. Just different designs goals.
umsl12 wrote:
It should not cost a fortune for any f4 zooms and f1.8 primes ;-). These are easy lenses to make, I would say. Sony lenses are still too expensive vs other Nikon, Canon lenses. Canon 24-105/4 mkII is being sold for just $1100 new.
That is a fair statement if the Canon and Nikon versions of these lenses are as good or better and from every review or early report I've seen they aren't. It seems to me that Sony has learned that they can charge a premium if the lens delivers what is expected or more. I think they learned some lessons with some of the earlier E mount lenses that were overpriced compared to performance and that hurt Sony's reputation for a while. I have used the Nikon 24-120 lens and I would gladly pay a $200 premium for the Sony 24-105.
I have been shooting Canon professionally for 14 years. I owned several copies of the 24-70 2.8 and several of the 24-105 f4. Always came back to the f4 version because it was more consistent in delivering the goods...esp since it had IS and the 2.8 version did not. Whether shooting portrait , groups, or candids...I always got spectacular results. Even closeup portraits at F4 had very good rendering. Still have this lens in canon mount...now have the Sony one on my A7rIII and I cannot believe how good this lens is. I will take this out on assignment with 3 other lenses...the 16-35 2.8, 85 mm f1.8 and the Batis 18 and feel very good about my ability to cover just about anything....still haven't decided on a longer lens...the 70-200 2.8 is just too big and the F4 version is just lackluster. Toying with getting a canon 135L to use for longer shots.
echelonphoto wrote:
I have been shooting Canon professionally for 14 years. I owned several copies of the 24-70 2.8 and several of the 24-105 f4. Always came back to the f4 version because it was more consistent in delivering the goods...esp since it had IS and the 2.8 version did not. Whether shooting portrait , groups, or candids...I always got spectacular results. Even closeup portraits at F4 had very good rendering. Still have this lens in canon mount...now have the Sony one on my A7rIII and I cannot believe how good this lens is. I will take this out on assignment with 3 other lenses...the 16-35 2.8, 85 mm f1.8 and the Batis 18 and feel very good about my ability to cover just about anything....still haven't decided on a longer lens...the 70-200 2.8 is just too big and the F4 version is just lackluster. Toying with getting a canon 135L to use for longer shots....Show more →
umsl12 wrote:
Do we have head-to-head comparison shots between Sony and those lenses? I never used but read a lot of good things about the Canon 24-105/4
echelonphoto wrote:
I have been shooting Canon professionally for 14 years. I owned several copies of the 24-70 2.8 and several of the 24-105 f4. Always came back to the f4 version because it was more consistent in delivering the goods...esp since it had IS and the 2.8 version did not. Whether shooting portrait , groups, or candids...I always got spectacular results. Even closeup portraits at F4 had very good rendering. Still have this lens in canon mount...now have the Sony one on my A7rIII and I cannot believe how good this lens is. I will take this out on assignment with 3 other lenses...the 16-35 2.8, 85 mm f1.8 and the Batis 18 and feel very good about my ability to cover just about anything....still haven't decided on a longer lens...the 70-200 2.8 is just too big and the F4 version is just lackluster. Toying with getting a canon 135L to use for longer shots....Show more →
echelonphoto wrote:
...now have the Sony one on my A7rIII and I cannot believe how good this lens is. I will take this out on assignment with 3 other lenses...the 16-35 2.8, 85 mm f1.8 and the Batis 18 and feel very good about my ability to cover just about anything....
may I ask you why you take out on assignment both the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 and the Batis 18mm f/2.8? What is the Batis 18mm giving you that you don't find in the Sony FE 16-35mm since focal length and speed are redundant?
Thank you.
umsl12 wrote:
It should not cost a fortune for any f4 zooms and f1.8 primes ;-). These are easy lenses to make, I would say. Sony lenses are still too expensive vs other Nikon, Canon lenses. Canon 24-105/4 mkII is being sold for just $1100 new.
I think I keep using my 24-70 GM until this 24-105 drops to least $1100.
...and because the Canon and Nikon's come in kits and people often upgrade to faster glass they can be found on the used market for half their new price. Hopefully, Sony will start selling it's 28-105 F4 in kits as well.
I just picked up a barely used Nikon 24-120 F4 for $450.
Close focus test, with Sony lens corrections all done in camera (which means none for the Canon), and I think this is the original Canon 24-105 from 2005 Not any real use for me.
If the most different sharpness of these two lenses is that shown in the posted example, the new entry seems to be a moderate improvement.
I was under the impression the new Sony was a miracle lens.
I want buy one to use on my A7Rii in place of the current mc-11 Canon adapted 24-105, but till now cannot justify the expense.
My problem with this kind of lens (Standard zoom+F4+size) is, if i had to buy this, why on full frame? Why won’t i buy something like this for a6500 or similar? That will make the size and weight nicer and whats the difference between 4 and 5.6 anyway?
I think full frane should be reserved for fast primes. Only exception could be a 16-35 type zoom for obvious reasons.
This is an odd thread....less of an issue about how this lens performs and more philosophical. Should it exist, if it should, should it be for full frame. Should it be compared to any faster zoom for any use (even one's that inherently should be the strength of the faster zoom.) Is there a benefit to a slower lens with a longer zoom range, etc.
Then we get down to how much it should cost relative to a competitor, with no thought of how the two lenses perform. If the performance is the same, okay.....but we haven't established that this lens is no better than the Canon 24-105 II.
Just an odd thread IMHO. I think I'm just going to lurk from now on....(probably a good thing...)
nandadevieast wrote:
My problem with this kind of lens (Standard zoom+F4+size) is, if i had to buy this, why on full frame? Why won’t i buy something like this for a6500 or similar? That will make the size and weight nicer and whats the difference between 4 and 5.6 anyway?
I think full frane should be reserved for fast primes. Only exception could be a 16-35 type zoom for obvious reasons.
Someone might want to travel with one FF camera with which he/she will use some fast primes and maybe go out in the daytime with a slower zoom.
tsdevine wrote:
This is an odd thread....less of an issue about how this lens performs and more philosophical. Should it exist, if it should, should it be for full frame. Should it be compared to any faster zoom for any use (even one's that inherently should be the strength of the faster zoom.) Is there a benefit to a slower lens with a longer zoom range, etc.
Then we get down to how much it should cost relative to a competitor, with no thought of how the two lenses perform. If the performance is the same, okay.....but we haven't established that this lens is no better than the Canon 24-105 II.
Just an odd thread IMHO. I think I'm just going to lurk from now on....(probably a good thing...)
Tim....I think you are right on the money here...lots of wanna be's with these comments about rendering, and esoteric qualities of lenses. I use my lenses to make money...if I do a group shot of 25 people and the folks on the ends are soft....I don't want the lens....this lens is actually amazing for the money...sharp to the edge even wide open. If I want to isolate a single subject, I will use my 85mm wide open. On the other hand , if I am out an about for the day and only want one lens...this is the one I will choose. This lens IS better than my Canon 24-105.
nandadevieast wrote:
My problem with this kind of lens (Standard zoom+F4+size) is, if i had to buy this, why on full frame? Why won’t i buy something like this for a6500 or similar? That will make the size and weight nicer and whats the difference between 4 and 5.6 anyway?
I think full frane should be reserved for fast primes. Only exception could be a 16-35 type zoom for obvious reasons.
How do I get 42mp with the A6500? Can I get 42mp on full frame without using fast primes? Your comments in my opinion are very shortsighted.
Not any real use for me.