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.
It is true that the A6500 and the Sony/Zeiss 16-70 f/4 would get a similar set of focal lengths and a smaller and lighter kit. In weight the APS-C kit would be about a pound and three quarters, whereas the FF kit would be a little less that 3 pounds.
But the FF kit gets you an extra stop in high ISO capability and an extra stop in subject isolation. Plus more resolution when you would want or need that, and it looks like the FF lens is a bit better performer than the APS-C lens. So, that is the basic tradeoff, as it often is, a bigger size for more capability. Reasonable people can of course disagree about which factor is most important to them.
Steve Spencer wrote:
... it looks like the FF lens is a bit better performer than the APS-C lens. So, that is the basic tradeoff, as it often is, a bigger size for more capability.
I've had three copies of the 16-70mm that I used on a6000s and a6500s. The 24-105mm is substantially better, especially regarding sharpness across the field, at wide apertures and sample uniformity.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I've had three copies of the 16-70mm that I used on a6000s and a6500s. The 24-105mm is substantially better, especially regarding sharpness across the field, at wide apertures and sample uniformity.
Good to know, Mike.
I'm getting pretty impressed by the photos I'm seeing from photographers I am familiar with and respect their work. I'm probably going to have to make this my next purchase.
Thanks to all for sharing their images and observations.
Got a break from the rain today and tested my 24-105/4 G copy a little bit.
It's very well centered at 24mm and 50mm. At 105mm is only slightly decentered for one of the opposing corners. (My test is brutal though and even the best primes are not perfect)
I consider this a very well-centered copy for a zoom.
Manual focus seems to be very accurate and pleasant to use. It's linear and almost as good as the real thing.
I didn't do an aperture sequence yet and only tested it wide open. So far, I'm impressed by the level of resolution and contrast. There is a noticeable drop at the long end (105mm) but extreme corners look sharp thorough the entire range "wide open". That's impressive.
I didn't check LaCA or any other aberration in detail yet since it's still cloudy here (low contrast) but I can tell that CA won't be a problem with this lens.
I have a feeling this lens will be an outstanding landscape lens stopped down to f/5.6-8.
^^ Alright, Fred! That's roughly my impression from a brief evaluation of mine, as well but you know me by now, I am not a lens testing kind of guy and I am happy the performance of that lens.
Your copy sounds just like mine Fred. And I think I can live with the 105mm one corner a little weaker.... I'm generally not a zoom guy, especially for non telephoto lenses. I've been very impressed so far, and it does seem very nice for landscapes. I think it does exactly what I need it to do.
I found on the copy I had that the right lower corner was off but the rest fine. And 5.6 to 8 was the best for overall imaging regarding sharpness and general quality. Wide open on wide angle was amazingly sharp.
AGeoJO wrote:
^^ Alright, Fred! That's roughly my impression from a brief evaluation of mine, as well but you know me by now, I am not a lens testing kind of guy and I am happy the performance of that lens.
I'm trying to be more like you Joshua. I dislike testing lenses for problems before taking them to the field but can't help myself.
I didn't have the same experience with the 24-70GM. Too many copies were noticeably decentered and I just gave up on it. Luckily the 24-105/4 seems to perform just as well at mid-apertures. The 70mm seems stronger for the new G zoom. The 75-105 range is definitely better.
From the posts and feedback on this thread, this lens seems to have low variability and that's perhaps due to higher manufacturing tolerance for this optical design.
tsdevine wrote:
Your copy sounds just like mine Fred. And I think I can live with the 105mm one corner a little weaker.... I'm generally not a zoom guy, especially for non telephoto lenses. I've been very impressed so far, and it does seem very nice for landscapes. I think it does exactly what I need it to do.
-Tim
I shoot with primes and zooms but lately zooms are taking my preference for landscapes. Zooms are really approaching the IQ of primes for my needs.
Switching lenses and filters in the field can be challenging when lighting is changing fast. I still like shooting with 15mm and 21mm primes but the 12-24/4G is another really good lens.
jamato8 wrote:
I found on the copy I had that the right lower corner was off but the rest fine. And 5.6 to 8 was the best for overall imaging regarding sharpness and general quality. Wide open on wide angle was amazingly sharp.
Does it happen at all FLs? From my experience, centering changes as we zoom...meaning a lens can be centered at 24mm, decentered at 50 and centered again at 85mm. It really changes depending on the focal lengths and that's one of the reasons it's so hard to get great consistency with a zoom lens. (from any brand)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does it happen at all FLs? From my experience, centering changes as we zoom...meaning a lens can be centered at 24mm, decentered at 50 and centered again at 85mm. It really changes depending on the focal lengths and that's one of the reasons it's so hard to get great consistency with a zoom lens. (from any brand)
I will have to look back at the images and what FL is involved. The lens has been sent back because it would not focus except when using continuous (it would shift to front focussing of a few inches or more unless wide open)., I should have a new one early next week.
Yeah, I've heard so many good things about the 12-24. I just got accustomed to using the Seven5 setup though for everything from 21 to 65....it's hard to think about a larger system. I went with screw-in's before because I couldn't stand the large filter setups. I'm pretty happy with my primes...will be tough to let them go for landscape. Understand though the benefits of being able to react quickly in changing conditions. I feel my compositions are more thoughtful with primes, although maybe I've matured enough to have the same discipline with zooms.
The 24-105 G covers the FLs I like to shoot and is vacation/family friendly.
I have not noticed the slightly weak corner in the 24-50 range...haven't tested much between 50-105, so I'm not sure if it crops up anywhere else in there.
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
I shoot with primes and zooms but lately zooms are taking my preference for landscapes. Zooms are really approaching the IQ of primes for my needs.
Switching lenses and filters on the field can be challenging when lighting is changing fast. I still like shooting with 15mm and 21mm primes but the 12-24/4G is another really good lens.
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah, I've heard so many good things about the 12-24. I just got accustomed to using the Seven5 setup though for everything from 21 to 65....it's hard to think about a larger system. I went with screw-in's before because I couldn't stand the large filter setups. I'm pretty happy with my primes...will be tough to let them go for landscape. But the 24-105 G covers the FLs I like to shoot and is vacation/family friendly. I feel my compositions are more thoughtful with primes, although maybe I've matured enough to have the same discipline with zooms.
-Tim
I know what you are saying about the Seven5. That's my filter choice as well. I own the expensive new ProGlass IRND filters and use the colorful Lee plastic covers on my lenses with the filter adapters attached. It's great for fast lens swapping.
It's easy to work with 5 or 6 small primes in this manner but I'm not getting worse IQ with the newer zooms. Perhaps a bit more distortion but even aberrations are well controlled. Flare and sunstar rendering are the main reason I didn't make a full switch.
For the 12-24/4, I carry a couple of modified 77 ND filters (which work great from 15-24mm) and for the 24-105/4, a dedicated 77mm ND screw-on set could work well. Still not much hassle. I could definitely shoot landscapes with only 12-24 + 24-105 and leave my primes at home. It really depends on the location and how much hiking I would be doing.
Yup, I have the adapters on all the lenses with the little colored caps. I have the glass Pro NDs (not sure about the IR) and the circular polarizer. Have a couple Singh-Ray grads to go with it. Made my life more sane than constantly changing screw in filters when conditions changed. I had the big 105mm setup when I shot Canon and it was just too much to deal with when hiking and working streams for waterfall shots.
With only one or two lenses, screw-ins aren't a big deal, so I can see that working with the 12-24 and 24-105.
Always a good thing to have options. And I've avoided zooms for anything non-telephoto until now. Maybe the 24-105 will get more use than originally intended.
Sony's looking good; I expect it to be superior to the new Canon 24-105/4L II as well, given that lens' lack of optical improvement over the original.
[Canon frustratingly improved everything about the lens *except* the optics, and it's hard to say if the increase in size and weight is worth it for Canon shooters- as an alternative for Sony shooters, it obviously isn't, unless the lens is desired for use on Canon DSLR bodes as well]
tsdevine wrote:
Yup, I have the adapters on all the lenses with the little colored caps. I have the glass Pro NDs (not sure about the IR) and the circular polarizer. Have a couple Singh-Ray grads to go with it. Made my life more sane than constantly changing screw in filters when conditions changed. I had the big 105mm setup when I shot Canon and it was just too much to deal with when hiking and working streams for waterfall shots.
With only one or two lenses, screw-ins aren't a big deal, so I can see that working with the 12-24 and 24-105.
Always a good thing to have options. And I've avoided zooms for anything non-telephoto until now. Maybe the 24-105 will get more use than originally intended.
I tested this further with better lighting and with apertures from f/4 until f/8. I'm still impressed.
At 24mm it's very good and perhaps stronger than what I get from the 12-24/4G @24mm at center but I have to compared them side-by-side to be sure... Starting at 28mm I would say it's prime-like. It looks like f/5.6 it optimal for 28mm, 35mm and 50mm and starting at 85mm, f/7.1 is optimal.
105mm actually looks very strong to the very corners at f/7.1 with f/5.6 not far behind.
I've used the Canon version for many years and what strikes me as the biggest difference is the level of contrast and low aberration from the Sony.
I don't think I would notice too much of a difference in my images if replacing my CV 35/1.7 + 5m PCX, Loxia 50/2 and ZM 85/4 for it...but I'm still not ready to get rid of my primes...
Colors look similar to 12-24G, which has a green bias and something that can be easily tweaked in post-processing.
Here is a sample showing the weakest focal length (105mm) wide open and at f/7.1 (IMO it's the optimal)
It's the very extreme corner of the image.
Not bad at all.
