I'm thinking about as the compliment to my 16-35 f4. Two lenses and I have to 105mm covered. Throw my Canon 70-200 f4 in the bag and I'd be happy with that as my 3 lense landscape kit.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the feedback John! I thought about that too but center and mid-field look slightly better at smaller apertures compared to wide open. If it was blur, it would have affected the entire image. IBIS and lens stabilization were also set to off.
I will test more today and post my thoughts on it. Perhaps this lens was optimized for wide open performance.
Thanks for the update, and you're welcome-
This is the 'missing link' lens for me as a Canon shooter, alongside the A7R III hitting my responsiveness target, for a potential move to a mostly Sony kit- the wider AF coverage over a 5D IV, which I just rented (alongside the stunning new 85/1.4L IS), is a very big draw, as I found the 5D IV's coverage limited for portraiture. I'm also very, very pleased that Sony took care with this lens!
Fred Miranda wrote:
You are saying it could be focus shift. I will test this tomorrow. It's odd because I don't see this with any other FL.
With the other focal lengths, except for 105mm, I don't see any improvement at the extreme corners when stepping the lens down, and that's checking at 1:1.
It looks sort of like motion effect. Since it isn't the subject, and if you are sure the camera is secure, then I'd wonder about internal motion, i.e. sensor shift in OSS mode. Perhaps it's inaccurately kicking in the Steady Shot while on tripod?
johnctharp wrote:
Thanks for the update, and you're welcome-
This is the 'missing link' lens for me as a Canon shooter, alongside the A7R III hitting my responsiveness target, for a potential move to a mostly Sony kit- the wider AF coverage over a 5D IV, which I just rented (alongside the stunning new 85/1.4L IS), is a very big draw, as I found the 5D IV's coverage limited for portraiture. I'm also very, very pleased that Sony took care with this lens!
Have you tried the Sony 85/1.4 GM? It's very sharp wide open and a very pleasant rendering for portraits. I have not tried the new Canon but it looks like both system have great portrait lenses.
Gunzorro wrote:
It looks sort of like motion effect. Since it isn't the subject, and if you are sure the camera is secure, then I'd wonder about internal motion, i.e. sensor shift in OSS mode. Perhaps it's inaccurately kicking in the Steady Shot while on tripod?
Thanks for your thoughts Bob.
I will test this again. I don't think it was movement blur as center and mid-frame are tack sharp at smaller apertures. only the corner got degraded. Also, image stabilization was turned off on the lens' switch which in turn turns off IBIS as well.
I've asked Roger and Brandon about this and they told me to run a couple more tests focusing on the corner before stopping down and see what happens.
It could be Much Ado About Nothing...I certainly hope so.
kdrk888 wrote:
Hmmm... I have a sharp copy of the 24-70 GM but I don't use F2.8 all that much, it's my walk around/travel lens, mostly for landscape, street stuff. I am wondering if I should trade it for the 24-105... My current travel set include the CV 15, Loxia 21, 24-70 GM and the Batis 135.
I was thinking of carrying: CV 15, Loxia 21 and 24-105 only. Very light kit with great coverage.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Have you tried the Sony 85/1.4 GM? It's very sharp wide open and a very pleasant rendering for portraits. I have not tried the new Canon but it looks like both system have great portrait lenses.
I have not, though I do plan to rent it. I went with the Canon this time just due to familiarity with setup as I had a limited amount of time between rental pickup and shoot .
[From what I can tell, the 85/1.4 GM is a little less well corrected at the widest apertures, though none of these lenses are perfect except perhaps the Otus; but I do distinctly recall appreciating the rendering of the GM!]
I know you say Steady Shot is off, and I'd expect you never activate it in your type of photography (except family and travel shots).
You mentions the middle area is sharper than the perimeter, and I wonder if this couldn't be a rotational effect of the sensor activating, so the perimeter is slightly blurred from increased edge velocity.
Otherwise, I'm left to think an element or group is not spaced into its normal position, which would be hard to cure without assistance from Sony Repair. Even a Steady Shot malfunction would need repair. So I'm hoping you find a simple fix and let us know!
You've set up the perfect reason why we test our lenses to our best ability before taking them into important shoots.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was thinking of carrying: CV 15, Loxia 21 and 24-105 only. Very light kit with great coverage.
Fred,
I've been taking the 12-24 G and 24-105 G only for a nice light kit with even more coverage. Plus the 77mm ND & CPL filters for the 12-24 G with a set of Breakthrough Photography 10 stop & 6 stop ND's and & CPL for the 24-105 G.
The weight of the two G's is approx. 2.7 lbs. while the weight of the CV 15, Loxia 21 and 24-105 G is approx. 3 lbs. so very comparable in terms of weight.
At 35mm, the extreme corners look noticeably better at f/4 compared to f/5.6, f/6.3, f/7.1 or f/8.
For this initial test, I had IBIS and AF set to off and focused at f/4 and for the other apertures, I just closed down the iris without refocusing.
The weird part is that the center and mid-field improve slightly when stopping the lens down but the extreme corners get worse (less resolution!)...if it's focus shift, it should affect the entire image and stopping the lens down should mask field curvature instead of making it worse...like I wrote, it's puzzling to me and I will re-test this tomorrow. I only see this happening at 35mm.
If it's not focus shift or field curvature...Could it be diffraction? I'm not sure...I see a noticeable difference from f/4 to f/5.6.
Here is a sample at f/4 and f/7.1 (1:1 crops)....I'm all ears. ...Show more →
The Canon 16-35 F4 L IS does something similar at 35mm. The corners are weaker at f/8 than f/5.6, both far from diffraction limited territory. All test sites have picked up this behavior.
kdrk888 wrote:
Hmmm... I have a sharp copy of the 24-70 GM but I don't use F2.8 all that much, it's my walk around/travel lens, mostly for landscape, street stuff. I am wondering if I should trade it for the 24-105... My current travel set include the CV 15, Loxia 21, 24-70 GM and the Batis 135.
Oh please . . . now you're giving me a common sense reason to consider purchasing this lens . . . trying to resist . . .
rji2goleez wrote:
Oh please . . . now you're giving me a common sense reason to consider purchasing this lens . . . trying to resist . . .
Bob, I think the 24-105 should have been made soon after the A7 series was launched. The question is, if I get the 24-105, what's the rationale of taking the Batis 135 along? I know it's in a different league.
Frostefdflake wrote:
I'm thinking about as the compliment to my 16-35 f4. Two lenses and I have to 105mm covered. Throw my Canon 70-200 f4 in the bag and I'd be happy with that as my 3 lense landscape kit.
My thoughts exactly. I do carry the Canon FDn 50/1.4 just in case I need something fast. I also have the FE 85/1.8 but will probably put it in the bag only when planning on doing portraits. My long lens is the FE 70-300/4, which I like even more than the FE 70-200 that I had. I am trying to keep things light for traveling.
Michael Everet wrote:
My thoughts exactly. I do carry the Canon FDn 50/1.4 just in case I need something fast. I also have the FE 85/1.8 but will probably put it in the bag only when planning on doing portraits. My long lens is the FE 70-300/4, which I like even more than the FE 70-200 that I had. I am trying to keep things light for traveling.
Oddly enough I carry the Ef 50 1.4 for the mid range between 35 and 70. It's an okay lense but nothing special. Was considering the 5Zony 50 1.4, but now that I'm reading this, the 24-105 seems like a good option.
Michael Everet wrote:
My thoughts exactly. I do carry the Canon FDn 50/1.4 just in case I need something fast. I also have the FE 85/1.8 but will probably put it in the bag only when planning on doing portraits. My long lens is the FE 70-300/4, which I like even more than the FE 70-200 that I had. I am trying to keep things light for traveling.
Oddly enough I carry the EF 50 1.4 for the mid range between 35 and 70. It's an okay lense but nothing special. Was considering the Zony 50 1.4, but now that I'm reading this, the 24-105 seems like a good option.
kdrk888 wrote:
Bob, I think the 24-105 should have been made soon after the A7 series was launched. The question is, if I get the 24-105, what's the rationale of taking the Batis 135 along? I know it's in a different league.
I agree. But like you, I also have the 24-70GM. It's a great lens but is it that much greater than the 24-105 especially when I have a prime kit that also covers the range. With the 24-105, I could have a three lens kit that covers 12 to 400mm (560mm with the 1.4X). In that case is the 24-105 good enough compared to the 24-70GM?
In that case is the 24-105 good enough compared to the 24-70GM?---I think that's the key. I haven't seen direct comparison yet. But maybe if the 24-105 is good enough for Fred, it's more than good enough for me.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was thinking of carrying: CV 15, Loxia 21 and 24-105 only. Very light kit with great coverage.
kdrk888 wrote:
Hmmm... I have a sharp copy of the 24-70 GM but I don't use F2.8 all that much, it's my walk around/travel lens, mostly for landscape, street stuff. I am wondering if I should trade it for the 24-105... My current travel set include the CV 15, Loxia 21, 24-70 GM and the Batis 135.
Why not ditch a zoom completely and go with a set of primes? With the wide lenses you have, you can easily cover the range with a 55 and 85 with some modest cropping. The FE 55 and Batis 85 would compliment your Loxia 21 perfectly and give you a lot more low light options than a 24-105 zoom.
IMO, normal range zooms are for event shooters and the era of low res sensors where cropping in post wasn't really an option.
Why not ditch a zoom completely and go with a set of primes? With the wide lenses you have, you can easily cover the range with a 55 and 85 with some modest cropping. The FE 55 and Batis 85 would compliment your Loxia 21 perfectly and give you a lot more low light options than a 24-105 zoom.
IMO, normal range zooms are for event shooters and the era of low res sensors where cropping in post wasn't really an option.
Well, in the range I also have the Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and the Sony 90mm macro. I try to eliminate the necessity of changing lenses if I don't have to.
rji2goleez wrote:
I agree. But like you, I also have the 24-70GM. It's a great lens but is it that much greater than the 24-105 especially when I have a prime kit that also covers the range. With the 24-105, I could have a three lens kit that covers 12 to 400mm (560mm with the 1.4X). In that case is the 24-105 good enough compared to the 24-70GM?
Exactly my thinking...
I spent two weeks in Iceland this past summer, and I shot about equally among the 12-24, 24-70, and the 70-200. The 90 macro got a few shots and I didn't use the Loxia lenses I had at all the entire trip (21, 35, 50). I really thought I would use them, especially the 21mm, but ultimately, I guess I feel the IQ from the zooms is high enough to meet my needs without stopping the shooting and pulling out a fixed lens.
My current travel set include the CV 15, Loxia 21, 24-70 GM and the Batis 135.
.