Fred Miranda wrote:
Even better: 12-24/4G, 24-105/4G and 100-400GM + extenders.
Still light with only three lenses covering 12-800mm!
Exactly my thinking for travel shooting...
But first, I need to see a comparison of the 100-400 compared to the two 70-200 lenses to see what you give back when adding the additional 200mm in reach.
In my case, the only time I might choose a normal zoom like this over primes is in very inhospitable conditions where changing lenses in the field needs to be minimized as much as possible... perhaps on a dusty safari drive or something. And in that case, I'd probably prefer to have the 24-70 GM for the added stop of light. The fact this lens is prime sharp is great, but it's still f/4.
philip_pj wrote:
By design, f2.8 zooms fall away fast once past f4, the GM is entirely typical in this. They lose 10-12% in centers by f8 with little gain elsewhere. F4 zooms need to 'get out of bed early' to please their market. If the 55/1.8 was the key lens at intro of a7, this is the most important lens in this late consolidation phase. Sony will sell truck loads of them. Slow lens triumph in the practical world.
'I am going to use mine for landscapes'
I have long believed this is the way to go, then build around the central focal lengths if needed. It's practical, it works, no lens changes for most shots....Show more →
I can't say anything about the 24-105 but my GM certainly (at least to my eye) doesn't lose any sharpness when stopped down to f8 across the frame but in fact seems to benefit. It's only weak area are the corners and edges in the 60-70mm range apart from that I find it to be of near prime quality across the range. If I didn't need f2.8 for low light documentary work then I would almost certainly be going for this new lens
Does anybody have any flare and sunstar examples ready to post by any chance? Usually Fred takes care of those, but apparently his weather isn't cooperating.
Chris_88 wrote:
Does anybody have any flare and sunstar examples ready to post by any chance? Usually Fred takes care of those, but apparently his weather isn't cooperating.
We've also been sun-deprived here, but I did find three images with the sun in the frame.
Mike,
The sunstar coming off that lens or lack thereof is similar to that from the FE 24-70mm f/4 lens. I think we are expecting too much from that lens . On the other hand, wide angle setting and smallish apertures would be more conducive to creating of the sunstar effect. One of the lenses that produces wonderful sunstars, is the Loxia 21mm and again, it is an ultra wide angle lens. The same goes for 3 Voigtlander lenses known to generate wonderful sunstars are all ultra wide angle lenses; 10, 12 and 15mm.
AGeoJO wrote:
Oh, I see a lot of GM 24-70mm lenses heading to the chopping block soon.... .
I'm not sure about that. I still want f2.8. Most people having 24-70 GM need constant f2.8. Actually, selling a 24-70GM for a used price, then purchase a new 24-105 at full price, I think it's not worth couple hundred $ saving. Also, I don't think 24-105 is much smaller compared to 24-70 GM. So size/weight saving is not much either. 24-105mm range is nice for walking around though.
24-105 is a nice travel lens, but I don't travel too much,and even if I buy, I may still keep my 24-70 GM. F4 is too slow for me except a wide angle lens. I remember just a year ago, people said 24-70 GM could replace primes .
Chris_88 wrote:
Does anybody have any flare and sunstar examples ready to post by any chance? Usually Fred takes care of those, but apparently his weather isn't cooperating.
It does a nice sunstar when stopped down. I will try to post one or two. As Fred mentions, you do get some ghosting and flare. I have lenses that do much worse and some that do much better.
f13 at 29mm Never before documented petroglyph of a hand. The cupules have been noted in the past but only with a setting sun can the hand be seen. A remote site.
umsl12 wrote:
I'm not sure about that. I still want f2.8. Most people having 24-70 GM need constant f2.8. Actually, selling a 24-70GM for a used price, then purchase a new 24-105 at full price, I think it's not worth couple hundred $ saving. Also, I don't think 24-105 is much smaller compared to 24-70 GM. So size/weight saving is not much either. 24-105mm range is nice for walking around though.
24-105 is a nice travel lens, but I don't travel too much,and even if I buy, I may still keep my 24-70 GM. F4 is too slow for me except a wide angle lens. I remember just a year ago, people said 24-70 GM could replace primes ....Show more →
I don't know that most people that bought the GM need constant f2.8. I've seen comments from plenty of people that would have preferred the 24-70 f4 if the IQ was better. There are probably plenty of 24-70 GM owners that want and need f2.8 and plenty that don't. Still, you're right that the difference financially is much smaller if you already own the GM and have to sell it unless they wait for used 24-105s.
umsl12 wrote:
I'm not sure about that. I still want f2.8. Most people having 24-70 GM need constant f2.8. Actually, selling a 24-70GM for a used price, then purchase a new 24-105 at full price, I think it's not worth couple hundred $ saving. Also, I don't think 24-105 is much smaller compared to 24-70 GM. So size/weight saving is not much either. 24-105mm range is nice for walking around though.
24-105 is a nice travel lens, but I don't travel too much, and even if I buy, I may still keep my 24-70 GM. F4 is too slow for me except a wide angle lens. I remember just a year ago, people said 24-70 GM could replace primes ....Show more →
I hear you on the GM. But I have both now and with the incredibly clean low noise at higher ISO's that we enjoy with these Sony sensors today the 24-105 G with Optical Steady Shot can work very well in low light situations. I've taken some sharp shots handholding the A7R3 with the 24-105 G at shutter speeds below 1/30th of a second. I can't do that with the GM. It is definitely noticeably lighter and smaller in length than the GM but not by a huge amount. The GM is still an outstanding lens and I've compared it to some of the best primes we have today for the E mount system and it holds up very solidly. Besides the OSS of the 24-105 G I really like that it performs very well at the 70mm to 105mm end of the zoom range, I'm going to test it against my CV 65mm, Batis 85mm and 100-400 GM lenses at those focal lengths to see just how well it holds up. I think that the GM is excellent for photogs looking for a zoom in the 24mm- 50mm range instead of carrying a bunch of primes and wanting that nice bokeh that you get at f/2.8.
I'm likely putting my excellent copy of the GM up for sale as I'm more in the camp of using it at the f/5.6 to f/11 camp for landscape and travel work. If I did more portraiture or commercial work I'd keep the GM as well.
I don't love its sunstar rendering but it's what I expected for this type of lens. It needs very small apertures for some definition. That's one area where primes with 10 straight blades take the cake. I took some test shots but deleted the images. It's like I wrote though....you need f/13-16 for get something decent and some ghosting is usually present somewhere in the frame.
So, although resolution and contrast are prime-like, shooting against the sun won't fare as well but still decent.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
I hear you on the GM. But I have both now and with the incredibly clean low noise at higher ISO's that we enjoy with these Sony sensors today the 24-105 G with Optical Steady Shot can work very well in low light situations. I've taken some sharp shots handholding the A7R3 with the 24-105 G at shutter speeds below 1/30th of a second. I can't do that with the GM. It is definitely noticeably lighter and smaller in length than the GM but not by a huge amount. The GM is still an outstanding lens and I've compared it to some of the best primes we have today for the E mount system and it holds up very solidly. Besides the OSS of the 24-105 G I really like that it performs very well at the 70mm to 105mm end of the zoom range, I'm going to test it against my CV 65mm, Batis 85mm and 100-400 GM lenses at those focal lengths to see just how well it holds up. I think that the GM is excellent for photogs looking for a zoom in the 24mm- 50mm range instead of carrying a bunch of primes and wanting that nice bokeh that you get at f/2.8.
I'm likely putting my excellent copy of the GM up for sale as I'm more in the camp of using it at the f/5.6 to f/11 camp for landscape and travel work. If I did more portraiture or commercial work I'd keep the GM as well. ...Show more →
I see your point! I forgot that it has OS. If you only shoot at f5.6 and above, then sure you don't need a big 2.8 lens. Happy shooting
AGeoJO wrote:
Mike,
The sunstar coming off that lens or lack thereof is similar to that from the FE 24-70mm f/4 lens. I think we are expecting too much from that lens . On the other hand, wide angle setting and smallish apertures would be more conducive to creating of the sunstar effect. One of the lenses that produces wonderful sunstars, is the Loxia 21mm and again, it is an ultra wide angle lens. The same goes for 3 Voigtlander lenses known to generate wonderful sunstars are all ultra wide angle lenses; 10, 12 and 15mm.
It is not just wide angles. Other lenses with straight aperture blades produce great sun stars. Look at images of the CV 40/1.2 starting at F2.8(!) and more stopped down images of the Loxia 50, 85, and Voigtlander 65/2 for examples of good sunstars.
When I first started shooting with an adjustable camera, the Leica IIIC with a 5cm f2 Summitar and round blades, I never thought about the sunstar effect. I was happy to get a good exposure on Kodachrome II with no meter. :^)
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Indeed. If the sun ever shows itself again, I may be able to try that!
On the other hand, I've never really been a fan of sunstars. They strike me as very unnatural.* (I know I'm in the minority on that.)
*perhaps because they remind me of those cheesy 'cross star' filters that Spiratone used to advertise.
Thanks for the samples, Mikes. That performance looks OK by Sony's standards. The Loxia 21 has spoiled me, I really like the stars produced by those ten-bladed apertures.
jamato8 wrote:
It does a nice sunstar when stopped down. I will try to post one or two. As Fred mentions, you do get some ghosting and flare. I have lenses that do much worse and some that do much better.
Thanks for that sample, John. This looks better than I'd expected. Indeed, there are plenty of lenses that do worse.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't love its sunstar rendering but it's what I expected for this type of lens. It needs very small apertures for some definition. That's one area where primes with 10 straight blades take the cake. I took some test shots but deleted the images. It's like I wrote though....you need f/13-16 for get something decent and some ghosting is usually present somewhere in the frame.
So, although resolution and contrast are prime-like, shooting against the sun won't fare as well but still decent.
I hear you, Fred. I guess it's one of those compromises, the convenience of the zoom versus a set of small-ish primes in the 21/24-50-85/90 FL with ten-bladed apertures and even better flare resistance. In an ideal world, I'd like both .
I've sold enough gear over the past few weeks to buy the 24-105/4 whenever it gets back in stock. Come on, 24-105, I've got a good home for you!
Already I've managed to add a second used a7R2, a nice used Canon 24-70/2.8L II, and a nice used refurb 2014 copy of the Canon 35/1.4L -- all purchased here on the B&S. I still have a few more items listed for sale, and if they were to sell, I'd look at getting the VC 65/2 -- then lay low for a while on gear purchases!
Thanks to all the great buyers that have helped me out here, and hope they enjoy my previous treasures.
. On the other hand, wide angle setting and smallish apertures would be more conducive to creating of the sunstar effect. One of the lenses that produces wonderful sunstars, is the Loxia 21mm and again, it is an ultra wide angle lens. The same goes for 3 Voigtlander lenses known to generate wonderful sunstars are all ultra wide angle lenses; 10, 12 and 15mm. 
. 