joelRichards wrote:
Uh, you do realize that the Nikon 1 system was a 1" sensor and that the Sony A7/9 are 135-sized sensors?
Quite. I didn't find the details terribly relevant to the discussion (already a bit off the rails a few pages on), but yes, the Nikon 1 system had its limitations. It was also fast to focus. Yes, I also understand that a 1" system has more DOF to play with, but Nikon also made some (relatively) fast lenses for it, and also impressed with an actually good adapter. The system failed the same way Samsung's also quite impressive mirrorless system failed, the way the Alpha mount has fallen out of favor and the way I can buy a 5D IV or D850 in a Best Buy but can't find a Fuji larger than a point and shoot (if that!). All have/had impressive cameras with great technology and unique features and innovations.
Personally, I find Sony Alpha blog's findings encouraging. I'm not sure what more we could have expected. Of course if it were smaller that would be great but I it is already smaller than the Canon and Sigma and while larger than the Nikon, seems to out perform it. The big downside is distortion which Sony has incorporated into the design by making it closer to a 23-110mm lens it seems. If it performs that well on a 42MP body I think it will do very well on my 24 & 12 MP bodies.
I do wish that Sony (or someone) would make a zoom that prioritized compactness like the (I think unfairly) maligned E1650PZ. Like that lens, this full-frame lens would have several compromises like distortion and a smaller range, but I think it could find a solid niche audience. Perhaps even a 24/28-50 3.5-4.5.
johnctharp wrote:
Quite. I didn't find the details terribly relevant to the discussion (already a bit off the rails a few pages on), but yes, the Nikon 1 system had its limitations. It was also fast to focus. Yes, I also understand that a 1" system has more DOF to play with, but Nikon also made some (relatively) fast lenses for it, and also impressed with an actually good adapter. The system failed the same way Samsung's also quite impressive mirrorless system failed, the way the Alpha mount has fallen out of favor and the way I can buy a 5D IV or D850 in a Best Buy but can't find a Fuji larger than a point and shoot (if that!). All have/had impressive cameras with great technology and unique features and innovations.
You're right it is off the topic but I'd encourage you to actually read a bit more on the differences/challenges of fast read out speeds on smaller vs larger sensors. The greater DoF isn't the issue since both systems usually focus at the taking aperture and it is possible to match the DoF.
The only other camera (that I'm aware of) that uses a sensor with a similar surface area as the A9 and scans that sensor faster is the RED Vista-Vision Weapon with is a $50k+ cinema camera with an active cooling system. It isn't just Sony, these are real and difficult technical hurdles.
To bring this on topic, similar challenges (although I'm less familiar with them) exist in lens design. I think the performance of the FE24105 is commendable considering the reality of making such a lens. Canon just came out with their updated 24-105 and I think the Sony will hold up well in comparison. I'm all for pushing manufacturers to produce the best lenses at the smallest size but I think we've got to be realistic about our expectations.
I'm very pleased (as largely a people/event shooter) that the long end isn't as compromised on this lens. Personally I can live with soft-ish corners at 24mm until stopped down to f/8-11 which is where I try to shoot when I am dabbling in landscapes. It won't be a lens for everybody but I'm excited!
EDIT: Arri also has a 65mm cine camera.I'm less familiar with that model but I suppose that's an example of a larger sensor with an equally fast readout (but still much slower than the Nikon 1).
Can you guys start a new thread about Nikon canon Sony comparisons so we can get back to talking about the lens that the topic was created for. Thanks guys
C_n_red_again wrote:
Can you guys start a new thread about Nikon canon Sony comparisons so we can get back to talking about the lens that the topic was created for. Thanks guys
What you don’t realize is Sony shooters don’t give a rats turd about other systems. We shoot Sony and that’s what’s in our hand or going to be shortly.
Is a 'Sony shooter' a photographer that uses Sony whether or not a Sony product is the best- or even the appropriate- tool for the job?
I'm just regular photographer here, and prefer to use what works, be it Sony or otherwise. And I'm quite interested in this lens used on say a potential A7 III as a general photography camera.
There is just a lot of noise out there that truly meaningless in many cases. Sony is a great 3rd party lens camera to work with but the endless fanboys of canon/Nikon stuff is just noise. I’m going out to test a Tamron 24-70 2.8 that I got yesterday. I have 5 3rd party lenses at the moment and worth talking about regarding performance but I will never bring u a canon or Nikon body because I don’t care about them I shoot Sony bodies. There is a difference here. We are all interested in lenses that are useful to us Sony body shooters
[Off Topic] johnctharp wrote:
Is a 'Sony shooter' a photographer that uses Sony whether or not a Sony product is the best- or even the appropriate- tool for the job?
I'm just regular photographer here, and prefer to use what works, be it Sony or otherwise. And I'm quite interested in this lens used on say a potential A7 III as a general photography camera.
You can replace "Sony" everywhere in yor stament with any brand name, Canon, Nikon, Oly, or Fuji, et al. and have an equally relevant question.
[On Topic] Could we please go back to discussing the new Sony 24-105/4.
I wonder how the Sony 24-105/4 compares to the Zony 24-70/4 at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 70mm. In particular the comparison of performance at 24mm is interesting, since that's where the Zony 24-70/4 is at its weakest.
You can replace "Sony" everywhere in yor stament with any brand name, Canon, Nikon, Oly, or Fuji, et al. and have an equally relevant question.
[On Topic] Could we please go back to discussing the new Sony 24-105/4.
I wonder how the Sony 24-105/4 compares to the Zony 24-70/4 at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 70mm. In particular the comparison of performance at 24mm is interesting, since that's where the Zony 24-70/4 is at its weakest.
beating the zony @24 and 70 is a pretty low standard
Charlie N wrote:
beating the zony @24 and 70 is a pretty low standard
It isn't about beating or not for me, it is about having a baseline to evaluate the lens without having it in hand to test. I don't want to know that it beats the 24-70 at 70mm, I want to know that it beats the 24-70 at 70mm and by how much . If you own or have owned the 24-70 f4, 28-70 or the 24-70 f2.8 then the comparisons to those lenses helps you to better evaluate the 24-105 before buying. For those that buy and return or for those that are willing to buy and sell the lens with little information this might be less important but for me it is really helpful before I decide to buy.
You guys who can't stand Sony gear being compared to other brands, just get used to it. I am never going to stop writing about it as long as I stay on topic, and I respect people around here and their opinion. But I am not going to respect wishes of other relevant gear not being brought in for comparison. I am looking at 24-105 lenses. I want to compare the new Sony to other lenses that can be used with Sony cameras. Just how silly would it be if I called for stopping comparisons of the 24-105 to the 24-70 just because I am not interested in a 24-70 lens here.
IMO the question "How good is the new FE 24-105" cannot be meaningfully answered without comparing it to the Canon and Sigma 24-105 lenses.
alundeb wrote:
IMO the question "How good is the new FE 24-105" cannot be meaningfully answered without comparing it to the Canon and Sigma 24-105 lenses.
Agree with this and I would add that we usually see 24-105 type lenses compared to 24-70 f2.8 lenses with unrealistic expectations. I do think the comparisons to 24-70 lenses are useful as long as the expectations are reasonable but still I'd consider comparisons to other 24-105 or 24-120 lenses to be more useful regardless of brand.
RobCD wrote:
Agree with this and I would add that we usually see 24-105 type lenses compared to 24-70 f2.8 lenses with unrealistic expectations. I do think the comparisons to 24-70 lenses are useful as long as the expectations are reasonable but still I'd consider comparisons to other 24-105 or 24-120 lenses to be more useful regardless of brand.
Back in the day on Canon, the 24-105 was a great versatile lens. But, now that we have 42Mpix and the cropping latitude that provides, I’d much rather have the f/2.8 of the 24-70 and crop when necessary to get to 105mm FoV than go to f/4.
alundeb wrote[/]
IMO the question "How good is the new FE 24-105" cannot be meaningfully answered without comparing it to the Canon and Sigma 24-105 lenses.
This. I've got one on order simple because I find this type of zoom very useful and a good compromise of function vs form vs price. I've got realistic expectations for it and I'll be comparing to the Canon and Nikon versions I've used and from reviews of the Sigma. I also have a decent copy of the 24-70/4 to which it'll be compared. All-in-all, if the new Sony compares favorably to the 24-105/120s I've used, I'll be perfectly fine with it. And if it plays well with IR, I'll be very pleased.
alundeb wrote:
You guys who can't stand Sony gear being compared to other brands, just get used to it. I am never going to stop writing about it as long as I stay on topic, and I respect people around here and their opinion. But I am not going to respect wishes of other relevant gear not being brought in for comparison. I am looking at 24-105 lenses. I want to compare the new Sony to other lenses that can be used with Sony cameras. Just how silly would it be if I called for stopping comparisons of the 24-105 to the 24-70 just because I am not interested in a 24-70 lens here.
IMO the question "How good is the new FE 24-105" cannot be meaningfully answered without comparing it to the Canon and Sigma 24-105 lenses. ...Show more →
I don’t think anybody objects to the FE 24-105 being compared to Canon’s or the Sigma lens or whatever, the discussion just went astray on the subject about how a mirrorless camera from Canon or Nikon would fare against Sony. A very interesting discussion no doubt, but the new FE 24-105 discussion sort of got axed in that.
Incidentally, the Sony forum board tends to discuss lenses openly from all manufacturers, which is a strength, but you know that of course.
One thing I've tried to take into account when comparing lenses I have experience with vs lenses that Sony offers is AF accuracy. In the past, although I AFMA'd all my Canon lenses, they'd still slightly front or back focus often enough to bother me. Usually, it wasn't enough to trash the shot (sometimes it was) but it could make for a somewhat soft image. With Sony, that's not something I have to worry about.
So, with this lens, I'll be thinking about my experience with the Canon 24-105L IS USM on the 5D Mark III, which I was relatively happy with and I'll be comparing sharpness tests with on-sensor AF in mind. What I mean by that is, if the Sony is the equal of the Canon, I'll know that the Sony is capable of the very best the Canon lens had to offer, which was often really good. If its better, and by a noticeable margin, I'll buy it very soon knowing that more often than not, I'll get noticeably better images from the Sony lens and the A9/A7RII than I ever did from the 5D Mark III and 24-105L IS (from a technical level, anyway).
Not only that, I'll be able to do it with a smaller lighter lens with native functionality. Sure, it costs more, but it's just money... :-D
Is the vignetting really so intense at 24mm wide open that it actually blacks out all 4 corners? Or is that a result of not having any lens corrections profiles available?
