MF - with live view setting effect on, lens stops down to working aperture and I can focus without a half press of the shutter button. Sharp at 105mm at 10m at f/4, 5.6 and 8 with refocusing after aperture change. with live view setting off, only stops down with press of shutter button so focusing at f/4 and out of focus at f/5.6 and 8. You'd have to do a half press and then focus stopped down with live view off.
AF-S - acquires focus wide open regardless of live view setting. I'm seeing focus shift regardless of live view setting.
I bought the lens online so a hassle to return and gamble on another copy... Guess this is one you should buy at your local shop....
Any point in sending to Sony under warranty? Or will they just send it back as “within spec”?
darrellc wrote:
Any point in sending to Sony under warranty? Or will they just send it back as “within spec”?
It's a waste of time. I processed it with a 24-70 f4 lens. I sent it 3-4 times and after the service it worked even worse than at the beginning.
I don't know what to do with this lens. It is much better than my first copy but it have the same problem as yours. I can try exchange it to 3rd copy but it can be even worse than the first one. Sony quality control is ****
Strange that some of the copies is prone to focus shift and others are not.
Man my copy is great. Sorry to hear about your luck. This however is why I buy all my lenses at my local camera store so I can try them out first. Yes I have to pay taxes on them by doing this but I don't mind paying a premium if I know I'm getting something good. It's also the same reason I buy off the buy and sell boards. Jmo
I want to like the 24-105mm perhaps more then I do. Its a great range and a very workable size. Ive been testing and trialing stock thats come through the door briefly in hopes of getting that wow factor off a copy and making it mine instead of a customers. :-)
All samples (5 or 6 now) have been relatively consistent. The one that shipped in this morning seemed to be a hair sharper then the others Ive tried so I bought it home to give it a wrestle against my Canon 24-70 2.8 II. The Canon is just plain better, Its not hard to see the difference at all. Apart from resolution improvements in the Canon the other factors are much nicer pop and micro contrast and also a taste of '3D'ness' against the flat looking Sony G.
I know its not an apples against apples test but something I was interested in so thought Id share. So for now Ill be keeping my adapted Canon and leaving the super serious stuff in this range to my Loxia's and ZA primes.
And as a side note, yes I have tried various 24-70mm GM samples and they still dont hold up to the Canon....
My copy got sent back today. The retailer will return to Sony as a defect. I documented the problem with steps on how to recreate the focus shift (I did a couple hundred shots and results in focus shift 100% of the time with AF-S or MF without refocus post aperture change).
photomadnz wrote:
I want to like the 24-105mm perhaps more then I do. Its a great range and a very workable size. Ive been testing and trialing stock thats come through the door briefly in hopes of getting that wow factor off a copy and making it mine instead of a customers. :-)
All samples (5 or 6 now) have been relatively consistent. The one that shipped in this morning seemed to be a hair sharper then the others Ive tried so I bought it home to give it a wrestle against my Canon 24-70 2.8 II. The Canon is just plain better, Its not hard to see the difference at all. Apart from resolution improvements in the Canon the other factors are much nicer pop and micro contrast and also a taste of '3D'ness' against the flat looking Sony G.
I know its not an apples against apples test but something I was interested in so thought Id share. So for now Ill be keeping my adapted Canon and leaving the super serious stuff in this range to my Loxia's and ZA primes.
And as a side note, yes I have tried various 24-70mm GM samples and they still dont hold up to the Canon.......Show more →
Very interesting. Would it be possible to post examples that show the difference?
photomadnz wrote:
I want to like the 24-105mm perhaps more then I do. Its a great range and a very workable size. Ive been testing and trialing stock thats come through the door briefly in hopes of getting that wow factor off a copy and making it mine instead of a customers. :-)
All samples (5 or 6 now) have been relatively consistent. The one that shipped in this morning seemed to be a hair sharper then the others Ive tried so I bought it home to give it a wrestle against my Canon 24-70 2.8 II. The Canon is just plain better, Its not hard to see the difference at all. Apart from resolution improvements in the Canon the other factors are much nicer pop and micro contrast and also a taste of '3D'ness' against the flat looking Sony G.
I know its not an apples against apples test but something I was interested in so thought Id share. So for now Ill be keeping my adapted Canon and leaving the super serious stuff in this range to my Loxia's and ZA primes.
And as a side note, yes I have tried various 24-70mm GM samples and they still dont hold up to the Canon.......Show more →
while I believe this to be true, I'de drop the adapter and go native regardless. There's a significant size savings, and to be able to shoot your cameras full abilities matters for some. I'm not sure I'de consider the GM anymore either, it's so large.
photomadnz wrote:
I want to like the 24-105mm perhaps more then I do. Its a great range and a very workable size. Ive been testing and trialing stock thats come through the door briefly in hopes of getting that wow factor off a copy and making it mine instead of a customers. :-)
All samples (5 or 6 now) have been relatively consistent. The one that shipped in this morning seemed to be a hair sharper then the others Ive tried so I bought it home to give it a wrestle against my Canon 24-70 2.8 II. The Canon is just plain better, Its not hard to see the difference at all. Apart from resolution improvements in the Canon the other factors are much nicer pop and micro contrast and also a taste of '3D'ness' against the flat looking Sony G.
I know its not an apples against apples test but something I was interested in so thought Id share. So for now Ill be keeping my adapted Canon and leaving the super serious stuff in this range to my Loxia's and ZA primes.
And as a side note, yes I have tried various 24-70mm GM samples and they still dont hold up to the Canon.......Show more →
I'm in a similar situation: My 24-105G arrived yesterday in rainy conditions, so I have yet to fully check it out. I'll be comparing it directly against my recently purchased excellent copies of Canon 24-70/2.8L II and 35/1.4L. It won't be until later that I can compare to my good copy of 24-105/4L IS.
Initial points of concern -- the hard vignetting in the far corners reduce the effective focal lengths by a couple mm. Less concerning is the strong barrel and pincushion distortion, correctable in a decent LR lens profile -- unfortunately this also shaves off a mm or two from the wide end. The good news is the color and sharpness look pretty good wide open.
The lens is similar in weight and bulk to either the 24-70/2.8L II and 35L (and 12-24G! ), and probably the 24-105L as well. In other words, the lens is good size, but very manageable and comfortable with battery grip.
Looking forward to some sunny or at least not torrentially rainy weather to get it outside.
I think it’s actually wider than 24mm than lens profile fixes it to 24 but I agree effectively end of day without vignetting it’s like 25 or so. Personally for me at 25mm I’d rather use the new Loxia 25 . So I could do landscape work with Laowa 15, Loxia 25, zoom at 28-105, Batis 135. I’d probably only go to maybe 85 on the zoom too. I think from 28-85 is the best part of the zoom. That’s me being very critical though
The Batis 135 would most likely be in a separate bag for the trunk of the car and used when really needed doing landscape type stuff.
Gunzorro wrote:
Initial points of concern -- the hard vignetting in the far corners reduce the effective focal lengths by a couple mm. Less concerning is the strong barrel and pincushion distortion, correctable in a decent LR lens profile -- unfortunately this also shaves off a mm or two from the wide end.
Hopefully someone (Roger?) will make proper/precise measurements, but here's what I calculated this morning for shots at 24mm at ƒ4.0
• What you see in the viewfinder (and when viewing taken images on the camera) is a diagonal field of view of 81.6°, which is 25mm focal length equivalent
• With the profile -applied- in Lightroom the resulting image has a 82.4° field of view, which equates to 24.7mm focal length.
• If you turn off the profile in Lightroom, the field of view is 83.8°, which is 24.1mm.
So...the net result of a corrected image is 24.7mm. But it is slightly more than what you saw in the viewfinder when you made the shot. In other words, if you saw it in the frame, it will be in the frame, even after correction.
I still get mixed results. I can do eye focus and get really sharp results and sometimes not. Outside, doing some work and it will be spot on and then not. I hope it is in the focussing of the FW somehow and they can come up with a total fix. In general I am getting good results but, I don't trust the lens, and that isn't good. I do love the focal length and from a shot the other day, around f8, I see very good sharpness edge to edge at 105 and center is right on. Go figure. Come on Sony. I would like to get the 12-24 in place of my Canon L I use but am a little spooked. Some love the Sony but I also see QC problems. . . . . .
Well my copy arrives tomorrow but I'm not home till Friday. A lot to check on this lens to see where it sits. I've been very fortunate with my lenses (CV15 my one copy is a son of choppy) and hope that luck continues.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Hopefully someone (Roger?) will make proper/precise measurements, but here's what I calculated this morning for shots at 24mm at ƒ4.0
• What you see in the viewfinder (and when viewing taken images on the camera) is a diagonal field of view of 81.6°, which is 25mm focal length equivalent
• With the profile -applied- in Lightroom the resulting image has a 82.4° field of view, which equates to 24.7mm focal length.
• If you turn off the profile in Lightroom, the field of view is 83.8°, which is 24.1mm.
So...the net result of a corrected image is 24.7mm. But it is slightly more than what you saw in the viewfinder when you made the shot. In other words, if you saw it in the frame, it will be in the frame, even after correction.
I got mine a couple days ago and it has passed all of my informal tests. Visible vignetting at 24mm even with lens corrections in ACR, but still workable. It's a keeper.
), and probably the 24-105L as well. In other words, the lens is good size, but very manageable and comfortable with battery grip.