nekrosoft13 wrote:
zony 24-70 is a turd even the kit lens is better
In terms of micro-contrast, I agree.
Obviously the kit lens is softer around the edges, is 28mm vs 24mm and has a worse non-constant wide open aperture, but I found the images from it to be more pleasing. I used the Zeiss 24-70 for a while and I just couldn't get on with the images that came out of that thing. Everything looked a bit flat and muted. I did some black and white comparisons between RAW files from it and the kit lens of the same subjects and using the same settings, and I definitely see more micro contrast in the images from the kit lens.
The 24-105mm sounds like a great every day carry lens and the price is super reasonable. I just hope it doesn't suffer from the same problems as the Zeiss 24-70. Looking forward to seeing some RAW files from it and playing around with them myself.
davidnumrich wrote:
and the price is super reasonable.
Compared to what? Canon's 24-105 is $1100 as is Nikon's 24-120. Sigma's is $900 with $100 off right now. So the Sony is $200 more than any other option.
I'll more than likely end up with this lens but "super reasonable" is not how I'd categorize the price. Not even close.
It almost seems like the Sony Zeiss zoom lenses are from a different era. I don’t own one, but they don’t seem to excel at anything. The optical performance is just OK, the size and weight was OK, and the price was high. Not a very good mix. The design of them is also markedly different from the G and GM designs (I prefer the Zony physical design aesthetics).
I wonder if there are any plans to revise these to give them some added appeal in performance, size or price or if that is such a low priority they will be in the dog house of the Sony lens line up for a very long time now.
It could a nefarious plan to sell more prime lenses, lol.
They just have to match Canon, and they would not be permitted by management to produce a GM quality zoom, even if they knew how. Niche marketing..But yes, a great shame not to take the opportunity to do better with slow-moderate mid zooms, given how good the wide angle zooms are, and their tele zooms are very decent. It can be done, but you have to accept low FL range ratios. Marketing in these giant corps are very risk-averse in terms of producing non-standard zoom lenses. It's as though the magic range configs 24-70 and 24-105 confer some magic in the buyers' minds. But really, they are what the makers feel they can get away with.
philip_pj wrote:
It could a nefarious plan to sell more prime lenses, lol.
They just have to match Canon, and they would not be permitted by management to produce a GM quality zoom, even if they knew how. Niche marketing..But yes, a great shame not to take the opportunity to do better with slow-moderate mid zooms, given how good the wide angle zooms are, and their tele zooms are very decent. It can be done, but you have to accept low FL range ratios. Marketing in these giant corps are very risk-averse in terms of producing non-standard zoom lenses. It's as though the magic range configs 24-70 and 24-105 confer some magic in the buyers' minds. But really, they are what the makers feel they can get away with....Show more →
I think the 24-70?f/2.8 has long been a staple in pro’s bag so that one is easy to understand.
I don’t blame anyone for wanting the convenience of a 24-105 zoom but I’ve gone with a few primes (25,55,85) and opt to crop instead. Faster, and better but a bit more weight and bulk and a lot more money. I think if you’re going to make sacrifices for a zoom, why not go with the 24-240. I find that lens invaluable in some rare situations where you just can’t pack more than one lens and don’t know what to expect such as a recent helicopter tour. And when it’s been useful, I’ve used the full range.
I don’t think I’ll ever buy another 24-105. As I mentioned earlier, if I get a better quality zoom in that range it will be the 24-70 GM for the wider aperture and I’ll crop if needed to extend the range.
philip_pj wrote:
It could a nefarious plan to sell more prime lenses, lol.
They just have to match Canon, and they would not be permitted by management to produce a GM quality zoom, even if they knew how. Niche marketing..But yes, a great shame not to take the opportunity to do better with slow-moderate mid zooms, given how good the wide angle zooms are, and their tele zooms are very decent. It can be done, but you have to accept low FL range ratios. Marketing in these giant corps are very risk-averse in terms of producing non-standard zoom lenses. It's as though the magic range configs 24-70 and 24-105 confer some magic in the buyers' minds. But really, they are what the makers feel they can get away with....Show more →
Well Jpeg and video users of FF E mount Sony's can always use some of the very nice primes as short 2x zooms with little loss in image quality by using clear image zoom or with greater degradation using regular digital zoom (from 2x to 4x).
Some of the better primes used as 2x zooms might still actually be better than some of the zooms used optically.
Of course you can then still use clear image zoom or digital zoom with an optical zoom too.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
Compared to what? Canon's 24-105 is $1100 as is Nikon's 24-120. Sigma's is $900 with $100 off right now. So the Sony is $200 more than any other option.
I'll more than likely end up with this lens but "super reasonable" is not how I'd categorize the price. Not even close.
While I wouldn't call the price "super reasonable".. it may be very reasonable compared to the competition.
The Canon is fairly new, and is $1100..... And Canon, partially due to their massive volume, is almost always a bit cheaper.
The Nikon 24-120 is $1100.. but a somewhat older lens. I'm fairly confident that the IQ of the Sony will surpass it significantly.
The Sony is a pre-release brand new 24-105 at $1300. A year from now, expect discounts down to $1200. In fact, I was able to secure a pre-order for $1176.
So over the reasonable future, expect this lens to be $100 to $200 more than the Canon/Nikon versions. Considering that many FE lenses are 20-40% more than competitors... here we are looking at 10-20% price difference.
So relatively speaking, it's a rather small premium by Sony standards.
It's also only about $100 more than the 24-70/4. So if it's significantly better than the 24-70, then it will look like an absolute bargain compared to the 24-70.
Yes, some. High resolution opens many doors and I'm sure we all (well, most of us) do this to some extent, if unconsciously or for tech reasons (get rid of unwanted content, level horizons). But as you eat away the pixels in a deliberate and repeated fashion (say, using a 55mm for 85mm work) you give up the reason you bought the cameras in the first place.
A 2x zoom works the exact opposite way - you sometimes give up maybe 5-10% of sheer image quality to gain exact framing. Which wins out? The zoom as compared with a prime near its short end to middle. Because final IQ = lens IQ times sensor resolution, and you fast lose more res than the difference between a prime and the (very good) zoom.
Resolution dies faster from cropping than prime lens advantages over good zooms. Many extra bonuses: prime level distortion, lower aberration loads from slower max speed, 2x zooms can be designed for excellent (competitive) bokeh at the long end of 70mm and can do the same trick as the prime, but more easily (70>85 -vs- 55>85).
2x mid zooms are in effect more towards hybrid prime/zoom lenses. Zooms are a composite of all their FLs, so a 24-105 design has 82 prime lenses, a 24-70 has 47 prime lens buried inside it, a 35-70 has 36 of them. And the 35-70 range crosses no great design barriers as 35mm is near-normal (43-35) but a 24mm is a super wide angle (43-24). This is why they all come with 3-4% distortion etc., they are bending metal and hoping it springs back of its own accord. It won't. Then weight, I wish my Loxia 85mm was the same weight as many 35-70s. It isn't: 595g -vs- 475g. So less can be more for good 2x mid zooms.
havoc1449 wrote:
While I wouldn't call the price "super reasonable".. it may be very reasonable compared to the competition.
The Canon is fairly new, and is $1100..... And Canon, partially due to their massive volume, is almost always a bit cheaper.
The Nikon 24-120 is $1100.. but a somewhat older lens. I'm fairly confident that the IQ of the Sony will surpass it significantly.
The Sony is a pre-release brand new 24-105 at $1300. A year from now, expect discounts down to $1200. In fact, I was able to secure a pre-order for $1176.
I consider it very reasonable. The Nikon adds a bit of range, but it's older and more of a compromise (due to range) than Canon's 24-105/4L II, which itself is mostly an operational upgrade over the original, not really an optical upgrade. Thankfully Canon's 24-70/4L is solid.
Sony's looks to be a solid optical jump over the established players, while bringing that drop in size/weight that can be extracted from shorter mirrorless lenses. And within US$100-$200 of them? For a Sony G lens? On release? That's a bargain .
Amazon says mine will be here 12/7-12/11. We'll see. I can test it against my decent copy of the 24-70 f/4, my 28, 35/2.8, 55 and 85/1.8 if anyone would be interested. I could also do side by sides with the Nikon 24-120. I'll also be testing it on an IR converted A7R2.
While nice to have the extra range, I’ve finally purchased my first 24-70 and it’s a barn burner. The GM is such a nice optic with few major compromises. It really works like a bunch of 2.8 primes. With my canon and Nikon systems I always owned the respective 4-5x zooms and they did a lot of work for me, but always in well lit (read outdoor) environments.
I just don’t see getting to 105 as that great of a trick to forgo 2.8-4 apertures. When a lens becomes only an outdoor lens it gives up a lot of its usefulness.
Still I’ll wait for reviews. It would be rather indulgent to own both zooms, but for a 1000 and a good reputation I’d consider coming in off the sidelines for outdoor use.
philip_pj wrote:
Yes, some. High resolution opens many doors and I'm sure we all (well, most of us) do this to some extent, if unconsciously or for tech reasons (get rid of unwanted content, level horizons). But as you eat away the pixels in a deliberate and repeated fashion (say, using a 55mm for 85mm work) you give up the reason you bought the cameras in the first place.
A 2x zoom works the exact opposite way - you sometimes give up maybe 5-10% of sheer image quality to gain exact framing. Which wins out? The zoom as compared with a prime near its short end to middle. Because final IQ = lens IQ times sensor resolution, and you fast lose more res than the difference between a prime and the (very good) zoom.
Resolution dies faster from cropping than prime lens advantages over good zooms. Many extra bonuses: prime level distortion, lower aberration loads from slower max speed, 2x zooms can be designed for excellent (competitive) bokeh at the long end of 70mm and can do the same trick as the prime, but more easily (70>85 -vs- 55>85).
2x mid zooms are in effect more towards hybrid prime/zoom lenses. Zooms are a composite of all their FLs, so a 24-105 design has 82 prime lenses, a 24-70 has 47 prime lens buried inside it, a 35-70 has 36 of them. And the 35-70 range crosses no great design barriers as 35mm is near-normal (43-35) but a 24mm is a super wide angle (43-24). This is why they all come with 3-4% distortion etc., they are bending metal and hoping it springs back of its own accord. It won't. Then weight, I wish my Loxia 85mm was the same weight as many 35-70s. It isn't: 595g -vs- 475g. So less can be more for good 2x mid zooms.
This is an odd essay on zooms vs primes. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, but it seems like you’re saying a zoom is much better than cropping set of primes? Forgive me, if I misunderstand but that’s a bit of an odd stance to take.
As you know, resolution or more importantly details and dynamic range are also dramatically impacted by high ISO noise. A prime can offer a few stops of advantage over a zoom.
Cropping images shot with primes to optimize the composition is eating pixels, but in many cases, those lost pixels cannot be seen in the final output anyway.
DoF and subject isolation is also an important consideration and one that many zooms don’t offer much flexibility with.
They are all just different tools for different jobs. Zooms are great in good light.. Zooms are essential on lower resolution sensors with limited cropping latitude. And zooms are also invaluable in situations where your subject distance or composition varies a lot or moves quickly. But in low light, or situations where you have some time and can move yourself to get an optimal composition, primes are king. And even in situations where you might end up heavily cropping the final image, it may have zero impact depending on how the final result is consumed.
virtualrain wrote:
This is an odd essay on zooms vs primes. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, but it seems like you’re saying a zoom is much better than cropping set of primes? Forgive me, if I misunderstand but that’s a bit of an odd stance to take.
As you know, resolution or more importantly details and dynamic range are also dramatically impacted by high ISO noise. A prime can offer a few stops of advantage over a zoom.
Cropping images shot with primes to optimize the composition is eating pixels, but in many cases, those lost pixels cannot be seen in the final output anyway.
DoF and subject isolation is also an important consideration and one that many zooms don’t offer much flexibility with.
They are all just different tools for different jobs. Zooms are great in good light.. Zooms are essential on lower resolution sensors with limited cropping latitude. And zooms are also invaluable in situations where your subject distance or composition varies a lot or moves quickly. But in low light, or situations where you have some time and can move yourself to get an optimal composition, primes are king. And even in situations where you might end up heavily cropping the final image, it may have zero impact depending on how the final result is consumed. ...Show more →
These are quite common considerations, and there is nothing odd in suggesting that the benefits of a better prime lens may be eaten up by cropping, vs using a zoom lens.
Your points are valid, as in these are considerations with no given answer, it all depends on how good the zoom is and how much you crop.
It is not correct however, that cropping an image has zero impact on the final output just because you have more pixels than you need in the first place. Cropping and enlarging 1.4 times effectively rips you one stop of light, and gives you the same depth of field as using the full sensor with a 1.4 times longer focal length and one stop slower zoom lens.
As you say, these are just differnt tools and which one you choose usually depends on more considerations than just what will get you the highest resolution image. Using prime lenses only, with the purpose of always getting the highest resolution image, will however mean that you either have to change the perspective and/or composition, or give up on the highest resolution in some of the cases. Which may be just fine.
akclimber wrote:
Amazon says mine will be here 12/7-12/11. We'll see. I can test it against my decent copy of the 24-70 f/4, my 28, 35/2.8, 55 and 85/1.8 if anyone would be interested. I could also do side by sides with the Nikon 24-120. I'll also be testing it on an IR converted A7R2.
Yes please, count me in as "very Interested" in all those comparisons
Messier77 wrote:
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?
Yes, that's the result of lens correction not being applied. Early tests have confirmed that the lens is designed for digital distortion correction and is actually slightly wider than 24mm. So cropped in to 24mm the black corners disappear. There still seems to be heavy vignetting at 24mm f/4.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
Compared to what? Canon's 24-105 is $1100 as is Nikon's 24-120. Sigma's is $900 with $100 off right now. So the Sony is $200 more than any other option.
I'll more than likely end up with this lens but "super reasonable" is not how I'd categorize the price. Not even close.
you do realize that Sony is not even released yet? give it few months and price will stabilize.
even the kit lens is better 
.