This looks pretty impressive! thanks for sharing. I’m headed out to Scottsdale, AZ today and hope to get some shooting in today and tomorrow with my 24-105 G as well.
This looks pretty impressive! thanks for sharing. I’m headed out to Scottsdale, AZ today and hope to get some shooting in today and tomorrow with my 24-105 G as well.
This looks pretty impressive! thanks for sharing. I’m headed out to Scottsdale, AZ today and hope to get some shooting in today and tomorrow with my 24-105 G as well.
Chuck
Thanks Chuck! The 24-105 is certainly measuring up for me. Looking forward to your next batch of images with that lens!
Guy -- Yeah, I've pretty much got "woods" covered 24/7/365! You guys enjoy that desert! Up here, you have to keep moving, or you sprout roots.
The focus shift issue seems to have taken away from the discussion of how good this lens really is.
I shot for many years with the Canon 24-105 L, and got some great pictures with it. But I always considered it a constant f/5 instead of an f/4. It needed that to really sharpen up and get rid of that "glowy" look.
When I moved to Sony I got a 16-70 Zeiss for my crop body, and I still really love it. But again, it needs to be stopped down to f/5 to really start performing.
With both lenses, edges and corners are ok, but never razor sharp.
This lens solves both of those issues, and does it incredibly well. Sharp all the way to the edges wide open and every focal length. Nice bokeh, great color, decent contrast. This is a professional grade lens in every way.
I was hoping it would be about 100 grams lighter, but that's just wishful thinking. Overall, this has to be the best midrange focal length zoom available.
I agree also this is not a copy variance lens either. It’s a batch that something happened that went wrong. You get one without the issue they all have been very good. This is a manufacturing problem or something of that nature as the bad ones all do the same thing. It’s either good or bad . No grey area
Did my infinity landscape tests of my second, non-shift affected copy. The results: lens is remarkable for across-the-frame sharpness. I highly recommend it for landscape shooters. Hint of softness at the extreme edges of 24mm. The only other thing to watch out for is some focus variability @ 24mm (even for AF-S), which I was able to reproduce over several test runs.
Here are my full-sized images. I did a full aperture suite but I'll only present the f/8 since that's what I plant to shoot at for most of my landscape work:
Mine is extremely sharp at 24, 35, 50, and 105. It seems to stumble a bit around 70mm. Luckily, at 70, it reacts predictably to a little extra sharpening in PP.
All in all, a remarkable lens.
snapsy wrote:
Did my infinity landscape tests of my second, non-shift affected copy. The results: lens is remarkable for across-the-frame sharpness. I highly recommend it for landscape shooters.
This is why I was excited about this lens once the sample images and user reviews started showing up. Even though the GM may be a little better I don't need f2.8 and I don't need the extra weight and cost. This lens really fits my needs as a landscape lens that keeps my backpack light and minimizes changing lenses.
I think that once you have shot with an extremely high grade lens, nothing else measures up - IOW, one will always find fault with a lesser lens, even if that "lesser" lens is very good - if one has shot with a higher quality lens with which to have a comparison.
After 30+ years of professional shooting five different systems, I feel like I've had some really great pieces of equipment over the years. The top of the line pieces have ruined me for anything less. I keep preaching content over technicalities but I admit that I severely judge lens performance - responsiveness, sharpness and rendition.
While I can shoot with any lens, I ask myself after doing so with less-than-top-of-the-line lenses: What was the point of that? Why not invest in a very few of the best and stop trying to save money on a compromised lens? Yes, it does depend on one's purpose, I do admit that. If it's for fun and family, it's probably wise to save money and get the most reach for less cost. But when shooting professionally, a different standard rolls in.
It's human nature to defend something you've purchased and you therefore want to love. I've done it to myself many times. Like the Canon 35-350mm I bought when I was a young, financially challenged photojournalist who needed to get the most and spend the least.
I really want that 24-105mm f4 to be the bee's knees. But if the 24-70mm f2.8 GM is going to return crisp, beautiful uncompromised quality - at this point, for me, anyway - I've already been through over and over, the feeling of regret having compromised quality for price. I just need to buy fewer pieces of higher quality - money can be saved that way also.
I rented one for this week, and I am very impressed with the focus speed, quietness and general amazingness that this lens produces. I tested it with video on a gimbal and its pretty nice for video too.
I have a feeling that one of these will find its way into my camera bag soon.
No mention of the focus shift issue - must have gotten a good one
Conclusion “The Sony lens isn't flawless but just to provide a framework for comparison - it is superior to both the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS II and Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G VR. So it's certainly a lens we can recommend to Sony FE users.”
I've generally liked and respected the Photozone reviews, but their negativity about software lens corrections is given too much emphasis (imho). At least their concluding remarks where spot on.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I've generally liked and respected the Photozone reviews, but their negativity about software lens corrections is given too much emphasis (imho). At least their concluding remarks where spot on.
I'm not sure it was negative as much as it was 'so you are aware'. This lens has very complex in-lens focus correction (and we're seeing that can be a problem, although it should be an easily fixable problem); along with vignetting and distortion correction as a default.
Is that bad? Nope, it's wringing every bit of performance out of the lens, allowing it to be smaller, especially.
Is it a good thing to know about? Yep! Someday somebody is going to accidentally turn off the default setting, for example, and if they don't know about it going to spend time and money sending their broken lens in for repair when nothing is wrong. Or some firmware upgrade is going to have someone saying 'now my lens vignettes' or antivignettes, etc.
RCicala wrote:
I'm not sure it was negative as much as it was 'so you are aware'. This lens has very complex in-lens focus correction (and we're seeing that can be a problem, although it should be an easily fixable problem); along with vignetting and distortion correction as a default.
Is that bad? Nope, it's wringing every bit of performance out of the lens, allowing it to be smaller, especially.
Is it a good thing to know about? Yep! Someday somebody is going to accidentally turn off the default setting, for example, and if they don't know about it going to spend time and money sending their broken lens in for repair when nothing is wrong. Or some firmware upgrade is going to have someone saying 'now my lens vignettes' or antivignettes, etc. ...Show more →
What's the "default setting" you were referring to, Roger? The in-camera lens correction? Thanks,
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I've generally liked and respected the Photozone reviews, but their negativity about software lens corrections is given too much emphasis (imho). At least their concluding remarks where spot on.
The bottom line is your never going to get a lens at fairly low cost especially a zoom that performs perfectly without software correction involved. I spent 6 grand on a Leica 24-70 2.8 to get that perfect zoom lens. Guess what it still was not perfect and was a repair nightmare to boot. Leica discontinued it as it cost more to make than to sell. Lol
Zooms have unrealistic expections than users want to expect. It’s always going to be a compromise. The good news every once in awhile a damn good one hits the streets. This is one of them and to be honest I finally found that PR type lens that actually freaking works in lower light levels. I shot it yesterday and I was shocked it did so well in that lower light level environment. I could actually focus the damn thing.
GMPhotography wrote:
I shot it yesterday and I was shocked it did so well in that lower light level environment. I could actually focus the damn thing.
