It's a funny game, isn't it? They set out with high hopes, pumped up with lofty public relations releases, only to sink back to everything else in the market, then they sell them for a couple of hundred less dollars, lol.
My main interest is how the Sony compares with the Sigma. The Sigma is heavy (as Sigma lenses tend to be), but has its fans for optical quality. The Sony is smaller and lighter, and quite a bit more expensive (as Sony lenses tend to be),
umsl12 wrote:
Actually I don't see any reasons that this lens is $200 more expensive than Canon and Nikon counterparts. Most of Sony lenses are overpriced.
It’s probably a simple function of R&D expense, volume, and margin. Most of Canon’s designs are a decade or two old (or minor iterations on those old designs) and the R&D has long since been paid for, so at their higher volumes, they can offer lower margins. Sony, on the other hand, is largely designing new lenses from scratch for the shorter flange distance and with some designs trying to break new ground in optical performance, bokeh, or compactness. With their lower volumes due to a lot fewer Sony mirrorless customers than Canon DSLR shooters, they need higher margins to cover their higher R&D investments. My guess is that Canon actually makes more profit off their lenses than Sony does even at their lower price points.
umsl12 wrote:
How many of you will trade your 24-70/2.8GM for 24-105/4?
I have 24-70/2.8 and don't use it much as I should.
I don’t own or plan to own either, but if I did have the GM, I’d never trade it for the G... at least on a 42Mpix sensor. The advantage of f/2.8 far outweighs the shorter focal range, which can easily be made up with modest cropping. Cropping 70mm to 105mm is the equivalent of an APS-C crop factor of 1.5... and with 42Mpix you still have 18Mpix on target after the crop which is probably not far off the resolution the 24-105 can resolve at the long end anyway.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Reviewers have this lens for a few weeks now and we still don't know how good it really is!!
Perhaps that says a lot. Reviews of the 70-200 GM were also far and few between. Perhaps as the old saying goes... “If you don’t have anything good to say...”
Im still running an adapted Canon 24-70mm 2.8 Mark II. I havent been able to find a 24-70mm GM that is better or more satisfying and I played with the 24-105mm today and that doesnt look like changing my mind either.
virtualrain wrote:
I don’t own or plan to own either, but if I did have the GM, I’d never trade it for the G... at least on a 42Mpix sensor. The advantage of f/2.8 far outweighs the shorter focal range, which can easily be made up with modest cropping. Cropping 70mm to 105mm is the equivalent of an APS-C crop factor of 1.5... and with 42Mpix you still have 18Mpix on target after the crop which is probably not far off the resolution the 24-105 can resolve at the long end anyway.
Why do you think the 24-105 can only resolve around 18mp at the long end? Are there any reviews or tests or results from other recently tested lenses that you're using to predict this?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Reviewers have this lens for a few weeks now and we still don't know how good it really is!!
Hugh Brownstone, primarily a video guy, in a recent A7R3 review video, makes passing mention of the 24-105 as being "so good, it's likely the next lens" he buys. But aside from that mention and the SonyAlpha Blog review, it's been pretty quite on the 24-105 review front. My guess is that everybody's attention is on the A7R3 for now.
I've only had it for a couple of days and haven't had many chances to use it, but I can state unequivocally that it is excellent! It blows away the other "travel zooms" I have used like the 24-70F4 and 24-240. It is better at 35 than the highly regarded Samyang 2.8 until F8 where it's a tie. If you compare the zoom stopped down two stops to F8 to the reference lens 55 1.8 stopped down to F4, the zoom is surprisingly close. At 85 it also compares very favorably to the 85 1.8. I'm NOT saying it's "just as good", but close enough that I wouldn't feel "bad" if I didn't have the primes with me when I'm traveling. Needless to say it's not a handheld low-light lens, so I still need my primes.
It DOES have vignetting in RAW at 24mm, but it's easily corrected. I only have a "standard" 77mm polarizer and it's worse with that and not easily corrected without cropping or other magic in the corners. We'll see what happens when DxO and LR come out with profiles.
First impressions are very positive. I'm going to give it a workout today and get back to you.
I took some comparison photos of a scene that I have shot dozens of times with other cameras and lenses, so I have a very good idea of what to look for, but they ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC!
I posted some of the unscientific photos here:
Caruso wrote:
I've only had it for a couple of days and haven't had many chances to use it, but I can state unequivocally that it is excellent!
Good to hear, thanks for the info! I have one on order with Amazon but it's been delayed for reasons not clear to me. I'm looking forward to a useful walk around and will also test it against my 28, 55 and 85s just for kicks but what samples I've seen so far for the zoom look quite encouraging.
I still have my pre-order on it. I canceled it than changed my mind. I’m going try it. Need to sell my Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 version I just bought though
