Interesting read. I own the Canon 24-105/4 mk I and was surprised to see how even the two are - MTF numbers as well as physically. Wondering if it is worth getting Metabones for $400 to use the Canon vs getting the Sony native for $1300 (and trying to get $500 here for the Canon).
Anyone use the Canon with Metabones IV/V on the a7rIII?
Interesting read. I own the Canon 24-105/4 mk I and was surprised to see how even the two are - MTF numbers as well as physically. Wondering if it is worth getting Metabones for $400 to use the Canon vs getting the Sony native for $1300 (and trying to get $500 here for the Canon).
Anyone use the Canon with Metabones IV/V on the a7rIII?
Get the Sigma MC-11 for around $150 new from B&H or Adorama and use your Canon. Until I find out the Sony is astoundingly better, I'll stay with my Canon 24-105L.
I shoot the Canon 24-105 with a Sigma MC-11 on my a7rii and have been pleased with its performance. I usually shoot static subjects so the advanced focusing abilities of native Sony lenses is not important to me. Going by the data in terragalleria tests I think I'll stick with the Canon until I hear different.
I'm somewhat bummed he didn't borrow a 24-70 GM for comparison purposes.
One interesting thing to note is that it appears the Canon performs equal to or slightly better than the Sony at the longer end. The Sony drops off at that end, and the Canon appears to remain fairly constant in performance through the range.
Also, it looks like the Sony lenses have a bit more even center to corner performance than the Canon.
The Zeiss is horrific, as I think most people are aware, but I'm surprised that it isn't somewhat better on center. It's somewhat mind boggling that a lens like this comes out of the same design shop as the 21mm Loxia...
Gunzorro wrote:
Get the Sigma MC-11 for around $150 new from B&H or Adorama and use your Canon. Until I find out the Sony is astoundingly better, I'll stay with my Canon 24-105L.
Everyone has different standards. I thought it was a good example of how markedly better the Sony is than the Canon. Of course the Sony is also more expensive (a little TOO expensive) so I can't call it a better value. This reviewer also wasn't clear whether they were testing the lens with the intended digital corrections or not. Like the FE 28mm that can skew the review one way or the other because Sony made both lenses purposefully wider intending the corners to be cut off in post. While I think this distortion is worth mentioning a review it seems a little disingenuous to compare the Sony uncorrected to the Canon since the Sony uncorrected is also a ~22mm lens.
Anyway, good to read some more real world reviews.
I'm looking forward to some real testing of the Sony, Sigma, and both new and old versions of the Canon L lenses. So far, I haven't seen anything that looks like convincing testing, or even a plethora of user comparisons. Surprisingly big yawn this lens seems to be producing, along the lines of the newest Canon L version.
Dec 13, 2017 at 02:35 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Gunzorro wrote:
I'm looking forward to some real testing of the Sony, Sigma, and both new and old versions of the Canon L lenses. So far, I haven't seen anything that looks like convincing testing, or even a plethora of user comparisons. Surprisingly big yawn this lens seems to be producing, along the lines of the newest Canon L version.
Yeah, they look like comparable lenses, but I don't see that as a bad thing; the newest Canon is quite good. The Sony lens looks better at the wide end and quite a bit better in the corners at the wide end. The Canon may be a bit better at the long end and especially so in the centre, but my guess is that lens variation within each brand will swamp these differences between brands. I think it looks like a solid offering and I will probably pick one up for my wife who shoots AF. I will still watch as more reports come in, but I think it will be a solid lens and to me the smaller size and weight is worth the slightly higher price.
Received my Sony 24-105 lens yesterday and did a walk about at the local nature center. While I have not done any testing of the lens, I do like the quality of the few images I captured. The Canon 24-105 was my go to lens on my 5DII and having the Sony 24-105 on my A7RII feels like having an old friend in my kit! Fit, finish and feel are great!
I am a fan after one brief outing : )
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, they look like comparable lenses, but I don't see that as a bad thing; the newest Canon is quite good. The Sony lens looks better at the wide end and quite a bit better in the corners at the wide end. The Canon may be a bit better at the long end and especially so in the centre, but my guess is that lens variation within each brand will swamp these differences between brands. I think it looks like a solid offering and I will probably pick one up for my wife who shoots AF. I will still watch as more reports come in, but I think it will be a solid lens and to me the smaller size and weight is worth the slightly higher price....Show more →
Looking forward to your views and maybe some examples, Steve. Same for danv13.
I've got a nice original Canon 24-105L (UY, 2010 manufacture) that is great at all focal lengths, especially 24mm (correctable barrel and CA). I've opted not to buy the latest L, reports and tests indicating not much, if any, overall optical improvement. Mine is pretty great at f/6.3 at all focal lengths. I bought it used for $715, and today could find a comparable one for around $500 or less, making it an amazing bargain.
The main reasons I use my very good copy of Zony 24-70/4 over the Canon is 1) native mount/AF, 2) terrific color and contrast, and 3) smaller/lighter than L + MC-11. But I always miss the L's range and sharpness.
The newer 24-70GM clobbers any of these lenses and rivals/equals the latest Canon 24-70L II in IQ, but those are both in another league and cost range by a large margin, but I may be headed toward one or the other of those to replace my Zony or L lens. Still, have to keep an eye on this new Sony offering if the price comes down below the amazing Sigma 24-105 (Nikon) I own (used, going for around $650 in Canon EF mount).
Dec 13, 2017 at 03:17 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Gunzorro wrote:
Looking forward to your views and maybe some examples, Steve. Same for danv13.
I've got a nice original Canon 24-105L (UY, 2010 manufacture) that is great at all focal lengths, especially 24mm (correctable barrel and CA). I've opted not to buy the latest L, reports and tests indicating not much, if any, overall optical improvement. Mine is pretty great at f/6.3 at all focal lengths. I bought it used for $715, and today could find a comparable one for around $500 or less, making it an amazing bargain.
The main reasons I use my very good copy of Zony 24-70/4 over the Canon is 1) native mount/AF, 2) terrific color and contrast, and 3) smaller/lighter than L + MC-11. But I always miss the L's range and sharpness.
The newer 24-70GM clobbers any of these lenses and rivals/equals the latest Canon 24-70L II in IQ, but those are both in another league and cost range by a large margin, but I may be headed toward one or the other of those to replace my Zony or L lens. Still, have to keep an eye on this new Sony offering if the price comes down below the amazing Sigma 24-105 (Nikon) I own (used, going for around $650 in Canon EF mount). ...Show more →
Keep in mind the difference in size. The Sony will be smaller than all the other 24-105 f/4 lenses. With the adapter on the Canon MK I, the Sony is about a third of a pound less weight and 18mm shorter. The Sony is over half a pound lighter and 29mm shorter than the Canon MK II with an adapter, and the Sony is about three quarters of a pound lighter, 29mm shorter and 5mm less fat than the Sigma with an adapter. So, in use on a Sony camera the Sony lens is definitely smaller. In fact both the Canon MKII and the Sigma Art with adapters are heavier and longer than the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8, and the Canon MKI with the adapter is just a tiny bit lighter (50g) and a tiny bit shorter (3mm) than the f/2.8 GM lens. So, if you find the Sony G 24-105 f/4 almost on the border of being too big as I do, then the Canon and Sigma alternatives size is definitely a drawback.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Keep in mind the difference in size. The Sony will be smaller than all the other 24-105 f/4 lenses. With the adapter on the Canon MK I, the Sony is about a third of a pound less weight and 18mm shorter. The Sony is over half a pound lighter and 29mm shorter than the Canon MK II with an adapter, and the Sony is about three quarters of a pound lighter, 29mm shorter and 5mm less fat than the Sigma with an adapter. So, in use on a Sony camera the Sony lens is definitely smaller. In fact both the Canon MKII and the Sigma Art with adapters are heavier and longer than the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8, and the Canon MKI with the adapter is just a tiny bit lighter (50g) and a tiny bit shorter (3mm) than the f/2.8 GM lens. So, if you find the Sony G 24-105 f/4 almost on the border of being too big as I do, then the Canon and Sigma alternatives size is definitely a drawback....Show more →
I'd say the Canon L zoom is "on the border" but not over it. Keep in mind, I shoot with the battery grip so weight is well distributed -- better than hand holding 17TSE while trying to shield out errant light sources with one hand! Ha-ha!
I'm very comfortable with the 12-24G on one body/grip, and a single prime on the other body grip to carry around on jaunts. As you say, the GM is about equivalent to the L, and I don't find that lens too big or heavy, although I truly enjoy what I consider "small" lenses like the Loxia 21, 35 and 50. I'd really like a nice 24-70 (or 105) on one body/grip and the 12-24 on another for a wide net to catch 95% of what I'm interested in.
We all have different approaches and comfort levels, so it's interesting to find out more about other photographer's gear and methods.
Spend ~ $500 more to get slightly better AF since native, little bit less size wise since don't need to factor in adapter, and about the same image quality?
So if not shooting anything fast pace which I am not. Look more at canon L or sigma for now. Then maybe in year+ if these come down in price on used market then look into changing to a native piece of glass?
Spend ~ $500 more to get slightly better AF since native, little bit less size wise since don't need to factor in adapter, and about the same image quality?
So if not shooting anything fast pace which I am not. Look more at canon L or sigma for now. Then maybe in year+ if these come down in price on used market then look into changing to a native piece of glass?
We should not make general assumptions based on only one copy. It would be great if @RCicala at LensRentals compares at least a dozen of 24-105/4s from Sony, Canon and Sigma.
Dec 13, 2017 at 10:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Spend ~ $500 more to get slightly better AF since native, little bit less size wise since don't need to factor in adapter, and about the same image quality?
So if not shooting anything fast pace which I am not. Look more at canon L or sigma for now. Then maybe in year+ if these come down in price on used market then look into changing to a native piece of glass?
Well, the price difference is only there if you compare new to used. That is really apples to oranges. The price of the a new Canon 24-105 f/4 II is $1,100 and when you factor in the adapter you really aren't saving anything, and you are getting a larger lens (a half pound heavier and 29mm longer) that really is no better. So, if you want to buy new, then I think the Sony seems like a much better choice. It is early but that is what it seems. Now if you want to buy used, you don't really have a choice to by a used Sony at this point, so Canon does provide a used option that Sony does not, but that is always the case whenever a new lens comes out. You either have to wait a year or two until used lenses drop in price or shell out the dough for a new one. Also keep in mind not everyone agrees that the new Canon 24-105 MKII is no better than the old one. Lots of people seem to think the new one is better and the Sony is at least that good, so if you want a deal on the Canon you will have to get a MK I and you may not be getting quite the same image quality.
Fred Miranda wrote:
We should not make general assumptions based on only one copy. It would be great if @RCicala@ at LensRentals compares at least a dozen of 24-105/4s from Sony, Canon and Sigma.
The reviewer mentioned that the lens tested was the best of three he had ordered.
I just ordered the FE 24-105/4 from Greentoe.. I'll do some comparisons to my Minolta 28-135/4-4.5 which I occasionally use when I don't have the time to change lenses. Whichever one is better I will keep and the other will go up for sale.
