Just received my rental 24/1.4 and took it out for sunrise to try it out vs my 24-105/4 and 16-35/4. I can definitely see an improvement in detail at the edges with the 24/1.4 but have to say I was not blown away by it in comparison. I stupidly shot the 24-105 only at f/4 from this spot before swapping lenses so that lens is at its absolute weakest (24mm is not its strongest focal length and is wide open). The light shifted too much by the time I got the 16-35 on the camera.
They both look good at the smaller jpg sizes you posted above but when I take the full sized jpgs into LR and do a little pixel peeping the GM 24 shows more resolution and more detail in the corners and shadow areas compared with the 24-105.
I posted the left corners to show the difference. it is obvious from these crops that the GM 24 has more resolution and sharper in the corner and look at the shadow detail in comparison.
Still the 24-105 is no slouch by any means. The convenience of carrying such a verstile zoom can be just what is needed at times. I think you will see a bigger difference between the two with some infinity shots at f/5.6, f/8, f/11 in the mid zone and extreme corners. I tested my 24-105 which is a well centered good copy against my Loxia 25 and GM 24 and the primes were noticably sharper and had more resolution in the mid frame and extreme corners. The Loxia was the overall winner with the GM 24 a very close second.
You're right Chuck - the detail in the corners was far more impressive with the prime. But, as you said, the zoom was no slouch.
Guess I expected an epiphany level difference with some of the examples posted here. Not done playing with the prime and will enjoy it on vacation so can post more examples then.
Still debating bringing the zoom with me but that's a different thread...
Chuck Coyne wrote:
They both look good at the smaller jpg sizes you posted above but when I take the full sized jpgs into LR and do a little pixel peeping the GM 24 shows more resolution and more detail in the corners and shadow areas compared with the 24-105.
I posted the left corners to show the difference. it is obvious from these crops that the GM 24 has more resolution and sharper in the corner and look at the shadow detail in comparison.
Still the 24-105 is no slouch by any means. The convenience of carrying such a verstile zoom can be just what is needed at times. I think you will see a bigger difference between the two with some infinity shots at f/5.6, f/8, f/11 in the mid zone and extreme corners. I tested my 24-105 which is a well centered good copy against my Loxia 25 and GM 24 and the primes were noticably sharper and had more resolution in the mid frame and extreme corners. The Loxia was the overall winner with the GM 24 a very close second.
It would be very interesting to see more comparisons of the two zooms to the 24/1.4 without the variable of the changing light and clouds. It is an excellent set of lenses to compare because it speaks exactly to the trade-offs between convenience (24-105 most convenient, 16-35 next most convenient, 24 least convenient) and image quality (presumably in the reverse order of convenience).
Convience is one thing speed is another. Depends on what you value more given on what, where and what situations you maybe working in. Personally I’ll take speed and primes as my first choice, others want the convience but as you can see sometimes highest IQ is not there. Trade offs for sure and that 24-105 is a nice zoom too. It’s no slouch as it had a pretty darn good range in focal lengths under testing. If I remember correctly I think the 24-105 was quite good at 24. Have to look at the tests to confirm
So really what the idea here is your really going to have to stop down to at least lets say F6.3 on the zoom to equal lets say F2 on the prime. Thats several stops and just something you really need to think about in the field when your shooting and knowing where the landing spot is on your corners if that's what your trying to get. Nothing wrong with these zooms but you just need to know the expectations of them. Now i will say the 24mm 1.4 is a rocket of a lens when corners are that good wide open. Kind of unheard of but Sony really pulled off a winner. Again I don't care what the heck you buy its your money my job as a tester is to just show the facts. Nothing more and this info is all free to you and i dont make a penny off these test. Actually it cost me money in my time and effort but I like to know what this gear can and cannot do for me.
GMPhotography wrote:
So really what the idea here is your really going to have to stop down to at least lets say F6.3 on the zoom to equal lets say F2 on the prime. Thats several stops and just something you really need to think about in the field when your shooting and knowing where the landing spot is on your corners if that's what your trying to get. Nothing wrong with these zooms but you just need to know the expectations of them. Now i will say the 24mm 1.4 is a rocket of a lens when corners are that good wide open. Kind of unheard of but Sony really pulled off a winner. Again I don't care what the heck you buy its your money my job as a tester is to just show the facts. Nothing more and this info is all free to you and i dont make a penny off these test. Actually it cost me money in my time and effort but I like to know what this gear can and cannot do for me. ...Show more →
I hear you about your priorities.
My use case these days for this issue (primes vs. zooms) is traveling. At what point does carrying a bunch of lenses and trying to change them to get the right shot begin to interfere with the pleasure of the trip and the seeing of things for myself and others.
On the other hand, I do believe there is something to be said for making yourself look for the shot that fits the lens you're working with that day. Sometimes zooms=bland. And, anyway, I don't lose any money if I don't get the shot.
My use case these days for this issue (primes vs. zooms) is traveling. At what point does carrying a bunch of lenses and trying to change them to get the right shot begin to interfere with the pleasure of the trip and the seeing of things for myself and others.
On the other hand, I do believe there is something to be said for making yourself look for the shot that fits the lens you're working with that day. Sometimes zooms=bland. And, anyway, I don't lose any money if I don't get the shot.
Kind of a catch 22 for sure especially travel situations. In my case i went really small MF lenses, I mean really small CV 12,21,40,50 and a Leica 75. Ill show you folks my new bag setup here once i get the bag today. I merged 2 bags into one with different dividers and bags.
Any milky way shots with it yet? Debating between the sigma 14mm and this lens (panos and single frames) for that purpose. I also have the 16-35gm but prefer faster
chiron wrote:
My use case these days for this issue (primes vs. zooms) is traveling. At what point does carrying a bunch of lenses and trying to change them to get the right shot begin to interfere with the pleasure of the trip and the seeing of things for myself and others.
On the other hand, I do believe there is something to be said for making yourself look for the shot that fits the lens you're working with that day. Sometimes zooms=bland. And, anyway, I don't lose any money if I don't get the shot.
I'm sorry if I took this thread on a tangent but will address this question.
I started off this morning with the 24/1.4 on the a7rIII with the expectation of a nice sunrise. Got to this familiar location and was rewarded with great clouds and light. But found the 24mm focal length to be just 'wrong' compositionally. I took two shots for comparison purposes (not these) and then switched to the 24-105/4. Shot that at f/8 and got some great compositions - mostly in the 50-105 range. I haven't reviewed all the images yet but have to believe I got at least 4-5 keepers that I will post to my site. I was frustrated with the 24 on and happy with the flexibility of the 24-105 to chase different compositions.
But then the above is the key question in regards to traveling. I rented this lens specifically for travel thinking a 24mm landscape and 36mm crop portrait would be perfect and it is 1/2 the weight of the zoom. But I would have missed the shots I took this morning if all I had was a 24mm and couldn't swap lenses/adjust as the light quickly changed. I was going to travel with just a 24/85/135 but now plan to bring along the 'boring' zoom ;-)
eyal wrote:
I'm sorry if I took this thread on a tangent but will address this question.
I started off this morning with the 24/1.4 on the a7rIII with the expectation of a nice sunrise. Got to this familiar location and was rewarded with great clouds and light. But found the 24mm focal length to be just 'wrong' compositionally. I took two shots for comparison purposes (not these) and then switched to the 24-105/4. Shot that at f/8 and got some great compositions - mostly in the 50-105 range. I haven't reviewed all the images yet but have to believe I got at least 4-5 keepers that I will post to my site. I was frustrated with the 24 on and happy with the flexibility of the 24-105 to chase different compositions.
But then the above is the key question in regards to traveling. I rented this lens specifically for travel thinking a 24mm landscape and 36mm crop portrait would be perfect and it is 1/2 the weight of the zoom. But I would have missed the shots I took this morning if all I had was a 24mm and couldn't swap lenses/adjust as the light quickly changed. I was going to travel with just a 24/85/135 but now plan to bring along the 'boring' zoom ;-) ...Show more →
Well of course this will always be the case as the versatility of a zoom can'r be denied and I have to say that the Sony GM zooms (and the 24-105) are really optically outstanding and in many scenarios are the best option. But then it depends what you want at any one time and I bought the 24GM as a fast everyday walk around lens which I can use as a 36mp f2 lens in crop mode and a night-time lens. If though your main area of work in landscape etc where you don't need the smaller size or fast aperture then the highly capable zooms are the best option.
Well that’s going to happen a lot. Not one focal length will always get the job done. I won’t carry just one lens myself but several. My MF kit is 12,21,40,50,75. Not much I could miss
My AF kit or my work kit is 24,50,85,135. I’m not going to miss anything there either except I may throw my 21 in the bag. But if you feel your 24-105 is boring than get a 35,40 or 50 to pair with your 24. No reason to shoot something you don’t like. To may lens options now
