RoamingScott wrote:
Those are great. I'd personally never trade the 24mm wide end for 28mm since 24 can even be a bit too tight sometimes. The R4 has enough cropability to make up for "only" 105mm on the long end.
Very valid point! Especially for landscapes, the difference between 24mm and 28mm is substantial. This is what I have been wrestling with. For my personally, and this of course varies by photographer, I have found that a disproportionate amount of my unique/original compositions have been on the telephoto end (to be fair, I am often taking landscape photos in popular places), but I will admit that most of the best images that I have taken are < 105mm.
I have also done the math, and cropping 105mm down to 200mm with a 42MP sensor gives you a 12MP image, and with a 61MP sensor gives you a 17MP image. So yes, a lens going all the way to 200mm like the Tamron will give you more resolution this far out...but on the other hand, consider that the M43 cameras only go to 20MP and the highly-regarded Canon R6 also only goes to 20MP. So even at 17MP, you are barely worse off as far as pixels go versus other camera systems.
jakesherman wrote:
Very valid point! Especially for landscapes, the difference between 24mm and 28mm is substantial. This is what I have been wrestling with. For my personally, and this of course varies by photographer, I have found that a disproportionate amount of my unique/original compositions have been on the telephoto end (to be fair, I am often taking landscape photos in popular places), but I will admit that most of the best images that I have taken are < 105mm.
I have also done the math, and cropping 105mm down to 200mm with a 42MP sensor gives you a 12MP image, and with a 61MP sensor gives you a 17MP image. So yes, a lens going all the way to 200mm like the Tamron will give you more resolution this far out...but on the other hand, consider that the M43 cameras only go to 20MP and the highly-regarded Canon R6 also only goes to 20MP. So even at 17MP, you are barely worse off as far as pixels go versus other camera systems. ...Show more →
Or you can just brute force it like I do and take the 100-400 along with the 24-105 for maximum coverage and much cursing on the trails
jakesherman wrote:
I love this lens, it takes great pictures and has accompanied me on some great trips. I'm considering selling it since I also have the Tamron 28-200 now. Sonyalpha.blog rates the Sony better than the Tamron on the A7R IV sensor, but the difference is fairly small on the A7R II/III sensors.
Here are some of my favorite shots taken with this lens over the last year:
RoamingScott wrote:
Or you can just brute force it like I do and take the 100-400 along with the 24-105 for maximum coverage and much cursing on the trails
Yes that works too but as I aim to hike long distances, I try and bring less to keep that cursing to a minimum.
This lens is easily my most used. Everything from studio shots to travel. Much better image quality than I anticipated when I ordered it, but has taken tens of thousands of images for me over the past 3 years.
p.19 #11 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
Shot with 12 megapixel a7SIII, 24-105mm f/4, with PolarPro Variable ND Mist edition (hybrid shooting). Shows that for most purposes resolution and sharpness does NOT matter. https://i.imgur.com/m6YAwnE.jpg
p.19 #12 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
KwongFineArt wrote:
Shot with 12 megapixel a7SIII, 24-105mm f/4, with PolarPro Variable ND Mist edition (hybrid shooting). Shows that for most purposes resolution and sharpness does NOT matter. https://i.imgur.com/m6YAwnE.jpg
Nice sense of scale but the focus of the cliffs looks inconsistent.
Cliffs top left are blurry compared to the cliffs mid far right?
p.19 #13 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
what a great thread! Some really astonishing images! I am new to Sony and have been looking at this lens. I shoot mostly telephoto for wildlife but do some wide stuff now and then. I am getting the new 14mm 1.8 for astro and unique wide work and am considering the 24-105 or the 24-70. I noticed the majority of shots that folks listed the focal length used they are mostly under 70mm and most of those are under 50mm. It seems most use this lens at the shorter end. With that in mind pairing to the 14mm I wonder if the 24-105 or the 24-70 would make a better pairing?
p.19 #15 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
TX-Photog wrote:
what a great thread! Some really astonishing images! I am new to Sony and have been looking at this lens. I shoot mostly telephoto for wildlife but do some wide stuff now and then. I am getting the new 14mm 1.8 for astro and unique wide work and am considering the 24-105 or the 24-70. I noticed the majority of shots that folks listed the focal length used they are mostly under 70mm and most of those are under 50mm. It seems most use this lens at the shorter end. With that in mind pairing to the 14mm I wonder if the 24-105 or the 24-70 would make a better pairing?...Show more →
What most folks do shouldn't affect you, buy the lens with the reach you need. That's my evergreen advice to anyone about lenses.
p.19 #20 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
TX-Photog wrote:
what a great thread! Some really astonishing images! I am new to Sony and have been looking at this lens. I shoot mostly telephoto for wildlife but do some wide stuff now and then. I am getting the new 14mm 1.8 for astro and unique wide work and am considering the 24-105 or the 24-70. I noticed the majority of shots that folks listed the focal length used they are mostly under 70mm and most of those are under 50mm. It seems most use this lens at the shorter end. With that in mind pairing to the 14mm I wonder if the 24-105 or the 24-70 would make a better pairing?...Show more →
If you're mostly outdoors then the 24-105 IMO -- smaller, lighter, cheaper, greater range, and still a very good lens. I'd not read too much into the images here -- they're predominantly landscape shots that will always be at the wider end. If you're indoors a lot then the f/2.8 lenses have an obvious advantage in lower light, but otherwise I'd take the greater range of the 24-105 any day.
but as I aim to hike long distances, I try and bring less to keep that cursing to a minimum. 
