RoamingScott wrote:
No offense to anyone, but if you aren't a seasoned post processor, the 24-105 produces middling images. With a little massaging in post, they really shine. I think that's where most of the complaints stem from.
The photographer makes the image. A lens might have some nice characteristics and some flaws, but to say that a lens makes middling images that must then be fixed in post to become good is, I feel, to almost completely miss the point of photography as an artform.
Flavourdynamic wrote:
The photographer makes the image. A lens might have some nice characteristics and some flaws, but to say that a lens makes middling images that must then be fixed in post to become good is, I feel, to almost completely miss the point of photography as an artform.
That's your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. The 24-105 lacks a lot of contrast out of the box that can only be rectified in post. There's literally no way around that.
That is why many folks chase the white whale of lenses that offer exceptional microcontrast. I frankly don't mind putting in a little work after the fact to get close to the same point.
RoamingScott wrote:
That's your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. The 24-105 lacks a lot of contrast out of the box that can only be rectified in post. There's literally no way around that.
That is why many folks chase the white whale of lenses that offer exceptional microcontrast. I frankly don't mind putting in a little work after the fact to get close to the same point.
Well,I don't put more PP behind images taken with 24-105G compared to 12-24/2.8 GM,24-70/2.8 GM,70-200/2.8 GM,16-35/4 ZA,100-400/4.5-5.6 GM or 70-300/4.5-5.6G.The amount of PP is rather low and pretty the same with all those Sony zoom lenses,though they differ here and there in overall redition.Yes,it lacks a tad of microcontrast compared to the GMs,but I do not treat 24-105/4 G pictures in any special way because of this.
Photography is a creative endeavor done using tools. These tools must be viewed and used as a system. If you are shooting RAW in your system post processing is a part of it as much as the camera and lens are. In that sense if you get the results you want from the system the having to bump contrast a bit in PP is a non issue.
If your system is that you shoot in JPEG then your system doesn't include PP. However you can still adjust contrast of the JPEG in the Creative Effect applied to the image in camera. This also makes small differences in contrast of a Lens a non issue for the system.
So in my opinion small differences in a component in the system that are easy addressed are not a big thing. Vibrance, contrast can be addressed easily. Issues like focus speed, accuracy, and resolution cannot. So I value those things and the shooting experience most. In these essential components of the system, I find the 24-105 to be an excellent performer. I have never been dissapointed in an image I shot with it that are the result of lens characteristics.
p.23 #16 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
Peire wrote:
Well,I don't put more PP behind images taken with 24-105G compared to 12-24/2.8 GM,24-70/2.8 GM,70-200/2.8 GM,16-35/4 ZA,100-400/4.5-5.6 GM or 70-300/4.5-5.6G.The amount of PP is rather low and pretty the same with all those Sony zoom lenses,though they differ here and there in overall redition.Yes,it lacks a tad of microcontrast compared to the GMs,but I do not treat 24-105/4 G pictures in any special way because of this.
If only i knew your method for getting those vidiv satured images, getting closer, but i know you still have something up your sleeve i haven't found yet
p.23 #20 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
Early morning light casts warm shadows on the Cordillera Mountain Range in the Andes crossing from Argentina to Chile.
Repost from General Picture thread.
