p.30 #11 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
zeitlos wrote:
There are no words to adequately describe the magnificent qualities of this picture.. All I can say is: ART.
Thank you very much, Stefan! Yes, I had that lens for several years. But I didn't say anything about that lens in my post of your thread. The 24m-105mm lens delivered in gobs in my usage but I ended up getting the 24-70mm f/2.8 II that I like a little bit better, mostly due to the f/2.8 aperture. Yes, the 24-105mm has more range on the long end but in real life photography, the difference is not that significant. As matter of fact, I prefer getting the additional 4mm on the wide end than 35mm on the long end. I am referring to the 20-70mm lens in this case, the one on your consideration list.
p.30 #12 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
Thank you very much, Stefan! Yes, I had that lens for several years. But I didn't say anything about that lens in my post of your thread. The 24m-105mm lens delivered in gobs in my usage but I ended up getting the 24-70mm f/2.8 II that I like a little bit better, mostly due to the f/2.8 aperture. Yes, the 24-105mm has more range on the long end but in real life photography, the difference is not that significant. As matter of fact, I prefer getting the additional 4mm on the wide end than 35mm on the long end. I am referring to the 20-70mm lens in this case, the one on your consideration list....Show more →
Thank you. Joshua! I appreciate it a lot.
I don't want to take this thread off-topic.Just one question. So it was more or less just the aperture of 2.8 of the GMII that made you like it a bit more than the 24-105? Not really image quality?
p.30 #13 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
zeitlos wrote:
Thank you. Joshua! I appreciate it a lot.
I don't want to take this thread off-topic.Just one question. So it was more or less just the aperture of 2.8 of the GMII that made you like it a bit more than the 24-105? Not really image quality?
Hi Stefan, yes, mostly it is about the faster aperture, resulting in better isolation of the subject. Is there any IQ difference between the two? For landscape purposes, since you stop down to their aperture sweet range, the answer to your question is "no". But if you are doing people photography, not necessarily portraits, then yes, I prefer the GM lens. Keep also in mind that there is a huge price difference between the two lenses and yes, there is also a gap in the production/development period between the two. So, it depends what you have in mind and what your goal is. As I mentioned in your different thread, for landscape purposes the 20-70mm is impressive albeit only at f/4 and that's currently my go to lens for that genre of photography, where, again, I stop the lens down to f/5.6 - f/11 anyway. I hope this answers your question. Good luck!
p.30 #14 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
Here's my 2 cents on this - for what it's worth (probably less than 2 cents )
There are people who have posted on this thread that they really like their 24-105, others have not been so impressed. I have had 1 copy of the 24-105 since 2018 and generally think it's a pretty good lens - for its age (and I have my fingers crossed for a soon to be upgrade). Mine does show weakness at the long end, but that is pretty typical of zooms, and at the wide end, it's pretty good, but does not measure up to a prime (vs Loxia 25)
When the 20-70 came out, many people, both reviewers and here, gave some pretty high praise to that lens. When a friend got one to evaluate I was able to shoot it side-by-side with my 24-105 one afternoon. I did not shoot a bunch of charts under laboratory controlled conditions, but rather a representative landscape scene. It was an overlook that looked out over a town with mountains in the background. Mostly at f8, I used a tripod. There was a lot of detail there to look at and compare at common focal lengths of 24, 50 and 70mm.
Back home on my computer (an older i-mac with a 21" retina display), I saw very little difference between the identical images from the 2 lenses at 100%. zoomed in. Certainly, there wasn't the difference I expected given the fanfare accorded to the 20-70.
From this I have concluded:
a). my 24-105 is above average
b). his 20-70 was below average
c). my vision isn't good enough to see the difference
I kept the 24-105 due to its greater reach
In statistics, we call this "an N of 1", so really, no inference can actually be made from this test that is applicable to the population of 24-105 and 20-70 lenses out there.
p.30 #15 · Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Image Thread
Ooops - I meant to post this on the other 24-105 thread - sorry - didn't see there were 2 such threads so close to each other. Actually, now there are 3!
)
