p.4 #1 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
You have nicely summed up what makes this lens so special for landscape and hiking.
GregS wrote:
I just summitted Kilimanjaro in October with a 24-105 -- worked flawlessly, and it was pretty spicy at the top (unseasonably cold/tons of snow/high winds). I had the camera and lens attached to my pack shoulder harness via a Peak Design Clip the entire 8 days of the climb so the camera was always at the ready. The camera and lens saw lots of dust, intermittent rain, never ending wind, and didn't skip a beat. Also had it on safari (dust, dust and more dust), and again, worked great.
Most importantly, I got some great images, a few of which I already have printed at A2.
I also had the Batis 18 on the climb (left it in my porter bag on summit night), and it was a great combo. I brought a table top tripod and got some good astro shots with the Batis at a few of our camps.
I like the 24-105 plus Batis 18 combo for climbing and hiking. The Batis is very light. The 24-105 is not light, but its usefulness is unmatched.
For me, when I do landscapes, it usually means I'm doing a multi-day trip, and there's no way I'm schlepping around a bunch of primes (and repeatedly exposing the sensor to dust during lens swaps) to eek out some 1 - 3% difference. If the light is good and I compose a good shot, my image will look good, and no one (except internet pixel peepers who spend more time pixel peeping than shooting and printing) is going to notice the difference between the 24-105 and a 24 GM or Loxia 25....Show more →
p.4 #2 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
GregS wrote:
I just summitted Kilimanjaro in October with a 24-105 -- worked flawlessly, and it was pretty spicy at the top (unseasonably cold/tons of snow/high winds). I had the camera and lens attached to my pack shoulder harness via a Peak Design Clip the entire 8 days of the climb so the camera was always at the ready. The camera and lens saw lots of dust, intermittent rain, never ending wind, and didn't skip a beat. Also had it on safari (dust, dust and more dust), and again, worked great.
Most importantly, I got some great images, a few of which I already have printed at A2.
I also had the Batis 18 on the climb (left it in my porter bag on summit night), and it was a great combo. I brought a table top tripod and got some good astro shots with the Batis at a few of our camps.
I like the 24-105 plus Batis 18 combo for climbing and hiking. The Batis is very light. The 24-105 is not light, but its usefulness is unmatched.
For me, when I do landscapes, it usually means I'm doing a multi-day trip, and there's no way I'm schlepping around a bunch of primes (and repeatedly exposing the sensor to dust during lens swaps) to eek out some 1 - 3% difference. If the light is good and I compose a good shot, my image will look good, and no one (except internet pixel peepers who spend more time pixel peeping than shooting and printing) is going to notice the difference between the 24-105 and a 24 GM or Loxia 25....Show more →
p.4 #3 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Blueshound wrote:
What I really most wanted to add here is that, IMO, where the 24-105 lacks compared to "better" lenses is micro-contrast. Assuming the camera + lens nails focus, what I find myself often needing to enhance in post is just that. Micro-contrast is often the first step to a finished image that appears sharp to the eye.
Brian
I use mostly ON1 for maybe 75% of my processing now and it has an excellent Micro Contrast panel (small, medium, large) and I now mask out the areas I don't want to adjust and just use the micro-contrast controls. I rarely touch the Sharpening panel now. I like the results much better and it's easier to control.
p.4 #4 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Frogfish wrote:
I use mostly ON1 for maybe 75% of my processing now and it has an excellent Micro Contrast panel (small, medium, large) and I now mask out the areas I don't want to adjust and just use the micro-contrast controls. I rarely touch the Sharpening panel now. I like the results much better and it's easier to control.
Exactly! I also frequently use On1 RAW (as a plugin in PS CC) and like it quite a bit. We're referring, I believe, to the Dynamic Contrast Filter, which I generally dial down just a bit, and most often limit its' use to Medium size contrast, zeroing the Large & Small contrast sliders. I also mask out the areas where I don't want contrast enhancement to be applied.
In the old days I would add local contrast in PS, but On1's Effects module has some very good filters, and it's masking is very good. I've never used the Develop module, so can't speak to that.
I rarely sharpen beyond basic intake sharpening when doing RAW development in LR CC, unless it's output sharpening for print. Most images seem to benefit more from local contrast.
p.4 #5 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Blueshound wrote:
Exactly! I also frequently use On1 RAW (as a plugin in PS CC) and like it quite a bit. We're referring, I believe, to the Dynamic Contrast Filter, which I generally dial down just a bit, and most often limit its' use to Medium size contrast, zeroing the Large & Small contrast sliders. I also mask out the areas where I don't want contrast enhancement to be applied.
In the old days I would add local contrast in PS, but On1's Effects module has some very good filters, and it's masking is very good. I've never used the Develop module, so can't speak to that.
I rarely sharpen beyond basic intake sharpening when doing RAW development in LR CC, unless it's output sharpening for print. Most images seem to benefit more from local contrast.
Brian
...Show more →
Yes indeed, the Dynamic Contrast Filter. I tried to use terminology most people would understand since I'm assuming most don't use ON1
ON1 has excellent masking, layers and effects modules, it's just the clone tool that let's them down and I use other programs for further cloning work if anything is needed beyond dust spots.
p.4 #6 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
IMO, most judgements about micro-contrast in an image for the purpose of comparing lenses are likely influenced by lighting conditions. In flat lighting, a prime will also show lack of bite.
Luvwine wrote:
Most examples I have seen show that unless the prime lens is the exact focal length you want for your composition, then the zoom will have the advantage in sharpness once you crop the prime as the loss of pixels will make up for any lack of sharpness in the lens. In many cases one cannot "zoom with your feet" as if you are standing on the bank of a lake or river, or what have you, you need to shoot from where you are. Having said this, I do see sometimes a "flatness" (as mentioned above) in the rendering of the 24-105 in particular. I even commented on one of Ronnie Olsen's fine images about this in the past as it lacked something that, say, the older C/Y 100-300 has. I suspect it is a lack of micro contrast tho these types of terms are hard to define. All lenses are compromises. The 24-105 and similar lenses are usually "sharp enough" and immensely convenient. At times, as when you don't want to change lenses due to conditions or when you need to travel light, they may be the ideal choice. That being said, I don't own one and only own one zoom currently (and that for Fuji). Sometimes one's lens choices are not the most practical choice. Primes are usually sharper, I like their rendering better, and I like the ability to mix and match what lenses I want to take on a given mission. Nothing beats a small prime when one wants to be really compact and when one does not need different focal lengths. Sun stars and filter use also play into my selection of lenses. I have avoided the fine Sigma 14-24 and sold my Sony 12-24 due to inconvenience with filters. I would rather use other UWA lenses like those from Laowa where filter use is possible. Choose your poison. No lens is perfect--size, convenience, price, rendering, filter use, sharpness, all require trade offs....Show more →
p.4 #7 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
So based on this thread, what’s the point of buying better lenses? Should we all just get rx100s and call it a day? The 24-105mm f4 is a good mid range zoom but the lack of micro contrast and flatness is pretty apparent in this lens when I had it twice in the past. With better lenses, there’s more latitude in the post processing too.
p.4 #8 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
I think there is a valid point here for much travel, street and day-to-day photography but not for genres such as landscape or portraiture. I bought the original RX100 at launch and still find it an impressive little machine. It has now gone to my wife, who loves it, and I've finally been tempted to upgrade to the version 4, which is sufficient for my needs although I did think about getting a later version with the bigger range. After due consideration I decided that speed trumped range so the v4 it was. On our next R&R holiday we shall both make do with our little cameras alone and see how we get on.
tzhang4284 wrote:
So based on this thread, what’s the point of buying better lenses? Should we all just get rx100s and call it a day? The 24-105mm f4 is a good mid range zoom but the lack of micro contrast and flatness is pretty apparent in this lens when I had it twice in the past. With better lenses, there’s more latitude in the post processing too.
p.4 #9 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
tzhang4284 wrote:
So based on this thread, what’s the point of buying better lenses? Should we all just get rx100s and call it a day? The 24-105mm f4 is a good mid range zoom but the lack of micro contrast and flatness is pretty apparent in this lens when I had it twice in the past. With better lenses, there’s more latitude in the post processing too.
So why is it then that many of the world's great landscape photographers use a variation of that lens ? And not only that zoom but the vast majority use 16-35 and 70-200 variants too. There are many reasons why better, faster primes can be preferred (my bag is full of primes) but it's not because the 24-105s (or other top zooms) are lacking anything that can't be solved in PP. That may have been the case in past decades but zooms have come a long way.
p.4 #10 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Frogfish wrote:
So why is it then that many of the world's great landscape photographers use a variation of that lens ? And not only that zoom but the vast majority use 16-35 and 70-200 variants too. There are many reasons why better, faster primes can be preferred (my bag is full of primes) but it's not because the 24-105s (or other top zooms) are lacking anything that can't be solved in PP. That may have been the case in past decades but zooms have come a long way.
I’m talking specifically about the Sony 24-105mm f4 - I don’t care about the variations of it from other manufacturers. I looked at my pictures from that lens and comparing it to other zooms I’ve had over the years and found the pictures to be flat and lacked micro-contrast or clarity. The Sony 35mm f2.8 had similar issues in this regard from my experience with it.
p.4 #11 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Four pages, a lot of details, opinions, personal preferences with most providing justification/reasoning to support their position. Jack, you did a good job summarizing your beliefs a page back and based upon that and these pages you hopefully have been able to gather enough input to develop an acceptable answer to your original question.
While landscape photography has remained a passion over the years, my now 66 year old frame has necessitated a few changes to lighten the load in the field while trying to maintain familiar FLs etc. My backpack is now Sony, but the two go to lenses are still the 24-105 ƒ4 and 16-35 ƒ4. Rarely but on occasion depending on venue, either a CV 12mm or the 70-200 is added.
Keep shooting, and above all the noise, have fun being out there
p.4 #12 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
tzhang4284 wrote:
I’m talking specifically about the Sony 24-105mm f4 - I don’t care about the variations of it from other manufacturers. I looked at my pictures from that lens and comparing it to other zooms I’ve had over the years and found the pictures to be flat and lacked micro-contrast or clarity. The Sony 35mm f2.8 had similar issues in this regard from my experience with it.
It's incredibly easy to fix the lower contrast output from this lens and make some real gems with it with only a little post processing, and that thread proves the lens isn't the thing holding back great photos.
p.4 #14 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Frogfish wrote:
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. Just from the videos I've watched over Xmas (I subscribe to their YT channels so it was a time to catch up) : Mads Peter Iversen, Alex Nail (though he and Nigel Dansen prefer the 70-200), Matt Payne and Adam Gibbs (says his 24-120 is his most used lens) who was the winner of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award in 2018. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
One of the main aspects I noticed when looking through websites of the world's top landscape photographers (thanks to this thread I thought it worth an hour of my time over my morning coffee) is that the vast majority use zooms. Full stop. Almost all in the main variants of 16-35 / 24-70 / 24-105 / 70-200 with a smattering of primes or UWA thrown in. Erin Babnik, Thomas Heaton (16-35 & 70-200), Bruno Pisani (UWA, 24-70 and 70-200), Alex Nail (16-35 & 70-200), Daniel Kordan (24mm f/2.8, a 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8) and so on. Quite enlightening.
This will make me re-evaluate my kit though I've been quite happy with my primes up until now I do want to add the Tamron 70-180 when it comes out in a few months and I've been looking for a Canon 24-105 to adapt for a couple of months.
Mads Peter Iversen even has a video on the 24-105 for his brilliant landscape photography : &feature=emb_logo
Quote on/from Adam Gibbs : While some lenses, such as the 24-120mm f/4 zoom that Gibbs often uses, are considered less sharp than the faster f/2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, Gibbs doesn't consider this an issue for his work. He often shares his images online and with prints. Even with a large print, customers don't stand right up against them and analyze the sharpness, they stand at least a few feet back and enjoy the work. To this end, he considers the 24-120mm f/4 zoom plenty sharp. Plus, it's more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 with respect to focal length.
Quote from Matt Payne : Sony FE 24-105. This lens is shockingly good. I was skeptical at first when I got this lens; however, I have never had any problems using this lens for landscape work. It's quite sharp and the 24-105 focal range makes it a very versatile weapon in my arsenal of lenses. I really enjoy this lens. https://www.mattpaynephotography.com/gallery/
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
As the saying goes, if it's good enough for them ......
Thought I'd just add this video of Adam Gibbs on lenses :
Tough to argue with what you say, however most of us aren't pros who do this for livelihood and don't depend on churning out images whether for workshops or YouTube videos. When I look at my LR catalog and my 24-105 for 2019 I took 657 images with it. 297 were at 24mm and 253 were at 105mm. So for me personally I'm going to experience carrying something like a Loxia 21, 50, and 85 or something like that. Maybe a Batis 25, 40, and 135. All of these lenses are far more capable for Astro than an F4 zoom and will give me better edge to edge results. The Loxia setup is extremely lightweight and compact. ESPECIALLY if I've planned ahead and know what shot in going for, then I can just take one 315 gram prime. Horses for courses for sure.
p.4 #15 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
There is no comparison between the speed of using a 24-105 in fast changing light, and constantly swapping prime lenses.
I love and enjoy my primes, but I typically carry one camera with a zoom (generally the 18-135 on a 6500) and one with my best MF primes. When I have time I swap lenses, when I don't, I use the zoom.
Lots of talented photographers but when I compare the images I’m seeing in that thread vs those in the batis or loxia threads, I see a noticeable difference in the overall punchiness and color in those images. Lots of reasons to own a zoom (i use them too) but I do think color and contrast is lacking when I compare images from the 24-105mm vs other lenses that cranking the clarity, vibrancy, and saturation sliders doesn’t really change.
Depending on what the op is planning on photographing, it may not matter but the difference is there.
p.4 #18 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Might be a good idea to try to rent one. Invariably these types of threads turn into back and forth between opposing points of view (and the spectrum in between.)
While I prefer primes, I find that the 24-105 is one of the few zoom lenses I use (along with the 100-400.)
-Tim
Jack Thompson wrote:
Question for my landscape photographer brethren shooting Sony. I'm re-evaluating my landscape lens choices and I'd love some feedback.
For years I shot a 24 TS-E on 5DII then adapted to an A7R. It was complimented by C/Y 35-70. This was my kit for long hikes/backpack trips. I've since swapped out the 24 TS-E with a Sony 16-35 F4 and upgraded to the RII. I live in the desert and tend to shoot in conditions that do not favor lots of lens changes and in that regard, I've been really happy with the 16-35, very versatile, the autofocus is welcome when the conditions are changing fast. I had an accident with my 35-70 and have been considering what will replace it before just repeating myself with the C/Y.
But as happy as I am with the 16-35, I've been considering ditching it for the 24-105, and maybe supplementing it on the wide end like a Batis 18. This combo seems really versatile for hiking/backpacking. I've thought about the Tampon 17-28 and 28-70 but honestly I think I'll be changing lenses more than I'd like. Any thoughts?...Show more →
p.4 #19 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
I have been happy with the Sony 24-105 and Sony 12-24. Between those two lenses I can cover most of my needs.
If I am going to add a prime to bring with me for landscapes my go to is the Canon 17 MM TS. This lens is what convinced me to get a Sony Camera, and I am extremely happy with it.
If I need low light I have the CV 40mm f1.2 and CV 21mm f1.4. Between these 5 lenses I can cover most of my landscape needs. I just wish Sony made a 100-300 f4 to complete my kit.
