I'm looking to pick up a midzoom to use with my Sony 16-35 GM.
I'm mostly going to use the standard zoom range for travel, family trips and events.
The obvious answer is the 24-105 with the longer focal range but I do find a good percentage of my photos are candid family/people as much as they are scenes.
Now that the GM II and 24-105 are practically the same size and weight it now comes down to f2.8 vs f.4 and the extended range. The price is a factor but I imagine if I bought the GM II it wouldn't be up for replacement for another 5-6 years (assuming lens cycles).
I did consider the Sigma 24-70 but I think it's weight will annoy me.
The Tamron G2 and Sigma 28-70 were also considerations but having 24mm does feel like a sensible idea. Please challenge my thinking if you disagree!
If you can stand the weight go for the Tamron 35-150 as it is truly superb. I have it paired with the 16-35GM on a 2nd body and though this doesn't make for a lightweight kit it offers and fantastic range and IQ. Also having f2 at 35mm is really useful for family and low light shooting. Really worth considering and IMO the ultimate event lens
Viramati wrote:
If you can stand the weight go for the Tamron 35-150 as it is truly superb. I have it paired with the 16-35GM on a 2nd body and though this doesn't make for a lightweight kit it offers and fantastic range and IQ. Also having f2 at 35mm is really useful for family and low light shooting. Really worth considering and IMO the ultimate event lens
I would love to get the Tamron 35-150 but I just know the size and weight will be too much for me.
It's about the same size as my Tamron 70-180 (but heavier) and I couldn't have that hanging from my neck all day. For event photography I could definitely imagine it working though.
Fair play to you for managing its size and weight, I envy you!
sidius wrote:
I would love to get the Tamron 35-150 but I just know the size and weight will be too much for me.
It's about the same size as my Tamron 70-180 (but heavier) and I couldn't have that hanging from my neck all day. For event photography I could definitely imagine it working though.
Fair play to you for managing its size and weight, I envy you!
First, you may want to try a different method of carrying your camera. A FF camera with a lens like the 24-105 G "hanging from my neck all day" can be rather awkward and tiring. Consider using a wrist strap and carrying the camera in a bag. I personally like holster bags.
Overall, I find Tamron 35-150 is a much more useful lens compared to the 24-105. I stopped using the latter since acquiring the Tamron eight months ago. To answer your question, between the 24-70 GM and 24-105 G, the former would be my choice because of the maximum aperture f2.8. If/when both a fast aperture and the extra rich are needed, then the Tamron is the best option to pair with the 16-35 GM.
The 24-105 G f4 is a sharp lens which is probably used closed to f5.6 - 11 most times. Even wide open to f4 this is a lens which is relatively "slow", and it would not work well for those uses when a smooth out-of-focus background is desirable. I find the 24-105 G is a relatively boring zoom, unlike the Tamron 35-150 which is an exciting and highly stimulating lens to use.
I just read here on the FM Sony forums someone sold their 24-105 for the 24-70 f2.8 GMII because it's just sharper all around. And that's saying a lot since the 24-105 is a pretty sharp lens.
AZHeaven wrote:
I just read here on the FM Sony forums someone sold their 24-105 for the 24-70 f2.8 GMII because it's just sharper all around. And that's saying a lot since the 24-105 is a pretty sharp lens.
If you have the money? Go for the 24-70 GMII.
Do you think that's worth giving up the 70-105 focal range then?
Do you think that's worth giving up the 70-105 focal range then?
You can help yourself answer that question by checking through your catalog of photos and finding out how many photos you take at those focal lengths. Another consideration is the megapixel count of your camera. If it's a Sony A1/A7RIV then you could crop in to make up for the reduced focal length range. Also, how often do you shoot at high ISO? Would you benefit from the extra stop of light gathering from the F2.8. The latter is not so much an issue with current day cameras which all have excellent ISO capabilities.
Personally, I own the 24-105. I think I would miss the 70-105 focal length.
dakel wrote:
You can help yourself answer that question by checking through your catalog of photos and finding out how many photos you take at those focal lengths. Another consideration is the megapixel count of your camera. If it's a Sony A1/A7RIV then you could crop in to make up for the reduced focal length range. Also, how often do you shoot at high ISO? Would you benefit from the extra stop of light gathering from the F2.8. The latter is not so much an issue with current day cameras which all have excellent ISO capabilities.
Personally, I own the 24-105. I think I would miss the 70-105 focal length.
I own the A7 IV - I always assume thats more similar to the A7 III over an R model for cropping powers.
I've owned a 24-105 a long time on another system. I just checked Lightroom and I funnily enough shot a lot at 24mm and 105mm (with some in the middle). The classic shooting at the extreme of the zoom eh.
sidius wrote:
I own the A7 IV - I always assume thats more similar to the A7 III over an R model for cropping powers.
I've owned a 24-105 a long time on another system. I just checked Lightroom and I funnily enough shot a lot at 24mm and 105mm (with some in the middle). The classic shooting at the extreme of the zoom eh.
That’s so true, many shoot their zooms at the two extremes, or very close to them.
focal length / aperture is a preference thing. These threads are going in circles because nobody can tell others if they will miss 24-28mm, 70-105mm, f/2.8, a lighter lens, etc.
focal length / aperture is a preference thing. These threads are going in circles because nobody can tell others if they will miss 24-28mm, 70-105mm, f/2.8, a lighter lens, etc.
If anyone is unable to tell others that, they have no clue themselves and need to get out and shoot more, IMHO. Buy a lens, shoot the hell out of it, figure out what you love and hate, and move to the next lens that suits your preferences better.
Strangers won't have one bit of input that ultimately sticks when all of this comes to down to subjective preferences and needs.
RoamingScott wrote:
If anyone is unable to tell others that, they have no clue themselves and need to get out and shoot more, IMHO. Buy a lens, shoot the hell out of it, figure out what you love and hate, and move to the next lens that suits your preferences better.
Strangers won't have one bit of input that ultimately sticks when all of this comes to down to subjective preferences and needs.
/rant over
I disagree, others can share their experiences and context to help others along the way.
A large part of forums like this is sharing advice on equipment.
If everyone just bought lenses, tried them and moved on we wouldn't have a forum (and a lot of poor people )
I've appreciated what others have shared, hopefully that makes sense.
sidius wrote:
I disagree, others can share their experiences and context to help others along the way.
A large part of forums like this is sharing advice on equipment.
If everyone just bought lenses, tried them and moved on we wouldn't have a forum (and a lot of poor people )
I've appreciated what others have shared, hopefully that makes sense.
It does make sense, but asking this question when 100 threads just like it exist and are easily searchable does not Nothing has changed since those threads were made.
And if you've ever visited the buy/sell forum, it's populated with people who are constantly testing and divesting.
sidius wrote:
I disagree, others can share their experiences and context to help others along the way.
A large part of forums like this is sharing advice on equipment.
If everyone just bought lenses, tried them and moved on we wouldn't have a forum (and a lot of poor people )
I've appreciated what others have shared, hopefully that makes sense.
What is your conclusion, are you getting the 24-70 GMII or 24-105 ?
According to sonyalpha.blog, 24-70/2.8 GM II is great from 24-50mm, while 24-105/4 G is uniformly good in all focal length. It is a choice upon personal taste. I do not see visible difference in their grading rate between Outstanding and Excellence. As 24-105mm F4G user, It attract me who use most focal range between 24-50mm range. Each one has own purpose to choose which lens, so it is depended upon personal need. For me, I wish I can get 24-70mm F2.8GM II in a few years later (price down almost half and after reading numerous review from here and there), just hopefully due to beyond my budget.
RoamingScott wrote:
If anyone is unable to tell others that, they have no clue themselves and need to get out and shoot more, IMHO. Buy a lens, shoot the hell out of it, figure out what you love and hate, and move to the next lens that suits your preferences better.
Strangers won't have one bit of input that ultimately sticks when all of this comes to down to subjective preferences and needs.
/rant over
It's all ridiculous honestly... yet we are still here reading and responding
You are right... of course... only the poster "should" know if he/she needs wider, longer, faster or lighter.
No one is going to convince me what is best for me...
Looking at one's catalog to see what focal lengths are used mot often effectively eliminates new lenses... If you don't have a 20, you won't have any images shot with a 20 and so on. At that rate one will never get a new lens, only duplicate what one already has and we all know content is what matters, not exquisitely sharp corners.
A good option for people stuck on a decision is to rent and try. I had surprises when I started to use recently acquired lenses, after spending lots of hours in research and analysis. I didn't enjoy using the Sigma 24-70DG DN mainly because of the weight/front heavy (and while pictures were good overall, I wasn't particularly impressed. Maybe I didn't get a perfect copy). I love shooting with the 70-200 II which is heavier than the Sigma. But the handling and results put a smile in my face.
)