After using many slow f/4 zooms over the decades, I stopped buying them once I realized they gave me no joy. It doesn’t make sense, but using a 2.8 zoom like the 24-70 makes me happier taking pictures and viewing the results. I’m even happier using fast primes. Get what makes you want to take images and if you’re not getting the images you like, change lenses. Good luck!
doc4x5 wrote:
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.
Of course one might consider doing something novel and looking through the 10+ billion images currently on Flickr/Smugmug.
Here's a link to the dozens of 20mm lens groups available:
DaveFP wrote:
Funny how many people prefer words to images when it comes to photography.(In theory a visual medium)
ha ha .. right?
I've often wondered this myself - when we have threads with tens of pages of advice, but no image to support any opinion.
But in this case, OP's best bet is to rent both and try them out before plonking down $2000+ on the 24-70 GM ii.
I actually bought it and returned it after a week - nothing wrong with it .. it wasn't anything special like the 70-200 GM ii is.
boshek wrote:
Using the A1 I can always go into crop mode and get to 105 easily
In the same view, you can get to 150 with the 24-105. I personally never rely on cropping to get more reach...much rather have the right lenses as I quite often need all the pixels I can get.
I guess I'm just an old goat, but trying to make a lens purchase decision based on images on the web just seems a bit less than helpful. I'm clearly trying to be polite but the bottom line is unless you show me a print, or better yet a few prints, I'm not terribly interested in trying to judge a lens based on web imaging. I do not often quote Kevin Raber but he says "unless you can hold it in your hands, it's not a photograph." Of course I post on Facebook like everyone else just for the ooh's and ahhs but I evaluate a lens in two ways, the prints it produces and the tests done by people I respect who measure things with numbers, not feelings, eg Lens Rentals, Optical Limits, and Lens Tip. When I've seen a print, and look at the numbers, then I feel I can evaluate a lens. Examples of faults, eg purple fringing are helpful even in web imaging so I'll grant that. For most of us, photography is a fun hobby, not a profession. Everyone should have what they want, within the limits of their finances and they should enjoy what they do. If it's painful, it's bad!
chez wrote:
In the same view, you can get to 150 with the 24-105. I personally never rely on cropping to get more reach...much rather have the right lenses as I quite often need all the pixels I can get.
Indeed, while turning the A1 into an APC-S camera is justified in some rather special circumstances, using this camera in the crop mode any considerable length of time is a questionable approach. It would be a misuse of the A1 and, in a way, a waste of the money invested into the camera.
sidius wrote:
Do you think that's worth giving up the 70-105 focal range then?
For me? No. If I'm at the Grand Canyon or I feel I need 105mm? I would miss that with a 24-70. If you don't need f2.8? Go for the 24-105 and save some money. If you need a faster prime? Then get a Samyang fast prime with the money saved.
I bought the Sony 24-105 when I went from Nikon to Sony in 2018. Then the only lens the store that I bought it from, Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope, was the 24-105. The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 was out of stock. And the Sony 24-70 f2.8 was far out of my price range.
I bought my gear from them that day because that's when the A7III was a hot comodity and no one had any in stock. The day I visited them, I know the owner, they just received 3 A7III's and two were sold. I was the 3rd.
AZHeaven wrote:
For me? No. If I'm at the Grand Canyon or I feel I need 105mm? I would miss that with a 24-70. If you don't need f2.8? Go for the 24-105 and save some money. If you need a faster prime? Then get a Samyang fast prime with the money saved.
I bought the Sony 24-105 when I went from Nikon to Sony in 2018. Then the only lens the store that I bought it from, Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope, was the 24-105. The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 was out of stock. And the Sony 24-70 f2.8 was far out of my price range.
I bought my gear from them that day because that's when the A7III was a hot comodity and no one had any in stock. The day I visited them, I know the owner, they just received 3 A7III's and two were sold. I was the 3rd. ...Show more →
So your vote would be the 24-105 and a prime then?
junglialoh wrote:
Thanks to sharing to your opinion. Every advice will help to decide for our decision.
Oh man why did you delete your nice landscape images
I was joking, but the joke seems to have been lost in translation .. sorry for the misunderstanding
saaketham wrote:
Oh man why did you delete your nice landscape images
I was joking, but the joke seems to have been lost in translation .. sorry for the misunderstanding
His landscape images were very meaningless snaps, so the deletion is no loss.
As someone who just bought a 24-70/2.8 GM II and already have a 24-105/4 I would say the 24-105 is by far the most flexible "general" lens to have because of the added reach, lower cost, and OSS (which I do find more effective than in camera IBIS, but YMMV).
You will probably already know if you need the speed of the faster lens, but don't get sucked into the bokeh obsession -- an F4 lens can obliterate backgrounds perfectly well with the right compositions, and for most "general" shooting you'll probably be using a smaller aperture than f/4 anyway. And these days as extra stop of ISO is not really a big deal.
I only bought the 24-70 because I'm increasingly doing gigs in low light that is already taxing on my ISO tolerance and fast prime lenses are not always a good solution in fast-changing situations. A 24-70/2.8 is a bread and butter photojournalism lens and having owned one for 10+ years when I shot Canon I learned that it really is not a great general purpose or travel lens.
I also once owned a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and can confirm that loss of 4mm on the wide end is a deal killer and very frustrating. After all, you can crop slightly to effectively get more reach. You can't un-crop to go wider!
doc4x5 wrote:
I guess I'm just an old goat, but trying to make a lens purchase decision based on images on the web just seems a bit less than helpful. I'm clearly trying to be polite but the bottom line is unless you show me a print, or better yet a few prints, I'm not terribly interested in trying to judge a lens based on web imaging. I do not often quote Kevin Raber but he says "unless you can hold it in your hands, it's not a photograph." Of course I post on Facebook like everyone else just for the ooh's and ahhs but I evaluate a lens in two ways, the prints it produces and the tests done by people I respect who measure things with numbers, not feelings, eg Lens Rentals, Optical Limits, and Lens Tip. When I've seen a print, and look at the numbers, then I feel I can evaluate a lens. Examples of faults, eg purple fringing are helpful even in web imaging so I'll grant that. For most of us, photography is a fun hobby, not a profession. Everyone should have what they want, within the limits of their finances and they should enjoy what they do. If it's painful, it's bad!...Show more →
There are certainly caveats associated with judging a lens with web images.
That said I generally find such images more helpful than basing my conclusions of a lens’ rendering from comments on a forum.
(Often contributed by folks with no images to support their opinion)
My guess is that the overwhelming majority of new lens purchases are made on that very basis.
I going to be polite when I say that Raber’s notion that "unless you can hold it in your hands, it's not a photograph" strikes me as a bit laughable.
To adopt Raber’s outlook is to categorically deny the value of every image that exists in digital form; no matter its artistic merit.
(It also raises the question: If it is not a photograph what is it?)
I would encourage you to take the opportunity to assess you own work on a professional 4K monitor that has been properly calibrated.
You would be amazed at how close the visual perception of images comes close to paper when doing so.
(If anything paper is far more forgiving than a 4K or 5K monitor is)
Of course the physical (and emotional) act of holding a piece of paper is, in and of itself, a very different thing than gazing at a monitor; that cannot be denied.
Numbers - I don’t care too much about numbers.
I have found that many of my least impressive lenses (from a technologist's perspective) are readily capable of helping me create emotive images.
By way of example I purchased the Canon 85 and 135L new instead of the GMs as I find their overall rendering to be superior despite the fact that they cannot compete with the GMs when it comes to graphs.
I wonder how the lenses of the acknowledged “first tier” (HCB, Lange, Salgado, etc.) of photographers would test.
Imagine how much better their work would be if they had GMs !
“For most of us, photography is a fun hobby, not a profession. Everyone should have what they want, within the limits of their finances and they should enjoy what they do. If it's painful, it's bad!”
