DaveFP wrote:
That said I generally find such images more helpful than basing my conclusions of a lens’ rendering from comments on a forum.
...
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 hope you see the irony in your statements. There must be ten-thousand comments on how lenses supposedly "render" here on FM alone. Yet hardly ever is there a direct comparison demonstrating such an abstract quality. There is sharpness on axis, sharpness off axis, sharpness varying with aperture and focal length, cat bokeh, onion bokeh, LACA, LOCA, etc, all readily measured and demonstrated with sample images. But as soon as someone talks about abstract rendering quality, demonstration with images seems no longer applicable and measurement is rather obviously not an option. Makes me wonder how often it is rather an imagined quality. Maybe it is related to the 3D pop that some lenses supposedly have, but that apparently can not be shown in a direct comparison.
PS: sorry about the rant, maybe I should take my meds after all...
sidius wrote:
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!
Can anyone offer any input?
I think I'd be quite happy using 28-70, myself? Especially if I had the 16-35 to cover 24mm. 24mm might be nice if it's your only lens I suppose
I'm not a big fan of looking at online images to evaluate lenses. You don't know if you are looking at pp or lenses.
Daran wrote:
I hope you see the irony in your statements. There must be ten-thousand comments on how lenses supposedly "render" here on FM alone. Yet hardly ever is there a direct comparison demonstrating such an abstract quality. There is sharpness on axis, sharpness off axis, sharpness varying with aperture and focal length, cat bokeh, onion bokeh, LACA, LOCA, etc, all readily measured and demonstrated with sample images. But as soon as someone talks about abstract rendering quality, demonstration with images seems no longer applicable and measurement is rather obviously not an option. Makes me wonder how often it is rather an imagined quality. Maybe it is related to the 3D pop that some lenses supposedly have, but that apparently can not be shown in a direct comparison.
PS: sorry about the rant, maybe I should take my meds after all......Show more →
Problems come about because people utilize these terms without really understanding their generally accepted definitions.
A lens’s “rendering” is the sum total of its impact on the image.
(We can use the term “output” if preferred)
Rendering is the product of the design, the materials used, and the construction.
All lenses “render”.
Some of the attributes that contribute to that rendering are measurable; you mentioned a number of them above (e.g. LOCA).
That said the aesthetic appreciation of any given rendering is entirely subjective.
Daran prefers the rendering of the 85 GM. Dave prefers the 85L.
Those preferences are a matter of taste but the various elements that contribute to the differences (and ultimately the preferences) are not.
They are quantifiable.
Mary makes (renders) a beef stew that is savory; Betty’s is sweet.
The elements that contribute to that difference are quantifiable but the preference for one over the other is, again, a matter of taste.
“Bokeh” and “draw” are often misused terms too as they are used interchangeably with “rendering”.
The problem is that they are only components of rendering.
Bokeh is the subjective quality of the out of focus areas.
Draw relates geometric distortions and spatial relationships.
You can like the way a lens draws but not care for its bokeh.
Additionally -
Descriptors such as “3D pop”, “painterly”, “filmic” are all components of rendering.
Many of these terms have different and distinct meanings but they are used interchangeably.
If you try and correct people you’re told it is all a matter of semantics.
ruthenium wrote:
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....Show more →
100% agree with this. I've ditched the neck strap for a Peak Design Clutch hand strap and a sling bag (in my case a thinktank Digital Holster 20 v2) and have found it's a far more comfortable way to carry the camera with any lens (including the Tamron 35-150mm, which just barely fits into the digital holster 20 without extending it). Having anything around your neck gets tiring very quickly, it's far better to distribute that weight across your body.
Maybe a good idea. You seem to have missed my point entirely.
You specifically stated that the "rendering" of the 135L is "superior" to that of the 135GM. I happen to have the latter and read reviews about the former. I challenge your statement. Of course I fully agree that a direct image comparison would be more helpful than your rendering comments on this forum. Which is why I found your original statement hilarious.
Daran wrote:
Maybe a good idea. You seem to have missed my point entirely.
You specifically stated that the "rendering" of the 135L is "superior" to that of the 135GM. I happen to have the latter and read reviews about the former. I challenge your statement. Of course I fully agree that a direct image comparison would be more helpful than your rendering comments on this forum. Which is why I found your original statement hilarious.
I got your point.
If you reread my second post I believe I mentioned, repeatedly, that an aesthetic assessment of rendering is entirely subjective.
Maybe I should have put an "IMO" in there in caps, bold, and italic to stress that it is an opinion but I thought it too obvious to be necessary.
In any case I had both and so my preference was formed by direct experience shooting them back to back.
I know that others here that have done the same preferred the GM. That's fine; no challenge necessary.
That's a good example of why I feel that "a posteriori" experience (or utilizing other people's images) is more useful than reading reviews.
I no longer have the GM but trust me when I say that there is a marked difference in rendering.
I don't think that any experienced photographer would have trouble identifying the two in a blind test.
The GM is, not surprisingly, a far shaper lens for one thing.
For my purposes the L is superior because it is a much kinder portrait lens and that's what I use 135s for.
Didn't watch the video but I have had numerous 24-105s and 24-70 GMs (first version). Used to be:
24-105: works well when reach, size, weight, cost is the priority.
24-70: works well when speed is the priority.
Kept flipping back and forth until for my needs I settled on weight > size > speed > reach > cost and thus went for the 24-105. But with the introduction of the 24-70 GM mk2, as DaveFP put it:
24-105: works well when reach, cost is the priority.
24-70: works well when speed is the priority.
As the weight/size is really close, it's a no brainer for my needs. I switched to the 24-70 GM mk2 and it's awesome.
I used to have both the version 1 of the 24-70 GM and the 24-105. The trade-off of one stop versus additional reach has always been a challenge for me: When I had the former I wanted more reach, while when I had the latter f2.8 would have come in handy from time to time .
I have since sold both. Even though I sometimes miss them, I'm generally happy with my primes for the time being. If I was in the market for zoom these days and could afford it, I probably would go for the GM2, given how Sony managed to slim it down a bit.
I was no fan of the 24-105 and the GM1's weak-mediocre flare performance (even though, they are probably as good or bad as most zooms in that range) and I didn't like the sunstars either. Plus, the GM1 was the only lens that required me to send back two copies until I got a decent one. The first two copies were impressive from 24 through 50mm, but so bad beyond 60mm that the flaws were visible at less than 100% magnification. The third copy was much better, not perfect, though, then again, that's probably an unrealistic expectation with a 24-70 2.8.
I don't know, but it seems - and this may be just my impression from looking at posts here on the forum - that there are fewer complaints about lemons with the GM2 versus the GM1, but that might be simply due to the small sample size.
sidius wrote:
So your vote would be the 24-105 and a prime then?
I've had my Sony 24-105 since 2018 and has been my go to landscape lens. The only reason I haven't purchased a wider angle lens was there have been no affordable options out there at the time. Now, to answer your question, yes, the 24-105 and a prime if that's the route you would like to go. I'm looking at the Sony 20mm f1.8 at the moment. But for versatility I'm also looking at the Sigma 16-28 f2.8. Near the same weight and near the same size.
I use the Sigma 28-70 2.8 dg dn and am quite happy with it. It is quite sharp and has good bokeh. I pair it with the Sony 20mm 1.8 which is a razor sharp wonderful lens And Also make use of the new Viltrox 16mm 1.8; another great UWA lens. The 24-105 is a very good lens if the f4 doesn't limit you. I enjoy the additional f-stop of the f2.8 when I shoot interiors especially when I shoot video. Of course, the 24-105 has stabilization which may be of use to the user. Trying them out is the only way to know what will work for you. People buy and sell lenses all the time. They also buy lenses from retailers and return them within the return period if they don't like them.
I had the 24-105 for years and a great lens. Kind of sterile but a sharp consistent performer. Got bored and used a sigma 24-70 for a while as I thought the rendering was much better. GMii is even better and smaller lighter and less front heavy. I really liked sigma 28-70 rendering but couldn’t deal with 28 at the wide end.
If you can afford it there’s nothing lacking from the GM ii. Expensive though and 24-105 used is a lot of iq/$
I too have looked into many option. I have lately looked at f4 lenses since I bought the 16-35pz which I really like. I came to the conclusion that the 24-70 range might not be for me. I’ve looked and tried a 24-105 but I found it a bit too front heavy. However, I really appreciated the oss.
I had the tamron 35-150 and like it but the weight as a travel lens was just to much. I also ended up using it at f4 or more a lot of the time so I sold it and got a few primes instead.
Reality is there is always a compromise. Weight, speed, price, in the end it is about getting what feels right for oneself.
I think I would enjoy a 24-105 ii if it ever came around.
sidius wrote:
Do you think that's worth giving up the 70-105 focal range then?
Apologies for the long delay. Life got in the way...anyway.
I would say that is personal preference regarding the 70-105 part. That's quite a bit to give up imho. I use the 105mm a lot actually! Would I get use to not having that 35mm? Eventually I guess. But just can't see it.
Now it would be nice if Sony came out with a version 2 of the 24-105.
When I moved over to E Mount I did have a look at my most used focal lengths in Lightroom. The 24-105 covered 80%+ of the images I had taken. I've no regrets with the lens. I think it pairs great with the Sony 20G. I don't use the 24-105 that much anymore (using 20, 40 and 85mm primes mostly now) but I can't bring myself to sell it. The 24-105 is reliable and effective for how and what I shoot when I need it. A true 'minivan lens' to borrow a term.
.