scrappydog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #14 · Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)? | |
zeitlos wrote:
I recently bought the new Sony A7 V. I haven't used a standard zoom lens in a long time, and I'd like to get one for my next trip.
Currently, I'm considering the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II, the Sony 20-70mm f/4, and the Sony 24-105mm.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II is significantly more expensive than the others. After Sony's recent promotions, the 24-105mm is currently available new for around €650. I could get the 20-70mm for around €900 new after promotions, and the Sony 24-70mm GM II for around €2100.
I'm not a wide-angle photographer, so I'm not sure if the 20-70mm makes sense for me. I know that the 4mm difference in wide-angle photography is quite significant. Plus, the 20-70mm is nice and compact.
I'm also aware that the difference between 70mm and 105mm isn't all that substantial, or that it can be compensated for by cropping. But if you want/need to crop even more, then 105mm is definitely better again 
I have reservations about the 24-105mm because it's getting on in years and is probably the weakest of the three optically. Perhaps it won't be a suitable choice for 2025/26?
What do you think? It's not just the price that's appealing. I imagine the focal length would be very practical.
I could also go for the superzooms from Sigma/Tamron, but I think that would just tempt me to photograph everything and everyone, because (almost) anything is possible with that focal length. I don't like this approach. Wouldn't it be better to use a few less lenses and be more deliberate about it?
Perhaps someone has experience using these lenses while traveling. And especially the 24-105mm. Is it still up-to-date?...Show more →
The 24-105 is still a good lens. A lot more sharper than the Canon EF equivalent than I used to own, and it is roughly equivalent in sharpness to primes I have tested it against. The image quality is good. I have used it on several trips.
Below is a link to my Flickr page with several 24-105 shots, including travel shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/68498746@N08/albums/72157712520174923/
My spouse has the Sigma 24-70/2.8 and the Sigma 20-200. I have not done a direct comparison to those two lenses, but I think the 24-105 image quality holds up comparatively. The 24-105 is smaller/lighter than the 24-70/2.8 and bigger/heavier than the 20-200. For travel and day to day shooting, I would select the 20-200 or the 24-105. The 20-200 is a pretty good lens, so if you prefer the long end, you may want to consider it, especially given its size and weight.
The downsides of the lens (for me) are that I wish it was a little smaller and lighter, there is a vignette at 24mm, and at f/4, it's a little slow. The upside of the lens is that it is very versatile (especially on the long end), AF is fast and accurate, the IQ is usually good to very good, and it has a consistent f/4 max aperture.
If you review the linked shots above, I was very close to the cheetah (maybe 2m away, and there was no fence), the light was extremely low, I was shooting from my hip level, and the lens performed better than I could have ever expected. The mountains/lake shots were taken in a small, squeaky, plane with very little space and again, the lens performed better than I expected. Those are the kinds of shots that I find are easy to make mistakes, but the lens was reliable and performed well.
|
That brings me back to the question of whether the 24-70 GM II wouldn't be the better solution, to avoid needing another zoom lens later. Although I do already have the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8, which I plan to use for events, etc.
