snegron7 wrote:
I own a Canon R6II, and I also own a Sony A7iv. I was debating whether to buy a Sony 24-105mm f4.0 to use on my Sony A7iv, OR buying a Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II.
I opted for the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II.
I will not be getting a Sony 24-105mm f4.0 for either my Sony A7iv or A7c anytime soon. This is because I chose to buy the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II instead.
I was hoping there was something I had not figured out.
I've had the 24-105/4 RF since the R5 about 5 years ago. It's a good lens, but not quite what it could be.
Tests indicate that the Sony is roughly equal or worse, so it does not make sense for me to get one for the 67MP which is tough on zoom lenses if one wants it sharp all over. The 24-120 S Nikkor is probably the best of the OEM zooms, but Nikon is so screwed up I'm not going there at this point.
EB-1 wrote:
I was hoping there was something I had not figured out.
I've had the 24-105/4 RF since the R5 about 5 years ago. It's a good lens, but not quite what it could be.
Tests indicate that the Sony is roughly equal or worse, so it does not make sense for me to get one for the 67MP which is tough on zoom lenses if one wants it sharp all over. The 24-120 S Nikkor is probably the best of the OEM zooms, but Nikon is so screwed up I'm not going there at this point.
EBH
Funny you should mention that about Nikon! I was briefly pondering the idea of getting rid of my Sony gear (again) and going with Nikon. But from all the complaints I've read, plus my past negative experience with the D750, I'm probably going to stick with my Canon and Sony gear for now.
johnctharp wrote:
That's exactly the point - it's an old clanker, but when your output consists of some cropping then exporting to social media, it's difficult to imagine that improvements to 'sharpness' would have any effect at all. Even at f/4, at both ends of the zoom range, I've been surprised at the level of detail.
If the newer versions improve on basically everything, well, it's hard to see them then as perhaps lacking except when compared to higher-end lenses in niche scenarios IMO.
I think that’s a pretty fair point — the “old flanker” actually performed quite well. It had some weaknesses, in particular vignetting at 24mm, some barrel/pincushion distortion at 24mm and 105mm, and slightly less sharpness at 105mm. But the first two are easily dealt with in post (in the same way that software-dependent lenses do it now) and the latter was minor and balanced against the larger FL range a decent trade-off.
I’m petty much with folks who say that if the utility of a 24-105m f/4 appeals, most folks should just get the one for the system they have and be happy with it.
