Re: Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. Just from the videos I've watched over Xmas (I subscribe to their YT channels so it was a time to catch up) : Mads Peter Iversen, Alex Nail (though he and Nigel Dansen prefer the 70-200) and Adam Gibbs (says his 24-120 is his most used lens) who was the winner of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award in 2018. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
One of the main aspects I noticed when looking through websites of the world's top landscape photographers (thanks to this thread I thought it worth an hour of my time over my morning coffee) is that the vast majority use zooms. Full stop. Almost all in the main variants of 16-35 / 24-70 / 24-105 / 70-200 with a smattering of primes or UWA thrown in. Erin Babnik, Thomas Heaton (16-35 & 70-200), Bruno Pisani (UWA, 24-70 and 70-200), Alex Nail (16-35 & 70-200), Daniel Kordan (24mm f/2.8, a 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8) and so on. Quite enlightening.
This will make me re-evaluate my kit though I've been quite happy with my primes up until now I do want to add the Tamron 70-180 when it comes out in a few months and I've been looking for a Canon 24-105 to adapt for a couple of months.
Mads Peter Iversen even has a video on the 24-105 for his brilliant landscape photography : &feature=emb_logo
Quote on/from Adam Gibbs : While some lenses, such as the 24-120mm f/4 zoom that Gibbs often uses, are considered less sharp than the faster f/2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, Gibbs doesn't consider this an issue for his work. He often shares his images online and with prints. Even with a large print, customers don't stand right up against them and analyze the sharpness, they stand at least a few feet back and enjoy the work. To this end, he considers the 24-120mm f/4 zoom plenty sharp. Plus, it's more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 with respect to focal length.
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
As the saying goes, if it's good enough for them ......
Thought I'd just add this video of Adam Gibbs on lenses :
Re: Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. Just from the videos I've watched over Xmas (I subscribe to their YT channels so it was a time to catch up) : Mads Peter Iversen, Alex Nail (though he and Nigel Dansen prefer the 70-200) and Adam Gibbs (says his 24-120 is his most used lens) who was the winner of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award in 2018. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
One of the main aspects I noticed when looking through websites of the world's top landscape photographers (thanks to this thread I thought it worth an hour of my time over my morning coffee) is that the vast majority use zooms. Full stop. Almost all in the main variants of 16-35 / 24-70 / 24-105 / 70-200 with a smattering of primes or UWA thrown in. Erin Babnik, Thomas Heaton (16-35 & 70-200), Bruno Pisani (UWA, 24-70 and 70-200), Alex Nail (16-35 & 70-200), Daniel Kordan (24mm f/2.8, a 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8) and so on. Quite enlightening.
This will make me re-evaluate my kit though I've been quite happy with my primes up until now I do want to add the Tamron 70-180 when it comes out in a few months and I've been looking for a Canon 24-105 to adapt for a couple of months.
Mads Peter Iversen even has a video on the 24-105 for his brilliant landscape photography : &feature=emb_logo
Quote on/from Adam Gibbs : While some lenses, such as the 24-120mm f/4 zoom that Gibbs often uses, are considered less sharp than the faster f/2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, Gibbs doesn't consider this an issue for his work. He often shares his images online and with prints. Even with a large print, customers don't stand right up against them and analyze the sharpness, they stand at least a few feet back and enjoy the work. To this end, he considers the 24-120mm f/4 zoom plenty sharp. Plus, it's more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 with respect to focal length.
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
As the saying goes, if it's good enough for them ......
Thought I'd just add this video of Adam Gibbs on lenses :
Re: Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. Just from the videos I've watched over Xmas (I subscribe to their YT channels so it was a time to catch up) : Mads Peter Iversen, Alex Nail (though he and Nigel Dansen prefer the 70-200) and Adam Gibbs (says his 24-120 is his most used lens) who was the winner of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award in 2018. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
One of the main aspects I noticed when looking through websites of the world's top landscape photographers (thanks to this thread I thought it worth an hour of my time over my morning coffee) is that the vast majority use zooms. Full stop. Almost all in the main variants of 16-35 / 24-70 / 24-105 / 70-200 with a smattering of primes or UWA thrown in. Erin Babnik, Thomas Heaton (16-35 & 70-200), Bruno Pisani (UWA, 24-70 and 70-200), Alex Nail (16-35 & 70-200), Daniel Kordan (24mm f/2.8, a 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8) and so on. Quite enlightening.
This will make me re-evaluate my kit though I've been quite happy with my primes up until now I do want to add the Tamron 70-180 when it comes out in a few months and I've been looking for a Canon 24-105 to adapt for a couple of months.
Mads Peter Iversen even has a video on the 24-105 for his brilliant landscape photography : &feature=emb_logo
Quote on/from Adam Gibbs : While some lenses, such as the 24-120mm f/4 zoom that Gibbs often uses, are considered less sharp than the faster f/2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, Gibbs doesn't consider this an issue for his work. He often shares his images online and with prints. Even with a large print, customers don't stand right up against them and analyze the sharpness, they stand at least a few feet back and enjoy the work. To this end, he considers the 24-120mm f/4 zoom plenty sharp. Plus, it's more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 with respect to focal length.
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
As the saying goes, if it's good enough for them ......
Re: Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. Just from the videos I've watched over Xmas (I subscribe to their YT channels so it was a time to catch up) : Mads Peter Iversen, Alex Nail (though he and Nigel Dansen prefer the 70-200) and Adam Gibbs (says his 24-120 is his most used lens) who was the winner of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award in 2018. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
One of the main aspects I noticed when looking through websites of the world's top landscape photographers (thanks to this thread I thought it worth an hour of my time over my morning coffee) is that the vast majority use zooms. Full stop. Almost all in the main variants of 16-35 / 24-70 / 24-105 / 70-200 with a smattering of primes or UWA thrown in. Erin Babnik, Thomas Heaton (16-35 & 70-200), Bruno Pisani (UWA, 24-70 and 70-200), Alex Nail (16-35 & 70-200), Daniel Kordan (24mm f/2.8, a 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8) and so on. Quite enlightening. This will make me re-evaluate my kit.
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
Mads Peter Iversen even has a video on the 24-105 for his brilliant landscape photography : &feature=emb_logo
Quote from Adam Gibbs : While some lenses, such as the 24-120mm f/4 zoom that Gibbs often uses, are considered less sharp than the faster f/2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, Gibbs doesn't consider this an issue for his work. He often shares his images online and with prints. Even with a large print, customers don't stand right up against them and analyze the sharpness, they stand at least a few feet back and enjoy the work. To this end, he considers the 24-120mm f/4 zoom plenty sharp. Plus, it's more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 with respect to focal length.
As the saying goes, if it's good enough for them ......
Re: Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. Just from the videos I've watched over Xmas (I subscribe to their YT channels so it was a time to catch up) : Mads Peter Iversen, Alex Nail (though he and Nigel Dansen prefer the 70-200) and Adam Gibbs (says his 24-120 is his most used lens) who was the winner of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award in 2018. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
One of the main aspects I noticed when looking through websites of the world's top landscape photographers (thanks to this thread I thought it worth an hour of my time over my morning coffee) is that the vast majority use zooms. Full stop. Almost all in the main variants of 16-35 / 24-70 / 24-105 / 70-200 with a smattering of primes or UWA thrown in. Erin Babnik, Ted Gore, Waite, Bruno Pisani (UWA, 24-70 and 70-200), Alex Nail (16-35 & 70-200), Daniel Kordan (24mm f/2.8, a 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8) and so on. Quite enlightening. This will make me re-evaluate my kit.
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
Mads Peter Iversen even has a video on the 24-105 for his brilliant landscape photography : &feature=emb_logo
Quote from Adam Gibbs : While some lenses, such as the 24-120mm f/4 zoom that Gibbs often uses, are considered less sharp than the faster f/2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, Gibbs doesn't consider this an issue for his work. He often shares his images online and with prints. Even with a large print, customers don't stand right up against them and analyze the sharpness, they stand at least a few feet back and enjoy the work. To this end, he considers the 24-120mm f/4 zoom plenty sharp. Plus, it's more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 with respect to focal length.
As the saying goes, if it's good enough for them ......
Re: Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
Jan 01, 2020 at 11:05 PM
Previous versions of Frogfish's message #15095328 « Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work? »
