Reading mode: Light Dark

24-70mm gm or 24-105mm

Go to last post
Bonsainz said:
TLopez said:
G master, all day, every day.
Click to expand...
Why do you say G Master every day, have you seen results of a much better lens, or is it just it’s a GMaster?
Click to expand...
The lousy 4/24-105mm G only lens seems to be a splendid performer - mine is...
LD Photography said:
From results I’ve seen not much between them, and both have there uses, your comment like this surprised me so early after release of the 24 105.
Click to expand...
And regarding the maximum f/4 aperture of the 24-105 G lens, doubt that any serious portrait photographer will use this lens as the prime portrait lens.

For more causual portraits (like those family and friends settings) f/4 and f/5.6 and f/8 have served quite well here. If needed the 1.8/55 pops out of my pocket... ;-)

In my case the 4/24-105 G is serving very well, solid perfomance for a zoom, a bit more reach than the 2.8/24-70, and some weight saved. Very happy with mine.

If more seriously into portraits, for half portraits get a fine and fast 50mm lens, and for thighter portraits get a fast 85mm lens. Perfectly perceived perspective require the right lens for the job.

For all round use a single lens, like the 85mm, would be very lacking...
 
WELL, I TOOK already pictures of my Gm to post them on eBay, and after getting the 24-105 hopefully will even keep some money on my pocket. Is true I’m undecided but I’m not really happy with the gm, I just don’t see that sharpness everybody is talking about!, maybe because I was use to shot with primes? Don’t know. My lenses today are zeiss 55, fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8.
 
24-105FE G
24-105FE G

A whole 3 pages of discussion and not a photo yet. So here is my tree again, seems ok to me. Must get the a7mk 3 some time. Sold my 70-300 FE g as 98% of my pics were below 100mm after analysis. This lens is more than good enough for me, but I am not fussy and a very average photographer.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
www.flickr.com

canterbury

Explore canterbury’s 936 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
TatoCharrua said:
WELL, I TOOK already pictures of my Gm to post them on eBay, and after getting the 24-105 hopefully will even keep some money on my pocket. Is true I’m undecided but I’m not really happy with the gm, I just don’t see that sharpness everybody is talking about!, maybe because I was use to shot with primes? Don’t know. My lenses today are zeiss 55, fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8.
Click to expand...
Those primes are hard to beat. Zooms are always a compromise of convenience versus image quality.

If you want a step up from 55/1.8 and 85/1.8 then check out the Voigtlander 65 macro. It has the potential to replace all three of your lenses, if you don't mind manual focus. (It did for me, sold my otherwise wonderful FE 55/1.8 and Batis 85).
 
reyvis said:
24-105FE G
24-105FE G

A whole 3 pages of discussion and not a photo yet. So here is my tree again, seems ok to me. Must get the a7mk 3 some time. Sold my 70-300 FE g as 98% of my pics were below 100mm after analysis. This lens is more than good enough for me, but I am not fussy and a very average photographer.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
https://www.flickr.com/photos/canterbury/
Click to expand...
You're right about the 3 pages of discussion, but your image looks very fuzzy to me. Or to be more precise, fuzzy and then maybe a wee bit oversharpened. In particular, as it's been shot at the middle of the zoom range.

OTOH, I've actually been seeing quite sharp images coming from this lens, at least at 24 mm.
 
This is entirely down to your use,

pro build and an extra stop etc, will outweigh the weight and bulk if you are a pro event photographer,

over the next year or two I intend to do a lot of landscapes, I am looking at the 24-105/4 to use in conjunction with my 12-24 as a 2 lens combo, for me the extra reach means I can just about get away with 2 lenses, don’t need the extra stop or pro build, and from what I have seen the IQ is more than satisfactory for landscapes

I have debated between the 2 for some time now, the GM is a wonderful lens, but I will be lugging around that big bugger for the occasional time I will need it, I decided that adding excellent 35 & 50mm primes to the f4 zooms is a better option than 2.8 zooms, is I will end up with the 12-24/4, 24/105 & 70-300 zooms then the 35 & 50 1.4 to go with my 80batis
 
BBQue said:
TatoCharrua said:
WELL, I TOOK already pictures of my Gm to post them on eBay, and after getting the 24-105 hopefully will even keep some money on my pocket. Is true I’m undecided but I’m not really happy with the gm, I just don’t see that sharpness everybody is talking about!, maybe because I was use to shot with primes? Don’t know. My lenses today are zeiss 55, fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8.
Click to expand...
Those primes are hard to beat. Zooms are always a compromise of convenience versus image quality.

If you want a step up from 55/1.8 and 85/1.8 then check out the Voigtlander 65 macro. It has the potential to replace all three of your lenses, if you don't mind manual focus. (It did for me, sold my otherwise wonderful FE 55/1.8 and Batis 85).
Click to expand...
Indeed, is why I believe the 24-105 will suit me more for when traveling. I ‘m more than happy with the 55 and 85, don’t think I will give up the eye Af for maybe a bit of better quality that only zooming 2 to 1 will be noticeable.

I have several minoltas md’s including the 58 1.2 , and a very interesting Russian ones with very strong personalities :).
 
Unless of course you have the 100 stf which is actually a 5.6 lens with stunning bokeh?

Cheers
 
The 24-105 F4 is a great travel lens with the added advantage of being prime sharp unless viewed at 100% and compared to lenses like the 55 1.8.

I'm still waiting to see direct comparisons of it against the 24-70 2.8 GM. I would hope and expect the GM to be sharper but I think people are going to be rather surprised ;)

The choice as always is easy: If you have deep pockets, buy the very best. If you are a professional who gets paid for their work, buy the very best.

Everyone else will have to decide which compromises they are willing to accept.

Cheers
 
Arcimboldo said:
reyvis said:
24-105FE G
24-105FE G

A whole 3 pages of discussion and not a photo yet. So here is my tree again, seems ok to me. Must get the a7mk 3 some time. Sold my 70-300 FE g as 98% of my pics were below 100mm after analysis. This lens is more than good enough for me, but I am not fussy and a very average photographer.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
https://www.flickr.com/photos/canterbury/
Click to expand...
You're right about the 3 pages of discussion, but your image looks very fuzzy to me. Or to be more precise, fuzzy and then maybe a wee bit oversharpened. In particular, as it's been shot at the middle of the zoom range.

OTOH, I've actually been seeing quite sharp images coming from this lens, at least at 24 mm.
Click to expand...
I did not have the correct lens profile yet via dxo. But just noticed that today it has automatically downloaded a sigma 24-105 dg os equivalent, which has improved the image clarity from the above image. Still not the correct profile ! No sharpening on the original image applied.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
www.flickr.com

canterbury

Explore canterbury’s 936 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
reyvis said:
24-105FE G
24-105FE G

A whole 3 pages of discussion and not a photo yet. So here is my tree again, seems ok to me. Must get the a7mk 3 some time. Sold my 70-300 FE g as 98% of my pics were below 100mm after analysis. This lens is more than good enough for me, but I am not fussy and a very average photographer.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
https://www.flickr.com/photos/canterbury/
Click to expand...
No part of that tree that is in focus.



--
¡Viva la Resolución!
www.flickr.com

David Francis Panno

Explore David Francis Panno’s 1,779 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com

flickrhivemind.net

Diese Domain steht zum Verkauf!
flickrhivemind.net

Flickriver: David F. Panno's most interesting photos

Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...
www.flickriver.com www.flickriver.com
(On Flickriver check "Scale to Fit Screen" in the upper left drop-down menu)
 
DFPanno said:
reyvis said:
24-105FE G
24-105FE G

A whole 3 pages of discussion and not a photo yet. So here is my tree again, seems ok to me. Must get the a7mk 3 some time. Sold my 70-300 FE g as 98% of my pics were below 100mm after analysis. This lens is more than good enough for me, but I am not fussy and a very average photographer.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
https://www.flickr.com/photos/canterbury/
Click to expand...
No part of that tree that is in focus.

--
¡Viva la Resolución!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfpanno/
http://flickrhivemind.net/User/David F. Panno/Interesting
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/dfpanno/popular-interesting/
(On Flickriver check "Scale to Fit Screen" in the upper left drop-down menu)
Click to expand...
It seems focused at front tree branches. Also its FL is at 64mm not 24mm that could affect sharpness and DOF plays a role here. Foliage and grass usually post a challenge to any cameras for tack sharpness. From my perspective as said earlier I still prefer a 24-70 f2.8 zoom and here a 100% cropped sample.

with EF 24-70L/2.8 II, focused at remote center not at side trees

with EF 24-70L/2.8 II, focused at remote center not at side trees

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
http://pwphotography.zenfolio.com
 
Last edited:
reyvis said:
Arcimboldo said:
reyvis said:
24-105FE G
24-105FE G

A whole 3 pages of discussion and not a photo yet. So here is my tree again, seems ok to me. Must get the a7mk 3 some time. Sold my 70-300 FE g as 98% of my pics were below 100mm after analysis. This lens is more than good enough for me, but I am not fussy and a very average photographer.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
https://www.flickr.com/photos/canterbury/
Click to expand...
You're right about the 3 pages of discussion, but your image looks very fuzzy to me. Or to be more precise, fuzzy and then maybe a wee bit oversharpened. In particular, as it's been shot at the middle of the zoom range.

OTOH, I've actually been seeing quite sharp images coming from this lens, at least at 24 mm.
Click to expand...
I did not have the correct lens profile yet via dxo. But just noticed that today it has automatically downloaded a sigma 24-105 dg os equivalent, which has improved the image clarity from the above image. Still not the correct profile ! No sharpening on the original image applied.

--
Sony A7 with 24-105 and 16-35
https://www.flickr.com/photos/canterbury/
Click to expand...
A lens profile should not change anything for the better with respect to resolution (as opposed to acuteness) in the center. But actually, I cannot find sharpness anywhere in the picture, not even in the grass where one would expect that even with misfocussing or field curvature there should be some sharpness somewhere to be found.
 
I agree. On examination it does look as you have described. I am going to revisit that tree. I have tested the lens via the Jim kasson lens test procedure and it comes out fine. So it is me( I hope). The addition of the lens profile does alter the image. Not sure what went wrong. I shall also use my trusty 16-35 to compare. I rarely pixel peep, so now is the time as this is a new lens.
 
reyvis said:
I agree. On examination it does look as you have described. I am going to revisit that tree. I have tested the lens via the Jim kasson lens test procedure and it comes out fine. So it is me( I hope). The addition of the lens profile does alter the image. Not sure what went wrong. I shall also use my trusty 16-35 to compare. I rarely pixel peep, so now is the time as this is a new lens.
Click to expand...
 
Many thanks for your thoughts. I am used to the 16-35 which I find is really good even just on auto. I shall have to take a little bit more care. I have been spoilt and rather lazy in my approach. I shall also get the A7 mark 3 shortly, although I do not need it with my approach of shoot with anything, anyway and hope for the best. Even the iphone gets battered ( shudder).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top