Is the 24-240 acceptable at the long end? Bird sample pics.

In the the discussion between this lens or the RX10IV as alternative you often hear the argument that if you want to take a picture of a bird here and there, the RX10 is so much better. In this particular aspect, I tend to agree, but the 24-240 is not too bad either. Here are some samples that I took to check out how usable it is for that. These are crops from pictures of birds, I would say about 10-12 feet away.

Images look a bit mushy. here are some by Mark Smith that I consider outstanding.

http://photoworkshopsandtours.com/i...-wildlife-photography-workshop-november-2019/

--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com

Nice photos! Here's my DIF (dragonfly in flight).



And BIS (beaver in swim):



I wouldn't ever made this photo with any other lens, because I stepped from my tent to shoot a landscape, and there wasn't time for changing a lens to telephoto.

I think that 24-240 is quite good for occasional shooting on telephoto end.

--
Vladimir Gorbunov

jonpais said:

Images look a bit mushy. here are some by Mark Smith that I consider outstanding.

http://photoworkshopsandtours.com/i...-wildlife-photography-workshop-november-2019/

Click to expand...

Observe that the intention of my posting was to demonstrate the usability of the 24-240 lens at its long end for occasional bird pictures. You will find this information in the headline and the text above the pictures.

I don't think this particular lens was used for the bird images that you refer to.

Dirk W said:

jonpais said:

Images look a bit mushy. here are some by Mark Smith that I consider outstanding.

http://photoworkshopsandtours.com/i...-wildlife-photography-workshop-november-2019/

Click to expand...

Observe that the intention of my posting was to demonstrate the usability of the 24-240 lens at its long end for occasional bird pictures. You will find this information in the headline and the text above the pictures.

I don't think this particular lens was used for the bird images that you refer to.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, but it just reinforces the idea that, to my way of thinking at least - from the casual observation of other successful bird and wildlife images shot with other high resolution sensors - that shooting with a consumer grade slow variable aperture universal zoom and heavy cropping is unsatisfactory. I've shot 4K video with a $700 micro four thirds sensor camera and $250 lens and made screen grabs that had several times the resolution and more pleasing bokeh.

--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com

jonpais said:

Dirk W said:

jonpais said:

Images look a bit mushy. here are some by Mark Smith that I consider outstanding.

http://photoworkshopsandtours.com/i...-wildlife-photography-workshop-november-2019/

Click to expand...

Observe that the intention of my posting was to demonstrate the usability of the 24-240 lens at its long end for occasional bird pictures. You will find this information in the headline and the text above the pictures.

I don't think this particular lens was used for the bird images that you refer to.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, but it just reinforces the idea that, to my way of thinking at least - from the casual observation of other successful bird and wildlife images shot with other high resolution sensors - that shooting with a consumer grade slow variable aperture universal zoom and heavy cropping is unsatisfactory. I've shot 4K video with a $700 micro four thirds sensor camera and $250 lens and made screen grabs that had several times the resolution and more pleasing bokeh.

Click to expand...

I also have and had better lenses for birds. The question is if the 24-240 is kind of capable for that, or not at all.

Micro four thirds (sry, GH5), $239 sigma 60mm f/2.8, 8-megapixel screen grabs from 4K video. Your images are completely lacking any tonal gradations. They're flat and two-dimensional. The backgrounds are nervous looking.











And the only two bird shots I've taken, Veydra 85mm T2.2 with ETC enabled (1.4X crop!, 238mm full frame equivalent) on GH5. Again, screen shots from handheld 4K video, in-camera sharpening dialed all the way down, no sharpening added in post. No unattractive cat's eye bokeh like the GM 135mm!





--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com

Nice pictures, but entirely irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Dirk W said:

Nice pictures, but entirely irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Click to expand...

it is relevant. shooting with a low res lens on a high res sensor then heavily cropping like that results in low image quality.

--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com

Thanks for these samples, which match the results I get in this precise scenario.

at the long end and in optimal lighting, I agree that the RX should be better, no question. It will give you about the same reach as the 24-240 cropped to 1 inch dimensions (i.e 600mm FF equiv), but will do this with almost four times the pixels i.e. twice the linear resolution relative to the cropped A7Rx 42MP/(2.72)^2= 5.7MP sensor, with a better optimised lens and a better optimised AF.

But the interesting point of your OP is that the A7Rx+24-240 results are still acceptable if you do this occasionally. For all other scenarios at shorter focal length and less than optimal lighting, the A7Rx+24-240 will give better results simply because it collects much more light than the RX. So the FF combo is all about an arguably superior versatility.

This is about what I’ve seen from the 240mm end of the 24-240... I get the shot, but it’s not going to be in Nat Geo. For me, the 24-240 is a great zoo lens, where one moment I’m snapshotting my toddlers in our wagon eating some melting ice cream and making a huge mess at 24mm, and the next there’s the elephant 90’ away that I get at 180mm. I bought my 24-240 used for $550... you can’t tell me that’s not a great deal if you’ve got an A7iii.

If I really wanted a birding lens, I’d probably lug an adapted Sigma 150-600 if I really had that interest, and if I’m going to Costa Rica or safari, I’d do the obvious and rent a 100-400 and a 1.4TC, day to day, I don’t need that range ever. For practical purposes living in a large metro with typical blue jays and boring birds in the backyard, I’d use a 70-200/2.8 a lot more than a 100-400 and certainly a 150-600.

The RX10 is darn flexible and does it all nicely, I’d consider it but I like the ability to change the lens occasionally. It’d certainly be easier to justify when it’s marked down under $700 lightly used - it’s not that much smaller/lighter than my A7iii + Tam 28-75, and day-to-day not in zoos, that’s what I have glued to it..

Here's one I took with the 24-240mm because I had left my Sigma 100-400mm at home that day. Still pretty good.

MikeTakesPix said:

This is about what I’ve seen from the 240mm end of the 24-240... I get the shot, but it’s not going to be in Nat Geo.

Click to expand...

I think the point in the OP is that the scenario that is described is most likely to succeed if used on the 42MP sensor.

The 24-240 is a indeed a very different lens on the 42MP sensor relative to 24MP or 36MP sensors. Contrary to the common belief that the higher MP sensor should emphasize the flaws, the 24-240 is actually sharper. This was demonstrated a while back by dxomark who rated the lens at 9MP effective sharpness on the A7R 36MP sensor and 15MP effective sharpness on the A7RII 42MP sensor, with most of this difference being accounted for by the resolution at the long end.

jay-A said:

Thanks for these samples, which match the results I get in this precise scenario.

at the long end and in optimal lighting, I agree that the RX should be better, no question. It will give you about the same reach as the 24-240 cropped to 1 inch dimensions (i.e 600mm FF equiv), but will do this with almost four times the pixels i.e. twice the linear resolution relative to the cropped A7Rx 42MP/(2.72)^2= 5.7MP sensor, with a better optimised lens and a better optimised AF.

But the interesting point of your OP is that the A7Rx+24-240 results are still acceptable if you do this occasionally. For all other scenarios at shorter focal length and less than optimal lighting, the A7Rx+24-240 will give better results simply because it collects much more light than the RX. So the FF combo is all about an arguably superior versatility.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much, and that is exactly what I was trying to show.

jonpais said:

Dirk W said:

Nice pictures, but entirely irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Click to expand...

it is relevant. shooting with a low res lens on a high res sensor then heavily cropping like that results in low image quality.

Click to expand...

This is common knowledge, so what's new about that statement?

Question is HOW low the IQ really is with the superzoom lens 24-240 at 240 for birds in the distance.

Comparing this scenario with a fixed Sigma 60mm f2.8 or a Veydra 85mm on a m4/3 camera for pictures of subjects close by makes absolutely zero sense at all. I recommend you open your own thread if you want to discuss this entirely different scenario thank you.

Shall we compare it with photos made by 12-120 mm MFT lens?

voronspb said:

Shall we compare it with photos made by 12-120 mm MFT lens?

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be very interesting, and the 12-200!

Dirk W said:

voronspb said:

Shall we compare it with photos made by 12-120 mm MFT lens?

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be very interesting, and the 12-200!

Click to expand...

The existing 12-200/3.5-6.3 lens is even more specialist than 24-240, because of equivalent apertures of 7.0-12.6. It's fully usable exclusively on very bright sunlight. So this comparison isn't really fair.

voronspb said:

Dirk W said:

voronspb said:

Shall we compare it with photos made by 12-120 mm MFT lens?

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be very interesting, and the 12-200!

Click to expand...

The existing 12-200/3.5-6.3 lens is even more specialist than 24-240, because of equivalent apertures of 7.0-12.6. It's fully usable exclusively on very bright sunlight. So this comparison isn't really fair.

Click to expand...

The RX10 lens, to which the 24-240 is frequently compared, is also f7.6-f11 in FF standards. So I think that the 12-200 m4/3 lens deserves to be thrown into this comparison. Especially in this long-end/optimal lighting (birding) comparison where the 24-240 is probably inferior to the RX (for the reasons I stated above) but the 12-200 might have the edge over it.